General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you love your guns more than your children, something is wrong
If you think that you need more ammo instead of shoes for your kids, something is wrong.
If that new pistol is more important than taking the kids to the doctor, something is wrong.
If your children have grown beards while you clean your guns, something is wrong.
If you hate life so much that all you wish for is the chance to shoot your gun at someone, something is wrong.
Something is wrong when guns are more important than the saving of lives. And something is wrong when gun rights trump human rights.
My heart hurts for those who lost their lives because they only wanted to go to the movies. My heart hurts for their families who will never understand the insanity that has gripped this country.
My heart hurts.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Response to DainBramaged (Original post)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)sad
BlueinOhio
(238 posts)Funny how all of these mass shootings is some right winger and part of gods plan. I know someone who fits perfectly the remarks that started this post. Oh by the way he is a NRA loving right winger who thinks he does gods will.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)rfranklin
(13,200 posts)(Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
You should stop repeating right wing crapola on Democratic Underground.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Interesting how the crime rate has been steadily dropping for over 20 years, eh? More guns has nothing to do with crime rates apparently..
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Your post is not responsive as they say in court.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)and swimming pools have a lot to do with accidental drownings...
Illegality of drugs has more to do with crime rates than any other cause. The terms "gun deaths" and "gun violence" are made up by gun control activists and are cited to the exclusion of crime as a whole. As goes the overall crime rate so goes the "gun crime" rate. Crime rates are not driven by guns anymore than DWI rates are driven by cars.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Guns are for designed killing exclusively.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)rfranklin
(13,200 posts)I have and I aim to kill when I take target practice.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Think about it.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Empowerment of one person to kill many has an inevitable outcome.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> You should stop repeating right wing crapola on Democratic Underground.
Try visiting the gungeon. Some would say (not me) that it is a bunch of Kock-paid KochSuckers posting on DU to try to influence Liberals to be against gun control.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)What fucking rock have you been living under, Skippy?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)to your pro-gun position? If so, you may want to second-think your arguments.
Or perhaps you prefer just demagoging the gun-lobby line.
Something is indeed wrong, when the insane actions of the proverbial "LONE NUT" can be replicated again and again and again with tragic regularity.
On college campus after fast-food outlet, with mass killing after multiple victim, the only hackneyed responses you apologists can come up with are: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns".
PATHETIC PLATITUDES...SILLY SLOGANS...MURDEROUS MEMES
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You know the answer, just not seeing it. Impossible access to mental health and addiction services in the US is the cause. Guns have always been available in the US. Mental health services were available to anyone needing them right up to the time when these types of tragedies increased in numbers.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. trumps your right to carry a deadly surrogate penis.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)these days, aren't there?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I don't own a single firearm.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)It's so incredibly sad that there is always some loser ready to defend his idiotic gun love after every tragedy. You are sick.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)GarroHorus
(1,055 posts)I have some knives in my kitchen, but no guns.
No bows or crossbows, either.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #66)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Who is 'grabbing guns'? Asking for sane regulations on who has access to the means to kill people is not the same thing as 'grabbing guns'.
This is DU. We are familiar with all the talking points put out by the NRA and are not influenced by them.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)See also, Tom Tomorrow's strip he re-ran today.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)you hate the 2nd Amendment and those who believe in liberal interpretation of that civil liberty so much you would make up a bunch of gibberish and act as though said gibberish is prevalent in society!!1!
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Your brain must hurt.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)thanks
you really didn't have a point other than, 'I hate guns and those who believe in a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment11!'.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)there's NO such thing as a 'Liberal' interpretation of the Second Amendment. You either believe you're entitled to own every gun you can afford to the detriment of those around you, or you just don't need guns. It's simple.
Have a nice life.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)simplicity is believing that guns cause crime..that would be simple. No, these types of crimes are the product of the inability of most people to access mental health services, and/or drug prohibition.
The answer isn't where you believe it to be. All guns could disappear tomorrow and those with mental illness wishing to kill lots of people would still be in society unable to access mental health services.
The real answer to the overall crime in the US is attention to the causes, not the effects. Decriminalization of most drugs, dismantling the lost raygun's 'war on drugs' would do much. Most crime in this country is the product of illegal drugs. Decriminalization and using the tremendous funding being wasted around the globe to combat drugs, then using that funding to pay for mental health services and addiction services for anyone who needs those services, when they need them would do far more to eliminate these things than any losing gun control idea.
What do all of these incidents have in common? The person causing the violence almost always has mental health issues or addiction issues...neither problem has a solution other than waiting until the person does something illegal and is ordered into those facilities. If the shooter went to a mental health facility last week and asked for help, the help would not be available until he showed them the money. If this person's mother went to the police or to a mental health facility and asked for help, the police would (and often do) say that he has to commit a criminal act before they could do anything, and the mental health facility would say, 'show us the money'.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)The fact of it being a hell of a lot EASIER to mow down a crowd
in a matter of minutes with a firearm than..umm..a knife?
How many, and how quickly, could the killer murder with a
knife or a baseball bat before his ass was taken down by
one or more in the crowd?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)may replace guns in some crimes with about the same effects. In almost every one of these random mass murder cases the killer has been planning their kill for weeks, months, or years...long enough to devise a way to accomplish their goal with or without guns. They almost always have family members, friends, and acquaintances who say they had alerted authorities (or someone) of the person's mental instability, but received no help. These incidents are the product of our flawed (mental) health care system.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)I just don't see one guy in a theater, having the time to take out,
unresisted, 14 people with a knife or baseball bat.
Of COURSE the jackass is crazy and I'm all FOR improving the access to mental health care,
but,
that alone won't do it...Mental Health procedures do fail, and the combination
of Insanity + Easy Gun Access = Chaos and Mass Death
as we see, over and over and over, and over again..
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"just don't see one guy in a theater, having the time to take out, unresisted, 14 people with a knife or baseball bat..."
Given the circumstances, the patience, and the righteousness of of one's cause, it's not that much of a stretch to believe that one or few men could establish a tapestry of 'chaos and mass death' much greater than what happened last night with little more than knives or bats. A small number of men armed with little more than box-cutters did that very thing, and murdered more than 3,000 people in 2001.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)not buying.
Comparing the highly politicized 9/11 hijackers, who supposedly wielded boxcutters,
in either "circumstance", levels and timelines of "patience" and "righteousness of cause"
to the apolitical, lone nuts from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University
and now this, is, in my opinion, just one more stretch.
Keep trying, though.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)the vast majority of murders are one person on another resulting in 1 death. Knives, bats, and a hundred other things can and would make that possible. There would be alternate solutions for those who plan to kill more people (mass murderers), they plan now...they would plan in the absence of guns too.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)1.) 9-11 terror attack - Weapons used were box cutters. About 3,000 dead.
2.) Oklahoma City Bombing-169
3.) Happyland Club Fire on March 25, 1990-87
4.) Bath School Bombing on May 18, 1927-45
5.) Jack Gilbert Graham, Bombed United Airlines Flight 629 on November 1, 1955-44
6.) Thomas G. Doty, Bombed Continental Airlines Flight 11 on May 22, 1962-44
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)never carried one a single day of my life. Not worried about someone coming out of the shadows to assault me. Sorry you have such horrible paranoia. If I lived where I needed to Carry a gun, I'd move. But I guess that is never an option when you think guns are the answer.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)Why the fuck are people so paranoid in this country?
I'm a woman who's had one experience of violent stranger crime.
In addition, I've experienced two SEPARATE home invasions within one year
in two separate apartments within about ten blocks of each other
Needless to say, I moved from that particular area, and now
live in a secure, but not "gated" community, and still love cities and
walking around them using common sense regarding
time of day, etc., but I STILL don't feel the need to carry a gun.
The break-ins, by the way, were essentially burglaries and
did not result in any violence toward myself, but I WAS
present on both occasions and it was scary as hell,
especially the one in which I had to run TOWARD the intruder to get out my door.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)Check out some news articles on this topic at another board:
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/topic/7268/ATL-Woman-Kills-Intruder-Women-DO-NEED-GUNS#.UAnOZY6fvw4
whathehell
(29,081 posts)and some are even luckier, as they never experience
ANY of what I did, especially a physical attack from a stranger,
in which I actually saw my life flash back before my eyes
as I felt I was about to be murdered.
That being said, you may have misinterpreted my post as being
indicative of a complete "anti-gun" stance. It's not.
I have no problem having a gun for home protection,
and were I someone, that, for whatever reasons, was obligated
to be in a dangerous area OR, for instance, had to go cross country
alone, I'd have a gun for protection.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)I was thinking of DainBramage's posts at the same time.
There is a place for the responsible use of weapons for self defense.
Americans (especially in the south and in all rural areas) have always owned guns. But it wasn't until the 20th century in cities (first Prohibition of alcohol, then later the 'Drug War') that violent gun crimes soared.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)I'd tend to agree with you on the South and the rural areas
and it does seem to be a much bigger obsession with men.
Wouldn't you agree?
Like some others, my husband thinks it's a "big dick" proxy thing
and that, to me, seems just absurd enough to be true.
Progressive dog
(6,917 posts)How about this. 620,000 deaths caused between 1861 and 1865 by traitors who mostly used guns. At least as relevant to the issue of whether some restrictions should be placed on guns.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)but I'd bet more people own (and walk around with) guns than bombs.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The night club fire was started with gas and matches.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)but most people with gasoline and matches
aren't fucked up paranoids constantly
feeling the need for "protection".
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Everybody had bomb making materials at home.
whathehell
(29,081 posts)accessibility of bomb making materials is really the equivalent
of a gun in terms of "ease of use", etc.
If bombs were just as "user friendly" as guns, a lot more people
would be using them in PLACE of guns.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)"... to the detriment of those around you..." What a crock. Aside from a few crazies in the world who kill people with guns as well as all other kinds of weapons under the sun, gun ownership causes no detriment to anyone. Gun owners in my neck of the woods use them to feed their families, deal with distempered raccoons or rabid skunks, and recreational target shooting. Wow - apparently that's horrifying to some people. Yes, people should be able to have any gun, as daily tools as well as a check against our own government if the unlikely day they're needed ever comes. I doubt it, but I'm not going to castigate those who worry. I worry much more about the sheltered people who think guns are the problem. It's as tone deaf as Mitt Romney trying to talk about how the poor live.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Dude, you really are on the wrong side of the tracks.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)So sorry, a huge number of us don't agree that our politics is defined by gun control, being vegan/vegetarian, supporting the prez vs. fighting for single payer, etc. that some individuals believe are TEH ONE AND TEH ONLY OMG!!!! touchstone issues to qualify for being "real" left. A lot of us are sick of the self-righteous purists who demand we should all be in lock step with their pet causes or get out. I disagree with you on one issue. But which one of us is running around presuming to speak for the entire party/movement about who is on the "right side of the tracks" if someone isn't in lock step with their personal agenda? Ridiculous.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)zzaapp
(531 posts)sellitman
(11,607 posts)Sad country we live in where it is harder to vote than to get all the guns you want.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but alas...
RC
(25,592 posts)Why is it so easy to get unregistered, stolen, or even untraceable guns? All it takes is money.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)stolen anything. Unregistered because there is no registration in most of the country. And untracable almost doesn't exist...I can't think of a single mass murder by a person unable to get mental health services, which within days we don't know the origin of their weapon(s).
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Are given an on-line psychological test that takes about an hour to complete. I fail to see why passing a psychological test that is at LEAST that long, and passing it, is not a requirement for gun ownership in this country.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)the masses to for the benefit of the fraction of a percent who abuse said civil liberty? A grocery store job refusal isn't at all akin to denial of civil liberties. As it is if one is adjudicated mentally unstable, they are disqualified from gun ownership...alas, the adjudication of such people is limited to people who have already committed a crime. In generations past, a friend or family member could petition the court for involuntary confinement of people believed mentally unstable and a danger to themselves or others. Now the court is so jammed with drug cases that the triage of cases has eliminated this option, while drug cases are moved to the top of the legal agenda. Our criminal justice system is broken as is our health care system and the results are tragic.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)was rendered prior to the granting of a firearms license, it would probably eliminate the problem of the mentally unstable being given the legal right to own a firearm.
My point is that it is harder to get a part time job at a grocery store than it is to get a license to carry a firearm. And that's just wrong.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)where civil liberties outweigh the whim of even the majority
Simply making mental health services available to anyone who needs them and reopening the petitioning process to family members who believe a family member is a danger to self or others, would accomplish the same thing. Involuntary confinement would go to NICs. The fact this isn't already the case is what is "And that's just wrong."
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)and the more I think about it, the more I realize it's true.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You don't have to do that to vote.
Yes, a person can buy an illegal gun, but that is already illegal. I suppose you want to make it doubleplusillegal. After all, a criminal bent on armed robbery or murder wouldn't dare to break a doubleplus gun law, would he?
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)The choices and behaviors you describe absolutely do not fit 99.99% of gun owners - it's like a freeper making crazy claims about the lives and choices of women who get abortions. I live in a part of the country where virtually everyone has guns, and this overwrought statement sounds like a sick joke. We don't need this leftie Rush Limpballs equivalence.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Your magazine is empty dude. Wrong place to be calling us lefties.....
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)First, we're all lefties here, and I doubt any of us wouldn't embrace the label. So sorry YOU have a problem being labeled as politically left. Second, "dude?" Thanks, but I happen to be female. But of course it's more fun to imagine that anyone disagreeing with your point is some back-country bearded hick with a bomb shelter. Nice way to show disrespect to other dems and progressives that disagree with your overwrought take on a pet issue.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)why would that concern you ?
have a nice life. keep your powder dry and all of those gunnie sayings....
LAGC
(5,330 posts)You don't speak for the entire DU community, let alone the majority.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)tritsofme
(17,394 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)Whose new pistol is more important than taking the kids to the doctor and what has that to do with those dead people who are so sincerely hurting your heart, but not somehow hurting your willingness to shamelessly leverage their deaths for your personal political shibboleth before they are cold?
What exactly is the link?
Oh what a Happy Land you must envisage if they were no guns to kill so many people in crowded venues.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Will there be floats and a marching band, too?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In my case the kids have grown and gone long ago. But even when they were home we were able to afford all the stuff you mentioned for the kids, and a few guns too.
Cleaning a gun takes only a few minutes. No big deal.
I love life enough that I carry a gun just in case I need to protect mine from violent criminals.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)How many more incidents like this do we need? This is the modern world, not the frontier. For chrissakes.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)My wife has twice used her concealed gun to stop an attacker. No shots fired. As soon as the would-be mugger saw that she was armed he ran away.
mac56
(17,574 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)if you live where you NEED to carry a gun, move. let the criminals kill each other not you.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)That's easy to say if you have means.
And when people who had means moved to 'safer' areas they've been accused of deserting inner cities for sinister reasons.
DainBramaged, the premise of your OP is actually irrelevant to today's tragedy. An extremely disturbed individual did something calculated, vicious and insane. If he hadn't access to a few guns he might have strapped on a bomb as terrorists in other countries have done.
I grew up in the 1950s-1960s South. Almost everybody I've ever known, black or white, had learned to shoot at an early age. We learned weapons safety. And nobody, but nobody, I've ever known in my several decades, ever spent money they couldn't afford on weapons or ammo. Nobody I've ever known or heard of in the South ever neglected their family because they prized weapons more than children. *rolling eyes* However, I have known people who neglected their children because of substance abuse, a whole 'nother topic.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)so many defenders of the gunnies. Who is defending the dead today????
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Obviously.
It is apparently the case that in most cases of defensive uses of guns, no shots are fired, but it's certainly not the case for all of them.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)An empty gun is a bluff. Your body language can give away that you are bluffing. And sometimes street criminals are stupid enough to attempt to attack a person who is armed. That's when you need a loaded gun.
mac56
(17,574 posts)That the threat of a gun (though not fired) was all it took to keep the bad guys away.
I guess it is, but it isn't.
Still don't fully understand gunny-sack logic.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The point of that post was that my wife needed her gun to protect herself, twice.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Kids are healthy right now, my son did have his football physical, and my daughter had her braces adjusted just last week.
We also paid for my wife to have an Icat after buying a new pistol two weeks ago. Looks like we'll be picking her up a new CC 638 sometime before her surgery in a few weeks.
Why do people have to give up one for the other?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...something is wrong.
Thank you for the post.
Iggo
(47,563 posts)Twoface
(3 posts)sd
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Good health and education are human rights. Recognition of oneself is a human right.
Guns are not a human right.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)And so far 33 states haven't voted to repeal the Second Amendment yet.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Just a bill of rights. The purpose for its creation was to assuage the worries of Anti-Federalists at the time that the Constitution would create a new "King George" as president. It is a list of rights promised that cannot be taken away by government without due cause.
The term "human rights" means those essential qualities that people need to LIVE and to maintain their "humanity". Here is the current list of human rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
You may cite the right to "liberty and security of person" to promote guns as a human right. However this is not what security of person means.
"In general, the right to the security of one's person is associated with liberty and includes the right, if one is imprisoned unlawfully, to the remedy of habeas corpus.[1] Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to security of person can guard against less lethal conduct, and can be used in regard to prisoners' rights.[2]"
Rhona K.M. Smith, Textbook on International Human Rights, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 245.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Therefore access to effective tools of self-defense is also a right.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)If they were the world would be a much more peaceful place.
Guns are a means for those who want power to take it. They are ineffective and unreliable means to gain safety. You are safe with guns only so long as your opponents are not safe.
Human rights are not for groups of people but ALL people.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I'd like your take on that right.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)If my dog had Two Faces like that I would shave her ass and teach her to walk backward.
Nyuk nyuk.
zzaapp
(531 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)... something is wrong."
This is more possible than many people realize. Human biology is complex; there is a great deal that can be potentiated there with little or no conscious awareness.
Most of the people I know with the most problems also have big time power issues.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)pro-guns and being pro-life, that is fucked up.
patrice
(47,992 posts)good grounds for concern and even outright suspicion about it's effects upon said, supposedly, shared values.
Freedom is a clear example of this fact. We share that value with some people, but some people also cause more oppression than anything else and then talk about "God's plan" while they weep crocodile tears for their victims, as they gloat secretly over their "Precious".
Tejas
(4,759 posts)that others will/want to do such horrible things are scary. Takes "wishful thinking" to a whole other level.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)horrible. who said that? what a psycho.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)They wait patiently until some tragedy occurs and then seize the moment to dance in the blood of innocents. They won't blame the injust system that encourages societal inequalities, they blame the inanimate object. You know, the one that crawls out of the drawer and tells you "IT'S TIME".
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Throw it out there just for kicks to see who they can upset etc. Sort of like in the GUNS forum when one of the trolls with RW tendencies posts a diatribe about how gunowners masturbate at the sight of a firearm or sit in the dark and stroke the 'barrel' of their 'weapon'.
So when someone posts some bile that accuses others of LOVING an inanimate object more than their own children, it deserves to be addressed.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)this whole thing is a strawman?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Maybe I missed it? OP looks to be the thoughts of the OP?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)something is wrong.
/you mean you're going to let those people march in the streets? In front of our children?!?! If you love free speech more than you love your children something is wrong.
//you mean you're not going to detain those people without a warrant? What if they hurt my children?!?! If you love the fifth amendment more than you love your children something is wrong.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Something is very wrong. The gun lobby wants everybody armed, so what happendd, 14 people died and 71 were injured.
The NRA got what they want.
Merry Christmas.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)So there could be an even stronger push against gun rights?
If anything the people benefiting from this would be the gun-grabbers.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)with their money and their lobby. They have only ONE purpose. The promotion of GUNS, everywhere, and all the time.
zzaapp
(531 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I'm curious.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Which right is supreme? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or the right to bear arms?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)When does life trump death?
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)He has no conscience either.
sarisataka
(18,733 posts)I don't love my guns. They are inanimate objects; they cannot love you back.
My children are very aware of guns in the world.
I teach them a healthy respect for the power it puts in the holder's hand.
I teach them that, if misused, the gun can cause irreparable damage.
I teach them that whoever is holding the gun is responsible for it and anything that happens with it.
I teach them that there are people in the world who will choose to misuse a gun.
I teach them that as it can be used for ill purpose it can be used in many positive ways.
We are learning and sharing a hobby together. They are learning the you must be responsible in your life and any irresponsibility can have drastic wide ranging effects. They may grow up enjoying guns as a hobby in target shooting, may choose to hunt or may even choose to carry for self-defense. They may choose to support strict gun control. It will be their choice. I will only make sure it is an educated choice and not made out of fear of a mysterious object.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Get the attention of one of our "pro-gun progressives" and put this query to them:
If President Obama is re-elected, it is likely he will get the chance to appoint at least two new liberal Supreme Court justices, plus replace at least one of the conservative justices. That new lineup will undoubtedly over-rule both Heller and its subsequent jurisprudence, interpreting the Second amendment once again as the Founders intended it: a 'collective' right, not an individual one. Knowing that, do you support his re-election, and do you intend to vote for him? Please answer 'yes' or 'no' to both questions; thanks.
One of the longest sub-threads I've ever seen spun out in my life was predicated on a version of that question; there was, of course, no straight-forward 'yes' or 'no'. It was a lot of hollering about the "unfairness" of the question and so on, and it was very telling, by the end of it, about where most of our "pro-gun progressives" are actually coming from.
Edit: grammar.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Yeah, one discussion I was having a few years ago in the nether regions with the knuckle scrappers one time lead to someone screaming about how "Heller, Heller" had decided it all.
So, I said, well, for now. We'll just get 2 more Supreme Court Justices appointed who see it our way, and they'll throw Heller out.
I guess he never thought about that scenario.
The guy screaming "Heller, Heller" didn't even reply back to me.
In fact, he quit posting in the nether region altogether.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Are you aware of some prevalent issue with people buying guns rather than taking their kid to the doctor or getting them shoes? Do you have some stats or is this just high pitched emotional crying out?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)you've invented all of these people just flog some rant.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I found a great deal on gun polish for you
http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=33062/Product/Iosso-GunBrite-Gun-Polish