it is quite logical to establish a common sense line based on what the government considers suitable for civilian employees of a civilian agency to use in a civilian environment for self defense against the same criminals who prey on other civilians. It also is based on an estoppel argument
Your imagination runs away from you a lot. For some reason, you are an all or nothing guy. There are degrees. Restrictions, checks and registrations are not bans.
I told you before, the world has choices beyond just 0 and 1.
Just the other day in a gun thread somebody on that side make the remark that there is no middle ground on the gun issue. Such thinking is indicative of an extremist who sees it just as you described.
When the time comes you really need a gun nothing else will do. The same goes for insurance. Damn near everyone has insurance. Everyone hopes they'll never need it.
When your safety has been violated, when you have been harmed, when you are threatened with extreme violence the first person you call for support and protection has a gun.
Not a very thoughtful question, I'm sorry to say. The decision to carry a weapon is a situational consideration. For most of my life I have not carried a weapon. On some occasions I chose to be armed, a couple of times very heavily. During a couple of tours of duty I had a 12 gauge shotgun within reach at my bed each night. Etc., etc. A firearm is a tool. If it suits the work at hand then you should have one.eace
Sadly true. The extremism displayed is to me an indication of obsessive compulsions and paranoid delusions.
The issue is that FEAR is widespread enough to be a strong motivator on all sides of this issue.
I think there are millions of Caspy Faintheart's out there that only feel secure if they're packing. They need a shrink to adjust their self esteem issues and instead buy a gun. I don't think the therapy works. Same thing goes for cops. Take away their guns and give them the English style billy clubs. There is mace, stun guns, pepper spray, and innocents are being shot by cops everyday. The culture has gone bad. Too militarized.
I would agree. Its really those things and a form of willful dissociative disorder resulting in living in an alternate reality other then the USA the vast majority live in.
1) tell that to people in DC, NY, CT. its a lie. lots of guns have been banned including all automatics made after may 19, 1986. I don't buy that lie and it is a lie
2) dems adopted gun control to stave off attacks by people like nixon who claimed dems failed to stem the tide of mostly black street crime in the 1960s. Gun control was based on false motives and now has morphed into attacking pro gun rights groups because they told the truth on what the Dems were doing If car alarm lobbyists mainly supported the GOP, I suspect the Dems would target them too
You ask an excellent question. Over and over and over again in gun thread after gun thread after gun thread the toadies and sycophants of the gun lobby who want a guncentric America keep insulting people who disagree with them peering down the edge of their nose, wagging their judgemntal finger and dripping with faux superior condescension proclaim that people who want reasonable gun regulation are AFRAID. The mock and laugh and say such folks are motivated by fear and emotion.
There is an old saying that when you point an accusatory finger at others you have three more of your own pointing right back at you. The gun community is so motivated and so obsessed with fear that it is the life blood of their ideology. They are afraid of crime. They are afraid of The Other. They have delusional fantasies of fear that the mean old US government is going to ship them off to the camps in Malibu.
FEAR FEAR FEAR.
It makes up their very fiber of being and chokes all off reason and common sense with them.
The claim was that they were bought out of fear of crime. So? Has nothing to do with lethality. Has to do with motivation to own/employ.
yes - the things you cited are also aided by fear. As to being "completely fear based" ... I doubt it althought I suspect it is significant.
if the government can arbitrarily limit your weapon to ten shots based on nothing more than picking a number
what is to stop it from limiting your gun to one shot
are you familiar with what Cuomo did in NY? what was the instigating crime that caused him to push for a 7 round limit
Here is a solution-citizens in a given state can have the same capacity weapons as the police. how about that
Yes, that is 100% true. Which is why it is so amazing when people on the gun lobby side attempt to insult people who disagree with them calling them things like "fear driven" or accusing them of being emotional rather than factual when the emotions of gun supporters and in fact the entire industry is significantly driven by their own fears and emotions. They are guilty of the very thing they accuse their enemies of.
And what? I could make any statement I please. God didn't write the Constitution.So you do not support the constitution? Since its inception the rights provided within are said to be "god given".
Amend the Constitution to support that belief and it becomes the word of God, or so I'm told.Did God wink into existence healthcare, because some think they have a right to that?
I wonder why recently people fear the gubbermint? Don't they know of the checks and balances it would take to pass constitutional amendments or to change wording in that? Seems people are acting out of not knowing and desperation over what people talk about on MSM and talk radio, seems they're being fed bad pablum.
Why do you say 'recently?'
I strongly suspect it has to do with history and the role government plays in our nation. During the Gilded Age government power was firmly and deeply on the side of business, corporations and the wealthy and you rarely saw anything about the big bad government. Then in the Progressive era starting at the turn of the century, government became more of an impartial referee in some areas and the wealthy did not like that. Then many saw the New Deal as putting government far too often on the side of the average person and that seemed to be the straw that broke the camel back of the far right.
But our constitution says we have the right to bears arms, and never said what type or kind of arms. Should we take that as meaning everyone can own a Howitzer or a RPG?
Should the gubbermint have the authority, be it state or federal to write laws governing firearms, or should we just interpret the constitution any which way an individual pleases?
On one level it is part of this entire "I am more of a manly man that you are" nonsense. Just yesterday in a gun thread it was alleged that men who did not own guns were "timid men" and had obvious "inadequacies".
I know the gun community hates it when they are good naturedly teased bout penis metaphors and their guns but you cannot help but think about it when you read comments like that.
So the fact that guns are the main weapon of choice in thousands upon thousands of deaths and injuries each year in this country has not a damn thing to do with peoples fear?
I would speculate that if baseball bats were the number one weapon of choice in murders each year that yes indeed people would fear them. What right do you have to pass judgment upon what people fear and what they should not fear? The fact that you take this tact tells me volumes about your ostrich like head-in-the-sand denial of basic reality on this issue.
1) If they are intelligent, they know all guns have not been banned. Your only quibbling over regulations, not complete banning.
2) That's just nonsense. Paranoid nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?