You kids get off my fucking lawn.
See this:
Other people agree with me! That means I’m right.
If people didn’t agree with me and were lining up to congratulate the OP on having a well written post I would still be right.
It’s very telling that even on this extremely left leaning board the anti-gunners consistently lose soundly. The OP makes it clear that he doesn’t understand anything about the pro-gun majority in the US or what makes them tick.
This post deserves a slow clap. This post should only be read with an American flag in one hand and a bud light lime in the other while on your way to a monster truck show.
Bravo.
Bad OP but the poll he refers to is even worse. Even as a strong advocate of increased gun control, I had to take the ‘pro-gun’ position on each question (if I had bothered to fill it out). As if being anti-gun means not believing in the right of self-defense. I’m sure that’s the problem with Canada, the UK, Japan and all the other countries with sane gun policies.
The sweat from his balls must be lethal.
Don’t forget to add “with your cousin/wife while flying a large flag representing losers.”
Well, you would say that after being beaten up by a gun owner.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb - TL
Many on the anti-gun side seem to assume that when someone owns guns, that the purpose is for self-defense.
I own several guns, and the only conceivable way I could use one for self-defense would require the criminal to give me about 10 minutes notice that my home was going to be invaded, or to attempt to mug me while I’m out hunting in the woods.
Many on the pro-gun side argue that self-defense is the primary purpose of their gun ownership. The poll referenced in the OP asked only self-defense related questions. I think that many people are fine with guns as long as they are not being used to kill people. Right or wrong, when you’re talking about self-defense, you’re talking about using a gun to kill another person.
That ArrogantBstrd dude is going to be very unhappy with this comment. Really? Bud Light Lime?
Yeah, there’s nothing in the Second Amendment about guns being awesome, or useful for hunters. They’re clinging to the law with everything they’ve got and it’s worked out pretty good so far.
My comments comparing with left -vs- right were an attempt to depict rough board majority rather than my own views; and I did make the distinction multi-dimensional by breaking out at least three dimensions. Is there a specific claim I made that you think differs from a rough SDMB consensus? How do generalizations about Europe or a 1-D model have any relevance in your response?
The problem is, a remarkable number of voters are one or two issue voters. Yes, there are plenty of pro-gun people that are this way, but there are also plenty that feel this way about other controversial topics like abortion, gay marriage, etc. It really comes down to what people think is important. And like a lot of these other controversial issues, guns are more symbolic than anything. We idolize the wild west, and the guns carry on a lot of that ideology, like freedom and independence. Chances are, you’ll hear most people who self-describe as “gun enthusiasts” will drop those words a lot. Similarly, a lot of the gun control crowd see guns as a sign of chaos and death.
Personally, I’m loathe to make any judgments on isolated shootings, because I don’t have all the facts of the case. I will say that I think it’s unreasonable to make policy decisions, either for or against guns, based on these types of incidents. Guns are used thousands of times a day, some for good, some for bad, and we can’t let ourselves get bogged down in the emotion of a situation like this, and make laws to try to prevent this, but inadvertently create greater issue elsewhere. Yet, every time there’s a shooting that gets national attention, there’s a bunch of people on both sides of the debate railing on about how it supports their points, and usually without some key facts known.
And as for traveling overseas, I have not yet, but in general, I wouldn’t be afraid to as a general rule. There are certain parts of the world I wouldn’t go to. But I wouldn’t be afraid of going to most of the civilized world.
The reason I say it’s silly is because it becomes a circular argument, the fervor would be there regardless, as it is with anything like this. That is, I believe we should be striving to maximize rights, a right to property, a right to self-defense being two key ones paramount to gun rights. However, I think the idea that we have these rights because it’s written down implies that the government grants rights rather than recognizes them. If the only reason we can own guns is because the Second Amendment says so, then I can kind of sympathize with the fear of the government taking our rights away, because it comes from a frame of thought in which the government gave them to us in the first place.
Frankly, I see that whole idea as patently ridiculous and self-defeating as the argument that the second amendment doesn’t guarantee a personal right to own weapons. That is, the question shouldn’t be about nitpicking a document to try to get it to say what I want it to say or give me rights I want it to give me. We should be talking about what rights we have or should have and the most efficacious manner to bring them about.
Wrong. I have no objection to someone who owns guns as a hobbyist, whether for target practice, hunting or whatever. I’m sure you take responsibility for ordinary safety. Nor do I have a problem with people who actually need a handgun for defensive purposes.
I will assume that you, August West, regard your hobby as just that – a hobby – and do not regard it as a first-importance issue in national elections, etc. If you hate our current Preident, I’m sure you hate him for reasons other than that he’s a Gun Grabber. Whatever your stance may be on keeping guns out of the hands of felons, and irresponsible or insane people, I’m sure it doesn’t relate to your own hobby. I have no quarrel with you. If you need the weapon for self-defence, I still have no quarrel (unless you’re a depraved-heart wannabe like Zimmerman).
Thst’s if my assumptions in the preceding paragraph are correct. If instead you’re one of these assholes who knows nothing about any issue but guns, and donates heavily to NRA-sponsored politicians becuz “Obama Hussein is cummin fer my guns!” then it’s annoying that you have a voice and vote in the debate.
People like you are the reason I’d like to see the Second Amendment repealed.
You’re not helping your cause.
Shooting and shooting sports have been part of my life for a long time. I’ve been hunting since I was 10, shot on the Rifle Team in college, was an Expert Marksman with both the M16/M4 and 9mm when I was in the Navy, and continue to enjoy hunting and target shooting.
However, I’m not particularly concerned about “gun grabbers”, because gun control is one of the issues that both parties like to talk about during campaigns, but rarely do anything about.
Thanks for the help designing questions for the next Poll. I agree that my two questions in OP need to be reworded. :eek: And by the way: Well-designed Questions may include an Other option as shown below, with understanding, if any, reached by expounding on the Other ________.
Despite all the thug -vs- thug violence, accidents by children, 1000’s taken out by on-duty police, there is one incident that stands out in my mind.
Poll question #6 (or what are we up to?)
Last year (? - Google it yourself) an off-duty cop heard noises in dark garage so entered and fired. It turned out to be his daughter; fortunately IIRC her injury was only slight. (But the fact that she escaped with slight injury suggests that, had the intruder been armed with murderous intent as cop feared, the cop would likely have been shot after anyway. :smack: )
Select one of the following:
(A) It would have been a good clean kill if the daughter had died. Cop had legfitimate fear that an intruder intended him bodily harm. Caution has its place, but we need to extend our support to those who push the boundaries on justifiable homicides.
(B) It’s difficult to think of cop here as anything but some sort of coward, and an unclear-thinking one at that. It’s a shame there’s no easy way to prevent such types from using guns like this, but to prevent it preemptively would be too restrictive.
© Other. (please specify) _______________________
.
I don’t know that you can really use the term “gun nuts” in a productive discussion, especially without defining it.
In my mind, gun nuts are the people who have a fetishistic love of guns combined with a healthy paranoia. These are the folks who are convinced that some thug is going to come up out of nowhere and rob them/rape them if they’re not armed for bear at all times. It’s flawed risk assessment- that sort of random stuff isn’t worth worrying about in the real world- they ought to wear lightning rods on their heads and anti-meteor helmets, because being struck by lightning or hit by a meteor are about as likely. I don’t know if it’s just stupidity, or mental illness, low self esteem, the effects of internet echo-chambers or some sort of combination of all of the above though.
But to these people, that sort of thing is a real, clear and present danger, so they’re doing what they think is prudent, and view anyone who would curtail that as someone who poses a threat to their family, livelihood, community and themselves.
That same risk assessment flaw makes them believe that the government is threatening in the same way, and is teetering on the verge of becoming tyrannical. Anything to curtail or limit the free purchasing of guns or defensive hardware is seen as an opening salvo in the implementation of said tyranny, so they’re dead-set against it, even when it’s things like “Frothing crazies should be prevented from buying guns.” They’ll respond that the government is just itching to deem people as frothing crazies so they can prevent them from defending themselves and their communities from tyranny and violent crime.
It’s entirely irrational, and there’s no arguing with that. But a lot of the “gun nut” vitriol is thrown at what amount to gun hobbyists- guys who go shooting, or who collect guns or go hunting, or all 3, without any nut-bag anti-tyranny thoughts in their head at all.
You may think you used a 2-D model, but replace “libertarian” with “liberal” or “left wing” here:
On social issues, we’re libertarian: Women should have choice over their own bodies; gays should have the liberty to marry; blacks should have free access to public accomodations.
And you don’t have to change any other word. Besides, Libertarians are “perfectly OK”* with owners of public accommodations, such as restaurants or gas stations, discriminating against minorities, so you got that one wrong.
*meaning they may disprove of it personally, but do not wish to make it illegal.
At any rate, by US standards, this board leans heavily left. By Western European standards, probably about centrist to center right.
So tongue-in-cheek irony is comkpletely lost on you. Got it.