May 17, 201115 yr What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals. For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes. I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last? And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill MaherBarrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day) 92,150th person to 99 defense
May 18, 201115 yr Author What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals. For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes. Any reasonable definition of gun restrictions depends upon the actual statistics of what effect exactly they have on society. Given that no causal link exists between guns and homicides or deaths in general, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that they should not be restricted. Much as freedom of speech can only be abridged in exceedingly rare and extreme situations, so too is attacking the right to bear arms an extreme act.
May 18, 201115 yr What it boils down to, for me, is freedom. People should be allowed to own guns for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or for no reason at all - it doesn't matter. If they use the gun in an improper manner (killing someone, for example) then they face the consequences. Further, banning something that people obviously want under the guise of protecting them only backfires (see: Prohibition). It puts law-abiding citizens in a bind while not taking care of the problem: criminals. For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes. Any reasonable definition of gun restrictions depends upon the actual statistics of what effect exactly they have on society. Given that no causal link exists between guns and homicides or deaths in general, the only reasonable conclusion possible is that they should not be restricted. Much as freedom of speech can only be abridged in exceedingly rare and extreme situations, so too is attacking the right to bear arms an extreme act. Very close to what I would have replied with. "The chief duty of the government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people." - James A. Garfield"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." -Thomas Sowell"Profits are evidence of the creation of social value, not deductions from the sum of the common good." - Kevin D. Williamson #1 Warring 90+ Clan. Awesome Community. Click to join.
Create an account or sign in to comment