Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for the driver's license analogy: That's why there are requirements to get a license and own a car. I'm just asking for the same reasonable approach to firearms.
My guns are registered and I have a carry permit with an extensive background check, both state and Federal. I also have many advanced carry and self defense training classes including simulator course at the police academy. More coming. Plus active practice at the range at least monthly, sometimes more.
Same is true for MrsM
That should fit any requirements that you can think of.
I am still tired of being called a pro gun (or just gun) nut by our Liberal friends here on CD that would rather hide behind a "Gun Free Zone" sign and think that it will protect them from some sicko with a gun. So I have a simple question to ask:
If a driver (drunk or sober) hits a family with his/her car, we (rightfully) blame the driver.
We license people to drive. So, at least there is a minimum standard of driving skill that we hold people to.
Quote:
When a bomb blows up in Boston or Turkey or in??? We blame the bomber.
Bombs are illegal to have. Go ahead and create a bomb. Don't forget to post about it and your name and address. See what happens.
Quote:
When someone kills someone with a gun, WHY THE HELL DO WE BLAME THE GUN?
This is a straw man argument. We don't actually blame the gun. We blame the gun culture that has made it super easy for any wacko to get his hands on a gun.
My guns are registered and I have a carry permit with an extensive background check, both state and Federal. I also have many advanced carry and self defense training classes including simulator course at the police academy. More coming. Plus active practice at the range at least monthly, sometimes more.
Same is true for MrsM
That should fit any requirements that you can think of.
That's all I'm asking for. Having a gun is a major responsibility, much like owning a car. I just want to minimize the likelihood that someone irresponsible/unstable will have either. I know it's no plausible to stop every unfit person from having a gun, but we should try minimize the likelihood.
I am still tired of being called a pro gun (or just gun) nut by our Liberal friends here on CD that would rather hide behind a "Gun Free Zone" sign and think that it will protect them from some sicko with a gun. So I have a simple question to ask:
If a driver (drunk or sober) hits a family with his/her car, we (rightfully) blame the driver.
When a bomb blows up in Boston or Turkey or in??? We blame the bomber.
When someone kills someone with a gun, WHY THE HELL DO WE BLAME THE GUN?
As for the driver's license analogy: That's why there are requirements to get a license and own a car. I'm just asking for the same reasonable approach to firearms.
There are zero requirements to buy, own and operate a car on private property, none. There are no background checks when buying a car. There are no waiting periods before buying a car. Felons aren't prohibited from buying a car. You only need a license to operate one on public roads, just like most states require a permit to carry a firearm. Somehow I doubt you really want "the same reasonable approach to firearms".
I'm not opposed to guns with a clear, practical purpose like hunting. I don't see any reason for private citizens to own automatic weapons or other excessive firearms.
I know guns themselves don't kill people, but they do make it easier for people to kill people. I'm not in favor criminalizing guns for all citizens, but restrictions for persons with mental health issues and/or violent criminal history seems reasonable. This is all most of us are arguing for: sensible regulation; not an outright ban.
Well, we're all happy to know that you're okay with hunting!
And I think that we all agree that there should be laws to prevent crazy and violent people from owning guns, but how do I keep my rights with your first inclination being that you "don't see any reason for private citizens to own "excessive" firearms" (it's already illegal to own automatic weapons)?
This is a straw man argument. We don't actually blame the gun. We blame the gun culture that has made it super easy for any wacko to get his hands on a gun.
And here-in lies the crux of the whole matter. Idealistic BS
The government has fighter jets and assault helicopters. And nuclear weapons. And RPGs. In short, their firepower is superior to that of any citizen. There's no way you or anyone else will be able to overcome this if it's ever an issue.
Yes, you should have a right to own a gun for personal and family protection, and to hunt. That's it. Automatic weapons with armor-piercing ammo aren't used for those purposes. Arguing otherwise makes you seem paranoid, fanatical, and unreasonable.
BTW, the 2nd amendment also includes the words "well regulated", which means we can have laws regulating firearms. That's all I'm asking for.
The more you say, the more you reveal that you are completely ignorant on this subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
