I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

It's not worth talking about. Nothing more dangerous than a man with no doubts?
Gun lovers ignore the white boy mass shootings . And the 30000 gun deaths every year. But they love bewailing the 200 in Europe!

 

My guns have never committed a crime or even tried to persuade me to commit a crime, are they defective?

 

I'm sorry - is there a question here?

 

The "white boy" murder rate is 1.5 per 100k.

The rest of the world should be so lucky.

 

As I browsed the handgun counter at the local gun store one day, the XD40SC on my hip kept telling me she needed a big sister, and the XDM45 on the bottom shelf would do nicely...
"SOLD!" I said.

 

why such a silly game. You are OK with gun banning and want to pretend that the second amendment protects tanks. Tanks are not weapons that citizens would ordinarily keep and bear

 

And I would say the same about a Christian business owner who wouldn't want to make a cake celebrating a homosexual couple's wedding.

 

Yes, this is true. However, the Justices' decisions do not always reflect the public sentiments, desires or opinions. Also the supreme courts are not always right. I believe it's up to each of us to ponder the issue at hand and arrive at our own conclusion.

I take it that you are a proponent of a gun ban?

 

Huh? I am not sure what you meant. Are you saying that people should be able to own things like tanks, jets..etc?

 

No, the argument was that they have the right to turn any customer away if their personal religious believes say that customer is a sinner. This isn't just about bakeries being allowed to discriminate. They apply it to all business. This means if I religion says wearing cloths is a sin, I can turn away anyone who wears cloths, and only offer services to nudists.

 

He's just trying to steer clear of the real discussion, because he knows he has a losing argument.

 

I'd like to ask gun owners a question.

Which is more important;

1) Owning a gun because you feel it's within your right

2) Owning a gun for protection of your premises, family etc.

If one over the other, why? if both things equally important, why?

I know it's not this simple, and there are likely many more reasons.
But to me, the distinction between rights and needs - is a natural first question.

H

 

LOL! So you blew right by the capgun, bb gun, .22, .410, straight to the .308?! Did you have a childhood?

 

Feelings have nothing to do with it, people have the natural right to self defense which is the purpose of the 2A in recognizing that right, and preventing the government from infringing upon it.

How I choose to use that right is irrelevant, be it hunting, collecting, self defense, or any other legal purpose.

 

Those first two aren't firearms

 

If it was a fact you could prove it with evidence. Personal attacks are boring.

 

That's not true all cars are registered in the US whether or not they drive on public roads. They have different versions of registration for cars that are not driven, but I believe it varies from state to state.

If the government wanted to take peoples guns in this country they would have to pass a constitutional amendment to do so. We are not discussing that and claiming that a license or registration would lead to that is a slippery slope fallacy and does nothing to discount my argument.

 

Nothing you are saying here has any weight against my argument. Just because something was done incorrectly in the past doesn't mean it can't be done with more care in the future. Claiming that registration would lead to confiscation is a slippery slope fallacy and is meaningless in debate.

We could come up with a registry or licensure that would help control the selling of firearms to people who should not have them by making it possible to trace the weapon back to the seller. This is possible and could help prevent gun violence. Canada made mistakes in their progrm and decided the cost was not worth it. Gun violence is much less prevalent there. In the US gun violence is a bigger problem and in my opinion an expensive program would be justified.

 

Both are in equal importance with any other legitimate reason for owning a firearm.

 

I did. All of those guns belonged to my father.

 

Yet both California and DC have illegally banned and or confiscated firearms.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean democrats won't do it anyway. It's their primary skill, after all.

 

Not true. My Trans Am was unregistered for the first two years I owned it.
States only require registration for cars used on the road.

 

Incorrect. At best, it might indirectly deter some gun violence, but it cannot prevent any.
It is impossible to soundly argue for the necessity of the state having on record the owner of every gun in the nation.

 

My first gun (that I owned) was a .22 Nylon 66.

 

If you're born into a family with a great library. Then which is most important, your right to read or the empowerment and pleasure you gain from reading? Should you have to justify a way of life to strangers who disparage and who want to take it away?