I'm going to take this gun control argument

[RockyBalboa]

This is something that I pondered for a long time after I was blindsided and attacked in a moment of random violence. When you get attacked, when you get hurt, when you are so freaked out that something like that can happen to you out of the blue, it makes you think long and hard about what you can do if you're ever backed into a corner again.

One day I may get a gun, but for now I've decided against having one.

However, I strongly believe in the 2nd Ammendment and the right to bear arms.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

This is something that I pondered for a long time after I was blindsided and attacked in a moment of random violence. When you get attacked, when you get hurt, when you are so freaked out that something like that can happen to you out of the blue, it makes you think long and hard about what you can do if you're ever backed into a corner again.

One day I may get a gun, but for now I've decided against having one.

However, I strongly believe in the 2nd Ammendment and the right to bear arms.

I advocate a responsible, thoughtful process in coming to a decision. You can fall on either the side of ownership or not.

What I'm saying is that some of us that own guns are not "gun nuts", we don't "get off" on shooting, and aren't on a power trip. We see it as a serious matter of personal and civic duty.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I advocate a responsible, thoughtful process in coming to a decision. You can fall on either the side of ownership or not.

What I'm saying is that some of us that own guns are not "gun nuts", we don't "get off" on shooting, and aren't on a power trip. We see it as a serious matter of personal and civic duty.

Most people in my ward own guns because it is a rural area and most of them were raised respecting them and understanding their common sense uses. I'm a lot more comfortable with these simple folk wielding weapons than I am anyone packing because of some misplaced delusion of grandeur.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Most people in my ward own guns because it is a rural area and most of them were raised respecting them and understanding their common sense uses. I'm a lot more comfortable with these simple folk wielding weapons than I am anyone packing because of some misplaced delusion of grandeur.

In case you didn't think so, I am one of these salt of the earth simple folk.

[Ma'ake]

Here are two aspects of the gun issue that make no sense to me:

1. The need to have a safe gun locker. Sure, everyone can agree it's best to keep firearms away from children, but if some bad guys break into your bedroom, are you going to have time to unlock the locker, get ahold of your gun & then confront them? From an expeditious personal security standpoint, gun lockers defeat the purpose of having guns.

2. The whole notion that current legal firearms will enable modern day patriots to take down a tyrannical US government. Please. Either the whole idea of taking down the government was specific to the early period of our nation and the sophistication of weaponry at that time, or today's 2nd Amendment advocates are selling out - in a very big way - by not insisting on the right of any citizen(s) to have serious military weaponry.

From a "purist" standpoint, why couldn't somebody like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison have the right to own their own aircraft carrier + all the weaponry that comes with it? (Come on, how about a little intellectual honesty here?)

I found a pro 2nd amendment argument on the web asserting that guns rights folks - if pressed on the matter - should firmly advocate the rights of the homeless to own nuclear weapons... not because any homeless person would have the means to have nukes, but because making any compromise from that position erodes freedom.

Silliness, pure & simple.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I advocate a responsible, thoughtful process in coming to a decision. You can fall on either the side of ownership or not.

What I'm saying is that some of us that own guns are not "gun nuts", we don't "get off" on shooting, and aren't on a power trip. We see it as a serious matter of personal and civic duty.

In spite of our differences, this is one area where you and I are in total agreement Mike.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Here are two aspects of the gun issue that make no sense to me:

1. The need to have a safe gun locker. Sure, everyone can agree it's best to keep firearms away from children, but if some bad guys break into your bedroom, are you going to have time to unlock the locker, get ahold of your gun & then confront them? From an expeditious personal security standpoint, gun lockers defeat the purpose of having guns.

2. The whole notion that current legal firearms will enable modern day patriots to take down a tyrannical US government. Please. Either the whole idea of taking down the government was specific to the early period of our nation and the sophistication of weaponry at that time, or today's 2nd Amendment advocates are selling out - in a very big way - by not insisting on the right of any citizen(s) to have serious military weaponry.

From a "purist" standpoint, why couldn't somebody like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison have the right to own their own aircraft carrier + all the weaponry that comes with it? (Come on, how about a little intellectual honesty here?)

I found a pro 2nd amendment argument on the web asserting that guns rights folks - if pressed on the matter - should firmly advocate the rights of the homeless to own nuclear weapons... not because any homeless person would have the means to have nukes, but because making any compromise from that position erodes freedom.

Silliness, pure & simple.

This was the weapons grade plutonium argument.

Why not let everyone arm theselves as they see fit?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Here are two aspects of the gun issue that make no sense to me:

1. The need to have a safe gun locker. Sure, everyone can agree it's best to keep firearms away from children, but if some bad guys break into your bedroom, are you going to have time to unlock the locker, get ahold of your gun & then confront them? From an expeditious personal security standpoint, gun lockers defeat the purpose of having guns.

2. The whole notion that current legal firearms will enable modern day patriots to take down a tyrannical US government. Please. Either the whole idea of taking down the government was specific to the early period of our nation and the sophistication of weaponry at that time, or today's 2nd Amendment advocates are selling out - in a very big way - by not insisting on the right of any citizen(s) to have serious military weaponry.

From a "purist" standpoint, why couldn't somebody like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison have the right to own their own aircraft carrier + all the weaponry that comes with it? (Come on, how about a little intellectual honesty here?)

I found a pro 2nd amendment argument on the web asserting that guns rights folks - if pressed on the matter - should firmly advocate the rights of the homeless to own nuclear weapons... not because any homeless person would have the means to have nukes, but because making any compromise from that position erodes freedom.

Silliness, pure & simple.

Maake--

1. I have a safe that can be opened in literally 2 seconds. From sleep, I hear a window break, the gun is in my hand in less than 5 seconds.

2. Are you suggesting that guerrilla actions are rarely successful? That's an odd position to take, because it seems to me it's hard to show a lot of widespread guerrilla actions that HAVEN'T been successful.

[woot]

I have little doubt that an American insurgency would defeat a government/military totalitarian takeover. They wouldn't want to kill civilians indiscriminately, so their main weapons are useless. They would still have superior firepower in the form of assault rifles, but we'd have the numbers.

I don't see any of that actually happening, but the argument that our guns would be useless in such an event is not useful in a gun control debate.

[Coach McGuirk]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Here are two aspects of the gun issue that make no sense to me:

1. The need to have a safe gun locker. Sure, everyone can agree it's best to keep firearms away from children, but if some bad guys break into your bedroom, are you going to have time to unlock the locker, get ahold of your gun & then confront them? From an expeditious personal security standpoint, gun lockers defeat the purpose of having guns.

2. The whole notion that current legal firearms will enable modern day patriots to take down a tyrannical US government. Please. Either the whole idea of taking down the government was specific to the early period of our nation and the sophistication of weaponry at that time, or today's 2nd Amendment advocates are selling out - in a very big way - by not insisting on the right of any citizen(s) to have serious military weaponry.

From a "purist" standpoint, why couldn't somebody like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison have the right to own their own aircraft carrier + all the weaponry that comes with it? (Come on, how about a little intellectual honesty here?)

I found a pro 2nd amendment argument on the web asserting that guns rights folks - if pressed on the matter - should firmly advocate the rights of the homeless to own nuclear weapons... not because any homeless person would have the means to have nukes, but because making any compromise from that position erodes freedom.

Silliness, pure & simple.

1. I keep my guns in safes except for one. It is a short barrel shotgun that is used for home defense. This shotgun has a trigger lock on it and can be ready to fire in less time than it would take an intruder to reach the second floor of my home (where everyone sleeps).

2. This has been answered by Waters and Woot. What chance does an unarmed citizenry have against a tyrannical government? I would say horrible compared to one that is armed.