Crwiwy wrote:
Any chance of getting back to normality and basic civilness by putting the gun debate to bed?
You claim freedoms in the US - probably more than the UK - yet some are denying others the right of free speech.
In what could have been interesting debates on the pro's and cons of gun control laws you have missed a valuable opportunity to put your views in a sensible way.
Instead, you have dug in to entrenched positions on high ground, banging your soap box, and are shooting at anything that moves - including the moderators.
One of you told me 'If you're not for us then you are against' - which is not an attitude guaranteed to gain support and therefore in your mind puts anyone not 100% in agreement with your views as the enemy.
Others said 'you don't understand' and I fully concur with this statement - however, when civil questions were asked in order to try to understand your view, then they was greeted with unwarranted pages of vitriol, abuse and lots about the First amendment.
Questions trying to understand why an arsenal of heavy firepower is apparently needed were met the same way with just a very few - more reasonable people - giving a bit of explanation about some of the types of guns mentioned.
Nowhere in the debate did I see anything about scrapping the First amendment - nor a suggestion of taking away your rights to own firearms!
The debate even deteriorated into prejudices such as everyone hates us and more specifically 'the Brits hate the Americans' claim, even foreigners trying to tell them what to do - goodness only knows where these ideas came from but there was nothing in the posts to warrant it but you should be able to see why I used the word 'paranoia'.
I am still impartial and would like to understand this issue but I fear that it will not come from yourselves and if the pro-gun people are not prepared to sensibly put their side of the argument - then why should others go to the bother of trying to understand?
Because many people have given up on this subject you will no doubt think you have won the debate however you have simply added to the growing tide of opinion against you.
I don't doubt that normally you are good citizens who have a common enjoyment of photography. Mention guns however and it is a case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde where a totally different personality comes out.
The impression I have been left with is that some of you are acting like the worst characters in the films where you have an arsenal in the basement and whenever possible, load up the pickup and go out to blast anything that dares move. This impression has come from YOUR answers, not from preconceived ideas and I hadn't - until now - taken the films seriously. That is not encouraging and only adds to the arguments
against you.
So in future let us restrict subjects of 'guns' to the photographic type unless you are willing to enter into a sensible debate.
Any chance of getting back to normality and basic ... (
show quote)
What you don't seem to understand is that this is a black and white issue. There is no gray area. There can be no compromise. Anti-gunners are idiots with no logic who think that a police force who gets to a location in 15 to 45 minutes is enough to stop a criminal act that happened in less than 5 minutes. Gun owners know better and that's why they own guns.
Either we have the Constitutional right to own and bear ALL types and sizes of guns (fully automatic weapons are already banned anyway) or Liberals will definitely twist the Constitution's meaning and start removing the right to own some types of guns (Step 1), then later boost that leverage into removing the right to own some others (Step 2), then increase that to eliminate semi-auto ammunition clips down to only four or five rounds each and require registration of them (Step 3), then take the right to have more than 25 rounds of ammunition in your possession (Step 4), etc. until they finally take everything except bird caliber pea-shooter shotguns and put ALL the law-abiding American public in eminent danger of criminal and terrorist attack at a level never before seen in history. The 2nd Amendment is then completely gone but it was taken bite by bite instead of all at once. That's how Liberals work their rights attacks.
There is a female Congressman from New Hampshire who has the brass balls to present a law for consideration that would ban Conservatives from settling in her state (based on previous voting history apparently) and allow the state to expel Conservatives because they suppress the progress that the government could achieve if Conservatives weren't present. What the hell? Is that Democracy? Is that compromise? Is that Constitutional? Is that even patriotic or American? How big of a step would it be for her to then present and get a law passed by her all-Liberal state government to expel all gun owners from her state and confiscate ALL their possessions by government eminent domain? Does anybody see that as no longer being a Democracy?
We gun owners must fight to keep everything intact as it is today or this Socialist complete de-arming of our citizenry will be the result. If those in the middle don't believe that, so be it. It's fact. If those in the middle can see through the media wool thrown over their eyes and join us, then good for them.
Liberals know that the owners of 300 million guns in the U.S. would stand up in defiance against an all-out cancellation of the 2nd Amendment but they are sleepy and don't notice when a right is being chipped away a little at a time. The NRA and other staunch 2nd Amendment supporters know in advance what Liberals are up to and MUST stand firm against it starting or we end up as a bunch of sitting ducks waiting to be picked off by criminals just like you are.
As is repeated over and over but people like you don't grasp - if the government take guns, any or all, away from the law-abiding citizenry, law-abiding innocents are then at the mercy of law-breaking criminals who still have abundant illegal weaponry to use for criminal purposes.
If carrying a handgun legally makes me feel more powerful and more resistant to criminal activity, that's the point. I have a wife and two year old toddler and whenever we leave this house near dark, I always carry concealed. Depending on where we're going I carry concealed in the daytime too. When held at gun point during a robbery by a sociopathic PCP drug user who may just shoot us all after the robbery so we can't identify him, I desperately need something equally as lethal as his illegal gun to save my family. That is not a stick, band director's whistle, or pepper spray. If two or three invaders use an axe on my front door and comes in with shotguns or large caliber revolvers, I want the power to stop the intrusion.
If you have a wife and children, and truly love them more than yourself or a fairy tale pacifist ideology - like a husband and father should, you prepare to protect them from potential death or severe physical impairment with lethal power just like I do.
No government has the right to only allow me to use a single shot 28" barrel bird-caliber shotgun that has to be reloaded after each shot when there are 3 or 4 attackers confronting me - but that's what they want to achieve - either in one fell swoop which the public would not allow - or piece by piece which much of the public wouldn't notice.
It's clear with terms you use, such as gun owners being Rambo, that you are a pacifist Liberal, so quit hiding behind a "supposedly" undecided position. I do not change personality over guns but I have the right to become angered by those who would confiscate my guns and allow my family to be killed because I have no way of protecting us.