Are you similarly mystified by people who collect coins or stamps?
“He was aiming at his sister.”
Like muscles, rights tend to atrophy from disuse.
If you refuse to allow a police officer to search your car, do you consider it reasonable for the cop to ask what you are trying to hide, and why would you refuse a search if you have nothing to hide? Or do you consider it reasonable to refuse to allow a search just because you have that right?
That, and it IS a common tactic of anti-gun types to inquire as to reason for ownership, then dismiss that reason, and conclude there is no reason for gun ownership.
This is EXACTLY the same tactic frequently employed by professional salesman. Get the prospect to state a reason for resistance, then attack that reason, and thus make them feel unreasonable for not buying. I make it habit never to to explain why I am not interested in buying something. And I make it a habit not to explain why I choose to own the number and types of guns I do.
I would be mystified if i asked someone why they collected stamps and they responded by looking at me suspiciously and say curtly,“Because I have the right to do so!”
No, and I also know gun collectors. Whose interest I do understand. But they don’t identify as “gun owners”, but as “gun collectors”. Again, the ownership is incidental to the activity; the collection. Stamp collectors don’t identify as “stamp owners”, do they?
PS: Thanks to Mosier for a rather enlightening (for me, at least) answer.
Maybe you are neglecting this key point: It is ownership of the guns that the antis wish to deprive us of. Therefore, ownership itself becomes a valid self-identification.
If that doesn’t satisfy you, TDB.
I fail to see why you should single out and take issue then with the various NOYB answers.
Oddly enough, I am also distrustful of people who own guns for the purpose of defending against a tyrannical government, but for the exact opposite reason. Not because I can’t imagine having to fight one’s own government, but because, given the kinds of weaponry available to the US government in the 21st century, I can’t imagine that personal firearms will do us any good. Until and unless we can buy tanks and nuclear missiles at the local Wal-Mart, the Second Amendment will in no way protect us from our own government, and (IMNSHO) anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Does asking the original question(“Why do you own guns?”) automatically mean that the person asking the question is an anti-gun type that will dismiss the reason given and conclude there is no reason for gun ownership? Is it actually a common tactic of anti-gun types, or could it be that you preemptively make that assumption when the question is first asked, verifying a pattern that might not actually be there to begin with?
Do you identify me as an “anti” because I ask seemingly inappropriate questions?
First, those are not explicit freedoms. Should anyone who has ever made a controversial speech or statement, or written an article that was controversial, have to explain their reasoning beyond they have the right to?
If that is how they first broach the subject, that is logical conclusion to draw. Anyone else would probably start with questions about specific gun related activities to find common ground before getting into the more esoteric area of “why”.
For the record I ride motorcycles. Several different types of motorcycles. Never once has anyone enthusiastic about motorcycles led off with “why do you own motorcycles?”. That approach is entirely held by non-motorcyclists that typically view them as inherently dangerous. Other motorcyclists usually ask, “do you ride?” Or “what kind of riding do you do?” Later in the conversation they may inquire what draws you to riding at a deeper level.
There is that too, but whenever I bring it up, the notion of banding together with one’s community always comes up, and I try to leave it there before it really gets outside the realm of plausibility.
The way I look at this outcome is, if things really do get to that point then it’s not going to matter if you have a gun or not; specifically, not having a gun isn’t going to be any better than having one (unless the specific government tyranny is about tracking down everyone who owns one), so it doesn’t matter to me if one owns guns or not with regard to this scenario.
My issue is with those who accompany the NOYB answers with the statement “You shouldn’t even have asked the question.” Some people have given very informative answers in this very thread, which I note and certainly appreciate, so I think any such attempt to stop this question(or most any question, for that matter) is inappropriate.
Not at all. I identify you as a smug shit-stirrer who believes himself to be rather more clever than empirical evidence actually supports.
Sorry, but it wasn’t my analogy to begin with.
Strictly grammatically, no, they aren’t the same, and maybe people on the SDMB who are generally of higher intelligence than the average idiot, and who generally take some time to compose their speech, will make a distinction. But in average conversation with average people my impression is that they are used synonymously, and both context and body language are key. So instead of “why do you need all those guns?” one is asked “why do you have all those guns?” with the end result of the conversation being the same. So I’ll amend and say IME when people ask “have” or “need” w.r.t. my swords or my guns, it’s a prelude to their passing a moral or emotional judgment on such which always is at my disadvantage.
Yup. I don’t label myself as a gun owner any more than I label myself as a car owner. Nothing distinctive or unusual about it.
So you don’t think I am an “anti”? That’s good, because I’m not. Do you still think I shouldn’t ask such questions?
You are moving the goal posts.