I think the ol saying “Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer” really applies here. More often than not the question of "Why do you own a gun? is indeed a dishonest question, just as the reply “Because I have the right to” is most likely dishonest. I don’t think either one is usually saying what they mean, but resort to rhetorical offense/defense.
I think we can agree that the asker is usually not really interested in the exact reason one chooses to own a gun, just as the responder probably doesn’t own a gun for the sole reason he or she has the right to. So I’d say the answer to the question of “Why do gunowners own guns only because 'they have the right to?” is that they don’t.
It doesn’t take defeat of it’s army in the field in set-piece battle to bring down a government. It only takes making the place ungovernable, eliminating said government’s ability to accomplish anything. This is quite possible to do via personal firearms and guerilla warfare. The “Can’t defeat a real army” argument is specious. Also, it assumes the army is willing to go along with enforcing tyranny. A highly dubious proposition.
But doesn’t this line of thought depend on all the different private militias, individual gun owners and the military agreeing on where the tipping point is when it comes to their personal definition of tyranny?
It hasn’t in any other revolt (successful or not) any other time in history. Why would it apply to any hypothetical future US revolt against tyranny? The original US revolution didn’t have majority support when it started, for example.
We’ve had multiple GD threads covering this very issue. It’s not a slam dunk in favor of the 2nd amendment. I purposely made a narrow point.
Besides, why should we believe that Hoss and Ben will be on the side opposing tyranny anyway? The historical example of reconstruction shows armed men determined to take away the voting rights of others, after all.
Sure. That happens sometimes. But not always, and it turns out better often enough for many people to think it to be worth a try. I know I’d rather take the chance than live under a guaranteed, already demonstrated tyranny.
And you wonder why others are suspicious of the innocence of your questions?
It’s the pit, the OP has nothing to do with tyranny or the viability of militia led revolt. Go open a GD thread or something and have an honest argument. Turning a pit thread into a debate is disingenuous.
I responded because I decided to take you at your word. You trapped yourself when you gave it so it seemed safe enough, and you did ask nicely rather than insultingly. Keep doing that.
My boss’s brother bought a Barrett .50 BMG semi auto. When he brought it out to the office, I asked him all sorts of questions. What did it cost? What did the ammo cost? Was the scope specially hardened to deal with the recoil? How bad was the recoil? Could I shoot it?
It never dawned on me to ask him why he needed it. He wanted it, he bought it. He needed no permission, approval, or validation from me. But I can think of few more polarizing firearms to argue in favor of. It fails every “why do you need it” test. Hunting? Nope. Home defense? Nope. Collectible? Nope.
It seems that sometimes the reason is “because I wanted it”.
I’ll try to remember to ask him if anybody has ever asked him why he needed it.
Late to the thread, but I am a gun owner. I like guns. I like shooting them and I’m proud of myself when I get a really nice grouping. I have some guns that I don’t shoot, I like them because they are cool for reasons that only matter to me.
I have a friend who collects coins. He just paid $1200 for a 1902 penny. I never considered asking him why he needed that penny, I asked if it filled the collection, about the condition and what his next purchase will be.
None of my friends have every asked me why I need a gun, but I have had strangers ask me why I’m carrying open. I don’t think that I need to justify myself to strangers, so my answer is usually “because I can”. That’s my polite way of telling them to fuck off.
I had heard that dogs lick their balls because they can’t make a fist, a rationale that might have relevance to some gun owners.
Like others here, I grew up around guns although this was due the fact that we lived on military bases and the people that had guns were responsible individuals so I did not worry at all.
I don’t know who the fuck you are so I sure as shit ain’t yer friend. Let me help you wit yer comprehension problem. The reason I think turning a fucking pit thread into a debate is a douche loser move for fucking imbeciles is precisely for the feelings your are experiencing now my incompetent besty.
The rules are lax here and it just isn’t the right place to try and have civilized discourse. I’m in favor of vigorous debate on almost any subject. I’ve learned more about gun control, nuclear energy, and a host of other subjects by reading GD threads than I thought I would ever care to know. So no, the intent wasn’t to stifle debate, simply to direct it over to the proper forum.
Czarcasm did one better and posted his question in IMHO. (egg on my face for not having noticed). :smack:
