After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

splitting hairs does not make such a good smoke screen, the objection is to the entire category.

a slight problem with the idea of everyone having guns to overthrow a tyrannical government arises
when its the people who want it to be tyrannical are the ones who want the guns.

also guns are a known factor. if you want something effective, try the unknown or at least less proven failed.
yes guns have overthrown many governments, but not with the result of creating less tyrannical ones.

here's the little secret: hierarchy is created by lack of consideration.
attacking it only makes it stronger/more tyrannical.

would it be that unlikely or impractical for a minimum of 51% of people to practice 51% of consideration?
this is not, i believe, beyond, even close to being beyond, human capacity.

 

The right to keep and bear arms isn't only protection from tyrannical government, it's for the security of a free state, and that doesn't mean Virginia or Maryland. It means being able to defend your and my free state as a person, against anything that might threaten it's security. It's for the security of that state that they made sure our right to bear arms won't be infringed. Defending your free state, and your neighbor's, and your town's, and so on, is an obligation of being an American citizen, and doesn't make anyone a tyrant.
In that light it's easy to see why "gun free zones" are the places where that security is attacked most. The people in it are defenseless no matter what they're attacked with.

 

All of the places in Austin that were bombed a couple weeks ago were bomb free zones. It’s obvious why those places were attached - they’re sitting ducks. The solution is to give everyone bombs

See the thing is we all know why 2A was written. We all know the founding fathers did not want laws made by the dead and therefore wanted the constitution rewritten regularly. We also all know they did not believe 2A gave citizens the right to own cannons, the most advanced weapon of the time.

What the people that need a penis enhancement weapon for a security binky refuse tonewcognize is the debate is about what 2A means. What exactly does “infringe upon my rights” mean? Can I own a small pox virus as arms under 2A? A nuclear warhead? Of course the amendment has limits and of course a discussion of those limits is exactly what the framers hoped would happen

 

They won’t see this because collectively their insecurities around fear and personal protection create too much cognitive dissonance to reconcile their rationalization used as a coping mechanism

Watch the language of the pro gun people. The reasons are always based in a fear they aren’t able to overcome themselves and requires something outside to mitigate the fear.

Or

“Wolverines!”

 

So I go away walking in the Malvern Hills and come back and yes there are more pages and even new people but still not one rational or reasonable answer coming from the gun lobby.

Just more repeats of things already covered – you do realise that you just highlight how rubbish the whole gun lobby stance is don’t you?

 

The fact that restrictions on guns are allowed only if the restrictions can be justified with a good reason is rational and reasonable.

Our position has been impregnable so far. That's not too shabby.

 

There's lots of back and forth about pistol grips, banning this or that, gun nuts refuse blah blah, people afraid of firearms don't want anyone to have one, what owning one means about your penis size and sense of security, yet this proposal hasn't received a single comment on whether or not it would be effective in attempting to curb gun violence at all, or be more or less effective than any specific ban of a firearm or accessory.
Looks a lot like any proposal that doesn't involve banning at least something related to firearms doesn't get any consideration from the "afraid that if people can own guns I might get killed by one" crowd. Yet the pro gun rights crowd are the ones with blinders on, only seeing their ultimate objective.

 

Well said, especially clear on what is meant by saying "you're going to have a fight trying to get my firearms".

 

Scary thing is ....now I think the rest of us do need guns to defend against all of these scary gun loving people.

 

Translated: The gun makers and the NRA with its Russian supporters have had the politicians cowering with fear so far. That's very shabby!

 

I thought we had police and a military for that. Who would we be defending it against? Road Warriors?

 

Politicians being afraid to violate our rights is a good thing.

Sometimes we are confronted by criminals when the police are not around to protect us.

 

And all so weak and scared white men who see themselves as victims can feel safe

 

I'm sure our military are completely ready to lay down their lives for the security and rights of every citizen. However, they're not standing as a security force for every individual's 24/7 protection, and were never intended to be.
Regarding police, while plenty of them have gone above and beyond when given a dangerous situation and tough decision, enough have shown disregard, or downright cowardice when their moment came. Combine that with response times and the FACT that they are not legally obligated to put themselves in danger for any other individual, and I feel better that I'm prepared to handle any threat to my secure state, and smart enough to avoid putting that state in risk on my own. I'm real glad I have neighbors who feel the same way, and we'd all be uncomfortable with a trigger happy drunken bozo around. Fortunately, that stereotype is as rare as the deranged idiot who'd shoot up a school, and I don't live in fear of it.
Police are for after the fact. And if your car was stolen, a little time to solve it isn't so bad. Someone in your home, or physically trying to take what's yours requires far more immediate action than any policeforce can be counted on for. You've been hoodwinked if you believe otherwise.

 

^^^^↑^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The defense for weak men’s egos. The rest is a rationalization

 

there is NO, logical nor moral conflict
between the right of anyone, to keep and bear anything,

and that of a majority consensus,
to forbid the manufacture, sale, or importation,
of anything it agrees to so do.

in no way does such a prohibition abridge the right of anyone,
to posses anything they can make or grow,
by their own abilities, logic and imagination.

thus all arguments against implementing completely reasonable restrictions,
should they be the will of the majority,
as they appear to be,
are completely without substance.

 

That is incorrect. Restrictions on a right are allowed only if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

Without such a justification, it doesn't matter what the majority wants.

 

So you think we should all be man enough to deal with burglars and other home invaders by using our fists? No, that would truly be the act of an egomaniac. I've got nothing to prove when it comes to that kind of thing.

 

sooo, you don't want a democratic form of government? um, so what is it precisely you want guns for? to wantonly go around killing people just because you feel like it?

if you're trying to pretend there is not a good reason, you are lying to yourself big time.
irresponsible people killing each other is not a good and sufficient reason?
give me an effing break.

as for a gun being self defense, that's bullshit too. you're more likely to be killed or injured with one, if you have one then if you don't.
do i really need to explain how and why that works too?

if you do want something for 'self defense', wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to have something you didn't have to worry about accidentally killing someone with if you didn't intend to?

i know of no system of ideology nor belief, that gives anyone a 'right' to kill anyone they feel like, just because they feel like doing so.