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.
Knee-jerk? Hardly - I have 60 years of thought behind my viewpoint.
What kind of society advocates a population armed with lethal weapons ready to end lives in a flash when tempers flare? Is that what you believe we should aspire to? I say we can do better and the solution is to get all guns out of circulation. To be satisfied with a social structure where everyone needs a gun in order to protect their public safety has never and will never make any sense. My vision is to get the guns out the hands of those you feel so threatened by.
Idealistic? Of course - but we have to start sometime and somewhere if we truly want to be a civilized people.
No, if there is anything knee-jerk it is continued support for a second amendment that is as harmful to today's society as it seemed helpful to that which was in place in 1789. It's time has long passed.
So, to answer your questions - yes.
Oh - and I support the new Arizona law, by the way.
And just who, in your infinite and total wisdom, are the ones I am 'threatened by".?? Or are we back to that good ol' left wing knee jerk crappola that dictates firearms ownership = fear? 60 years of thought behind this, you say? And that is all you could come up with? Seems you would have been better off thinking about something else. It does give me some small measure of satisfaction knowing that folks like you are having an apoplexy about private firearms ownership. If only I had more money to spend on building my collection, I would, for no other reason than it drives hoplophobes buggy.. I am well armed enough though. But hardly our of 'fear'. Good luck with your agenda however. I am quite certain that you are a far more 'civilized' person than I, but you will have to forgive my not agreeing with your premise on this subject. 45 years of living has pretty well cemented my views on this, and I quit rationalizing about some time back.
Knee-jerk? Hardly - I have 60 years of thought behind my viewpoint.
What kind of society advocates a population armed with lethal weapons ready to end lives in a flash when tempers flare? Is that what you believe we should aspire to? I say we can do better and the solution is to get all guns out of circulation. To be satisfied with a social structure where everyone needs a gun in order to protect their public safety has never and will never make any sense. My vision is to get the guns out the hands of those you feel so threatened by.
Idealistic? Of course - but we have to start sometime and somewhere if we truly want to be a civilized people.
No, if there is anything knee-jerk it is continued support for a second amendment that is as harmful to today's society as it seemed helpful to that which was in place in 1789. It's time has long passed.
So, to answer your questions - yes.
Oh - and I support the new Arizona law, by the way.
So here's the next question. There always have been, and always will be, individuals who are willing to use brute force to obtain what they want. Muscle-bound gorillas who are stronger than the rest of us who will take what they want by force.
As someone who is not muscle-bound, and not physically able to defend myself with my fists or feet, what is my option for self defense if it were not for firearms? Am I supposed to just keel over and die because I'm not athletic enough to win a fist-fight?
I'm sorry, but I've never gone on the offensive against anyone, with a gun or otherwise. But if someone bigger and stronger than me decides to threaten my existence, he WILL die of lead poisoning before he gets the chance to hurt me.
Firearms are the great equalizer of modern day society. It puts someone as scrawny as me on an equal footing with some muscular thug that would seek to do me harm.
Tell me why I would ever have any incentive to surrender my own arms, even if everyone else were to do the same?
I have heard it said "God created man, Col. Colt created them equal." Chicago and the buy back looks good on paper to the leftest but to those with common sense of reason it can be seen only as anti gun propaganda. Cars and drunk drivers kill more people so lets have a Chicago car buy back and let every one ride the bus. Makes about as much sense.
I have heard it said "God created man, Col. Colt created them equal." Chicago and the buy back looks good on paper to the leftest but to those with common sense of reason it can be seen only as anti gun propaganda. Cars and drunk drivers kill more people so lets have a Chicago car buy back and let every one ride the bus. Makes about as much sense.
The difference being that unlike guns cars are not designed to kill.
The difference being that unlike guns cars are not designed to kill.
By design or not they are still deadlier. You are just as dead from a car crash as a bullet. The numbers are a matter of facts not emotions. Criminals can't be duped into turning in their guns. Only the foolish do.
By design or not they are still deadlier. You are just as dead from a car crash as a bullet. The numbers are a matter of facts not emotions. Criminals can't be duped into turning in their guns. Only the foolish do.
I don't think that is the point. I made my comment as I think your analogy (getting cars off the streets) is flawed because of the reason I stated.
It is like saying one should not try to arrest killers unless one tries to arrest car drivers as well as they cause more deaths than killers
Anyway, I think there should be much more pressure. This deal will not help much, too many weapons will remain out there and new ones will come in. If one starts such measures, one would have to go all the way.
I'm for arresting killers and lethal injection. But I don't think you got the point that killers don't turn their guns in for cash. They kill for more cash. So what good is the Chicago by back program. It's a farce. A first grade education can figure that one out.
So here's the next question. There always have been, and always will be, individuals who are willing to use brute force to obtain what they want. Muscle-bound gorillas who are stronger than the rest of us who will take what they want by force.
As someone who is not muscle-bound, and not physically able to defend myself with my fists or feet, what is my option for self defense if it were not for firearms? Am I supposed to just keel over and die because I'm not athletic enough to win a fist-fight?
I'm sorry, but I've never gone on the offensive against anyone, with a gun or otherwise. But if someone bigger and stronger than me decides to threaten my existence, he WILL die of lead poisoning before he gets the chance to hurt me.
Firearms are the great equalizer of modern day society. It puts someone as scrawny as me on an equal footing with some muscular thug that would seek to do me harm.
Tell me why I would ever have any incentive to surrender my own arms, even if everyone else were to do the same?
A very valid question for a theoretical debate, but one that is not very relevant in reality for most people.
I'm no street fighter either, but in over 40 years of adult life I have never needed to be. Never - not once. Last time I was picked on was in about 1962 in junior high school. The important lesson I learned from those years was to recognize and avoid troublemakers and their gathering places. And it has always worked. Never did it occur to me that the solution to dealing with problem individuals was to take them on using a gun.
Now, if you live in a neighborhood where you can't walk your own street for fear of assault, the answer is to move - and make more careful choices in the future.
I'm for arresting killers and lethal injection. But I don't think you got the point that killers don't turn their guns in for cash. They kill for more cash. So what good is the Chicago by back program. It's a farce. A first grade education can figure that one out.
There are not many killers out there, they are not the addressees of that program. It is targeted at the broad population as a whole I guess.
Guns are the last defense to a tyrannical government.
You can pry my freedom from my cold, dead fingers.
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.
. I am well armed enough though. But hardly our of 'fear'. Good luck with your agenda however. I am quite certain that you are a far more 'civilized' person than I, but you will have to forgive my not agreeing with your premise on this subject. 45 years of living has pretty well cemented my views on this, and I quit rationalizing about some time back.
