Question: Liberals and Guns

[Union Thug]

A couple of things: When did liberals become pigeonholed as anti-gun? My grandfather was a very liberal labor leader, my father is extremely liberal (actually, leans towards socialist) and I am definately way to the left of Liberal, and we all own(ed) firearms. My father's friends were part of the radical labor movement here in the Seattle area (anyone remember Maloney and Mahoney?), they were gun owners as well. Of all my liberal friends, not one of them is opposed to responsible gun ownership.

So, is my liberal world an anamoly, or is the anti-gun label part of the conservative world's masterful ability to pigeon-hole their opponents?

Just curious.

[freetobegay]

1. You are not alone

I come from a very liberal family & we all tote guns. :)

[Wonk]

2. Some people like to frame the debate in terms of black and white.

I'm anti-gang-bangers-having-Mini-Uzis(etc)-with-no-background-checks-or-waiting-periods so to some gun-fetishists that makes me a "gun grabber".

There are many greys in this big debate, but those don't make for good soundbytes.

[DenverDem]

3. If we don't have guns how do we defend ourselves against the theocons?

I'm all for the right to bear arms. And I'm also for arming bears, they should be able to fight back if someone's trying to whack them.

Seriously, if the shit really came down and civil war breaks out, if the conservatives are the only ones who are armed then we become their bitches. Not a thought I choose to think, so I'm armed.

[Bowline]

68. Not just the neocons...

but the religious right (you would have to live by THEIR rules!), the criminals, the anarchist fanatics, and pretty much everybody EXCEPT the liberal left. Not the kind of odds you would want, eh?

An unarmed populace is subject to whatever the armed government wishes, and in your example that government is NOT of our choosing.

[JayS]

4. The Liberals, and the Democrats, did it to themselves. Neither...

...realized that when they saw the Republicans laughing at something that it was they that were the source of the amusement.

I'm in a state where, by and large, Liberals and Democrats still can be pro-gun but they have also managed to start making themselves part of the gun-grabber crowd. I think that started here over the CCW issue, an issue that cost us our last Democratic Governor and gave the world Bush.

The first time I can remember seeing the Liberals and the Democrats start down the wrong path was not long after the shooting of Reagan. Somehow the idea stuck to start running up the anti-gun flag each election. It worked for awhile but that is fading. You can only pee on someone's boots and tell them it is raining for so long; they catch onto your little rain making session sooner or later.

[TexasMexican]

5. Beats me...

I will admit I'm not a more radical liberal, but I definately dont see why some people think that all liberals need to be antigun or pacifist.

I definately agree with the Black Panthers and thier use of weapons to stand up for thier rights.

[Union Thug]

6. I know there are some...

... that want to ban guns all together, but they seem (at least from my perspective) to be very few.

I think that this is very typical of post Raygun dirty politics. The conservatives were very successful in generating and propagating a stereotype of what it means to be liberal based both on lies and on propping up some of the most extreme points on the leftist political map and presenting them as 'mainstream liberalism'. They were able to poison the language and turned liberal into a dirty word. We are just now finally making some headway in the fight against them.

The gun issue is a big one for working class voters. I am a member of a local sportsman's club and also a member of WAC (washington arms collectors). Most of the guys I meet at club events are, like me, just average working stiffs. But even though we are all very aware that, as working people, we are getting the shaft at the hands of employers and big biz, in club sponsored bulletins, newsletters or e-mails there is always some anti-liberal rant that draws on the stereotype of the gun-hating, pansy ass liberal. This is usually matched by some praise for one conservanazi politician or another.

This is really bothering me because I have a feeling that we could win some of these guys back to the light side if we were more vocal in clarifying our position.

[T Town Jake]

7. Good question

My grandfather was an avid hunter and gun owner, and he was also one of the staunchest Democrats you'd ever meet. For crying out loud, he even thought Dwight Eisenhower was lousy (and don't get me started on what he thought of Nixon). He used to brag about going into the voting booth and "stamping the rooster till the feathers fly." He never voted GOP in his life, and he lived until 2002. BTW, he cast his first vote, as he reminded me often, in 1936 for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet today I'm afraid some would question his value as a "real" or "genuine" Democrat, all because he owned and frequently used firearms (to hunt, plink, etc.). Knowing his attitude towards the GOP as I do, that frankly astonishes me.

[Union Thug]

8. Sounds like my family....

My father used to take us hunting. Put us through firearm safety training at 12 years old so we could get our hunting licenses. While hunting was never my gig, I do enjoy collecting and shooting old soviet/russian guns at hit the range every other weekend or so. When my dad comes to visit, it gives us something to do that we have in common.

[noahmijo]

9. I probably have more guns locked in a safe than the Michigan Militia

But I have no problems with not being able to purchase assault rifles at K-mart, going through background checks.

I guess the difference between liberal gun owners and neo-con gun owners is that we believe in brandishing the gun only if someone brandishes theirs first (or any other deadly weapon for that matter)

[OpSomBlood]

10. People have different definitions of "reasonable gun control"

To some, it is unreasonable for anyone to own a gun unless they demonstrate "need" that can be determined (presumably by the government).

The conflict lies in the widely-accepted notion that the option of Americans to arm themselves in defense against both foreign and domestic enemies is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

My own personal opinion on "reasonable" gun control is background checks and safety/legal training required by law. I would not be opposed to a state-issued license to own guns without any quantity limitations. However, I do not think that you should have to justify to anyone why you "need" to own a weapon, but steps should be taken to ensure that known criminals and mentally deficient persons do not acquire them legally.

I consider myself to be a "liberal" on every issue except guns. And I agree that Reagan was (politically) brilliant to side with the NRA in order to make his opposition appear to be the "take your guns away" side.

Gun control is not a "liberal" or "Democratic" issue. Hopefully, the failure of this little gun-grabbing experiment by the Left will become clear so that we can all move on to the business of winning elections again.

Nice to see yet another gun-owning Liberal. They sure seem to be coming out in droves these days.

[Township75]

11. I think there are a few reasons...

1. Some high profile Dems are rabidly anti gun, like Feinstein, Schumer, Bill Clinton, and some others. However, they appear to be concentrated in the northeast. Despite this, because they are high ranking at the federal level, they get more coverage than the Dems at the state level.

There are plenty of pro gun dems that are not in high profile positions. Mark Warner (gov VA), Richardson (gov NM), Sen Graham (FL), Dean (VT) have all made great strides for gun rights.

2. I think most people are indifferent on guns by and large. THey like the idea of a backgroudn check, but not necessarily gun grabbing.
I have always noticed that many people join a party based on a few beliefs they feel very strongly on. Over time, they just learn to adopt the party's platform.

3. The debate is often framed in black-white. Pro gunners are often occused of calling anyone who wants more gun control a gun grabber. In the same sense gun control advocates seem to want to base all of the arguements around the NRA as if the NRA spoke for every gun owner. Pretty much look at any thread in this forum and you will see what I mean.

To be honest, I think more liberals are pretty happy with the level of gun control now, and would rather see more enforcement of laws.

[slackmaster]

12. It's the fault of a few zealots who make inappropriate remarks

This forum is a gold mine for extremist statements that are liable to be used to tar the entire Democratic party as anti-gun bigots.

One long-time contributor says "The gun rights message is code for race and everyone knows it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=64294&mesg_id=64337&page= - Reply #17

Here is another contributor calling for a complete end to civilian gun ownership:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=59554&mesg_id=60011

The same individual expressed a wish that guns would blow up in peoples' faces:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=61448&mesg_id=62186

Those individuals have a right to have and express their views, but I think it's important for the rest of us to put them in perspective; they do not represent the Democratic Party of liberals in general, only themselves.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

13. Here's my take on things in the last 15 years or so

In 1986 Reagan signed the Gun Owner's Protection Act (GOPA). The bill was supposed to protect the rights of gun owners, problem is in the last minute of debate (literally) the Volkmer-something amendment was added that barred new production of full-auto weapons for civilians. Whether Reagan knew about the amendment or not when he signed it is debatable, nevertheless it became law. Problem is most people don't plan to own full autos so it doesn't affect them. Hell the press never really got into report about it, only a few pro gun mags even reported on it. To this day, most people don't even know about that amendment, and the repubs sure as hell don't let everyone know about it.

In 1989 Poppy banned a ton of weapons from import by Executive Order. Same shit though, doesn't affect most people and the neocons don't make mention of it.

Enter Schumer, Boxer and Feintstein, stage left. This trio goes on a crusade to save the public from themselves. These self appointed gun gurus, who have proven they know knob-all about firearms, deem to tell us what we can and can't have. Very publicly. Add the Bradys to the mix and now you have a media frenzy about assault weapons. So the bill gets signed into law by the Big Dawg. The more gun-educated among us see it for what it is, but the average Joe starts getting impacted as well. Magazines that he used to pay $15 for now go for ~$100+. Okay, more people are now aware of this law.

Clinton decides to ride the wave. I still remember his victory speech in 1996. Which the Bradys next to him he proclaims that his AWB has stopped the purchase of weapons to 700,000 felons! If this were true, which it isn't, then there should have been more than 7 prosecutions at the time. Almost all of that 700,000 number were denials for BS reasons that later got approved. The system was new and full of bugs.

Clinton had campaigned on the AWB and won. All this did was reinforce the belief that Democrat = anti-gun.

So you ask why people equate Dems with anti-gun? While the repubs have certainly been as bad or worse than Dems in the gun-control arena, they didn't spend most of a decade harping on about gun control. Now it is a firmly entrenched stance.

[FeebMaster]

16. Good analysis.

A few minor points, though. It was the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) which was also known as the Volkmer-McClure Act (or was it McClure-Volkmer?). The civilian machine gun production ban was the Hughes Amendment.

[hansberrym]

14. It is largely a due to the actions of a few bad apples.

In addition to the prominent politicians (Schumer, Feinstein, etc.)
there were a few books written in the last 10 years or so that argued that there is no individual RKBA. These authors are generally thought of as Liberals; Caroline Kennedy (In Our Defense), Gary Wills (A Necessary Evil) , and Michael Bellesiles (Arming America).

When you add the Judges who claim there is no individual RKBA to the politicians and authors already mentioned, it is little wonder that an observer might conclude that liberals in general are against individual ownership rights.


That is why the Gun Dungeon is important. Visitors get to see that the posters here are overwhelmingly in favor of an individual RKBA.



It would be a very good thing if there were more John Dingles around.
However, John Kerry's written support (though only luke-warm) for an individual RKBA is a step in the right direction.

[OpSomBlood]

15. Kerry seems to think that 2A is about hunting.

So one must seriously evaluate whether he truly believes we have the constitutional right to defend ourselves and our families.

[billbuckhead]

17. Women and minorities are overwhelmingly for gun regulation

That's the Democratic base. White guys vote RepuKKKe out of fear and white skin priviledge. The gun worshipping goes along with this fear.

[OpSomBlood]

18. Labor Union members are overwhelmingly pro-gun.

You were saying?

Also, nobody is stopping minorities or women from arming themselves...so throw the lazy "white man's issue" argument out the window.

[billbuckhead]

19. Many people think gun ownership is morally wrong

Why force our citizens into an arms race with their neighbors? Why force a majority of our citizens people to do something they don't feel comfortable with. Women and minorities have long been terrorized in America by white guys with guns and they don't want to sink to the same level.

NO OTHER MAJOR ADVANCED NATION HAS THESE PROMISCUOUS AND LAXLY ENFORCED WEAPONS REGULATIONS AND NO OTHER ADVANCED NATION HAS THIS HIGH MURDER RATE OR EXTREME AMOUNT OF IT"S CITIZENS IN PRISON.
ONCE AGAIN DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT UNION MEMBERS ARE PRODOMINATELY PROGUN OR ARE YOU JUST BULLSHITTING?

[OpSomBlood]

20. People are free to arm themselves if they choose.

That's the way it has been for 250 years in this country. There's no "arms race" and there's no armed racial oppression. The best way to not be "terrorized" by bad people with guns is to possess the means to fight back.

It is amazing to me that the same people who preach about the Republican fascist takeover of the U.S. also want to ensure that the people are completely disarmed as it happens. It makes no sense whatsoever.

But considering that you've already broken out the caps lock, it's clear that rational discussion of the facts would be lost on you.

Guns don't cause crime. Guns don't cause crime. Guns don't cause crime.

And the last figures I saw said somewhere in the neighborhood of 65% of labor union members own a gun. I'm at work right now, so I'm not going to waste time Googling statistics just to satisfy your disbelief.

[billbuckhead]

21. Latest Gallup poll has 53% wanting stronger gun regulation

and only 12% wanting less gun regulation. Thers a bunch of polls at this site from variuos organizations and you won't like any of them.
<http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm>
So you're bullshitting about the union statistics.

Here's a poll about gun regulation broken down by race with 73% of blacks wanting more gun regulation and 20% wanting less.

<http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/policy/GUN3.HTM>

[FeebMaster]

28. What pecent has no idea what the current

federal gun laws are or do?

[slackmaster]

22. I've always had a hard time dealing with emotion-based arguments

A psychologist once told me she thought I was the most hyper-rational person she'd ever seen as a client. This trait has caused me a great deal of grief because I just have no clue how to relate to others who are driven by emotions rather than logic.

How could I intelligently respond to billbuckhead here while maintaining proper respect for him?

Should I say nobody except some people who use them professionally is forced to buy a gun?

Should I challenge him to prove that women and minorities are terrorized by armed white males? I'm sure a few are, but aren't most violent crimes in the USA one young male minority person attacking another young male minority person? Or maybe I could get all defensive and trumpet loudly that I've never oppressed anyone.

Should I suggest that billbuckhead use his CAPS LOCK key to avoid glitches like the mark as opposed to the intended apostrophe in the word IT"S, or should I point out that a possessive "its" does not have an apostrophe?

Should I mention that the high number of people incarcerated in this country is attributable mostly to the misguided War On (some) Drugs?

Should I ask where anyone ever suggested that a majority of union members are pro-gun, or just point out that the presence of SOME pro-gun Democrats should be considered in the party's policies?

Naw, I'll just let billbuckhead be billbuckhead and accept the fact that he and I are members of the same party despite our differences. Maybe some day billbuckhead will extend the same consideration to me.

[OpSomBlood]

23. That was me.

Should I ask where anyone ever suggested that a majority of union members are pro-gun, or just point out that the presence of SOME pro-gun Democrats should be considered in the party's policies?

I was the one who suggested this. Polls indicate that between 50 and 70 percent of labor union members own a gun. I will find some links when I have more time.

[slackmaster]

24. 50%, 70%, 25%, whatever, it makes no difference to me

The fact that SOME Democrats own guns and SOME Democrats support the RKBA and SOME swing voters in all parties base their votes in part on gun rights issues should be sufficient reason for the party to accommodate us.

[OpSomBlood]

25. The Second Amendment has served us well for 220 years.

And firearms technology has not advanced appreciably in the last 100 years (save the development of plastics which make them lighter). So I have trouble understanding the sudden urge to re-write the Constitution by the Left.

[billbuckhead]

26. Owning a gun doesn't mean one doesn't want stronger regs

I saw a poll of Field and Stream subscribers that had gun owners strongly for the AWB.

[FeebMaster]

27. Shotgunners.

They think if they toss AWs out of the life-raft the gun grabbers won't come after their street sweepers.

[OpSomBlood]

29. They obviously don't realize...

...that semi-auto "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of gun crimes.

[Union Thug]

30. This sort of ties into my original question

My family, all proud unionists were gun owners, fond of hunting, plinking, and collecting.

I realize I don't have stats or facts to back up what I'm about to say, but maybe someone has some thoughts on it(?)

I wonder if we aren't talking about a fundamental division of Class in liberal politics? My family, all working class, blue collar guys, as well their friends, also blue collar liberals, enjoyed guns on some level or another... But I wonder if the anti-gun liberals are more inclined to be of the stereotypical academic/elite/(insert your favorite adjective here)type of person that that repubs are so often trying to meme...

Any thoughts?

[OpSomBlood]

31. What bothers me about the most vocal anti-gun liberals...

...is that, by and large, they are very wealthy and have personal armed bodyguards. It seems like a pretty obvious double standard.

[billbuckhead]

33. Say what?

:eyes: Women and minorities are the biggest proponents of gun control and white guys have most of the power. Your assertion makes no sense.

[OpSomBlood]

34. You're the only one injecting race and gender into this discussion.

The right to own guns is not exclusively granted to white men. Therefore, your arguments have no basis in reality.

But please feel free to continue to play the race card. At least it amuses me.

[billbuckhead]

42. I'm injecting race and gender into this argument to answer the question,

Liberals and guns? The liberal base is made up of women and minorities. Blacks vote 80% plus for Democratic presidential candidates. Women vote over 55% for Dems. Hispanics are in the 60% range for Dems. WHY WOULD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELL THESE LOYAL VOTERS DOWN THE RIVER FOR THE DUBIOUS SUPPORT OF SINGLE ISSUE WHITE GUYS?

Here in Georgia, we had probably the most progun Democratic governor in America. His whoring for the NRA didn't help him in the end. The white guy knuckledraggers beat him over the Confederate flag. In fact Howie Dean's last Confederate flag flap about him wanting to be the candidate of the guy with the Confederate flag bumpersticker on his pickup truck, stated with a discussion about guns. Look it up for yourself. Guns and race have went hand in hand as long as there's been an America.

[Columbia]

48. Right...

And you think by dropping the hard line on gun control all these coveted minorities which you seemingly care so much about (which I don't think you really do) will opt to vote for Republicans instead? Get real, buckhead.

Why do you care so much about an issue that has never been proven to reduce crime or violence anyway?

Like another poster said before, the day Democrats drop gun control from the plank is the day Democrats will dominate the Senate, House, and White House (and thus Supreme Court) for the next 100 years.

[OpSomBlood]

62. Gun control is a more divisive issue than abortion even.

I agree, and I think that the Democratic party is riding a wave of Bush hatred right now. They are the only viable option to Bush, so people are rallying behind them for the time being. To think that this is going to last beyond the 2004 election is foolish.

But where were these tough-talking Democrats three years ago when the Patriot Act got ramrodded through? Where were they when they voted in favor of the Iraq War?

Ronald Reagan's legacy on gun control (in spite of the fact that he banned new manufacture of machine guns) will be that he cozied up to gun owners and the NRA. He painted Democrats as, "the ones who want to take your guns away" and people like Feinstein and Schumer took the bait.

The party has suffered nationally ever since. I still contend that the passage of the AWB was what lost Dems congress in 1994. Swing voters don't want guns banned.

[T Town Jake]

44. See...

...I was just asking one of my guns the other day, I said: "Mr. Kimber, are you a racist, sexist GOPer like some say?" Being made almost entirely of metal alloys, Mr. Kimber didn't reply. I took his failure to reply as a de facto "yes." But gun grabbers everywhere can rest at ease: I plan on keeping a close eye on him, and even intend to carry him around with me just about everywhere I go, just in case he, er, it, decides to sprout legs and run off on his-er, its own to some Klan meeting, or grow arms and log into Freeperville while I'm not paying attention and post nasty things about his, ummm, IT'S Democratic owner...
/Sarcasm


On edit: "not looking"

[iverglas]

86. how odd

Not just that you would speak to your firearms (and far be it from me to attempt diagnosis by internet), but that you would think that your report of the conversation had anything to do with the conversation going on here ...

Has someone charged firearms with being racists? Please do point to the person and post in question, and I'll maybe send a PM suggesting that professional help might be advisable.

[T Town Jake]

111. Ummmm, see...

...Posts # 17, 19, 33, 37, 42 & 73, then get back to me. Thanks.

[Columbia]

35. There you go again

If you're such a big advocate for women and minorities, why do want us disarmed and thus easily controlled and oppressed? That just does not make sense. :shrug:

[OpSomBlood]

61. Bingo.

If women and minorities are so oppressed, then why would you argue to remove the means for them to defend themselves?

And as for the "women want guns banned" garbage...try selling that to a CCW class full of rape victims some time.

[TexasMexican]

60. You dont speak for me.

I'm against gun control, so is my girlfriend and she half Mexican.

[billbuckhead]

39. Name some of these evilDUing liberals

Poor Rosie O'Donnell was harassed into getting bodyguards for her kids because of the death threats by gunwackos. Is that who you're whining about?

[OpSomBlood]

46. I wonder if Rosie's bodyguards carry guns.

You're right, only the rich and famous should be allowed to defend themselves with force.

[Bowline]

79. Diane Feinstein.

She is one of the strongest anti-gun advocates in the Senate yet she carries a gun for self defense. Are you any less worthy of protection than Senator Feinstein?

[Union Thug]

56. Enough about women and minorities...

...I'm still waiting for more input on my idea that this debate puts the spotlight on a fundamental split between "proletarian" liberals, ie. the working class (who tend to be gun owners or at least have no large issue with responsible ownership), and those liberals that fit the meme that the Repukes have been trying to sell to the American public for the last 25 years - that of the elite/academic too far removed from reality to ever be able to identify with Joe Sixpack.

[Paladin]

63. Of All The Bullshit Slung Around By RKBA Radicals...........

....this often-repeated notion that gun control supporters are emotional basket cases, while RKBA advocates are steady adherents to cold, clear logic, is perhaps the most ludicrous. An hour's worth of hanging out here in the Gun Dungeon is all it takes to blow that claim to smithereens. Like rabid anti-abortion advocates, you guys are totally driven by raw emotions.....

[OpSomBlood]

64. Please reference a few posts.

You make it seem as if it goes without saying that the RKBA folks here are nuts. Please cite a few examples of this supposed behavior.

We aren't the ones calling the people on the other side indecent shitheels.

[Paladin]

65. Boy, That's A Tough One

How about any thread dealing with assault weapons?

[OpSomBlood]

66. Go right ahead. We'll just counter with the fact that...

...most of the anti-gunners here don't have the first clue as to what an "assault weapon" is, nor are they aware that they are used in less than 3% of gun crimes.

They just hate them because they sound scary.

[Paladin]

67. And You Guys Love Them......

....because they LOOK scary. Spare me the santimony, OK? I have yet to see a justification in this forum for owning an "assault weapon" that rises above the level of a hormone-addled 13-year old. That level of non-thinking is alright if you're dealing with video games; with guns it's a whole different matter.....

[OpSomBlood]

70. Why do we have to provide justification?

Do you ask similar questions of "need" to people who buy 500 horsepower sports cars? I missed the memo stating where people have to provide justification for why they own things.

But just to indulge you, I own an "assault weapon" because it is lightweight, easy to shoot, is a good caliber for hog hunting and ammunition for it is plentiful and cheap. I enjoy shooting recreationally and I store and handle my weapons safely and responsibly.

If my hobbies don't harm you or society at large, then they are none of your business. You can't legislate everyone based on worst-case scenarios.

[slackmaster]

72. You want some good reasons for owning assault weapons?

I usually take an AR-15 when I go target shooting. Here are some of the characteristics of that rifle I find beneficial:

- Light weight and easy to handle especially for beginners, women, and children;

- Recoil is mild, again a benefit to beginners, women, and children;

- Safe and reliable operation;

- Ammunition plentiful and inexpensive;

- Sufficiently accurate to provide a positive shooting experience without expensive modifications;

- Modifications to make it highly accurate are available at modest cost, and easy to install (I have several different upper receiver assemblies for different situations);

- Powerful enough for some hunting should I ever decide to use it for that purpose.

- Semiautomatic operation helps me cope with my visual disability. I'm right-handed but left-eyed, so right-handed bolt action rifles are awkward to use.

- It's also a lot of fun to shoot. Imagine that - FUN!

- Makes a good conversation piece, particularly with older veterans who served in the military before the adoption of the M16 rifle. They often call the newer, smaller rifle a "mouse gun".

It's not MY fault that an AR-15 happens to be an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the state of California. None of my firearms were AWs when I bought them. That stigma was imposed by forces out of my control. It has caused me inconvenience and expense without any offsetting benefit in public safety.

BTW - None of my firearms is an "assault weapon" under federal law. Expiration of the federal AWB in September will give me more a few more options for configuring them without causing any increased danger to society at large. I see no difference at all between pre-ban and post-ban firearms in terms of public safety. That's why my hyper-rational self sees no justification for renewing the irrational, emotionally justified ban.

[slackmaster]

71. Gee Paladin, that's not what I said at all

I said billbuckhead's comments were based on emotion.

I didn't say anything about gun control supporters in general.

I didn't say anyone was a basket case in any way.

I said I have trouble handling emotion-based discussions because of my personal characteristics.

BTW - Did you read the last couple of sentences in my post, Paladin? I'm not asking for people to change their views. I'm only asking not to be ostracized for mine. I don't reject billbuckhead because he has some ideas that I disagree with. I accept him as a Democrat, and I'm asking for the same consideration from him.

[Union Thug]

75. and you seem to be fond of sweeping generalizations...

All I've done is ask a couple of questions and provided my perspective. I guess I forgot to put on my pointy ears and finish my statements with "live long and prosper."

[T Town Jake]

36. "Many people think gun ownership is morally wrong"

Great!...and I say to them the same thing I say to the anti-choice people regarding abortion: don't have one. No one is "forcing" anyone to own a firearm. "Many people" think a lot of different things are "morally wrong"-do you want a list? But in a free country the very definition of "tolerance" is leaving your neighbor to his/her business and they leave you to yours. That's what the vast majority of DEMOCRATS in this country believe in, including this one.

[OpSomBlood]

32. Carville: "I think it's a loser political issue."

"I think <gun control is> a loser political issue. I think the issue has not been good for us. On top of that, I like guns." - James Carville

"And courage means standing up for gun safety, not retreating from the issue out of political fear or trying to have it both ways. I’m a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47." - John Kerry

Here's one prominent Democrat with a realistic grasp of the serious political ramifications of gun control, followed by another who thinks that the Second Amendment is about what you're allowed to hunt with.

[billbuckhead]

37. What's Carville done for us lately---Minorities and women want gun control

in actual voting and polls. I'm not speaking for them, I'm just relaying the results. The only group that votes in relatively large numbers for unregulated guns are white nonurban guys.

[Columbia]

38. If you care so much about me

Then, please leave me alone.

You don't like guns? Fine, don't buy one.

Just don't touch mine.

[billbuckhead]

41. I'm not touching your "gun" John Kerry's just going to make sure you can't

buy an "assault" rifle. Show me some polls or election results that say women and minorities want unregulated weapons laws. You can't. Your just BSing

[Columbia]

45. I don't care about polls, why do you?

The polls also say most people want gay marriage outlawed. Is that another right you also want legislated away by popular fiat?

In a constitutional republic with democratic principles, rights are not meant to be polled or voted away by the whims of the masses. They are to be protected, no matter how seemingly unpopular.

As for "assault" weapons (thanks for putting quotes around that by the way), why do you or John Kerry care so much about bayonet lugs and pistol grips anyway? Anti-gun advocates have conceded that the AWB will not affect crime one way or another and that it is just a stepping stone to further legislation (and perhaps confiscation?). But that's just what they say, why do YOU support it?

[T Town Jake]

40. "What's Carville done for us lately"...

...gawd but you're juvenile. Well, for starters he rips Republicans a new one on a regular basis on national television. And he has the capacity to employ common sense as regards the gun issue...unlike some folks I know...
And I'd sure like to see the link to the poll/article that says ALL minorities and ALL women want gun control.

[billbuckhead]

43. He's married to a Republican to the right of John McCain

When he runs for something or gets an underdog elected in a Southern state, maybe I'll pay more attention to him and Begala.

[T Town Jake]

47. "He's married to a Republican to the right of John McCain"

...and? Gee...is this more of that "you can't be a Democrat if.." bilge you've been spewing all over the place? First "if you own guns," now "if you're married to a Republican"? What's next on the great "if" list? If you own a Chevy instead of a Volvo? If you enjoy T-bone steaks but not sushi? You know, I sense that by the time you've finished purging everyone who simply CAN'T be a Democrat from the party the national convention could be held at a rented American Legion hall somewhere, with room to spare. But keep up the good work...Karl Rove loves it.

[OpSomBlood]

49. All James Carville did was get Bill Clinton into the White House.

But yeah...he's married to a Republican, so let's kick him out of the party.

[billbuckhead]

51. I never said to kick him out of the party. I said what has he done for us

lately. He was on the losing side of the Barak-Sharon election, All I see him doing now is giving the CorporateNewsNetwork a fig leaf of credibilty and balance.

[OpSomBlood]

52. You wonder why people think liberals want a handout...

And people like you are saying "what has he done for us lately?"

It's almost as bad as you telling us to shut up about guns and "fall in line" behind Kerry. Nobody tells me to "fall in line" about anything, and I'll just as quickly vote Kerry out in 2008 if I don't find his policies in office acceptable.

He's my only option against Bush in 2004. So I will vote for him.

[T Town Jake]

53. "He was on the losing side of the Barak-Sharon election"

...LOL! Priceless...just too, too rich for my ticklish ribcage. The "Barak-Sharon election"? That was in Israel, not the United States, and was between the Labor and Likud parties, not the Democrats and Republicans. What, pray tell, does THAT have to do with his standing as a Democrat?

[OpSomBlood]

54. Almost as much as assault weapons have to do with crime.

n/t

[billbuckhead]

50. I'm basically single issue. A persons position on guns tells me all I need

to know about them. Especially after Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman double crossed the Democratic party. Think about it. The choice of purchasing a tool that is only good for killing other humans is one of the most moral choices a person can make.

[Columbia]

55. Funny, many pro-gunners think the same way

Why should you trust a politician who doesn't trust you? Think about that, why don't you?

Also, it is very telling that you would fixate on killing as the only purpose of a certain tool. A psychiatrist may even call that projection.

Disclaimer: Columbia is not a licensed psychiatrist nor does he play one on TV. Any and all references to psychiatry are considered for entertainment purposes only. For diagnosis and treatment of hoplophobia or other disorders, please see a licensed practitioner in your area.

[MrSandman]

58. But has he stayed in Holiday Inn Express?

"Disclaimer: Columbia is not a licensed psychiatrist nor does he play one on TV. Any and all references to psychiatry are considered for entertainment purposes only. For diagnosis and treatment of hoplophobia or other disorders, please see a licensed practitioner in your area."

[Bowline]

78. You appear to be a "the glass is half empty" kind of person.

Instead of thinking of a gun as "a tool that is only good for killing other humans" I choose to think of it as a tool that will keep someone from killing or harming me or my family.

[MrSandman]

57. Like in the states of...

Arkansas, Tennesee, and West Virginia?

[Bowline]

69. Women and minorities are overwhelmingly the victims of gun crime.

White males are more likely to be legally armed than are women and people of color. White males are also less likely to be the victims of armed criminals than are women and people of color. Hmmmmm, I see a correlation here.

[billbuckhead]

73. I guess you think women & minorities are too stupid to make this decision

More white male arrogance.

[TexasMexican]

74. Then why are you trying to make the decision for me then...

I own a firearm, and I'm Hispanic (a minority for now), why do you want us disarmed?

[Bowline]

77. Because if you are disarmed you are easier to control.

We can't have armed, informed citizens in this country. Pretty soon they'll start demanding to be allowed to exercise their rights and decide things for themselves. We can't allow that now, can we?

I don't know about your state but some members of our "elected" government are making a strong effort to see that you are disarmed.

[iverglas]

80. ah, that must be it

TexasMexican says to billbuckhead:

Then why are you trying to make the decision for me then...
I own a firearm, and I'm Hispanic (a minority for now), why do you want us disarmed?

and Bowline answers:

Because if you are disarmed you are easier to control.

There you are! That's billbuckhead's answer, all neatly typed and sparing him the trouble of having to do it for himself.

D'ya think?

We can't have armed, informed citizens in this country. Pretty soon they'll start demanding to be allowed to exercise their rights and decide things for themselves. We can't allow that now, can we?

Hmm. Maybe our new friend will let us know when it actually starts happening ...

Or hell. Maybe it already is. Maybe USAmericans really do have rather a nice inventory of rights that they exercise all the time, and make decisions for themselves whenever they like, completely irrespective of whether they're toting firearms around or not. Kinda like the people in a whole lot of other countries, most of whom don't seem to think they need firearms stashed about their homes and persons in order to exercise their rights and make their own decisions.

[Bowline]

82. Only one question for you.

Why do you think that the people who wrote the Constitution bothered to add a Second Amendment, or for that matter a First, a Third, a Fourth, a Fifth, etc.?

[iverglas]

85. and only one back at ya

Why do you think that the people who wrote the Constitution bothered to add a Second Amendment, or for that matter a First, a Third, a Fourth, a Fifth, etc.?

What colour is orange: true or false?

You tell me what your question has to do with what I said, and I'll tell you what mine has to do with what you said.

I think it's pretty clear why your founders & framers wrote your second amendment, since they stated their reason right in it, by the way.

I still don't know what their reasons for writing things might have to do with your putting words in billbuckhead's mouth that he never did or would have spoken, or, to put it more accurately, with your claim that people with firearms might try to exercise their rights and make their own decisions, when we know perfectly well that tens and hundreds of millions of people who have no firearms exercise their rights and make their own decisions all the time, and feel no need whatsoever to have firearms in order to continue doing so ... and that people who advocate firearms control are engaged or complicit in an attempt to prevent other people from doing those things.

[OpSomBlood]

88. Does "the people" mean the same thing in 2A as it does in the rest of BOR?

Because "the people" is used as a reference to collective individuals, not government entities in Amendment I and III-X.

[iverglas]

89. does "bitch" mean the same thing

... in

Damn, that math exam was a bitch!

as it means in

It will cost you extra to licence an unspayed bitch.

?

People who are prepared to equivocate shamelessly might just say it does. Of course, they'd also have to be prepared to look like not just shameless equivocators, but idiots.

And again: never mind the straw folks, eh?

Because "the people" is used as a reference to collective individuals, not government entities

*I* have never said that "the people" referred to any "government entity", so whatcha pointing that thing at me for?

And damn me if I have any idea what a "collective individual" might be, but there ya go.

The right to life, liberty etc. belongs to individuals qua individuals -- single individuals, not "collective individuals".

On the other hand, of course, the right of self-government, for instance (and that would be what the right to a "free state" is, y'see), belongs to peoples qua peoples -- groups of individuals, not "collective individuals", again.

And of course the day when I limit my thoughts about it all to what a bunch of old dead white guys said about any of it well over 2 centuries ago will be a cold one somewhere hot.

[OpSomBlood]

96. So your argument is that "the people" has a different meaning in 2A?

And as for "collective individuals"...I don't know why that is a difficult concept to grasp. "The people" refers to all individuals in the United States as a whole.

As for your bitch vs. bitch argument. In your example, you used the word in different contexts. In the Bill of Rights, the context of "the people" is constant throughout the same document.

[iverglas]

99. d'ya think?

So your argument is that "the people" has a different meaning in 2A?

Actually, I don't see a real need for a distinction. It's the real right in issue that is collective -- the right to self-determination and self-government, the right to "the security of a free state". The individual right, if such there be, is a right of the individual to do something for the purpose of the collective exercising its right.

Really, how many times do we have to go over this?

You have a right to vote, in order for the various collectives to which you belong to exercise their collective right, collectively, to collective self-determination and collective self-government.

The fact that you have an individual right to vote just does not mean that you can wander into city hall, or the state legislative buildings, or some building in Washington, on any day of your choosing, and demand a ballot and demand that someone count it and demand that the government then be constituted accordingly. The collective gets to decide how and when that individual right will be exercised, for the purpose for which it was intended.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982) says:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The US Bill of Rights (second amendment to the US Constitution) says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We tend to write more clearly and comprehensibly and logically and grammatically these days, but I can still see the similarities here. Remove the underlined bits from both provisions, and you'd have something very different. One might therefore tend to think that the underlined bits are actually there for a reason, and must be considered when interpreting each provision as a whole.

And that's an analogy. Deal with it.

[OpSomBlood]

102. If "the people" was referring to the militia...

...then why did they use the words "the people" in the same document where "the people" refers to individual rights elsewhere?

The distinction between the militia and the people is clearly made in the document.

[iverglas]

104. to whom in dawg's name are you speaking?

If "the people" was referring to the militia...
...then why did they use the words "the people" in the same document where "the people" refers to individual rights elsewhere?

Would you maybe like to quote for me whatever it is I said that you think had something to do with the topic that this statement is about, and explain the connection you see? Where on earth did you get the idea that I had said that "'the people' was referring to the militia"??

I actually did say a few things, not including whatever it is you'd evidently like me to have said but I didn't. Do feel free to address them whenever you have a moment.

[OpSomBlood]

106. Sure thing.

Yeah, I take occasional requests.

I think it's pretty clear why your founders & framers wrote your second amendment, since they stated their reason right in it, by the way.

To which I explained the clear distinction between "militia" and "the people." Apparently you don't understand the Second Amendment, or else you would realize that it deals directly with private ownership of weapons.

The use of the terminology "the people" is constant throughout the Bill of Rights, there are no contextual meaning changes from one amendment to another. You are the one who brought up the following irrelevant example in an attempt to demonstrate that the context of "the people" in the Second Amendment is somehow different than all of the other amendments in te Bill of Rights:

does "bitch" mean the same thing

... in

Damn, that math exam was a bitch!
as it means in

It will cost you extra to licence an unspayed bitch.

According to you, the context of "the people" in the First Amendment is not the same context of "the people" in the Second. You are the one who brought up "bitch vs. bitch" as some kind of supporting analogy.

[iverglas]

107. don't you just wish

... that I really were who you wish I were, and that I really said the things you wish I'd said?

Yes, I admit it, I underlined the "a well regulated militia" bit of your second amendment, but only because it is part and parcel with the bit I was actually talking about: being necessary to the security of a free state -- about which I said:

It's the real right in issue that is collective -- the right to self-determination and self-government, the right to "the security of a free state".

The people COLLECTIVELY have a COLLECTIVE right to a secure free state. If you don't understand this concept, please just say so.

Now, à propos of I don't know what, you say:

To which I explained the clear distinction between "militia" and "the people."

(The "which" to which you refer was this statement of mine, which you even quoted:

I think it's pretty clear why your founders & framers wrote your second amendment, since they stated their reason right in it, by the way.

and I'm damned if I can figure out how anyone would explain the distinction between militia and people "to" that statement of mine. Around it, under it, through it or beside it, maybe, but not to it.)

And yet what you actually did say, quite clearly, was:

The distinction between the militia and the people is clearly made in the document.

That's what we'd normally call an assertion, not any kind of an explanation, let alone a clear one.

But that's all by the bye. Nothing that I said hinges on the meaning of "militia", or any distinction between "militia" and "people".

It hinges on the fact that the right to a secure free state IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, and thus that it is up to the people COLLECTIVELY to decide COLLECTIVELY how it will be exercised.


The use of the terminology "the people" is constant throughout the Bill of Rights, there are no contextual meaning changes from one amendment to another. You are the one who brought up the following irrelevant example in an attempt to demonstrate that the context of "the people" in the Second Amendment is somehow different than all of the other amendments in te Bill of Rights: ...

Actually, sweetie: no.

YOU are the one who insinuated that I was making such a distinction by asking a question there was no apparent evidentiary foundation for:

So your argument is that "the people" has a different meaning in 2A?

*I* am the one who had said:

I think it's pretty clear why your founders & framers wrote your second amendment, since they stated their reason right in it, by the way.

-- no more and no less.

Remember what I said after instructing you in how to detect equivocation?

People who are prepared to equivocate shamelessly might just say it does. Of course, they'd also have to be prepared to look like not just shameless equivocators, but idiots. And again: never mind the straw folks, eh?

The straw fella in question was your attempt to rebut an argument I had not made.

I find this tail-chasing fascinating, don't you?

According to you, the context of "the people" in the First Amendment is not the same context of "the people" in the Second. You are the one who brought up "bitch vs. bitch" as some kind of supporting analogy.

No indeed. I am the one who used the analogy in question to demonstrate the fallacy in which you were engaged -- even though it was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to anything I had said.

So you can take your "according to you" and do whatever you might have a penchant for doing with false allegations about other people.

Whenever I'm asked for an opinion about your second amendment, I pretty much say that my opinion is that it's a dog's breakfast and that I have no more need to have any further opinion about it than I have to have an opinion about, oh, what the parable of the talents might really mean. Essentially, I don't give a shit. But apart from that, even if I did, I wouldn't be much interested in trying to read the minds of old dead white guys whose education seems to have been lacking in the skills needed to come up with a clear thought and express it in clear words, and whose sophistication when it comes to complex ideas about rights was about equivalent to a grade 8 student's nowadays.

Nonetheless, it is entirely apparent to me that the rationale for your second amendment was your founders' & framers' desire that the US continue to be free from foreign domination, and that it be secure in that freedom: "the security of a free state". And that they believed that the best way to ensure that this happened was to guarantee that the people on whose shoulders the responsibility for maintaining that state of affairs rested had the means to carry it out. That is, that the people who would be defending the state against any attempt to violate its security or sovereignty were adequately armed for the purpose, assuming always that they wanted to be adequately armed for the purpose, or that there was some other arrangement in place (like whatever rules governed militias) to ensure that they were so armed whether they wanted to be or not.

The primary RIGHT protected by your second amendment is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT, the right of a people -- the people of the US -- to self-determination. The means by which that right was to be protected was to confer an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT on the people of access to the means for protecting the collective right in question.

Did you understand the vote/election analogy, or would you like me to take another shot at it?

There are all sorts of such analogous rights known to the modern world outside the US, it's just that I didn't expect that you would grasp them, or not go off on some tangent of irrelevant opposition to them.

The collective right of a people to preserve, practise and perpetuate its language and culture depends on the people in question having an individual right to speak the language of their choice, for instance, without discrimination. For example.

An individual has no more right to take up arms to "defend" the security of the free state in which s/he lives without a collective decision that this should be done than you have to vote without a collective decision to hold an election.

And I am unable to see any individual right in your second amendment other than the right of access to the means that individuals need in order to carry out the collective purpose of maintaining security and sovereignty. Not in order to shoot deer or armed robbers or skeet, which are covered by entirely different rights and subject to entirely different kinds of limitations.

[OpSomBlood]

108. 1,161 words.

All because you don't understand what the words "the right of the people" means.

I feel bad for your keyboard.

[iverglas]

109. my keyboard doesn't bathe often enough

Actually, this is a brand new one, acquired last Friday, about which I was sorely misled, and I'm not happy. It's a "slow" keyboard, and causes my quick fingers to make too many mistakes when it doesn't respond. So I'll be going back to the old grubby one next time I reboot, until I get around to shopping for a proper one.


1,161 words.
All because you don't understand what the words "the right of the people" means.

Yeah, I know how you must feel. I'm not wasting my time counting, but I'd guess about 30 words, used to make yet another assertion that can be interpreted as nothing more than a false assertion that I was saying something I was not saying, about something I was not talking about. I mean, unless it was an expression of complete incomprehension of what I actually was saying and what I was saying it about.

Gosh, one could even think that you hadn't read what I did say.

'Specially because yours was posted 6 minutes after mine, and I might just not be persuaded of your ability to read 1,161 words in that time, let alone peck out a couple of dozen words in response ...

[OpSomBlood]

110. Don't worry, nobody else is going to read it either.

Sorry. I wish I could give you that hour of your life back.

[billbuckhead]

101. It's called democracy

[TexasMexican]

112. thats mighty white of you...

using democracy as a tool to remove the rights of those you oppose.

This country has a long tradition of that.

[Bowline]

76. Stupid? Certainly not. Misinformed? Perhaps.

It seems that the media, as well as certain organizations, have sold women and people of color on the idea that they are safer if unarmed and should rely on undermanned, overworked police forces to come to their rescue when they are confronted by the predatorial scum that all to frequently inhabit our cities.

[iverglas]

81. ah, the false dichotomy rears its ugly straw head

It seems that the media, as well as certain organizations, have sold women and people of color on the idea that they are safer if unarmed and should rely on undermanned, overworked police forces to come to their rescue when they are confronted by the predatorial scum that all to frequently inhabit our cities.

And gosh, here's me a woman, thinking that if somebody thought that about me / said that to me, he really would have to believe I'm stupid. No other imaginable explanation. I'm so stupid I am persuaded of ridiculous things by the media and "certain organization", and so stupid that I can't figure out that he is totally misrepresenting what I and people like me actually do think. And yet he says he doesn't think I'm stupid ... cognitive dissonance alert!

[Bowline]

83. Fair enough, I'll ask you...

Do you think, given the realities of today's society, that women are safer and less likely to be victims of violent crime if they are prohibited from carrying guns?

[iverglas]

84. aha -- it's the loaded question!

Quite the repertoire ya got there.

Do you think, given the realities of today's society, that women are safer and less likely to be victims of violent crime if they are prohibited from carrying guns?

To be fair, I guess I'd have to say that this is really just another false dichotomy, though. No, no -- it's another straw fella.

Do I think that women are safer and less likely to be victims of violent crime if they are prohibited from carrying firearms?

Hmm. I wonder ... is someone proposing that women be prohibited from carrying firearms and that no other measures be taken to enhance women's security?

Not I.

And ... is someone suggesting that the women should be prohibited from carrying firearms in order to make women safer and less likely to be victims of violent crime?

Not I.

Maybe you should find someone who is suggesting or proposing such things and ask him/her the question.

Women would undoubtedly be less likely to be victims of burglaries if they installed crocodile moats around their homes and landmines on the front lawn. I don't think that it is wise for society to permit such measures, and in fact I think they should be prohibited. I guess I'm saying that prohibiting women from installing landmines on their front lines will make women less likely to be victims of burglary, eh?

[OpSomBlood]

87. Straw men and land mines in the very same post?

Were you merely using your "crocodile moats and land mines" as an example of a "straw man argument"?

[iverglas]

90. git yr thinkin' cap, and find a book

Were you merely using your "crocodile moats and land mines" as an example of a "straw man argument"?

You seem to need to learn the difference between a straw person argument and an analogy. It really isn't that difficult, but if you need help, just buzz.

Oh heck, here's a clue.

Did I suggest that anyone else had said anything at all about crocodiles and landmines? Did I pretend that I had demolished anyone's argument about crocodiles and landmines?


I made the point that if individual "safety" were THE ONLY CONSIDERATION in deciding what individuals would/should be permitted to do, then I expect to see anyone advocating permitting individuals to tote firearms around on that basis to be also advocating that individuals be permitted to mine their front lawns.

The question being put to me was essentially loaded with the premises that individual safety IS the only consideration, and that individuals toting firearms around IS the only way to ensure individuals' safety.

Both are false premises.

And no one has ever said that the purpose of prohibiting individuals from toting firearms around is to make the individuals in question safer, so a question asking whether such a prohibition would have that effect is just dumb and pointless, whatever fallacies it might be stuffed with.

Getting it? Ready to acknowledge getting it?

[OpSomBlood]

91. I'm not going to argue concealed firearms vs. land mines with you.

Good day.

[iverglas]

92. aww

I'm not going to argue concealed firearms vs. land mines with you.

Imagine my disappointment.

Well, I am. Disappointed. Will nobody tell me how s/he can justify prohibiting people from mining their front lawns to ward off the bogeymen waiting to slit their throats in their sleep and steal their cereal?

Wherefore that unrestricted access to the most effective tools for defending one's life? Wherefore our concern for the ability of individuals, however few, to avoid the awful fate that awaits them just around the corner, or while lying snug in their beds?

Surely there can't be some consideration at work here other than the individual's right to do whatever s/he thinks wise to do, or has a whim to do, to avoid that fate.

[OpSomBlood]

93. Because mines are lethal autonomous boobytraps.

Land mines are designed to be lethal boobytraps that detonate when anything triggers it's mechanism. This includes neighborhood cats, the mailman, or any unfortunate child who wanders into your yard.

A firearm, on the other hand, is a weapon that requires the shooter to knowingly aim and fire. It is not a weapon that is designed to operate autonomously...it requires direct user input.

[iverglas]

94. distinctions w/o a difference

Land mines are designed to be lethal boobytraps that detonate when anything triggers it's mechanism.
This includes neighborhood cats, the mailman, or any unfortunate child who wanders into your yard.

Not if the lawn is surrounded by a chain link fence topped by barbed wire and covered in warning signs in several languages, and maybe a motion-activated audio warning.

Do I have to spell everything out??

I was constructing an analogy. I don't know why you think I would have constructed one as faulty as the one you're talking about.


A firearm, on the other hand, is a weapon that requires the shooter to knowingly aim and fire. It is not a weapon that is designed to operate autonomously...it requires direct user input.

Those landmines would operate *only* against evil doers who had cut their way through a fence and ignored all warning signs.

Whether the operator of the object "operates" it by picking it up, aiming it and firing it, or by planting it, fencing it in and putting up warning signs about it, is really kinda irrelevant. A red fish, in fact.

In neither case is there any guarantee that the object, when it operates as it was intended and is used to operate, is not going to harm anyone whom it was not intended to harm, or whom the rest of society thinks shouldn't have been so harmed.

Try again.

[OpSomBlood]

95. Your ridiculous hypothetical caveats amuse me.

I rest well at night knowing that the anti-gun forces have arguments like "land mines for self-defense" and "why not make hydrogen bombs legal too?" on their side.

[iverglas]

97. ah, the sleep of the easily amused

Your ridiculous hypothetical caveats amuse me.
I rest well at night knowing that the anti-gun forces have arguments like "land mines for self-defense" and "why not make hydrogen bombs legal too?" on their side.

Again, you seem quite unable to distinguish this from that.

I wasn't making an argument for "land mines for self-defence". Did you think I was??

If you want to construct an analogy involving hydrogen bombs, go right ahead. The one you're referred to here is, of course, pure straw.

Me, I'd sleep better if I were confident that I had made a good argument and defended it well than if all I had done were to misrepresent someone else's. But that's just me.

[OpSomBlood]

98. See #93 for a well-defended argument.

You must have skipped it.

[iverglas]

100. ah, I see

"Argument" consists of saying something and then being done forever.

No need ever to notice, or respond to, anything that anyone else has said that rebuts one's argument, right?

I'll remember that, I'm sure. If I'm ever feeling lazy or disingenuous or dim.

[OpSomBlood]

103. Comparing a pistol to a land mine doesn't warrant a rebuttal.

But I gave you one anyway. A well-reasoned and logical one. And you still refuse to acknowledge it.

So by all means, continue to irrationally pout and present outlandish hypothetical scenarios. It makes the anti-gun cause look stellar.

[iverglas]

105. all cats are grey ...

Comparing a pistol to a land mine doesn't warrant a rebuttal.
But I gave you one anyway. A well-reasoned and logical one. And you still refuse to acknowledge it.

The blatant assertions pour forth. You sez it was a well-reasoned and logical rebuttal, ergo it was. What happens if you say "the moon is made of green cheese"??


Firearms are frequently used, to cause harm and to facilitate the commission of crimes, against victims who had done nothing at all to place themselves at risk or to bring misfortune on themselves -- but anybody who wants one, or a few hundred, oughta be able to have 'em, just in case somebody tries to do something bad to him/her.

Landmines on properly fenced and posted front lawns would virtually never harm anyone but someone who had knowingly assumed the risk of harm and done exactly what was necessary in order to suffer the misfortune in question -- but nobody (I assume you are saying) oughta be able to mine their front lawns, even though, otherwise, somebody may well sneak in and slit his/her throat in the middle of the night.

You're just a puzzlement, you are.


Oh, and - oh dear - I really don't think you're supposed to call people "irrational", do you? And how do you know I'm pouting when you can't see my lips? And what would possess you to characterize my hilarity at your failure/inability to engage in civil discourse as either? So many questions ...

[T Town Jake]

113. Hilarious, ain't it?...

...about like saying "because you insist on the right to own a yacht, that must mean you ALSO insist on the right to acquire a nuclear powered Navy aircraft carrier, complete with a full squadron of F-18's..." Absolutely hilarious...

[Bowline]

59. When did liberals become pigeonholed as anti-gun?

When the right became rabidly pro-gun the left, naturally, had to take the opposite position. If liberals would spend half as much time promoting tough legislation against gun CRIME and gun CRIMINALS as they do against guns we'd have a lot more voters on our side and we would take away a huge advantage the otherside currently holds.