DeletedUser16628
Sorry Duduie I'm on a roll here with my thoughts and get to the meat of the beast and let's lay aside the utter futility of gun legislation at this point and lets look at gun ownership in a more important aspect, especially for those progressives who are yelling so loudly for gun control. I am referring to the "personal right" and "individual freedom" aspect. Much as (Jane Smiley) wants everyone to believe that the only thing guns are good for is killing, it just ain't so.
To be fair, what Jane's statement should have been is that guns are only good for shooting (there is a BIG difference between "shooting" and "killing"). What you (or any other gun owner) shoots is entirely up to you. There are, however, many gun sports that involve no killing whatsoever (trap shooting, silhouette shooting, marksmanship competitions, biathlons, collecting, etc.). Likewise, hunting is considered a legitimate use for firearms the world over and it happens to be what I like to do 3-4 times a year.whether or not you enjoy these sports is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. If someone wants to use a firearm for legally-acceptable uses, that is their right. Just because you may not enjoy what they are doing is no reason to deny them the opportunity to do it. If we get into that type of mindset we will be tossing democracy aside in short order. Denying someone the right to use and possess something based solely on the idea that someone, somewhere, may use said device to do harm is not just naive, it is downright stuck on stupid. Where do we draw the line? Silverware? Baseball bats? Let's get a little more creative... how about Drain-o and gasoline? Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer? Toilet bowel cleaners? These chemicals and compounds (and many other commonly available) can be used to create horrendous explosive devices and lethal poisonous gases that could kill more people in seconds than a gunman could in an hour... just ask the survivors of the Oklahoma Federal Building disaster. Do you suppose anyone did a background check when Timothy McVeigh bought fertilizer?
But we still haven't arrived at the crux of the argument--the real reason why gun control is a losing argument. That specific point is the one non-lethal use of a firearm that we haven't discussed. The use that is at the crux of the entire argument. It is the specific reason for which the Second Amendment was written. What is that specific use?
Deterrence,Deterrence,Deterrence
This is why police carry them. This is why the military amasses them. This is why many homeowners purchase them. And, most importantly, this is why the Second Amendment protects them. An armed populace is the best defense against an oppressive government and ours is getting there as we soon will be swiping a card to poop.
Such statements may sound trite and outdated to many in our society, but those folks probably aren't reading their newspapers much--or they aren't very good at "putting two and two together".Okay I have more just got to go run the hounds real quick.
To be fair, what Jane's statement should have been is that guns are only good for shooting (there is a BIG difference between "shooting" and "killing"). What you (or any other gun owner) shoots is entirely up to you. There are, however, many gun sports that involve no killing whatsoever (trap shooting, silhouette shooting, marksmanship competitions, biathlons, collecting, etc.). Likewise, hunting is considered a legitimate use for firearms the world over and it happens to be what I like to do 3-4 times a year.whether or not you enjoy these sports is of no consequence to anyone but yourself. If someone wants to use a firearm for legally-acceptable uses, that is their right. Just because you may not enjoy what they are doing is no reason to deny them the opportunity to do it. If we get into that type of mindset we will be tossing democracy aside in short order. Denying someone the right to use and possess something based solely on the idea that someone, somewhere, may use said device to do harm is not just naive, it is downright stuck on stupid. Where do we draw the line? Silverware? Baseball bats? Let's get a little more creative... how about Drain-o and gasoline? Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer? Toilet bowel cleaners? These chemicals and compounds (and many other commonly available) can be used to create horrendous explosive devices and lethal poisonous gases that could kill more people in seconds than a gunman could in an hour... just ask the survivors of the Oklahoma Federal Building disaster. Do you suppose anyone did a background check when Timothy McVeigh bought fertilizer?
But we still haven't arrived at the crux of the argument--the real reason why gun control is a losing argument. That specific point is the one non-lethal use of a firearm that we haven't discussed. The use that is at the crux of the entire argument. It is the specific reason for which the Second Amendment was written. What is that specific use?
Deterrence,Deterrence,Deterrence
This is why police carry them. This is why the military amasses them. This is why many homeowners purchase them. And, most importantly, this is why the Second Amendment protects them. An armed populace is the best defense against an oppressive government and ours is getting there as we soon will be swiping a card to poop.
Such statements may sound trite and outdated to many in our society, but those folks probably aren't reading their newspapers much--or they aren't very good at "putting two and two together".Okay I have more just got to go run the hounds real quick.