Go with him and offer to buy him a gun. Tell him to keep it in his house. Tell him to shut up until someone is at his door to take his gun and then give you a call.
You will never hear about it again.
One of the things that made the 11-M murders possible was finding an idiot who sold them dynamite he’d stolen from the mine where he worked. I think he hasn’t so much gotten the book thrown at him as embroidered on his hide…
Or just collecting guns for the sake of collecting them, as some SDMB gun nuts brag about.
I have no objection to gun collecting per se, but wonder what sort of pretentious confusion leads someone to defend it with the God-given 2nd Amendment.
If you want my ocelot, you’ll have to pry it from my cold, heavily shredded hands!
And strawmen arguments and the gun control side seem to mix together like milk and chocolate. Sadly, you seem to have been building strawmen since 1973 and not fighting ignorance at all.
This bunch of strawmen has dick all to do with my own post…I’m not even addressing gun control, nor do you most likely have any idea of what my (supposed ‘gun nut’) position even IS on gun control, since your jerking knee is getting in the way. The OP was talking about repealing the 2nd, which is obviously NOT what would be needed to do gun control since, you know, WE ALREADY HAVE GUN CONTROL.
It would be a first step in the process necessary TOO ban all guns, or at least to so heavily restrict them that it would violate the 2nd (assuming we want to take this whole Bill of Rights thingy seriously, and the process in place to get rid of them when they are no longer supposedly relevant, instead of trying to reinterpret them out of existence and just ignore them, of course). Which is why it would need to be repealed to do anything that drastic…well, unless your side is able to go back to the success you used to enjoy by reinterpreting the amendment out of existence using the judicial system.
IOW, until Americans think like you and your buddies think they should think. 
So, no joy then…best go back to the underhanded and slimy tactics that actually worked for your side in the past and step up efforts to reinterpret the 2nd. Really start hammering that militia argument, then go back to the AWB and work that for arbitrary scary features bannings that could be a slippery slope, since guns on the AWB list are really just the same as any semi-automatic rifle…once you get the scary ones banned, you could suddenly discover this until then unrecognized similarities in actual function and maybe get THOSE nasty things banned as well! Who needs to repeal the 2nd when you can just circumvent and ignore it?? All for the greater good, of course…
No, what we have is a national GUN FETISH, without a safe word.
I’m in support of encouraging social change and building political will to compel congress to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment on the basis that it is harmful to modern society. I’m aware it won’t happen overnight. I’m a patient man.
[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
No, what we have is a national GUN FETISH, without a safe word.
[/QUOTE]
We certainly have a national identity that includes certain rights, and one of them is the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Whether you think that’s a ‘fetish’ is, of course, up to you and your opinion. Someone from mainland China would say we equally have a ‘fetish’ about freedom of assembly and the press and be equally confounded on why we are so perverse.
I respect that. Honestly, it’s the right way to do it. And I think the trends are pretty clear…contrary to what people seem to think, less American households actually HAVE guns than ever before, and the numbers are steadily dropping. Eventually I think what will happen is there will be enough people who see keeping and owning guns as an anachronism, and are more open to the idea of repealing the 2nd and opening the way for real gun bans. In the mean time there is nothing stopping gun CONTROL measures except politics, and those might favor the Democrats this next cycle. Whether they use that wisely and go for gun control that makes sense and isn’t an obvious bid for a slippery slope backdoor ban is yet to be seen, but I HOPE they go for sensible controls that the more moderate pro-gun people can see as a compromise and get behind.
That’s it
“What are we going to do with the other 60 million houses that have similar things in them?”
“Um…well, I guess we need to get some additional funding for drones…Well damn it, this worked so well for us in Iraq! Look how fast it stopped their insurrection…er, well, it did work in Afghanistan…um…”
“Yeah, I don’t think that using drone strikes on every American who has a gun is going to be very effective, even from a purely military and logistics perspective. For that matter, are we even sure this is the right house?? And that the guy is even still there since we’ve declared war on those nasty gun owners?”
“You know, you are right. Besides, my dad has some guns…and so does my best friend!”
“I think what we should REALLY do is use this drone strike on the idiots who thought this was a good idea…what do you say?”
“Yeah, let’s do that!”
Apples and oranges.
It’s more like an individual who says, “look, I yell and lash out sometimes. I don’t mean to hurt you; it’s just part of who I am.”
Then a mental health professional steps in with anger management resources, and eventually the individual realizes that it wasn’t an inextricable part of his identity, but something that could be changed.
The Second Amendment is our collective mental health issue. Don’t defend it, deal with it.
What a ridiculous analogy. Thanks for sharing though.
I laughed 
However, I doubt these concerns about people being home, or being the right house would be of concern to those in the “Tyrannical out-of-control government”
Or just collecting books for the sake of collecting them, as some SDMB book nuts brag about.
I have no objection to book collecting per se, but wonder what sort of pretentious confusion leads someone to defend it with the God-given 1st Amendment.:rolleyes:
YES! Because indeed those very drone strikes have completely wiped out guerrilla and terrorists!:rolleyes::dubious:
The US armed forces have never had issues with suppressing a armed guerrilla force. :rolleyes:Well, except since forever.
Wow! you are absolutely correct! I should have NEVER said that drone strikes would completely wipe out guerrilla[s] and terrorists! What was I thinking?
I should have said something like “If the government has gone into tyranny out-of-control government mode, they wouldn’t waste time having a shootout with someone in their house with dozens of guns and thousands of rounds. They would just drone strike the entire house, what with being all tyrannical and whatnot”
Oh wait, that IS what I said :rolleyes:
The gun nuts are not interested in anybody’s rights, including their own; just guns. And they are the ones calling for the “brutal oppression” of people; that’s what calling for your opponents to be murdered via “Second Amendment solutions” is.
How many real ‘gun nuts’ are there? Really?
X million of gun owners. Are they all ‘gun nuts’?
How many ‘gun nuts’ make it into the press?
How many broad brush posts against ‘gun owners’ are in this thread representing what % of the SDMB which is a bit Liberal in it’s self?
Always the same 10-20 for and against people for the most part. None of which seem to be listening to each other and no ignorance is being fought on either side.
Then both sides use the media head lines as real information… Bawahahahaha ( fighting ignorance huh? )
Would it not be easier to remove the broken people? That scares everyone because that is about me/them and I/they can’t point and say that the gun is the reason.
There is only one way to stop gun violence, fix the cause of it which is people & that is even more scary to more people than guns are.
I can’t get past your subliminal message to StopGuNs (sorry, does everyone make this joke?)
This is probably a notable application of the Second:
this is a gun nut statement. It’s quite clear that getting rid of guns dramatically reduces both the rate of gun violence and violence overall. Lot of studies and real-world examples out there proving this. Having a gun in your house endangers the lives of the people in the house, particularly the children. Owning a gun increases the risk you will die from violence of some kind.
The statistics are so glaringly obvious that I personally refuse to live in a household where anyone owns a gun, out of fear for my own safety. Any parent who allows a gun into a household with a child in it should be charged with child endangerment. Anyone who lets a concealed-carry fruitloop into their business or home is risking death of themselves and their customers.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t need to be repealed, it just needs to be read properly. The whole “well regulated militia” part needs to be emphasized. Nowhere in it does it say that crazy people are allowed to keep guns lying around for their toddlers to play with. It doesn’t say that crazy vigilante wanna-bes can carry concealed weapons everywhere. It says “well-regulated” and it says “militia.” Meaning organized groups that follow lots of rules.