What's With The Guns?

I should probably expound on that. There is no monolithic group of “anti-gunners” that is or isn’t violent. You are over-generalizing in the worst way possible. And yes, you are ignorant. Incredibly so.

Made sense to me. I’m no grammar expert though. :confused:

There is a ton of anti-gunners nation wide and world wide. You are one dumb motherfucker. Stupidity on par with the folks believing Terry Schiavo’s parents. Downright delusional.

Ex-Tank was assaulted physically by a group of people espousing anti-gun views because he supports the 2nd amendment. How is:

not an accurate description of that event? Really, I want to know the thought processes involved, maybe then I’ll be able to apply it to some of the stances taken by anti-gun groups and make some logical sense out of what they are saying.

I don’t know a single person who hunts in order to survive. I know some who eat what they kill, but not because that’s their only means of nourishment. And those who find buying food a massive burden do not, in general, hunt to offset that cost.

It is a “sport”. Or it is an effective means for committing crimes. That’s pretty much it.

So then I guess you don’t believe in history, either, considering the many places where ‘just one more law’ and ‘all we want is registration’ led to de facto bans, eh?

And in a true democracy, you will almost certainly have tyranny of the majority. This is why the United States was not established to be a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.

Avoiding tyranny of the majority was one of the reasons certain rights were recognized in the Constitution and why the government was told that it must keep its grubby paws off.

Considering the view of themselves the anti-gunners present publicly, loudly, and as often as possible, and the fact that he’s been assaulted physically by more than one of them, I think he’s got pretty damn good grounds for his opinion.

To be concise, their idea of compromise is always ‘one more restriction than we already have.’

I know people in the northeast who do, in fact, greatly suppliment their income with the venison they hunt. It’s the equivalent of a few hundred bucks of beef a deer, you know. Two of them, that’s a paycheck.

And don’t forget what I said about eliminating vermin without harming other wildlife.

And, of course, protecting your household from more aggressive wildlife. Like black bears. Which, even in New Jersey and New York, in places that have been settled since the first western explorers, we get. And very little is more dangerous than a yearling bear, kicked out of the den, hungry, and looking for somewhere to go… in the middle of suburbia or a city. Kids and pets are just the right size for a snack. We get coyotes, too. And you don’t want to get near a pissed off moose.

Oh, and diseased ones, too. We get the rabid raccoons. If you wait for animal control, it’ll be back into the woods and gone… or in someone’s house.

Let me repeat, I’m talking about the most settled areas in America.

Are those ‘pure’ enough for you?

Yep, that’s why I’ve have changed my mind, and now just flat out say no to more laws. I don’t trust the anti-gun groups. Not one bit.

They sowed the seeds of mis-trust, let them reap the rewards.

Kalhoun, Just because you don’t know of any people who hunt for food doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

I did not say there weren’t a lot of anti-gun people. I just don’t believe they are a monolithic entity that is predisposed to violence. Are you really that much of a moron, or do you just play one on TV?

Whoah - getting a pretty high reading on the Irony-O-Meter.

Duh. Even if his story is true, he didn’t say, “I believe I am morally ahead of the people who assaulted me”, he said he was morally ahead of “THE anti-gunners”. It’s an over-generalization based on anecdotal evidence. You can’t extropolate one incident to make pronouncements about an entire group; that’s stupid.

Well I have my doubts that you could make logical sense out of anything, but try substituting another concept, and it will become clear:

“I was assaulted by a group of black men” IS NOT EQUAL TO “I am morally superior to black people”.

Never said it did.

But the numbers are so small as to be insignificant to this conversation.

Right, and pro-gun people don’t present their views loudly and publicly. :rolleyes:

Yes, and nobody in the history of the world has ever been assaulted by a pro-gun person. :rolleyes:

I’m starting to wonder if you have to fail Logic 101 to be a gun advocate. :wink:

Why is it insignificant? That’s a valid use for guns and one which occurs in our society.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Some anti-gun people claim that they wouldn’t prohibit useful reasons for gun ownership. We then provide reasons for gun ownership, and it gets dismissed as insignificant.

Nope, don’t trust ‘em one bit and this is one of the reasons why.

Kalhoun, stop and think. Let’s say two are equal to a side of beef. That’s half a cow. It feels about rightish, one freezer full. I may be undercounting, to tell the truth, may be one deer, but I’m going to overestimate here. A side of beef is… hit the net… froogle.google.com says $799.00. Hunters are allowed to bag three deer a year for $85. That’s 1600 bucks. That’s two-three weeks salary for your average american (after taxes). Assuming, considering the large number of gun owners… let’s even say NRA members alone, assuming a standard economic spectrum, and I’d be the first to say NRA might well be projected among lower income rather than higher… well, assuming average economic distribution, three deer is a sizable amount of cash that they don’t spend on groceries. And that doesn’t even count fishing or fowl.

You sure the numbers are negligable? It seems to run in a logical manner to me.
Heck, if I cooked more, I’d do it. (Done it once. A man who eats meat is on the same moral level as the butcher. Therefore, it seemed ethically important that I experience the entire journey, from death to consumption. Worth doing, if you ask me.)

Boy, you really are an ignorant son of a bitch. I don’t mean stupid, I mean pig-ignorant, as in “don’t-bother-me-with-facts,-I-don’t-want-anything-to-challenge-any-of-my-ingrained-prejudices,-especially-not-stupid-things-like-the-truth” ignorant. What are you doing on the SDMB anyway? I would think the motto “fighting ignorance” would have the same effect on you as salt has on a slug. To take your points one at a time:

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the NRA. The only gun I own is a .22 rifle that I inherited from my grandfather, it’s been locked up and unfired for years now. However, the fact that someone as willfully uninformed as you feels that your righteous indignation is all that is needed to formulate policy denying people one of their fundamental rights as Americans is making me seriously reconsider that decision. I will most likely be joining the NRA in short order. At least the NRA attempts to formulate their position based upon facts and not because they think guns are scary.

Unless of course the group of people who assaulted him was a voluntary association of people for the purpose of opposing gun rights, in which case calling them “the anti-gunners” is pretty accurate. By your logic, it is wrong to say that James Chaney, Andy Goodman and Michael Schwerner were killed by “the KKK”. After all, it was just a group of people led by Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers, there is absolutely no reason to tar those other fine folks in the Klan who were not involved in the murder, is there?

Don’t worry, I’m sure I’ll be able to manage logic, you’re not contagious. The only place this makes any sense other than in the damaged intellects of drooling, slack jawed morons like yourself is if you can demonstrate that being black is a voluntary condition. Is it? No, it’s not, while joining an anti-gun group is, so why don’t you just shut your gibbering pie hole before the spittle on your monitor gets too thick for you to read the words underneath.

Wow….
From Colorado Division of Wildlife.

2004 Elk harvest - 63,336.
2004 Deer harvest - 41,742.

That’s just Colorado.

And you are now a hypocrite, as well:

There is no monolithic group of gun owners that commit violent crimes, or sell firearms to criminals, or leave firearms unsecured for children to easily access and injure or kill themselves or their playmates, or espouse less regulation, or advocate Concealed Carry, etc., etc.

Anti-gunners overgeneralize in the worst way possible.

And yet for some reason, American gun owners are just supposed to accept their condemnation, and the role of the villain the anti-gunners have relegated them to, as the status quo.

As far as my alleged “ignorance” goes, would you care to back that up with more than just words?

Otherwise: Nyah-Nyah! :stuck_out_tongue: Your Mother Wears Combat Boots, your Sister Has Hairy Legs, and You Have BO.

Nope. “It,” meaning, I assume, gun ownership, has also proven to be a pretty effective means for preventing the perpetration of both property crimes and violent personal crimes. I don’t particularly care how you feel about a gun owner using his firearm for this purpose, but the fact is, this is a not insignificant use (wholly legitimate in certain situations in my opinion) you have neglected.

There were places like that. There were also places where central rule collapsed and the populace lived in constant teror of roving bands of armed bandits, due to the inability of the government to control weapons and those who use them. 14th century France, for instance. Or modern-day sub-Saharic Africa.

I’d like to avoid both of those extremes, thank you very much. Neither of those seem very appealing. As I said, law versus chaos. Too much of either sucks.