How does anyone reconcile the fact that innocent people are killed every day buy gun owners

[upaloopa]

and an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that says you can own a gun or guns of any type and take them anywhere you want to.

Don't I have a right to go some place and feel safe that there isn't a gun owner there with gun?

I am not going to make a distinction between "good" gun owners and "bad" gun owners any more.

I feel that we as a people have the right to make laws that say you can't take your gun here or there.

Notice I didn't say you can't have a gun. I am saying that I don't want to have to worry that a gun owner is in the Wilmart with me with his gun. And no I don't want you to be there with your gun to shoot the bad guy should he appear.


I feel that I have rights too. The right to restrict gun ownership and usage.

There is no absolute right provided by the Constitution to unlimited gun ownership and usage. The latest court rulings even state that reasonable restrictions on gun rights are constitutional.


Now if I am not on a bunch of their ignore lists I imagine a bunch of gun owners will reply with their NRA talking points and insults and bullying tactics. By their words shall you know them.

[baldguy]

1. For RWers, inanimate objects - like guns and corporations - have more rights than people.

[JeepJK556]

2. Are you talking about concealed carry?

Statistics for concealed carry from several states show that well over 99% of those with such licenses never commit any crime.

Statistics from the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2010, showed there were 475,000+ people with active concealed carry licenses and a total of 101 crimes committed by license holders (This is NOT 101 murders but 101 CRIMES of varying type, not all of them violent.)

Even if we assume each of those crime was commited by a different license holder, that still means 99.8% of CCW holders in Texas harmed no one last year.

Should be punish the 99.8% because of the actions of the 0.02%?

Oh and no NRA talking points here. Just facts.

[valerief]

3. Should we punish gun victims because of the obsessions of gun fetishists? nt

[JeepJK556]

23. So a person

who owns a gun for self-defense = gun fetishist (whatever the fuck that is)?

Interesting...

[Ghost in the Machine]

79. Wait til you see the ones who are obsessed with gun owners' penises...

They'll crawl out sooner or later..

Welcome to DU!

Peace,

Ghost

[Scootaloo]

4. Only problem is, he's clearly not talking about concealed carry

And when you try to frame the argument as if CCW holders are the only people who "count," you expose yourself as another sock puppet dispensing the very NRA talking points you say you're not using.

[upaloopa]

8. I am talking about any gun carried any way.

We need a discussion and not just the one sided talking points of the gun lobby.

[rateyes]

9. I thought carrying a concealed weapon is already illegal.

[soccer1]

16. No, concealed carry is legal in most states....

Informative site on concealed carry laws

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf
"The number of states allowing concealed carry permits is increasing, and states broadly differ in eligibility requirements and the extent to which they have reciprocity agreements. In June 2002, 7 states and the District of Columbia prohibited the concealed carry of handguns. As of March 2012, individuals can carry concealed handguns in all but 1 state (Illinois) and the District of Columbia (see fig. below). “Shall-issue” states—in which issuing authorities are required to issue a permit to an applicant that fulfills the objective statutory criteria— generally issue more permits than states with greater discretion in granting permits (“may-issue” states). Because of differing eligibility requirements, some states would issue a permit to an applicant, while others would not. For example, some states define what constitutes a disqualifying felony differently or have different firearms training requirements. As of March 2012, 39 states that issue permits and Vermont (permits not required) recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Of the 9 states that do not grant reciprocity, 8 are may-issue states."

[rateyes]

27. but u have to have a permit...right?

[soccer1]

55. In most states, yes.

Here's a link to info about the states and their concealed carry requirements.

Concealed carry in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Unrestricted

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Not in all states, but most of them

[upaloopa]

5. I am sick and tired of the talking points. We need to all join the conversation.

All you can do is pull out these fucking talking points in an attempt to shut down the discussion.

I'm tied of it!

[Posteritatis]

6. Ahhh, irony. (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Then quit using them

You are painting all gun owners with a very broad brush and then whining when some of us push back and point out the flaws in your logic and assumptions. Lower the poutrage and engage the rational thinking part of your brain.

To personalize this...you know nothing about me, so let be offer up some personal information:
- I am black
- I am a widower
- I had family in the Deacons for Defense. A group the stopped the KKK by force in some areas.
- I am a full professor at a public university in SoCal, though I am retired from $BIGJOB
- I live in the twigs (well past the sticks) My neighborhood cats are cougars and the vermin are mostly rattlesnakes. Of course I carry a gun, openly at home, concealed otherwise. Its not a fetish, its survival out here.
- I regularly teach handgun classes on my property focused on women and GLBT people. They are people who are dramatically under served when it comes to self defense. You can't bash an armed gay.

It important to understand the detail when it comes to technical items, and guns are technical items. When I see such errors being made I will correct them. Same goes with logic and reasoning. That doesn't make me a gun nut, just a stickler for things.

[StateApparatus]

7. The real answer...

...is that they don't care. Gun owners will yammer on at great length about their rights, and self defense, and freedom from tyranny etc., but the truth of the matter is that owning guns makes them feel powerful and safe, even though it really does neither. Until one of their children accidentally shoots someone, or is shot, gun violence is a far-away statistic that happens to other people. Tragic, yes, but of small importance compared to their "right to bear arms."

Never underestimate the potential of the human mind for self-delusion. Yes, a gun might prove an effective defense against a burglar or a rapist... but you are statistically more likely to shoot yourself or a family member. Yes I suppose hunting might be considered a sport (??) Do you need an automatic pistol to hunt? Yes, our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to be ably to resist the government if necessary. Do you really think a few thousand out of shape, half-trained, weekend-warriors in surplus camo can resist a vast, technologically advanced military?

These people would do themselves a favor and admit it: they're afraid. They're afraid of taxes, of blacks, of Mexicans, of gays of the future. They're afraid they don't control their destinies, and they're right: nobody controls the future. Sadly, having weapons makes them feel like they can exert some force. Unfortunately, some of them decide to exert that force, and society pays the price.

[AnOhioan]

11. Well said and welcome to DU

[Zoeisright]

13. Perfect response.

They're afraid, cowardly, and have no logical reasoning skills.

[Marengo]

75. Who is this "they"?

[99Forever]

17. Nicely stated.

Welcome to DU.

[rbixby]

29. What's bigotry about this exactly?

It seems to be pretty true, why are people so obsessed with their guns if they don't have some kind of deep-seated insecurity?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Elsewhere on this board...

In an otherwise sane discussion, an individual share with me that he lives in a quiet neighborhood. Has deadbolt locks and a security system, but still feels the need for a 30-round clip for his semi-automatic rifle as a "Home Security Measure."

The people who scream the loudest about home security tend to be middle class, white suburban men, who are statistically the least likely persons in our society to EVER be the victims of crime. These same people who have never been the victim of a crime and studiously avoid high-crime neighborhoods are the same people telling us how they need the right to carry a concealed weapon.

It's fear. Nothing more.

Unless you live in a high crime neighborhood or have a high risk job, you really have no business packing.

[rbixby]

36. I live in a high crime neighborhood

and I've never felt the need to pack heat. It just brings every situation to a sudden deadly confrontation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

44. And if you look at crime statistics....

Most of the shootings that occur in high crime neighborhoods are among young people who know one another (not necessarily in a friendly capacity, mind you). Think of every 40-50 year old woman who is raising kids in these neighborhoods. How often do they get shot while in or near their own homes?

Rarely. So I agree with you, even in a high crime neighborhood, one can exist without a weapon.

[JeepJK556]

68. It is bigotry.

It is bigotry because of his statement that all gun owners "are afraid of blacks, mexicans, gays"

As a liberal gun owners, I take offense to the fact that he feels all 80 million gun owners in the U.S. are racist homophobe rednecks.

I enjoy guns as a hobby. I enjoy marksmanship. I enjoy the historical aspect of certain guns. I enjoy competing in low level target competitions.

I also keep one of my handguns loaded in a small safe for home defense. I live in a perfectly safe neighborhood but if I own a gun, why not keep it around just in case? It's not like it adds a great amount of strain or difficulty to my life to do so.

[rbixby]

90. I was making a broad strokes generalization

because I know a lot of gun owners who are exactly like the type that I laid out in my post.

[sav99]

66. Is this true for ALL gun owners across the board?

[Marengo]

74. Are all gun owners "afraid of taxes, of blacks, of Mexicans, of gays of the future."?

"These people would do themselves a favor and admit it: they're afraid. They're afraid of taxes, of blacks, of Mexicans, of gays of the future."

Who are "These people..."?

[TNLib]

10. Good Slogan: Guns dont't Kill People, GUN OWNERS KILL PEOPLE!

nt

[Zoeisright]

12. With guns.

[upaloopa]

15. Well they do. And when tragedy happens they will rattle off a list of statistics telling you

don't worry, we won't hurt you.

When a shooting happens do you ever hear them say, "Oh how awful, we need to work to prevent gun deaths." No you hear "My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights! My 2nd amendment rights!"

[lunatica]

61. I think you should start a new thread with this

And let the apologists try to take it over the way a handful are doing now.

[LAGC]

14. You have no right to feel safe.

"Feeling safe" isn't written anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

But the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" is.

I expect the SCOTUS will further liberalize gun rights in future rulings and relax restrictions as the the U.S. violent crime rate continues to plummet, even taking into account these occasional mass-shootings.

[99Forever]

18. Way to prove the OP's point.

"... a bunch of gun owners will reply with their NRA talking points and insults and bullying tactics."


Congrats.

[Daniel537]

21. And yet not a single one of those things was in his post. n/t

[99Forever]

50. That was a direct C&P from the OP..

... smartguy.

[Daniel537]

19. +1

Have some of the anti-gun folks here ever even bothered to read the constitution? No, you don't have a right to restrict other people's rights, as laid out by the constitution, just so that you can "feel safe", whatever you consider that to be.

[upaloopa]

25. Have you ever read the latest rulings? The SCOTUS says we do have a right to reasonable

laws restricting those rights. They will rule on them when a case is presented to them.

You can take your 2nd amendment interpretation and put where the sun doesn't shine!

Your rights stop at my nose!

[CTyankee]

42. Ah yes, the good ole "no right to feel safe" argument! I was wondering when that filly would be

trotted out of the barn!

Wait, wait don't tell me, that goes with "the police don't have to protect you" meme, doesn't it...

Standard issue from the 101st Chairborne again...

[LAGC]

48. What's funny is, I've never seen anyone refute that basic argument, just the usual snark.

If you know of a way to make people "feel safe" without instituting a police state and/or total surveillance society, I'm all ears.

That may be the kind of society you might want to live in, but I'll pass, thank you very much.

[CTyankee]

52. Ah, excellent! The "police state" just got its nose in the tent.

Was wondering when that chestnut would be marched smartly out the door, too! But mercifully, you have come to the rescue...

[LAGC]

58. Ah yes, more snark.

Obviously you have no argument save ridicule.

If you want more nanny-state big government, keep voting for those politicians and enjoy your "safe" place.

That may work for you in New England, but don't expect it to fly in the rest of the country.

Some of us still value individual freedom and liberty. Such "quaint" little values, eh?

[CTyankee]

65. Oh, dear, the people of New England know NOTHING about freedom and liberty.

Not like there were any patriots up here, just a bunch of nanny-staters. Like that cowardly Yalie Nathan Hale...

[LAGC]

72. New Hampshire is nice, though.

[CTyankee]

78. NH IS nice! I have a niece there. She and her husband are lovely liberals...

[LAGC]

84. I've thought about moving there someday.

Maybe live in Manchester and find work in Boston.

I'll just have to check my guns at the Massachusetts border.

[CTyankee]

86. I have thought about moving to VT where I would feel right at home with Bernie Sanders

and other socialists.

[Edweird]

20. More people are killed by drivers daily. Exponentially more are killed by heart disease AKA McDonald

's every day. That the fact of the situation.

[upaloopa]

22. So let's fucking accept gun violence because it ain't so bad!

I hope you go to Aurora today and set up a table outside the theater and put a sign on it saying what you just posted.

[Lionessa]

39. As you so aptly point out, today, a day with such high emotions, guaranteeing low analysis,

isn't the right day or time, and Aurora clearly not the place, to make decisions about gun laws.

This young man had plenty of explosives as well, perhaps you need to consider how much worse it could've been if he hadn't taken guns but instead bombs.

Guns are the problem here, the young man is, whether by choice or by mental infirmity.

[Edweird]

49. It's the same as after 9-11, except now the fear mongering and rights abridgment is coming from

the 'left'. "Let's give up our rights because we're so scared". Pathetic.

[Mojorabbit]

57. Yes , I agree and I am really disappointed seeing those posts on this board. nt

[hobbit709]

26. you think the law will stop a lunatic?

People who are willing to do something like this are NEVER concerned with the law.

[upaloopa]

28. Again, let's do nothing because we can't stop everything.

We can reduce gun violence buy reducing the number of guns available and the number of people with guns. And yes we do have a right to try and make our lives a little safer.

This idea that there is an unlimited right to own guns has been put on us buy the NRA and gun lobby because they have the power and the money to stifle the rest of us.

Another make up of the Supreme Court, not one appointed by right wing politicians would rule differently.

[Mojorabbit]

43. That is not true

The UK has the most restrictive laws in the world. After they passed them gun crime increased. Most people who own firearms are law abiding responsible owners. These two statements are facts.

[rbixby]

30. I know! The answer is obviously MORE GUNS! NT

[hobbit709]

31. wrong again!

[rbixby]

37. Sorry, I guess I should use the sarcasm thing more liberally

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. So there are no lunatics in Canada? In Germany?

I find it curious that pro-gun people assume that Americans are so pathologically violent that, even if you took the guns away, we would find some other way to kill people. We'll be like the fucking Coyote in the cartoons and come up with more and more elaborate ways to kill each other because, BY GOD, that's what we Americans do.

And so you may as well let us have our guns. It's just more convenient.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you take the guns out of the equation, people will simply stop killing each other in droves the way we do now? That if we're NOT given the option to pull out a weapon and blaze away, that perhaps we'll just go away pissed off, but with everybody alive.

Just a thought.

[hobbit709]

46. How about Norway?

People that want to kill are never deterred by laws. there were serial killers in the Soviet Union.
I'm not a gun nut, but I don't think all this wanting more laws is going to change anything.
The only way to do that is to change the fundamental cultural perceptions about guns in this country.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. Oh dear....

Yes. People who want to kill are not deterred by laws. People who want to steal your car are not deterred by laws, but I'll bet you don't leave the keys in the ignition.

And Norway itself is a massive outlier. It has a significantly high rate of gun ownership (compared to the rest of Europe) but still maintains a low number of homicides, although Norway's rate for gun deaths is nearly double other nations in the EU. That being said, the body count from last year's spree killing was nearly equal to the country total annual firearm homicides.

But a fair question is, how DOES Norway manage to have more access to firearms and still keep their homicide rates almost 90% lower than the U.S.? The answer is that in Norway, there are a host of gun control measures that would cause the NRA to have a screaming hemorrhage. Guns in Norway must be disabled and locked when not in use, for starters, which is anathema to conceal-carry crowd.

[CTyankee]

47. In Norway, the people love their guns for sport and hunting. But they love their well ordered

society more. If you own guns in NOrway, you must keep them locked away and the police have the right to drop in any time and check up on your storage security. Yet they manage to have a constitutional democracy, freedom, peace and prosperity.

But of course, that's wrong...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. In fact...

According to the Democracy Index, Norway ranks as THE MOST democratic nation on earth. The United States clocks in at Number 19. Just ahead of Costa Rica.

[freshwest]

76. +1

[treestar]

64. If it makes it harder for lunatics to get guns

Fewer of these mass shootings could be the result.

[hobbit709]

82. All you need is cash. You don't have to go to a gunstore.

[slackmaster]

32. You have the right to restrict gun ownership and usage in your home and your place of business

Not in mine.

[upaloopa]

35. Yes I do and the Supreme Court said so.

The problem is we have to make laws restricting gun rights and the gun lobby will take them to court and the court will rule on them one at a time.

[slackmaster]

38. All nine members of the Supreme Court acknowledged that the 2A protects an individual right...

...in the District of Columbia v Heller decision.

What are you referring to?

[Lionessa]

34. "buy" gun owners???

Perhaps there's your solution. Just buy some gun owners instead of guns.

So many gun rants today, your misspelling brought a chuckle, no doubt.

[upaloopa]

40. I have some disabilities and I never get tired of the spell police and the grammer police pointing

out the obvious results of them. I can think by but type buy and I can't see the mistake no matter how many edits I do. If you see any of my posts I usually edit them a number of times for that reason.

But thanks for the kind words,

[Lionessa]

45. Whatever you disabilities, probably not so much of an issue.

It is notoriously difficult for one to proofread one's own work due to the fact that we know what we meant, so we read right past the misspells mistypes. I have no related disability and yet run into the same problem, so I think your normal in regards to this.

[REP]

70. As your own typo reveals :-)

Your is possessive; you're is a contraction of you are.

[Lionessa]

71. Of course, and you missed the one in my title. sh/b your not you

[REP]

80. Nah. Just thought it'd look mean to point them all out.

[sav99]

51. Thats A broad Brush

A guy steals a car, gets drunk and runs over an old lady crossing the street. Whether he stole the car or not, he is still a car owner in my mind. I am not going to make a distinction between "good" car owners and "bad" car owners any more.

If you own a car, stolen or not, how can I be sure you won't get drunk and kill me and my family? Don't I have a right to be safe from that? Each year in the US about 12,000 are killed by drunk drivers. http://www.drinkinganddriving.org/

It's not the drunk drivers fault. If cars had stricter control laws this could not happen, and those twelve thousand people a year would not have been killed.

[aikoaiko]

56. Not even the NRA says you can own guns of any type and can take them anywhere you want.

Your premise is false.

However you most certainly can go to places that don't allow guns on the premises. Privately owned building can always post no gun signs if they wish.

You can make any constitutional law you wish with enough support, but you don't have the support to make it happen. Not even President Obama is supporting it much since he was elected.

Please do keep me informed of your pursuit of restricting ownership and usage.

[dickthegrouch]

60. Ever more difficult Psych exams for those possessing more weapons

Registration just like that other lethal weapon, the car
Agreement to be shot with one of their guns before buying it - to make sure they understand the damage and pain it can cause
Anyone using one against another human should be caged and fed at the 'pleasure' of the victim's family.

We're in the 21st century. We need to grow up and melt every gun on the planet.

I have an absolute right to walk down the street unmolested and unafraid of being shot by some crazed jerk who doesn't even know me. I DEMAND that right.

[DesMoinesDem]

62. How you feel and what you worry about is on you.

That is not a basis for creating laws. I feel safe knowing that I have a right to carry a gun if I want to. I don't worry about someone legally carrying a gun in walmart. Your feelings and irrational fear of a person legally carrying a gun is your problem that you have to deal with. Not everyone has your problems. If you were rational you should be far more concerned about driving your car than legal gun owners.

[missingthebigdog]

69. How is fear of a person legally carrying a gun irrational?

Weren't the guns used in this atrocity legally obtained??

Rational people are concerned about their safety and the safety of their children, without regard to what anybody's "right" is.

[DesMoinesDem]

81. The odds that you are shot with a legally purchased gun

is very small and the odds that you are shot by someone with a concealed carried permit is almost zero. To live in fear of events that are so unlikely to happen to you is irrational. Someone afraid to go outside because they might get struck by lightning is irrational, and this is no different.

[GarroHorus]

67. The same way I reconcile the fact that even more people are killed every day by car owners.

Edit

I am not a gun owner, but I am a car owner.

[Marengo]

73. I hear ya, makes things quite a bit simpler...

Not to make distinctions between people who possess objects used as weapons.

Just a few of the reasons I gave up on knife owners:

http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-07/news/28664861_1_police-cars-twin-brother-nathan-gorenstein\
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/local-news/shanghai/2008/07/02/163545/Man-storms.htm
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/02/13/man-kills-4-in-stabbing-rampage-across-nyc/

Just a few of the reasons I gave up on car owners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_attack_on_the_Dutch_Royal_Family
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/06/china

[Stargleamer]

77. The Standard Line. . .

"Guns don't kill, people do". One could use this same reasoning and apply it to PCP too: "PCP doesn't harm, only it's usage harms". People do believe that there is at least some chance of using a gun when they buy one.

[4th law of robotics]

83. There are plenty of places were guns are prohibited

the theater in CO being one of them. And Virginia Tech. And Columbine.

All officially gun-free.

[HooptieWagon]

85. People are killed every day by drunk drivers,

but I dont hate cars.

[ohheckyeah]

87. Like anyone cares if you make

a distinction between "good gun owners" and "bad gun owners."

My husband and I have several guns - only one that we purchased, the rest handed down in his family from grandfather to father to son.

Neither of us conceal carry but we live in the country in a big county where we can't depend on a speedy response to a 911 call. My husband has used his rifle to kill a rabbit that was suffering after a dog attacked it and a groundhog that was destroying our storage building by digging under it. He tried everything to discourage the groundhog first but to no avail. Neither of us are nor have ever been hunters.

I make no apologies to you or anyone else for owning guns. We're responsible gun owners who never even considered joining the NRA. My gun is absolutely no danger to anyone who isn't breaking into my home.

If you or anyone else has a problem with my gun ownership that's really not my problem. Blaming law abiding gun owners for what happened in that theater is like blaming all car owners for someone using a car bomb.

[beevul]

88. How does one reconcile any other false or mostly false assertion?

By refuting them, like this:

"How does anyone reconcile the fact that innocent people are killed every day buy gun owners and an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that says you can own a gun or guns of any type and take them anywhere you want to."

Yes, innocent people are killed by gun owners every day. You're 1 for 1.

No, the current interpretation of the second amendment does not say "you can own a gun or guns of any type". now you're 1 for 2.

No, the current interpretation of the second amendment does not say you can "take them anywhere you want to".

Now you're 1 for 3.

"Don't I have a right to go some place and feel safe that there isn't a gun owner there with gun?"

You certainly have that right in your own home. Everywhere else, not necessarily so much. BTW, the theater in question was a "gun free zone" presumtively to make people "feel" safe.

Ask those people in the theater how safe they feel now, and ask them what good those signs did.

Ask yourself while you're at it.

"I feel that we as a people have the right to make laws that say you can't take your gun here or there."

Of course you do. The owners of the theater have the right to declare it a gun free zone too, and they did.

What good did it do? Why will any new law you make be obeyed when the current ones weren't? The current ones will be enough to proecute the perp, so whats to be gained by new ones? The theater owners declared their theater a gun free zone, and yet took no measures to ensure that it actually WAS a gun free zone. How do you feel about that?

Please answer those questions honestly.


"And no I don't want you to be there with your gun to shoot the bad guy should he appear."

Well, hey, that wish was granted, in the Colorado shooting.

"I feel that I have rights too. The right to restrict gun ownership and usage."

Of course you do, just as others feel they have the right to restrict uterus usage. Siamese twins, those two.

Your right to restricting gun ownership and usage has its limits.

"There is no absolute right provided by the Constitution to unlimited gun ownership and usage. The latest court rulings even state that reasonable restrictions on gun rights are constitutional."

First of all, rights aren't "provided" by the constitution. They're protected by the bill of rights.

And while "reasonable" restrictions may be constitutional, restricting things to the point that only the tiniest exercise of the right is allowed, just isn't reasonable.


"Now if I am not on a bunch of their ignore lists I imagine a bunch of gun owners will reply with their NRA talking points and insults and bullying tactics. By their words shall you know them."

I love it when the "nra talking points" meme gets trotted out. Of course, you hadn't stopped to consider, that the nra represents around 4 million, and there are over 80 million gun owners in America - and that perhaps these talking points you refer to, aren't "nra talking points" at all, but "gun owner talking points" which the nra chooses to parrot.

As far as insults, I've been here at du for a long time. For over ten years as a reader, and for over 8 as a poster, and its a simple fact, that the insults come from the anti-gun side at a ratio of about three for every one that comes from the pro-gun side. Ever seen anti-gunners being called needledicked compensators, or being accused of needing a compensation device?

Thats an entire catagory of insults that the anti-gun side has the market cornered on. I bet if you look, you can find 50 of them in the last three days or more, and maybe 1 in that catagory from pro-gunners.

Care to take me up on that wager?


"Bully tactics"? LOL. Please.

Asking for someone to back their arguments with an unbiased source, calling someone on bullshit when its clearly bullshit...those aren't bully tactics.

Neither is it bully tactics when you on the anti-gun side are outnumbered between 7 to 1 and 10 to 1 by pro-gunners. Nor is it bully tactics to point out any of the above.

The brady campaign and MAIG and all the anti-gun groups have a combined membership of ...maybe 100 thousand. Maybe.

The nra, goa, saf, and various state orgs have 5 million plus.

You do the math.

[beevul]

88. Duplicate. N/T

[Reasonable_Argument]

91. I have no issue with business posting signs saying "no firearms"

As long as they take personal responsibility for my safety and legal liability if anything happens to me on their property.