The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Yorzhik]

The citizen army exists for the reasons stated. Illegal aliens streaming in from Mexico and muslims were not the exact thought, but the idea to defend against them did.

That's a good point. Perhaps the line about self defense would have been better added to, rather than replacing, the line about militias.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I don't mean to be a nitpick, but please learn to use apostrophes...

I'm mulling it over right now. Patrick said that it's tough to take my post's seriously, and thats not what I'm trying to do, so . . . I'm mulling it over.

...There's no one here who doesn't recognize that you could, if you choose, describe a gun in that way...

Thats because its a fact, yes.

...And there's also no good reason to limit our examination of guns to only that detail...

Firearm's are very dangerous tool's.

...No one is talking about significantly limiting access to nail guns...

Right, even though a nail gun is also a potential murder weapon.

...That doesn't mean that we can't have a different response to other types of guns.

Agreed.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Granite]

That's a good point. Perhaps the line about self defense would have been better added to, rather than replacing, the line about militias.

You don't seem to understand the amendment or why it was written much less the context it was written in.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm mulling it over right now. Patrick said that it's tough to take my post's seriously, and thats not what I'm trying to do, so . . . I'm mulling it over.

Well, ok. In case it's helpful, it works mainly like this:

* For possessive, use an apostrophe, unless the word is "its".
* For contractions (words that are two words combined into one, e.g "that is" = "that's"), use an apostrophe.
* For plural, don't use an apostrophe.
* For plural and possessive, put the apostrophe after the "s".

Thats because its a fact, yes.
Firearm's are very dangerous tool's.

Dangerous doesn't really even cover it. Dangerous is what you call something that can fail or be abused and cause harm. Guns can kill when they're used as intended without any failure.

Right, even though a nail gun is also a potential murder weapon.

But not a common or easy one.

 

[Granite]

One rarely finds an exclusive Nail Gun store.

 

[PureX]

And, it is slanderous to suggest that Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Sig, etc., "don't care how many American their guns kill, so long as they can sell lots of them," without some sort of proof. Thats a terrible thing to think of people, without any evidence supporting it. Thats bearing false witness.

The gun manufacturers support the NRA through large monetary contributions because the NRA is an enormous propaganda mechanism for fighting any and all gun regulation, and for promoting gun sales.

The gun manufacturers bribe politicians through both the NRA and professional lobbyists to fight any and all gun regulations in the legislature, and have been doing so for many decades. So the gun manufacturers are directly responsible for the lack of any effective gun regulation in the United States, and for the many gun deaths that have occurred as a result.

I don't perceive this problem. I know the data say's that they're are 300 million civilian-owned firearm's in America, making America the global leader in civilian-owned firearm's per capita. I also know that they're are many country's with far less civilian-owned firearm's per capita, who suffer from much higher murder rate's than does America.

Actually, there are only a couple, and their rates are not that much higher. And the reason they top the list is because they have very weak rule of law, overall. That is not the case in the U.S., except for the regulation of firearms.

If you examine where the bloodiest country's are, you'll find that they all lie south of the American border, with Mexico 1 of the safer country's, but still much bloodier than America, and we all know that the violence in these country's is from 1 thing and 1 thing only --organized crime, specifically drug cartel's. This violence has bled over our southern border, and specifically not over our northern border.

Again, the significant difference is that those countries do not have a reliable rule of law, and so are naturally ruled by violence, instead.

Of the countries that do have a reliable rule of law, the Unites States FAR EXCEEDS all others in the number of citizens killing other citizens, usually with guns, and the reason is because we have no effective gun regulation, and the other law-abiding nations of the Earth, do.

I would perceive a problem with too many firearm's if I saw them everywhere, especially just sitting somewhere, unattended, where children and other inappropriately prepared people can access them.

You don't have to see them laying around to recognize that they are readily available to people who should not have access to them, because we can see the result in our crime statistics. We can see the excessive number of shootings that are occurring, and we can see why they occurred.

If the problem were too many civilian-owned firearm's, it would be more obvious, is what I'm offering.

It is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the stats and apply reason. The cause + the outcome = the evidence.

The cause: angry drunk grabs his gun from a nearby drawer in a moment if irrational rage.

The outcome: angry drunk shoots his girlfriend dead because he thinks she is a "whore".

The conclusion: had the gun not been laying in the nearby drawer of an angry drunk, and not been such an easy and effective tool for killing human beings, his girlfriend would probably not be dead.

In most other law-abiding countries, the man would have been far less likely to have a gun nearby. And would very likely not have shot and killed his girlfriend in a moment of drunken rage, as a result.

Yet this happens in the United States nearly every day, because we have no mechanism to keep those guns away from those angry drunks. (And of course the angry drunk is just one of several gun death profiles we could apply, here.)

Thats why I'm suggesting raising the minimum age, because so much violence is done by the young and immature; young men who are still grappling with how to be a grownup, what to do about a career, about love, about . . . all the thing's that we struggle to get a read on, throughout our development.

I think we should pay anyone who works full time a livable wage, for a lot of reasons. But that alone will not keep the guns away from the people who should not have them (who are not just young men). Which is ultimately the problem we're facing, and the solution we need to enact.

Mass shooting's are so scary because they can happen to you anywhere, unless your too afraid to venture outside you're home, which is no solution at all.

The number of people the gunman kills isn't really the main issue. The main issue is that these gunman are killing people.

Well, we know that operating heavy machinery is a terrible idea when impaired by booze or drug's. Why should we think that firearm's are different?

We shouldn't. And yet although we have systems for regulating heavy machinery, that include measures to curtail alcohol use, we have none for regulating firearms that are machines designed and intended for killing people. That is not logical nor rational.


I understand your focus on the particular threat of violence posed by young men, but because the problem is not only these mass shootings perpetrated by young men, but of people shooting other people of any age and gender. So I see no reason to narrow our focus on either the problem or the solution, especially when to do so poses extra logistical and legal difficulties involving complex profiling. When instead, I think we need to try and keep the focus on the whole problem, and a more holistic solution. That is we need to create a system of regulation and oversight that is designed to keep firearms away from the people who are most likely to use them to kill themselves or other people. And focussing on youth, particularly, is going to be, at best, just a part of the overall solution.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not in the context of what the law ought to be, which is what the discussion is about.

Within the context of this discussion, the law aught to recognize that not all citizens that have the right to own a gun ought to be allowed to carry a gun. That is what this discussion is about, the right of society as a whole to protect itself from predatory behavior.

There aren't. Unless you are Chuck Norris, an MMA fighter, or you (I guess). I'm speaking generally here. There is no substitute for a gun to instantly turn just about anyone into someone that can effectively defend themselves.

There are substitutes for a gun. I believe that you contend that a knife is a reasonable substitute for a gun. A gun is an effective tool for defense in the hands of somebody who has been properly trained to use that tool in a wide variety of situations.

You're right. I have no illusions that I'm a good writer. But I certainly think a lot better than you. One of the reasons is that I actually consider that my position is wrong and weigh both sides. You don't. Your insistence that the constitution can grant rights is demonstrably wrong. And my demonstration of that isn't, like, my opinion, man. Your failure to comprehend what Rothbard said is childishly embarrassing. He clearly demonstrated why a restriction on speech by another superseding right defeats your premise that rights can be restricted by the whim of the state. And again, that's not, like, his opinion, man.

In the end, your proposal of mental testing would be welcomed by tyrants if made law because they know at any moment that they can, reasonably and with the consent of the governed, simply make anyone that disagrees with them outside the mental range.

Don't believe me? Wickard v. Filburn was never overturned.

You think differently than I, not better. I have also considered both sides of the issue. I do not consider the Deceleration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to be divinely inspired documents. They are documents written by mankind for mankind. It has already been established that rights can be and are limited. Free speech is actually limited. The right to own guns is actually limited. The right to free practice of your religion is actually starting to be limited in favor of a "right to be homosexual," if you will.

The main difference between your position and mine is that I would seek to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who would pose a real threat to society. I acknowledge that this would not eliminate mass killings, but it might reduce them. Your position seems to be let anybody and everybody have guns and let God sort out the dead. I do not think that that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

 

[CabinetMaker]

 

[Granite]

Funny how even these threads drop off quickly after a couple of days.

Do we keep this one warm for the next massacre or just start a new thread for that? It's gonna happen literally any day now.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Funny how even these threads drop off quickly after a couple of days.

Do we keep this one warm for the next massacre or just start a new thread for that? It's gonna happen literally any day now.

They tend to come to an abrupt end when you ask people who support gun rights no matter what if they want people who are mentally more likely to use those guns to commit murder should have easy access to guns. They leave the thread rather than answer.

 

[Granite]

They tend to come to an abrupt end when you ask people who support gun rights no matter what if they want people who are mentally more likely to use those guns to commit murder should have easy access to guns. They leave the thread rather than answer.

As far as I can tell what they really believe is:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of innocents."

They don't much care about the people who get killed. End of the day, they really, really don't. Oh, so you were shot in a massacre? Should've fought more, loser. Here's what I would've done before someone blew my body apart. Should've had a gun, you coward. You dope. Maybe you kind of deserved it.

"Let them die; I want my guns." That's what this all boils down to. Our priorities are beyond bent.

 

[Yorzhik]

After having answered you repeatedly, and you ignoring what was said, leaving the thread for all to view is a good option.

Within the context of this discussion, the law aught to recognize that not all citizens that have the right to own a gun ought to be allowed to carry a gun.

If one is considered crazy, then they can own all the guns they want, but they can't get caught in public with them? That's what you seem to be saying here.

That is what this discussion is about, the right of society as a whole to protect itself from predatory behavior.

Obviously. And society cannot protect itself without guns in the hands of the individuals that deem they need them. Even if you don't like those individuals, or some future political figure doesn't like them.

There are substitutes for a gun.

There are not. And the barest training can be complete at the counter of the gun store. And it might be that the barest of training is all that is required for someone to defend themselves. You should let them defend themselves instead of being a tyrant.

You think differently than I, not better.

No, I think better than you. I know so because you dismissed a sound argument as an unsubstantiated opinion without addressing the argument.

I have also considered both sides of the issue.

This isn't true, whether you realize it or not. If you had considered both sides of the issue, then you would have addressed the argument just mentioned instead of dismissing it as an unsubstantiated opinion.

The right to own guns is actually limited.

Only in practice, not by right.

The right to free practice of your religion is actually starting to be limited in favor of a "right to be homosexual," if you will.

Another good example of how you should realize you are wrong on this issue.

The main difference between your position and mine is that I would seek to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who would pose a real threat to society.

So says the social justice warrior. As demonstrated by the "right to be homosexual", "those who would pose a real threat" quickly become those who were considered normal a few years previous.

I acknowledge that this would not eliminate mass killings, but it might reduce them.

It wouldn't. Note: gun free zones.

Your position seems to be let anybody and everybody have guns and let God sort out the dead.

That's just it. If my position was taken, the dead one would be the crazy person, not his unarmed victims in a gun-free zone. Where are you getting this idea that anybody and everyone was able to defend themselves against these crazy mass killers?

I do not think that that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

They didn't have gun free zones in mind. They thought everybody and anybody would have a gun do defend themselves.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...In case it's helpful, it works mainly like this:

* For possessive, use an apostrophe, unless the word is "its"...

What if the thing possessing is plural its self, or themselve's? Or, what if the thing possessing (it's name) end's in an "s"?

...* For contractions (words that are two words combined into one, e.g "that is" = "that's"), use an apostrophe...

So "it is" become's "it's," right? Except this 1 is an exception, because ordinarily we would think that "it's" mean's that "it" possess's something, but here, "it's" mean's "it is," like how "that's" mean's "that is," right?

...* For plural, don't use an apostrophe...

What about if I'm pluralizing an acronym like R.K.B.A.? Is that "R.K.B.A.s," or, "R.K.B.A.'s"?

...* For plural and possessive, put the apostrophe after the "s"...

Oh, this is what I was asking above. So if the thing possessing is plural, then add an apostrophe after the "s." Like, if something is possessed by the United State's, then it would be "the United State's'" thing?

...Dangerous doesn't really even cover it. Dangerous is what you call something that can fail or be abused and cause harm...

Tomato, tomato. Firearm's --no --Firearms . . . firearms (feel's weird) . . . firearms can fail dangerously (chamber's are known to explode; dud round's can cause negligent discharge . . . ), and firearms can certainly be abused and cause harm. Just like any dangerous tool.

...Guns can kill when they're used as intended without any failure...

When the intention is to kill, yes, firearms can kill. And, when the intention is not to kill, they can also kill. Therefore, firearms are very much like other dangerous tool's and equipment and machinery, that can kill, even when killing is not intended, along with when killing is intended.

...But not a common or easy one.

So again, what we're talking about with firearms, is that they are easy to use, which make's firearms a useful tool, a tool that is made for certain job's, a tool that make's doing those certain job's easier, more satisfying and fulfilling, even more pleasurable, than not having the right tool, or a comparably useful tool.

If my home is invaded, then your correct about the nail gun not being easy to use to defend myself and my family. It's not intended for that, it's intended for driving nail's (little piece's of metal) really fast in a straight line, but the effective range of the nail gun isn't even as far as a snubnosed revolver firing .410 bore shot shell's loaded with 00 buck.

Whereas a rifle, which is the longest range small firearm available, has a range, depending upon the model and ammunition, of hundred's, if not more than a thousand yard's, for the larger bullet's.

So therefore rifle's ought to be obviously the most dangerous firearms available, but the data doesn't support this. The data say's that sidearm's, like pistol's and revolver's, are the most dangerous firearm's, since they are used in more killing's than any other type of civilian-owned firearm. And the maximum range on most handgun's is barely 50 yard's if that, with a few exception's that may get you out beyond 100 yard's, but then you're ability to aim, limit's the range more than the bullets' balistic's.

Based on this, perhap's we need to raise the minimum age on handgun's.


DJ

1.4
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

The gun manufacturers support the NRA through large monetary contributions because the NRA is an enormous propaganda mechanism for fighting any and all gun regulation, and for promoting gun sales...

Hmm. OK. I know that the NRA exist's because so many gunny's support a cooperative effort to ensure that "gun control" doesn't get out of control. I know that Wayne LaPierre came into the organization with what used to be some extreme view's, and he has managed to draw new member's to the NRA who think like he speak's, and that he has experience as a Washington lobbyist.

...The gun manufacturers bribe politicians through both the NRA and professional lobbyists to fight any and all gun regulations in the legislature, and have been doing so for many decades. So the gun manufacturers are directly responsible for the lack of any effective gun regulation in the United States, and for the many gun deaths that have occurred as a result...

Its over the top to call that bribery, PureX. Its what lobby's have been doing for century's here. Lobbying the government is greatly regulated and fully legal, and I.M.O. very beneficial and effective. If some people find it valuable enough to lobby the government, why should they be punished for putting there money where there mouth is? And why should we believe that those who are so against the way thing's are done now, are serious, when they themselve's don't take the time and effort and expense to lobby the government themselve's? Typically, this is the same type of behavior we'd expect from somebody whose just complaining, but who is unwilling to pound the pavement and recruit to get more butt's in the seat's.

...Actually, there are only a couple, and their rates are not that much higher...

Define "a couple," and "not that much higher" then, because the data I'm looking at has at least a half-dozen country's, if not twice that, with higher murder rate's; and the murder rate's are multiple's of the murder rate in the U.S., with some approaching 10 time's higher.

...And the reason they top the list is because they have very weak rule of law, overall. That is not the case in the U.S., except for the regulation of firearms...

Well, I disagree with you that the U.S. has very weak rule of law W.R.T. firearm's. Unless what you meant is that we are very lenient with violent criminal's who use firearm's during the commission of there crime's. I have heard that they're is some truth to that; that repeat offender's are given leniency even though the odd's of recidivism are high; that firearm-related offense's are not as seriously prosecuted when the offender has been convicted of more serious charge's; and perhap's 1 or two other thing's that seem foolish, in light of the rhetoric tossed around when we're considering new or reformed legislation.

...Again, the significant difference is that those countries do not have a reliable rule of law, and so are naturally ruled by violence, instead...

I don't think so. The more I think about this "rule of law" argument your trying to make, the more I'm shaking my head in disagreement, because they're are so many country's with much lower murder rate's, who also have a weak rule of law. Its not just the rule of law, but organized crime, that cause's higher murder rate's.

...Of the countries that do have a reliable rule of law, the Unites States FAR EXCEEDS all others in the number of citizens killing other citizens, usually with guns, and the reason is because we have no effective gun regulation, and the other law-abiding nations of the Earth, do...

The United State's is closer in proximity to other country's with organized crime problem's, like Mexico, and it get's worse the farther south you go. Europe is protected from this by the Atlantic Ocean, and the U.S. is not. The U.S. border has alway's been very porous; by design. And once again, we find that organized criminal's are exploiting our libertarian stance on thing's like defending your own life the way in which you see fit, and in allowing free passage in and out of the country.

This is terrorism.

...You don't have to see them laying around to recognize that they are readily available to people who should not have access to them, because we can see the result in our crime statistics. We can see the excessive number of shootings that are occurring, and we can see why they occurred...

Well . . . I do. I personally never see them anywhere, except where they belong.

...It is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the stats and apply reason...

"The stat's" indicate that handgun's are very dangerous, and that rifle's are not as dangerous, even though a rifle has a range of up to more than 10 time's the range of any handgun, and certain rifle's can fire as many round's per minute as a handgun can, with similar if not greater magazine capacity.

Sandyhook was perpetrated with such a rifle.

...The cause + the outcome = the evidence...

I don't know . . . is this true? The cause is what we're talking about here, and you've got your idea on what the cause is, and I've got mine, so we're not in agreement on the cause, so therefore we've just got the outcome, which means' we do not have the evidence that you're suggesting we have.

...The cause: angry drunk grabs his gun from a nearby drawer in a moment if irrational rage...

O.K., maybe we do agree on the cause . . . .

...The outcome: angry drunk shoots his girlfriend dead because he thinks she is a "whore"...

The shooting is the outcome we're talking about here though, right? We're not also considering misogyny as the outcome, right? Maybe the cause here is "angry drunken misogynist?"

...The conclusion: had the gun not been laying in the nearby drawer of an angry drunk, and not been such an easy and effective tool for killing human beings, his girlfriend would probably not be dead...

Meh. Probably, on the average, your conclusion is right. But in any given case, you can't say that the presence or absence of a firearm would make any difference beyond "cause of death." Especially given you're example of "an angry drunk;" they are known to be more creative if they can't get ahold of a firearm. Instead of the empty drawer, he could just as easily grab the lamp stand on top of the bureau and . . . well we all know the possibility's, unfortunately.

Firearm's make killing easier, we agree with each other on that. The question is; given that firearms exist today; what should we do about them, statutorily? And should we do something about firearm's, or about . . . just for example . . . "angry drunk's," instead?

I.O.W., why should my ability to defend myself and my family against a criminal/terrorist be handicapped because of "angry drunk's?" Shouldn't we instead of punishing me, punish the angry drunk? He is the 1 whose angry and drunk. He is the 1 who shouldn't even touch a firearm, not me.

...In most other law-abiding countries, the man would have been far less likely to have a gun nearby. And would very likely not have shot and killed his girlfriend in a moment of drunken rage, as a result.

Yet this happens in the United States nearly every day, because we have no mechanism to keep those guns away from those angry drunks. (And of course the angry drunk is just one of several gun death profiles we could apply, here.)...

They're is a type of individual who will kill his girlfriend in a drunken rage, and then they're are the rest of us. Because of him, why should we be punished? What if his next intended victim is me, and I'm just a little guy, and because of new legislation my access to firearms, in order to defend myself and my family, has been trimmed and complicated so much that I don't own 1, and he kill's not only his girlfriend, but me and my whole family too?

I don't have a nail gun either; not that it would do much good in such a situation, although it would be better than nothing.

...I think we should pay anyone who works full time a livable wage, for a lot of reasons. But that alone will not keep the guns away from the people who should not have them (who are not just young men). Which is ultimately the problem we're facing, and the solution we need to enact...

I agree, except that I do think that more people earning more money will help diminish violent crime; apart from organized crime, which require's active police action.

...The number of people the gunman kills isn't really the main issue. The main issue is that these gunman are killing people...

I am hearing you. My point is that 1 thing is terrorism, and the other is violent crime but not terrorism. It is terrorism that we must be especially wary of, because terrorism take's away our free choice and force's us to act in accord with what the terrorist wanted us to do in the first place, which was to do thing's that make our live's worse, and spreading fear, and punishing ourselve's even though we are the victim's of terrorism, and not its perpetrators; but this is how terrorism works. You sow the seed and the seed grows and spread's and pretty soon the victim's are living live's far worse than before the terrorist struck. This is what terrorism aims to do to its victim's.

...We shouldn't. And yet although we have systems for regulating heavy machinery, that include measures to curtail alcohol use, we have none for regulating firearms that are machines designed and intended for killing people. That is not logical nor rational...

Operating firearm's while impaired chemically is a crime, all other things being equal. Not so for nail guns.

...I understand your focus on the particular threat of violence posed by young men, but because the problem is not only these mass shootings perpetrated by young men, but of people shooting other people of any age and gender. So I see no reason to narrow our focus on either the problem or the solution, especially when to do so poses extra logistical and legal difficulties involving complex profiling...

It's not complex though. It's really simple. And my focus is more on terrorism than on "young men;" terrorist's just happen to all be young men. That is a very simple profile.

...When instead, I think we need to try and keep the focus on the whole problem, and a more holistic solution. That is we need to create a system of regulation and oversight that is designed to keep firearms away from the people who are most likely to use them to kill themselves or other people. And focussing on youth, particularly, is going to be, at best, just a part of the overall solution.

Short of banning firearms --repealing the Second Amendment --I don't see how we can legislatively solve the problem you're trying to solve. It's too difficult to figure out who is a danger to themselve's and to other's, and who is harmless. We can struggle silently for years; decades even, and by then the only thing that will prevent a disaster is if we confiscate all firearms before it happens, because when somebody has gone over the edge, that's the only thing that could have been done.

And I don't think it's right to allow anybody to look at medical records.

I think the problem you're trying to solve can only be solved satisfactorily through cultural change, and not through legislation. Many modern countries have, it is true, chosen to effectively ban civilian firearm ownership, and of course the murder rate by firearm is lower in those country's, but it doesn't seem to affect the suicide rate in these country's, and it doesn't eliminate murder either. But it does render many innocent, peaceful and law abiding people, defenseless against violent crime.

Firearms are known as force equalizers. While they give the bad guys greater lethal force, they also provide innocent people with the ability to stand up to the bad guys, and, depending upon there training, and preparedness and discipline, they can (and do!) prevail. Sometime's. In these other country's, the good guys have no chance. Unless they've got a framing nailer laying around, already connected to the compressor, that is already turned on.

Firearms give women, in particular, a fighting chance against male perpetrator's, who commonly physically outmatch all women. If you are ever being attacked, what you need right then and there, is a firearm, because with the firearm, you can end the threat. Lethal force is required sometime's, and thats the perfect job for a firearm in the hands of a prepared person.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dialogos]

It is interesting to note that, according to the article, the secrete service has never fired a shot in defense of the president.

So then why do they need them?

They have training and guns that we can only dream of and they have never fired a shot.

So lets take them from the Secret Service, clearly they don't need firearms, right?

 

[GuySmiley]

It is interesting to note that, according to the article, the secrete service has never fired a shot in defense of the president. They have training and guns that we can only dream of and they have never fired a shot.

That's a great piece of evidence in favor of open carry.

 

[CabinetMaker]

After having answered you repeatedly, and you ignoring what was said, leaving the thread for all to view is a good option.


If one is considered crazy, then they can own all the guns they want, but they can't get caught in public with them? That's what you seem to be saying here.


Obviously. And society cannot protect itself without guns in the hands of the individuals that deem they need them. Even if you don't like those individuals, or some future political figure doesn't like them.


There are not. And the barest training can be complete at the counter of the gun store. And it might be that the barest of training is all that is required for someone to defend themselves. You should let them defend themselves instead of being a tyrant.


No, I think better than you. I know so because you dismissed a sound argument as an unsubstantiated opinion without addressing the argument.


This isn't true, whether you realize it or not. If you had considered both sides of the issue, then you would have addressed the argument just mentioned instead of dismissing it as an unsubstantiated opinion.


Only in practice, not by right.


Another good example of how you should realize you are wrong on this issue.


So says the social justice warrior. As demonstrated by the "right to be homosexual", "those who would pose a real threat" quickly become those who were considered normal a few years previous.


It wouldn't. Note: gun free zones.


That's just it. If my position was taken, the dead one would be the crazy person, not his unarmed victims in a gun-free zone. Where are you getting this idea that anybody and everyone was able to defend themselves against these crazy mass killers?


They didn't have gun free zones in mind. They thought everybody and anybody would have a gun do defend themselves.

All of that to avoid answering a single question. Are you going to continue to weave elaborate smoke screens or are you going to answer my question?

 

[CabinetMaker]

So then why do they need them?


So lets take them from the Secret Service, clearly they don't need firearms, right?

You could ask such puerile questions or you could ask why they gave the needed to fire a shot.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's a great piece of evidence in favor of open carry.

Is it? There was a time in American history when people open carried all the time. It wasn't long before many towns instigated check your gun laws. If open carry is such a good thing, why did so many cities and town write laws to stop it?

 

[glorydaz]

Is it? There was a time in American history when people open carried all the time. It wasn't long before many towns instigated check your gun laws. If open carry is such a good thing, why did so many cities and town write laws to stop it?

Maybe because Marshal Dillon and his fellow sheriffs could handle the bad guys. Times have changed. There aren't enough law officers and the ones who are out there are being targeted by the bad guys.