|
stef -> RE: another take on guns (11/1/2006 8:51:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
Thanks. You just illustrated my point about that argument. Instant deniability. They're not one of us. How about calling them an ex-lawful gun owner - that is a bit more accurate.
It's also a bit ludicrous. At the point they use a gun to break the law, they are no longer a law abiding gun owner. They are no longer "one of us.". What about that is so hard for you to fathom?
Are you an ex-child? Should we call married couples ex-singles? Would you call a rapist an ex-lawful penis owner? Please.
quote:
Point is they got their gun legally. The argument that when guns are illegal only criminals will have guns is just so much bullshit.
If guns were made illegal, by definition, the only people to have them (aside from law enforcement or other people with legal dispensation) would be criminals. Why is that bullshit?
quote:
I am as concerned about some "law -abiding" citizen having a gun he might choose to use for mayhem, simply out of convenience, as I am someone who gets one for expressedly criminal motives. Mainly because there are far more of the former than of the latter.
That's funny. And people call gun owners paranoid when they say they own guns for personal protection.
quote:
When all you have is a gun everything starts looking like a target.
The millions of concealed carry permit holders in the US who go their whole lives without choosing to use their weapons for "mayhem, simply out of convenience" handily disprove that notion. I don't suppose you have anything other than closed-minded opinions to back up that pathetic smear, do you?
quote:
C.D. There are legitimate uses for guns and they can be just for fun too. But what does any private citizen need a concealable weapon for?
Personal protection. There's a reason that Be Prepared has been the Boy Scouts motto for nearly a century.
quote:
Or an assault rifle?
Hunting, competition and recreation. By the way, do you even know what makes an "assault weapon" an "assault weapon?" Most people don't. It was a term cooked up because "big black evil looking gun " sounded too juvenile when some people were trying to figure out a way to ban private ownership of big black evil looking rifles. It's a meaningless term to anyone but the anti-gun crowd and the evening news. These days, any rifle with a removable clip or magazine that fires ammunition larger than pistol caliber and less than heavy machinegun caliber, is automagically labled an "assault weapon." Basically, if it looks like something a soldier or a terrorist would ever consider carrying it's an "assault weapon."
Strangely enough, most modern hunting rifles sold in the world would fall under the myopic classification of "assault weapon" these days.
quote:
Or an M50?
Crowd control [:D]
Have you ever fired one? They're quite fun. Expensive as hell to shoot, but loads of fun.
Is it likely someone would ever need an M50? Not likely. By the same token, is it likely that someone would ever need a $25,000 watch or a McLaren F1? If you're going to limit the ownership of objects based solely on need, you had better get used to living like the Amish.
quote:
There is reasonable and there is excess.
Thankfully, in this instance, you don't get to decide that.
~stef
|
|
|
|
