Why We Should Own Guns

[The Mrs]

Margie asked an important question on another thread, and instead of hijacking that thread with an answer, I thought it might be better to start a new thread to continue this different conversation. I think it's important enough of a topic that we should all share our thoughts on it. It's important to me that I would like everyone to know the answer that I have for the question.

Originally Posted by Margies3

We have a BB Gun out in the garage somewhere. Does that count?

Don't get me wrong tho - I wholeheartedly support YOUR right to own a gun! (or more than one if you want to, altho I'm not sure why you would want to).

The one thing I don't get tho is why people would want to own things like assault weapons? My dad and brothers are/were hunters. So I get owning all the hunting guns. Totally get that! But the other kind? I'm sorry. I just don't get that. I'm not saying we should take your rights away. I just say I don't understand why you want them?

AND HERE IS MY ANSWER (In a nutshell):

Because the 2nd Amendment was not given to us for hunting, sport shooting, or just for the defense of life/family/home...it was given to us to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our states, and our country against tyranny and invasion.

We NEED our citizens to be armed. And my opinion is, they should be just as armed as our military, (similar weaponry) to fend off an attack of the same force.

I found this article online and liked it, so wanted to share it here as well:

The Company of Freemen:

THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN OWNERSHIP

The anti-gunners, certain that the role of government is to grant privileges and dictate behavior, shout that citizens have no reason to be "allowed" to own assault rifles, which have "no legitimate sporting use." The Constitution, though, says nothing about "a well-regulated sporting club" being necessary. We do not own handguns, assault rifles, shotguns, and other powerful weapons because we are hunters or plinkers or collectors. We do not even own guns because the Constitution "allows" us to. The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It recognizes rights already and irrevocably held forever by the people themselves (individuals), and forbids government from trampling on them. We have a right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether the Second Amendment exists or not! All Article Two guarantees is that we shouldn't have to defend that right against "our" federal government. We've seen that simple guarantee erode, though, haven't we?

What we need to remember is that those 'rights' that our forefathers wrote about were "unalienable" rights that were given to us by our Creator. Our government did not grant us those rights, and it cannot take them away.

[shag]

That's a good cite, I read it all...








The battle of Athens, Tenn. is one thing that comes to mind w this thread.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=4-mYP...%3D4-mYP25kC2Y

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Margie asked an important question on another thread, and instead of hijacking that thread with an answer, I thought it might be better to start a new thread to continue this different conversation. I think it's important enough of a topic that we should all share our thoughts on it. It's important to me that I would like everyone to know the answer that I have for the question.



AND HERE IS MY ANSWER (In a nutshell):

Because the 2nd Amendment was not given to us for hunting, sport shooting, or just for the defense of life/family/home...it was given to us to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our states, and our country against tyranny and invasion.

We NEED our citizens to be armed. And my opinion is, they should be just as armed as our military, (similar weaponry) to fend off an attack of the same force.

I found this article online and liked it, so wanted to share it here as well:



What we need to remember is that those 'rights' that our forefathers wrote about were "unalienable" rights that were given to us by our Creator. Our government did not grant us those rights, and it cannot take them away.

My family and I are in agreement with this post!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Margie asked an important question on another thread, and instead of hijacking that thread with an answer, I thought it might be better to start a new thread to continue this different conversation. I think it's important enough of a topic that we should all share our thoughts on it. It's important to me that I would like everyone to know the answer that I have for the question.



AND HERE IS MY ANSWER (In a nutshell):

Because the 2nd Amendment was not given to us for hunting, sport shooting, or just for the defense of life/family/home...it was given to us to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our states, and our country against tyranny and invasion.

We NEED our citizens to be armed. And my opinion is, they should be just as armed as our military, (similar weaponry) to fend off an attack of the same force.

I found this article online and liked it, so wanted to share it here as well:



What we need to remember is that those 'rights' that our forefathers wrote about were "unalienable" rights that were given to us by our Creator. Our government did not grant us those rights, and it cannot take them away.

Mega Dittos.

In addition to the concept of being able to own similar weaponry to what the military do someone will inevitably ask (thinking they "got ya!" with the question, "So do you think you should be allowed to own nuclear weapons than?? Huh?". The answer is no because they are of zero use against fighting a tyrannical government. They ONLY make sense from a nation vs nation standpoint. But.... I DO believe we should allowed to own tanks, various missile systems, even jet fighters based on the individuals ability to afford them AND get a crew together who can actually operate, maintain and repair them as needed.

[Praxeas]

Against a real army with grenades, morters, machine guns and mechanized divisions most of your guns are futilly useless

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Against a real army with grenades, morters, machine guns and mechanized divisions most of your guns are futilly useless

IF the battle lines were distinct and each side were facing each other directly, yes. But that wouldn't be the case. It would be a war from house to house, and who's to say that "our" side wouldn't have some of those missiles, 50 cal machine guns and even a few choppers? There would be a pretty large defection rate from the military to the populace.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Margie asked an important question on another thread, and instead of hijacking that thread with an answer, I thought it might be better to start a new thread to continue this different conversation. I think it's important enough of a topic that we should all share our thoughts on it. It's important to me that I would like everyone to know the answer that I have for the question.



AND HERE IS MY ANSWER (In a nutshell):

Because the 2nd Amendment was not given to us for hunting, sport shooting, or just for the defense of life/family/home...it was given to us to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our states, and our country against tyranny and invasion.

We NEED our citizens to be armed. And my opinion is, they should be just as armed as our military, (similar weaponry) to fend off an attack of the same force.

I found this article online and liked it, so wanted to share it here as well:



What we need to remember is that those 'rights' that our forefathers wrote about were "unalienable" rights that were given to us by our Creator. Our government did not grant us those rights, and it cannot take them away.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

IF the battle lines were distinct and each side were facing each other directly, yes. But that wouldn't be the case. It would be a war from house to house, and who's to say that "our" side wouldn't have some of those missiles, 50 cal machine guns and even a few choppers? There would be a pretty large defection rate from the military to the populace.

If it's the citizens against the government?

Don't be so sure the defection rate would be that large but if so then why do we need guns? We can just let the military fight it out and or arm is when the time comes

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If it's the citizens against the government?

Don't be so sure the defection rate would be that large but if so then why do we need guns? We can just let the military fight it out and or arm is when the time comes

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Ah if only the communist "comrades" where that inept...we could succeed with hunting rifles and beef jerky