[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Point out to me where you got the idea that You somehow have the idea that the weapon this particular person used was particularly well suited for massacring large numbers of people, and if only this particular type of weapon were banned, the massacre could not have occured.
I neither said this or anything like it, nor do I believe it. I have said that gun nuts make very stupid arguments, and you and others continue to prove me correct.
[/QUOTE]
Alright, let’s can the stupid arguments, the political correctness, and the beating around the bush.
Guns are designed to kill or incapacitate. They are designed to do this very effectively. That is precisely why the right to own them is protected: because they are effective tools for the defense of life and liberty.
There’s no such thing as a safe gun. In the hands of the wrong person, a firearm can be used to commit horrible atrocities. But denying everyone the right to bear arms because of the actions of a few irresponsible or imbalanced individuals is not the answer, and it is even worse when such restrictions impair the right of honest citizens to defend themselves while doing little to stop determined criminals. Restricting civil rights in the name of safety is not the justifiable action of any who value liberty: it is by its very nature a strongly authoritarian stance.
I won’t try to justify the right to bear arms based on sporting, or hunting, or hobby collecting (although those are all perfectly legitimate reasons to own guns), because that’s not what it’s about. It’s about every person’s right to defend themselves from harm, and about the duty of a people to preserve their freedom.
That’s my position on private gun ownership. No need for waffling, and no room for compromise.
Quarreling about the nuanced differences between various classes of firearms may seem counterproductive, but I think it’s understandable when you consider that the anti-gun crowd have repeatedly attempted to spread and exploit confusion about firearms to use as an emotional crutch to push their agenda.
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Of course they make bad arguments. Because gun ownership as religion is not something arrived at by a process of argument.
It is all about symbolism. Guns, Hilary Clinton, Evolution: they are all the same thing. You will never understand religious/conservative USA until you appreciate that these things are symbols.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you’ll understand the issue until you appreciate that ignorant stereotypes are not a substitute for critical thought. :dubious:
Are you somehow assuming that all firearms enthusiasts are right-wing fundamentalists? I’m what you might call a “gun nut”. I’m also a libertarian atheist, and I’m just as willing to fight for the right to bear arms as anybody else.
