Angry Old White Men With Hard-Ons… nice band name.
Thread is tl;dr.
Bringing a gun to a protest against gun laws is exactly the sort of thing I’d do. Though when I obtain a firearm it’ll be with me almost all the time. I mean, that’s the point.
I see “A gun is a tool” is being used again. O.K…
A hammer is a tool. You have a right to carry a hammer with you where ever you go.
Would you call it normal if you decided that you would carry a hammer with you at all times, in all situations, to all functions you attend, or are there times when you feel that carrying a hammer just isn’t necessary and might even be silly?
Could a need to carry a hammer with you at all times be called a fetish?
If you wanted to be equipped for any hammering you needed to do, yes, I suppose. I agree it seems silly. I’ll call a firearm what it is: A weapon. I’d carry it with me at all times because that’d be the purpose of my buying it.
Thank you for your honesty-the “My gun is only a tool” excuse gets kind of creepy sometimes.
If you feel you need to carry it for safety’s sake, may I ask if your bathtub is equipped with safety rails and non-skid flooring, and do you wear head protection of some sort when you use it?
Given the number of such rallies, we can already safely assume it’s a vanishingly rare event even if it does happen. Your rhetoric would ask the reader to conclude that it’s a recipe for violence.
See? This sentence’s sarcasm invites the conclusion that violence is an obvious outcome of these circumstances.
Tell me – how, in your mind, do you reconcile the lack of any actual violence? Is it just a case of cognitive dissonance, where you just carefully don’t let yourself think about it? You cling to the idea that you must be right, because it’s obvious that you are, and that the lack of actual evidence is really not important at all?
Or do you secretly fume at the lack, and find yourself thinking, “Fuck, I wish those redneck assholes would just get it over with and start shooting so I could throw a killing or two back in Bricker’s face!”
Two observations from across the pond --its not the [loaded] gun thats the danger -its the loon holding it. On a more general note -if one accepts the right to bear arms -then take away the right to have a personal stock of ammo [unless you prove before say a court that you DO need to be able to shoot per se]… sounds crazy I know -but think about it -at least ?
Right, because the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the right to bear ammunition, and the latter may be freely restricted by the courts.
Along the same lines, the press will remain free, but good luck getting this tightly regulated ink, buster!
How do you feel about “My gun is only a piece of sporting equipment, same as a baseball bat or a fishing rod”, out of curiosity?
What would your response to anyone who says “Yes” to that be?
You know, in Malaysia- which is a democratic country- that’s actually not far from the truth. The Press is (ostensibly) free, but good luck getting the publishing permit necessary to freely express your views by publishing a newspaper or magazine or book. More importantly, good luck keeping said permit if you freely express the “wrong” views.
Double post
My bathtub has non-skid strips and rails. No head protection worn when I use it.
Why? Because the cost/benefit analysis of using head protection while taking a soak does not support wearing head protection. There’s a substantial cost: lack of comfort. There’s relatively little benefit: given the existence of anti-skid and rails to hold on to, the chances of slipping are tiny.
My tub already has the rubber mat thing, if that’s what you’re referring to. But I understand the point you’re making. I’m more likely to die in a car accident than I am to get mugged on the street. But I’m not going to stop driving and I’m not going to stop going outside.
But I look at it this way: I want a firearm for my home. When I’m outside I can (hopefully) flee from whatever dangerous situation I’m in, but it’s silly that I should have to yield to a burglar in my own house. But once I have a firearm that I’ve been trained to use competently in my home, it’s a small step to buy a simple holster and carry it with me most of the time.
And thanks for thanking me for my honesty, I guess. 
How does the chance of falling in your tub compare to the chance of needing to use your firearm?
Hammers are a bit on the bulky side… but there are lots of people, myself included, who do carry pliers, screwdrivers, etc. around everyday in the form of a multitool - which is designed for everyday carry (they come with a belt pouch). The same for flashlights.
How did you do in algebra class?
I ask because it seems you have forgotten that you must apply the same operation to both sides of the equation. It’s true that the chance of slipping is tiny, but the chance of needing to use a firearm is tinier.
But remember there was a substantial cost associated with wearing head protection.
There is much less cost associated with wearing a gun.
A cost-benefit analysis does not stare, myopically, at one side of the equation. It balances costs against benefits.
Circular reasoning, Jasper. If they’re abiding by the law, then they’re not actually using their guns anyway. If they use their guns, then they’re not law-abiding. So the value of carrying a gun is, then, what?
Try this, then: Isn’t it easy for someone who normally is law-abiding to get angry at someone? They’re human, after all. Or, in this case, isn’t it easy to chemically weaken the behavioral inhibitions that normally keep him abiding by the law? Doesn’t his easy access to a deadly weapon in such circumstances create a substantial risk to others? And aren’t there examples of this in the news almost every day?
Telling a would-be mugger, burglar or whatever “I’ve got a gun” doesn’t make you a non-law-abiding citizen. Using a gun in defense doesn’t make you a criminal, neither.
I have a hard time believing, as some seem to, that the implied message of the protesters in wielding their guns was “we have guns and we’re proud of them” rather than “we have guns and you disagree with us at your peril”. There was a clear intent to intimidate, IMHO.
Weapons are, by their nature, intimidating. That’s the reason you’re not allowed to have weapons - any weapon - in or near polling places. Never mind that the New Black Panther guy in the linked example was just tapping a nightstick (it’s just a stick, right?) as long as he wasn’t using it - the mere fact of him being there and holding a weapon was considered sufficient intimidation to consitute breaking the law. How much more intimidating would a large group of people with guns (which, unlike a nightstick, you can’t run away from) be?
These protesters had broken no laws in particular (not being near a polling station) but to pretend that any actual intimidation was entirely in the imagination of the viewers is pretty disingenuous.
Maybe their intent was to intimidate. I don’t know anything about the quoted story, just popped in to unnecessarily give my opinion unsolicited. But if I was invited to a protest against gun laws and a friend suggested I bring my gun to make a statement, I genuinely wouldn’t think that it was to intimidate people. There’s no reason for you to take my word for it, but there you go, for what it’s worth.
What “statement” *would *you intend by it, then?