Quote:
Originally Posted by veuvegirl
I know you aren't trying to make me look stupid. You and I have had gun conversations before and taught me very politely many things about guns. However I do not understand your logic.
The bolded, so you don't fly so the restrictions for traveling don't bother you? So as long as it is something that doesn't hurt you or your family it is okay? I am not understanding how further restrictions on traveling would be a moot point because you don't fly?
You started by saying imagine your rights being taken away such as free speech. You have a right to bear arms. Again, times have changed, we must change with them. I am not a gun person (clearly) but have no qualms with someone wanting to defend their home.
There is no need for a single person to have a semi-automatic weapon, let alone as many as he did. The silencer, sorry even if it made the gun fail, he had over a dozen more.
|
My logic is quite simple. I'm not motivated by irrational emotion.
If this then that.
If it's an opinion that you seek that is different.
Pertaining to flying. It was a last minute flight. I only went with the clothes on my back. I didn't have any baggage aboard. And had to sprint through an airport to make a flight on time. Further restrictions on air ports such as TSA in my opinion are a failed attempt at providing safety and spreading government bureaucracy. How many kids and women are groped daily? It's an inconvenience correct? Well. That's what you get when you trade liberty for comfort. Why is it moot to me? I much rather would drive to my destination, no ears exploding. No hyperventilating I'm scared to fly dude sitting in front of me. No walrus in a business suit that reeks of body odor.
Now your second part with the no need of a semi automatic is this.
Criminals that get black market weapons. They get full autos. They get semi autos and convert them. Both illegal! I can provide multiple cases where an AR15, an AK varient, a Mini14, a M1 Carbine has saved someone from a home intruder or home intruders. I get it you won't like to see those facts... and possibly can't wrap your mind around them.
A pistol... meh, a shotgun... they can be much more lethal than a rifle.
Pistols put holes in things.
Rifles shoot holes through things.
Shotguns blow chunks of things all over.
See when you are fed a diet from the media of what to believe naturally it sounds alien that wait they were wrong. I guarantee we meet up. I'd train you and have you shooting safely you'd get it. Technique stance the basic principles field stripping the whole nine yards.
So with the times changing argument... does that mean say the first amendment is open to be reinterpretation to one agenda or the other? Afterall cell phones. Tablets. Desktops. Laptops. None of that existed. This is what the logic is. When you interpret one right. Any right, it leaves all of the others open to reinterpretation to fit an agenda masked as "to fit the times because time changes"
Again. Apply the same regulation and legislation that currently exists on 2A matters to any of the other constitutional matters. Say for free speech. In order to protest or demonstrate you can't spread your message on social media or through emails or online forums. Certain words must not be used unless deemed mentally sound. And may only use them with a permit. Issued by the anointed one.
I'm applying this not in the sense of fire arms, but in a grander scheme of things.
Those in favor of tougher laws, and restrictions on the 2nd. Ditch the 2nd for one minute. Look at the grand scheme. Apply what you seek to the first. The 3rd the 4th the 5th the 8th... any amendment. Ask yourself.
Do you want to go through hoops of fire to practice a God given right guaranteed by the constitution? Pay for a permit to exercise that right? Subject yourself to background checks each time you seek to exercise that right? Be told there are limits to that right that you aren't privileged to but the military, and government bureaucracies and agencies and elected officials can enjoy?
You seek to fundamentally change the constitution and bill of rights in the name of irrational illogical emotion. Because HTC said this. CNN said that...
Look deeper than the matter of limiting restricting firearms. Look back to hitler. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. Venezuela. Those atrocities all happened. And the people all believed. Their government would have their best interests in place. There's a reason holocaust survivors tell us today. Do not give up the guns.
You go trading liberties for comfort, based on emotion, you receive neither.
Sure it is easy to say oh the military wouldn't confiscate guns and execute US citizens as a tyrant saw fit...
What happened in Soviet Russia under Stalin? That sick bastard killed his own top advisors and family. Saddam gassed his own people. Hitler wanted any one he felt undesirable and inferior dead. Venezuela forfeit guns and look at how many starve and die under a corrupt government.
Oh but what about Australia? What about here what about there.
What about this is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. Or have we subconsciously tapped out and want to be land of the dependent and home of the afraid?
Fear. I lack it. Ditch fear. It breeds hate.