Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA
What is "pro-gun?" I am a liberal, but I do not favor confiscating or outlawing all guns. I could envision living in a situation where a person might want a gun. I do favor controls on the types of weapons, how they can be obtained and who can obtain them. I also favor legal accountability when it comes to negligence with guns....such as a gun being stolen from a vehicle parked in a driveway overnight or a child getting access to a gun. But, I am not looking to have guns banned and I do not live in a rural area.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
What is "pro-gun"?
|
Pro gun is the opposite to most peoples beliefs.
Pro gun will vary from person to person as their beliefs, and opinions are subjective.
For me? My definition of pro gun? The NFA and Hughes amendment are in direct conflict with the constitution and are upheld by unconstitutional bureacracies to punish those for possessing or having a desire to possess firearms they want.
To most, freedom is terrifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
No background checks? Any nut case can own a gun?
People don't need to keep guns locked up when children are in the house?
I am not against guns but I am also for making sure they are owned by responsible people.
|
Using buzz phrases and societal sacred cows is amusing to justify projection and emotional tirades while exploiting tragedy to further an agenda under the disguise of public safety...
Background checks do nothing. Universal background checks will do nothing. Criminals will not obey laws. You will however increase bureaucratic power while reducing individual liberty. You will increase government operational expenses. And for what? A false sense of security for an arbitrary law?
See.... this whole modern society argument is feeble, flawed, and significantly so.
Most emote out and say Do it for the children!
I call this-"Muh Childrunz" trademarked regurgitation argument.
I am living proof of a child that had unrestricted access to firearms. I fired my first shot at age 4/5 from a .22 caliber pistol.
I received my first rifle at age 8.
First shot gun at age 10.
By age 13 after demonstrating to my father I can responsibly use firearms I was trusted with firearms short of pistols in my possession. So long as homework and chores were done I could hop on my quad with a shotgun/rifle on my back and go up into the woods and shoot until dark. No supervision. No adult present.
Contrary to popular regurgitated myth, children are not bullet magnets nor constantly going around offing themselves and others with randomly placed firearms.
CDC data supports this.
Negligent-"accidental" child deaths ranging from infant to 12 years old are literally in the hundreds per year via their mortality report. Firearms aren't even in the top 100 causes of childhood death. My argument of pools, lakes rivers creeks streams-bodies of water, kill more children than firearms is valid. It is not emotional either.
It's an "inconvenient" fact.
More children die per year from drowning than by finding a firearm.
What does this tell me?
2 things.
1. Cosmopolitan/mainstream parenting is at an epic failure rate. I learned to swim when I was a toddler. Apparently, helicopter parenting and the whole forbidden fruit approach does not work.
2. Forbidden fruit approach of Do Not partake Do Not touch creates allure and curiosity in young minds. Tell a child, your child, your neighbors child, not to do something, not to touch something, they will do the opposite of this.
However, when you teach a child responsibility and gradually remove the "training wheels" you do remove the allure and irresponsible practices along with significantly reducing the odds of a catastrophic event due to Darwin parenting awards.
My father's rifles and shotguns were kept in a wood and glass gun cabinet with ammo in the bottom drawers. Firearms were not seen as toys by me. They were seen no differently than any other inanimate object, similarly to powertools. Don't touch without permission. Immersion removed allure. The concept of death was taught to me at a very early age. Even with BB guns there was no demonization of the object. There was however, expressed responsibility to having and keeping them. Should an injury ever take place I was never scolded or berated. Prime example was Garand thumb at age 11.
I was taught that if I should ever be injured for whatever reason. Clear the weapon if possible or set the safety. Grab it, take it with me and inform my father or mother immediately.
Whether it be a ricochet or pinched finger.
Again... I can go for pages upon pages of the responsibilities and practices I had to demonstrate to my parents to yield such a responsibility.
No different than quads, dirtbikes, and driving. Yes. You read that correctly. I was raised in rural Upstate NY. My parents had 1500 undeveloped acres. I did most adult things long before I was an adult.
Driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment, operating power tools. Most everything modern society will screech and wail and go on about as bad parenting ripe for negative outcomes and loaded heavily with emotionally charged "What Ifs"
I'm living proof that it is all in your gullible and complacent head. If you take what others say are proper parenting standards today, my parents were the exact opposite from that. I wasn't sheltered. I wasn't coddled. I wasn't protected from reality. I was prepared for it. There is truth in public schools and colleges (I went to both) being indoctrination centers producing lemming mentality and not individual critical thinking potential leaders. That's worthy of a thread all on its own.
In short. The guise of keeping firearms out of the reach of children, does the opposite of what you claim you desire. If you want responsible gun owners, if you are truly sincere with that sentiment, you start them out young and you do so properly. That entails you are actually a parent and not a drone. You actually participate in your child's life. Not to simply come home after 5 and expect them to have chores and homework done. You actively participate in their lives and introduce them to things in moderation and reinforce why they are to follow your guidance and create an incentive for doing things correctly/right while addressing negative behavior with strict discipline.
It is my belief, from my first hand experience, if anyone should have access to firearms, it is your societal sacred cow-"Muh Childrunz".
Take them to the range or if you have the property, the backyard.
Take them hunting.
Teach them. Require them to demonstrate what you've taught them.
Part of my demonstration included stripping a weapon bare, cleaning every component, lubricating it properly to have a properly, safe, firearm. The other parts that came with firearms safety? Absolutely no threats of use against another with a firearm or even a BB gun for that matter. Grounding would have been a blessing if that was all I would have received for punishment.
Not only would I receive a beating I would never forget, I would lose my access to that hobby until I either was 18 or moved out. So long as I was under my parents roof, I was under their rules.
The same can be said for my having dirtbikes and ATVs. I had to maintain and repair them periodically if I wanted to ride them. Neglect = loss of privileges. Irresponsibility had wiggle room there... sure it would upset my parents with me pulling wheelies and jumping them... that wasn't what bothered them though really. Moreso, going down the road or into others private property.
And just like with dirtbikes and ATVs... I was expected to be the smarter more responsible one when not at home. Meaning, if I was at another's house, and they had firearms, if my buddy dug up their fathers firearms I was to not only discourage them from finding them, I was to get away if they did discover the firearm and get ahold of both their and my parents ASAP. I did have friends at 8 9 10+ years old that wanted to find firearms.
You know who's kids are most intrigued by firearms? The children of police officers coupled with the forbidden fruit approach. That's no lie. I can recall a few times where I would hear the infamous line of, "Hey, want to see my dad's gun (s)?" To which I would respond, NO. I know what guns look like. You shouldn't be looking for them either, that's a good way to get hurt or killed. Never mind getting into trouble.
I can recall one time a kid named Ryan that lived 3 houses down from mine walking into the back yard with his father's issued pistol when I was probably about 8 years old right before moving into the countryside. I told him twice to put the pistol back and he asked why. I just told him to put it back. I never said anything about ratting him out. When he didn't listen I left and ran straight home and told my father. He grabbed my by the hand and we walked back over there. His parents were home too. His father was in the garage tinkering on his corvette his mother was upstairs doing laundry.
I will never forget my father's thunderous yelling at his father and the few explicit words he had to say to him and shunning him for being a police officer and should know better than to leave firearms especially a pistol just laying about or not stored properly.
Pistols were never within my grasp. Rifles, shotguns on the other hand were. I'm not talking little .22s and .410s.
30-06, 303 Enfield, 30 carbine, 12 gauges etc.
I never once had the thought of pulling them out of the cabinet to show off to my friends. Matter of fact, if I had friends coming over? I made sure I locked the cabinet. Why?
Let my father find out I showed firearms off. Let my father find out I handled them without his permission... never mind putting one in a friend's hand.
To say keeping firearms out of the reach of children for they are bullet magnets is pure hyperbole and an excuse for both bad parenting and furthering the anti gun agenda by condemning and demonizing them. Period. If you don't want your kids to handle firearms, fine. You have no business however shunning others who do or by claiming they are negligent in any manner.
I am where I am today for strict and trustworthy parents who didn't protect me and coddle me from everything perceived "dangerous".
How many youngsters do you know could drive stick shift?
How many do you know could operate everything from a lawn tractor to a forklift, a commercial grade backhoe and bulldozer?
How many do you know can use a circular saw or hammer?
How many do you know are allowed to handle firearms?
Respect for those objects comes with Immersion and responsible practices taught by engaging parents... not sheltering helicopter parents that simply don't trust a child to make the "right" decisions but by guidance and leadership with strict discipline if the set in stone "rules" are not obeyed.
If you want responsible gun owners, you start them out young. Period.
But you do you. That's just my suggestion.
I'll be sure my kids know what responsibility is long before they're 20 and on their own. Regardless the activity or implement in question. For I am not a lemming. Nor compelled by emotion with a hamster in a wheel in my head turning thinking of the "what ifs" and being a worry wort, busy body. Certain risks exist in a "free" society. I'll accept them for I can calculate and prepare for them.
Matter of fact, I can take statistics and tell you my chances of getting involved in an automobile accident are far higher than that of being injured or killed by another armed individual.
In acedemics, you teach and prepare minds for tests and quizzes, along with asking students to demonstrate skills via writing into their own words opposed to regurgitating information. Yet... when it comes to accidents and crimes. It's condemn the object, never analyze or condemn the individual.
This is what happens when the focal point is the inanimate object and not behaviors or individuals and their
incentive, motive, and intent.
I am pro gun. I don't question ones sanity for their desire to own any weapon they want. I do not have a problem with my neighbors owning machine guns. Envy at times. No issue with them owning them. If you want a belt fed you should be able to walk into Walmart and put your hard earned money down and walk out with an M60 etc.
Oh but the potential of it going into the wrong hands!
Again. The potential of dying in an automobile accident is far higher than that than by succumbing to a murderous scumbag, regardless of political influence, it is the violent few significant few, of society that is to be questioned.
I've had this argument out with KenFresno once before, their reason for being anti gun and deeming my hunting rifle an assault weapon is its capacity and potential of me becoming unhinged.
Really. What do we gun owners benefit by being a menace to society? Serious question.
It furthers anti gun sentiment. It plays right into your hand of lending credibility to ban/restrict/limit a Constitutionally protected right and expanding .gov authority by eroding said right into a privilege for the elite and wealthy. What do we benefit from when an atrocity occurs and why are we subject to punishments and curtailing of rights to keep and bear arms for so very few?
Never mind the felony charges. Never mind tarnishing our reputation. Never mind losing life in a confrontation with law enforcement and loaing everything else we as individuals have positive going for us...
Do you really think about the realistic figures of 800 million to 1.2 billion firearms in this nation in private hands before conjuring up buzzphrases, buzzwords, and feeble arguments against the right to keep and bear arms? Do regulations and laws give you the perception of being more secure? Or is it that you're only capable of feeling? Serious question.
I would think you would want an armed society for the simple fact police can not be everywhere at every single second of the day. I would think you would have more trust in your fellow American than to fear them incessantly because of inflammatory reporting of tragedies etc.
Then again. Conflation and feeble assumption based off of the inanimate object they used is to blame. It's the lazy way out of the whole gun control debate.
It says to me... My emotions are superior than your thinking. And I'll follow along blindly with a trendy agenda of attacking an individual liberty. Because freedom is scary. Because only the police and military should have.
Buddy... that is not what the founding fathers saw for the future of this nation. Not one bit. If so.... that 2nd Amendment would not say the right of the people, but the right of the government and it's many subsidiaries and bureaus
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomC23
Typical. You want the right to own a firearm but completely ignore the responsibility that comes with that right.
|
Explain and define what you consider "Responsibility" because that phrase has been reduced to mean literally next to nothing these days.
I can give you my interpretation of responsibility and I guarantee you'll vehemently disagree with it.
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 to Dems and Pubs on this I don't trust the Pubs any more than the Dems. I think the Pubs would be happy with a disarmed citizenry too but they are happy to let the Dems be the bad guys and look forward to reaping the rewards when the Dems finish the job.
