What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[FA_Q2]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

Irrelevent, the malitia clause does not change the FACT that the second imparts a right of the people. Interpret the fist clause as you will it does not take away that fundamental truth no matter what you want it to mean.

 

[FA_Q2]

The rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

You left out the part about the Militia. Hate when you guys interpret the Constitution.

LOL, liberals can't read at a high school level.

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Note the form of the sentence,

Because A, B

In that form, it's saying for the reason of A, B is true. A is not a qualifier for B, it's an explanation of B

So the founding fathers said

Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State"

Note again that's an explanation, not a restriction or a qualifier

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

You're welcome for this English lesson that apparently government schools didn't give you when you were 12 as they should have done

Here's the elephant-in-the-room flaw in that theory:

The Amendment doesn't *NEED* to justify its own reasoning. A Constitutional Amendment is a simple flat declaration, not a court argument or a point asserted in a debate. There is literally no need to do that. The conditional phrase could have been struck altogether, if that were the purpose.

And if you look around, you'll find none of the other Amendments take the trouble to explain their reasoning either. Not a single one. Nor do they need to.

That renders the theory quite dubious, and suggests the phrase is there for another reason. Would that they had stated it clearly but ----- they didn't.

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

 

[FA_Q2]

[QUOTE="kaz, post: 14119196, member: 26616]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That is the power given. Note the militia is not part of the power. It states simply and directly the right shall not be infringed.

Except in the real world EVERYONE believes there are times when this right (and probably every other right) SHOULD be infringed. Or would you allow violent criminals the unrestricted right to bear arms? What about schizophrenics, psychopaths or children?

The truth is we all believe in some form of gun control we just can't discuss it like adults if ideology trumps reality and we're tossing the Constitution around like it's been carved in stone by God.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

The FACT is that there are MASSIVE controls on guns. From controls on how, who and where they are able to be sold to extensive controls on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. Gun control exists and in a big way. If there is any reason that we cannot have an adult conversation on this matter it is because so many refuse to acknowledge that gun control is already here, has been tried all over the planet in various capacities and almost no one that argues for grater controls uses hard data that is not manipulated.

 

[alang1216]

The FACT is that there are MASSIVE controls on guns. From controls on how, who and where they are able to be sold to extensive controls on the manufacture and distribution of firearms. Gun control exists and in a big way. If there is any reason that we cannot have an adult conversation on this matter it is because so many refuse to acknowledge that gun control is already here, has been tried all over the planet in various capacities and almost no one that argues for grater controls uses hard data that is not manipulated.

I'm not reading you... So you think we have gun control? Agreed, though I'm not sure what "MASSIVE" means. Do you want more or less control, I can't tell? Do you have a better plan to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, schizophrenics, psychopaths or children?

 

[OldLady]

I've been thinking hard about this issue. If our culture had a stronger respect for human life, we could all own twenty guns and no one who didn't deserve it would be shot. More to come.

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

 

[kaz]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns

More interested is exploring the ridiculous bigotry you have that leads you to actually believe your own hyperbole. Let's try cars. What do you suppose is the reason for your deep-rooted love affair with cars. What's your thought on that?

 

[Iceweasel]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

 

[Rustic]

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

A firearm is nothing more than a useful tool whether to equal the playing field with animal or man/woman or just a material object to admire like any other.
It does not have magical powers to make people do evil things like the ring in your Tolkien books...
The progressives irrational fear of firearms is absolutely unreasonable and unfounded... Evil has never needed guns nor will ever need guns to do what it comes to it naturally...

 

[OldLady]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns

More interested is exploring the ridiculous bigotry you have that leads you to actually believe your own hyperbole. Let's try cars. What do you suppose is the reason for your deep-rooted love affair with cars. What's your thought on that?

They allow us to travel from place to place quickly without getting wet or cold.

 

[kaz]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns

More interested is exploring the ridiculous bigotry you have that leads you to actually believe your own hyperbole. Let's try cars. What do you suppose is the reason for your deep-rooted love affair with cars. What's your thought on that?

They allow us to travel from place to place quickly without getting wet or cold.

OK, so think about your answer and guns and your hyperbole, it was ridiculous. Hence the term ... hyperbole ...

 

[jon_berzerk]

But....if our culture had stronger respect for human life, none of us would need to own a single gun, much less twenty.

It is exactly because of the thugs who want to rape, pillage, and murder like vikings that I need to be armed at all times.

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

gun lovers huh

 

[OldLady]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

 

[OldLady]

I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. The Viking thugs are human beings, too, and most could have been taught more respect for human life. An opportunity was missed. Do I think we will never have bad guys? No. But many of the thugs taking life today believe they are defending themselves or their honor. Without thinking about the grave, grave weight of taking a human life.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

So you're going to quote a work of literary fiction? And as far as the thugs - it is what it is. We can wax poetic all we want about what could have been or should have been or about the fact that they are "people too". But at the end of the day, I'm going to protect myself and my family. I'm not going to let any of us die simply because J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an absurd book about people flying around on broom sticks and you've taken that as your reality.

Fictional characters can say wise stuff; they don't write the books, ya know? I can tell you didn't read Tolkein; the broomsticks were Harry Potter. But anyway, no surprise you would dismiss my ideas out of hand. The opportunity was missed with you, too, apparently.

Well you are correct - I never read any of that nonsense. I never read Harry Potter and I never read Lord of the Rings. And you know what? I didn't watch either of the movies.

I'd much rather deal in reality than fantasy. And while I realize that the fictional character didn't write the book, I'm not sure J.R.R. Tolkien is qualified to speak about gun rights just because he's (apparently) a good fictional author.

The problem with individuals like you is that rather than looking at F.B.I data, looking at studies, speaking with law enforcement, etc. you'd rather delve into fiction and pull your ideas for public policy from that. It just doesn't work.

I apologize for getting snippy with you; I don't think you're a lost cause. I was p.o.'d that you insulted Tolkien.
What's important is that my proposition -- and even Gandalf's warning -- wasn't an anti-gun argument. OF COURSE you must protect your family and yourself. I wouldn't dream of telling you not to.

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

gun lovers huh

see reply to iceweasel

 

[jon_berzerk]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

you should be a second amendment supporter

you are a first amendment supporter as well correct

 

[kaz]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

You wrote "gun loving" to be condescending, it was read correctly and has nothing to do with touching a nerve

 

[OldLady]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns

More interested is exploring the ridiculous bigotry you have that leads you to actually believe your own hyperbole. Let's try cars. What do you suppose is the reason for your deep-rooted love affair with cars. What's your thought on that?

They allow us to travel from place to place quickly without getting wet or cold.

OK, so think about your answer and guns and your hyperbole, it was ridiculous. Hence the term ... hyperbole ...

Since you insist on insulting me, I insist on knowing what in hell you're talking about. What, exactly did I say that was (1) bigoted or (2) grossly exaggerated?

 

[OldLady]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

You wrote "gun loving" to be condescending, it was read correctly and has nothing to do with touching a nerve

I ought to know what I mean, and it was not to be condescending. You're projecting, big time. Get back on real terra firma, or you're going to have to debate this with yourself and your windmill.

 

[Iceweasel]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

No need to talk down to me Sugartits. I can respond accordingly if need be. You didn't touch any nerve, I asked you to define the derogatory term. Obviously you meant to minimize those that don't hold your view so the objective thing ain't cutting it.

What I said is true, the culture has degraded and I gave you some examples. Change for the worse is a degradation and I believed so long before I saw any post from you, or this board. Morality has decomposed to the point that life is cheap and self important pricks throw the ultimate temper tantrum with mass murder. They are taught self esteem over discipline.

 

[kaz]

Do you have a better plan to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, schizophrenics, psychopaths or children?

The way to keep guns "out of the hands of violent criminals, schizophrenics, psychopaths" is to keep them locked up when they commit crimes and stop putting them back on the street.

The solution to "children" is to first teach our children to respect and use guns safely and then to get as many people as possible to learn about gun safety from organizations like the NRA.

Background checks are worthless, we don't even arrest convicted criminals illegally trying to buy a gun when they fail the background check. We just tell them no so they can go try again somewhere else.

Only 3% of crimes are committed with legally obtained guns. That shows criminals have no problem illegally obtaining them. And why would they? We have 310 million guns in this country, hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world and an open southern border.

Current gun control policy is just retarded. The only ones it affects are honest citizens, it helps criminals by disarming the rest of us. And a gun at home in your safe is the same as not owning a gun

 

[kaz]

The thing I'm trying to get at is the reason behind America's deep-rooted love affair with guns. As many 'gun lovers' point out, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So I'm focusing on the people, the why. In our culture, the two--people and guns--make a more volatile and deadly mix than in a lot of other cultures that don't include both valuing violence and having easy access to killing machines. My theory is that American culture is still too close to its frontier roots to realistically consider disarming the populace. The experience of being on a frontier, necessarily self-reliant and surrounded by real life-threatening dangers, has echoed down the years because cultural values change much more slowly than our actual environment does.

I'm not done thinking this over yet, but know this: changing people's cultural values doesn't happen overnight, and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with taking away your gun.

Well, you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving. Gun loving means what exactly? If they don't make you pee? I have them for self defense. Banning guns is no guarantee of safety, how many foreign shootings would you need to see?

We've had guns since day one, ordered them through the mail even. Hardware stores used to carry them when I moved here 30 years ago. But we didn't have the school shootemups or theater slayings so you need to ask yourself what changed? The guns evolved into evil sentient beings? Or has culture degraded. Those are the only two options.

It wasn't conservatives that changed the culture, liberals always need more liberalism to fix what they screw up. They can't learn. We need guns now more than ever.

you are attempting to look unbiased but frame your argument with using loaded terms like gun loving
I was actually too lazy to write "Second amendment supporters" Sorry the term touched a nerve.
Or has culture degraded.
Maybe. I prefer the term "changed." I still want to know why. You aren't getting my point at all, just reacting to a perceived threat, since you know I'm (usually) a liberal.

You wrote "gun loving" to be condescending, it was read correctly and has nothing to do with touching a nerve

I ought to know what I mean, and it was not to be condescending. You're projecting, big time. Get back on real terra firma, or you're going to have to debate this with yourself and your windmill.

Bull, you didn't do it once, you continue to try to put others on the defensive with your nose in the air. Obviously continually using the word "love" with guns is an agenda.

I grew up in Michigan where guns were everywhere. I hunted and have a collection of guns. I know what a load of crap your bigoted attitude towards gun owners is. We are not in love with guns any more than we are in love with toasters