The Gun Control Debate

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure all the criminals will laydown their arms as soon they are out lawed.

Probably not.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm sure all the criminals will laydown their arms as soon they are out lawed.

Probably not.

Yeah, so lets disarm everyone to make it easier for them. If the perp is unsure of what I'm packin that gives me an advantage or neutralizes the situation.

[Nagishkaw 510]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

[EKO1 0]

I want to know where are all the responsible gun owners to take out a crazed psycho when something happens? Seems that is always the argument, that they will be ready to protect themselves and others, yet it's only the odd "granny shoots intruder" story tht you hear about. So where are all of the gun owners ready to protect us all...

Hee, most of these crazed killers attack at places where guns are banned. And if a responsible gun owner were there, he probably would not be carrying a firearm. If he is carrying a firearm he would not be a law abiding responsible gun owner.

Big misconception. It is not the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to protect "Us All". A responsible gun owner does not own a gun to protect the masses. Mostly, a responsible gun owner is one who accepts the responsibility of protecting himself/herself and his/her family when they are near.

If you (plural) are looking for protection from someone else, you could someday be very disappointed. It is very rare for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime much less a responsible gun owner. The only persons that are sure to be at the scene of a crime are the criminal and the victim. Criminals are lazy, If they think their intended victim will put up a fight, usually there won't be a crime committed.

One of the best things I have done in my life is to teach my daughters how to use firearms. The youngest was 8 when she was taught. I go to the firing range twice a month and most of the time my youngest is with me. The older ones are with me less often since they are adults.

I will tell you that my daughters are not sheep. I am very confident in their ability to protect themselves. They have learned that they are personally responsible for their protection. And they don't necessarily rely on a firearm for personal protection. They understand that not putting yourself in a position to be a victim is number one. And firearms are a last resort. They are basically armed with the intent to protect themselves.

In a nutshell. I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family. If someday it happens that I protect you from a crime, feel blessed, because that was not, is not, nor will be my intent. If it is your personal preference to be a sheep, that is fine. Don't expect me to be the sheepdog when the wolves come howling. I am not a sheepdog, I am an ant preparing for winter.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this subject.

Ever read this?

"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. "

Now read this 'best post ever' as a defense of the subject of you being able to keep your guns -

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

Sickening.

You know, I've always been opposed to guns. But now I've even more convinced. Because collectively, you aren't interested in owning a weapon for the good of the masses. You are interested in owning one to protect your sorry a$$ from an imagined home invader.

Don't ever talk to me again about your 'rights'. You don't even begin to know the meaning of them.

All I am doing is following an example set forth by our forefathers. I think that there are a few people that need some schoolin’ on our constitution and bill of rights.

During the 18th century the common folk held guns not only for hunting, but for personal protection. These common folk were well trained in the use of firearms. The framers of the constitution understood this and understood that these common folk could be called on to collectively protect a free society.

If called on by a free society to protect our freedoms I will proudly serve. But my reason for being a responsible gun owner still stands.

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

As for my “Imagined home invader”, You have no clue.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

Edited February 17, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I want to know where are all the responsible gun owners to take out a crazed psycho when something happens? Seems that is always the argument, that they will be ready to protect themselves and others, yet it's only the odd "granny shoots intruder" story tht you hear about. So where are all of the gun owners ready to protect us all...

Hee, most of these crazed killers attack at places where guns are banned. And if a responsible gun owner were there, he probably would not be carrying a firearm. If he is carrying a firearm he would not be a law abiding responsible gun owner.

Big misconception. It is not the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to protect "Us All". A responsible gun owner does not own a gun to protect the masses. Mostly, a responsible gun owner is one who accepts the responsibility of protecting himself/herself and his/her family when they are near.

If you (plural) are looking for protection from someone else, you could someday be very disappointed. It is very rare for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime much less a responsible gun owner. The only persons that are sure to be at the scene of a crime are the criminal and the victim. Criminals are lazy, If they think their intended victim will put up a fight, usually there won't be a crime committed.

One of the best things I have done in my life is to teach my daughters how to use firearms. The youngest was 8 when she was taught. I go to the firing range twice a month and most of the time my youngest is with me. The older ones are with me less often since they are adults.

I will tell you that my daughters are not sheep. I am very confident in their ability to protect themselves. They have learned that they are personally responsible for their protection. And they don't necessarily rely on a firearm for personal protection. They understand that not putting yourself in a position to be a victim is number one. And firearms are a last resort. They are basically armed with the intent to protect themselves.

In a nutshell. I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family. If someday it happens that I protect you from a crime, feel blessed, because that was not, is not, nor will be my intent. If it is your personal preference to be a sheep, that is fine. Don't expect me to be the sheepdog when the wolves come howling. I am not a sheepdog, I am an ant preparing for winter.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this subject.

Ever read this?

"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. "

Now read this 'best post ever' as a defense of the subject of you being able to keep your guns -

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

Sickening.

You know, I've always been opposed to guns. But now I've even more convinced. Because collectively, you aren't interested in owning a weapon for the good of the masses. You are interested in owning one to protect your sorry a$$ from an imagined home invader.

Don't ever talk to me again about your 'rights'. You don't even begin to know the meaning of them.

All I am doing is following an example set forth by our forefathers. I think that there are a few people that need some schoolin’ on our constitution and bill of rights.

During the 18th century the common folk held guns not only for hunting, but for personal protection. These common folk were well trained in the use of firearms. The framers of the constitution understood this and understood that these common folk could be called on to collectively protect a free society.

If called on by a free society to protect our freedoms I will proudly serve. But my reason for being a responsible gun owner still stands.

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

As for my “Imagined home invader”, You have no clue.

The British Bill of Rights, of which the US is an extension, gives Protestants the right to keep and bear arms. This was later amended to make the right 'universal' (i.e. to include Catholics). The difference, I suspect, between the UK and US is that the UK had no domestic gun-market on anything like the same scale as 19th century America. And, of course, no NRA, no gun lobby in parliament etc.

[Miranda&James 8]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

[rebeccajo 14]

I want to know where are all the responsible gun owners to take out a crazed psycho when something happens? Seems that is always the argument, that they will be ready to protect themselves and others, yet it's only the odd "granny shoots intruder" story tht you hear about. So where are all of the gun owners ready to protect us all...

Hee, most of these crazed killers attack at places where guns are banned. And if a responsible gun owner were there, he probably would not be carrying a firearm. If he is carrying a firearm he would not be a law abiding responsible gun owner.

Big misconception. It is not the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to protect "Us All". A responsible gun owner does not own a gun to protect the masses. Mostly, a responsible gun owner is one who accepts the responsibility of protecting himself/herself and his/her family when they are near.

If you (plural) are looking for protection from someone else, you could someday be very disappointed. It is very rare for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime much less a responsible gun owner. The only persons that are sure to be at the scene of a crime are the criminal and the victim. Criminals are lazy, If they think their intended victim will put up a fight, usually there won't be a crime committed.

One of the best things I have done in my life is to teach my daughters how to use firearms. The youngest was 8 when she was taught. I go to the firing range twice a month and most of the time my youngest is with me. The older ones are with me less often since they are adults.

I will tell you that my daughters are not sheep. I am very confident in their ability to protect themselves. They have learned that they are personally responsible for their protection. And they don't necessarily rely on a firearm for personal protection. They understand that not putting yourself in a position to be a victim is number one. And firearms are a last resort. They are basically armed with the intent to protect themselves.

In a nutshell. I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family. If someday it happens that I protect you from a crime, feel blessed, because that was not, is not, nor will be my intent. If it is your personal preference to be a sheep, that is fine. Don't expect me to be the sheepdog when the wolves come howling. I am not a sheepdog, I am an ant preparing for winter.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this subject.

Ever read this?

"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. "

Now read this 'best post ever' as a defense of the subject of you being able to keep your guns -

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

Sickening.

You know, I've always been opposed to guns. But now I've even more convinced. Because collectively, you aren't interested in owning a weapon for the good of the masses. You are interested in owning one to protect your sorry a$$ from an imagined home invader.

Don't ever talk to me again about your 'rights'. You don't even begin to know the meaning of them.

Rebecca,

Your perspective and response is really harsh. The law does protect one's right to defend their home from intruders (home invaders). If you don't believe this crime is a reality, read the news.

My weapons and experience in using them, stand ready to defend my home and family.

William -

I tried to speak to this group in a civilized fashion, especially Saturday morning. When I came back to the thread after being gone several hours, I found my opinion had become a topic of chest-beating and eventual personal ridiculue of me.

I guess for some people, the fact that they own something which could effectively blow someone's brains out gives them more than a sense of self-security. It gives them a feeling of power and superiority. All I can figure out is that I, someone who doesn't own a gun and would prefer to see gun ownership restricted, became a verbal 'target'.

Look at what was written - right down to a comment about 'there's something about the smell of gun powder'. We aren't talking about daisies here. Friday night while I was in this thread, I was researching the subject on other sites (I don't just sit here when I am in discussions with people about topics and continue to pound away on my point - I read and I research). I watched several video commentaries, including one wherein some teenage boys were questioning the use of guns. They weren't judging - they were curious about the subject. In this video and as part of their research, they went to a shooting range. After firing several different types of weapons, they decided that shooting was 'fun'. From that perspective, they concluded that gun ownership is something that wasn't so bad.

I could go on and on why I feel the way I do, but it won't matter. I am 'harsh' if I verbally defend myself against the boyish comments posted in the thread.

Perhaps I should buy a gun. Then I would be on equal footing. In the meanwhile, I am just wrong and a verbal target.

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

[Nagishkaw 510]

I want to know where are all the responsible gun owners to take out a crazed psycho when something happens? Seems that is always the argument, that they will be ready to protect themselves and others, yet it's only the odd "granny shoots intruder" story tht you hear about. So where are all of the gun owners ready to protect us all...

Hee, most of these crazed killers attack at places where guns are banned. And if a responsible gun owner were there, he probably would not be carrying a firearm. If he is carrying a firearm he would not be a law abiding responsible gun owner.

Big misconception. It is not the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to protect "Us All". A responsible gun owner does not own a gun to protect the masses. Mostly, a responsible gun owner is one who accepts the responsibility of protecting himself/herself and his/her family when they are near.

If you (plural) are looking for protection from someone else, you could someday be very disappointed. It is very rare for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime much less a responsible gun owner. The only persons that are sure to be at the scene of a crime are the criminal and the victim. Criminals are lazy, If they think their intended victim will put up a fight, usually there won't be a crime committed.

One of the best things I have done in my life is to teach my daughters how to use firearms. The youngest was 8 when she was taught. I go to the firing range twice a month and most of the time my youngest is with me. The older ones are with me less often since they are adults.

I will tell you that my daughters are not sheep. I am very confident in their ability to protect themselves. They have learned that they are personally responsible for their protection. And they don't necessarily rely on a firearm for personal protection. They understand that not putting yourself in a position to be a victim is number one. And firearms are a last resort. They are basically armed with the intent to protect themselves.

In a nutshell. I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family. If someday it happens that I protect you from a crime, feel blessed, because that was not, is not, nor will be my intent. If it is your personal preference to be a sheep, that is fine. Don't expect me to be the sheepdog when the wolves come howling. I am not a sheepdog, I am an ant preparing for winter.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this subject.

Ever read this?

"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. "

Now read this 'best post ever' as a defense of the subject of you being able to keep your guns -

"I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family."

Sickening.

You know, I've always been opposed to guns. But now I've even more convinced. Because collectively, you aren't interested in owning a weapon for the good of the masses. You are interested in owning one to protect your sorry a$$ from an imagined home invader.

Don't ever talk to me again about your 'rights'. You don't even begin to know the meaning of them.

Rebecca,

Your perspective and response is really harsh. The law does protect one's right to defend their home from intruders (home invaders). If you don't believe this crime is a reality, read the news.

My weapons and experience in using them, stand ready to defend my home and family.

William -

I tried to speak to this group in a civilized fashion, especially Saturday morning. When I came back to the thread after being gone several hours, I found my opinion had become a topic of chest-beating and eventual personal ridiculue of me.

I guess for some people, the fact that they own something which could effectively blow someone's brains out gives them more than a sense of self-security. It gives them a feeling of power and superiority. All I can figure out is that I, someone who doesn't own a gun and would prefer to see gun ownership restricted, became a verbal 'target'.

Look at what was written - right down to a comment about 'there's something about the smell of gun powder'. We aren't talking about daisies here. Friday night while I was in this thread, I was researching the subject on other sites (I don't just sit here when I am in discussions with people about topics and continue to pound away on my point - I read and I research). I watched several video commentaries, including one wherein some teenage boys were questioning the use of guns. They weren't judging - they were curious about the subject. In this video and as part of their research, they went to a shooting range. After firing several different types of weapons, they decided that shooting was 'fun'. From that perspective, they concluded that gun ownership is something that wasn't so bad.

I could go on and on why I feel the way I do, but it won't matter. I am 'harsh' if I verbally defend myself against the boyish comments posted in the thread.

Perhaps I should buy a gun. Then I would be on equal footing. In the meanwhile, I am just wrong and a verbal target.

[Miranda&James 8]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

[PlatyPius 5]

As I said earlier, I don't see the point in defending my legal right to own a gun/guns to someone who doesn't believe in that right. So, I'll just leave all of that alone. I've made my points, and that's all I can hope for. To be honest, the only thing that will change the opinion of someone like that is for them to experience having a gun put to their head by a robber/assailant and then be saved by a passer-by with a gun. ie: not likely.

I did want to comment on Number 6's statement that handguns are only for killing people, though...

As I mentioned earlier, I carried a handgun in my backpack when I lived in Wyoming. It was a matter of convenience. I didn't feel like lugging around a rifle while backcountry hiking/camping. Also, when I go to the gun range for target shooting, I use a handgun. I don't know why, but I'm just much better with a handgun than I am with a rifle. Correction, I'm much better with an accurate handgun than a rifle. I doubt that I could hit much with one of the tiny 9mms. My handgun of choice is a 1970s Smith & Wesson N-Frame .41 Magnum with Pachmayr grips. It has a 6.5 inch barrel. You could hardly call it a small, easily concealable gun.

I don't understand why people always assume that guns are only to kill people, too. People test their abilities with bows & arrows, with blow guns, with slingshots, with muzzleloaders.... testing yourself in this way is a "sport" and in no way involves the killing of anything. It tests your aim and spacial reasoning skills. So does pinball, and about half of the games for Wii, PS3, Xbox that we let our kids play.

[Heracles 417]

So you don't see anything wrong with wasting thousand of scarce resources in the court room but have a problem with computers listening in on people's calls. It is hard enough, almost impossible, to catch someone even if law enforcement had no rules to follow let alone forcing them to build a case for each wire tap. It is actually ####### like this which contributes to this cat and mouse game police play with criminals here. This sort of anti-law enforcement attitude that allows the mafia, organized crime, gangs, child molesters etc to get away with hurting others because they know the authorities have about 1001 rules to follow; rather than actually do their job and catch the bad guys.

Now that I think about it blaming it on guns are just a cheap cop out. The mafia would have been hunted down like rabid animals abroad but not in America. Thanks to people like yourself they are actually protected by their rights. I mean, #### the victim right. As long as we uphold a persons individual right. Pretty much like this killer's right to choose to kill others.

This goes back to my earlier point. The 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted and outdated right, but the misuse of innocent until proven guilty is okay.

The 'scarce resources' in the courtroom you refer to is called 'due process'. If due process comes under fire in this country, a semi-automatic weapon isn't what you are going to need to save your a$$.

Individual rights is what sets this nation apart from others. The very thing you are foaming at the mouth over is your individual right to own a gun.

I think that is the biggest misconception and delusion of people here. That you have all of these rights. What about the right to live a life without being a victim of violence? Do you have this right? This seems to be last on the agenda when compared to others. I am all for reasonable gun ownership for stable, responsible and mature people. But will never sit here and blame guns while totally ignoring the actual cause of this countries M A J O R problem with violence, crime, murders, gangs etc. The misinterpretation of the First amendment allows people to feel they can do absolutely anything to anyone and then hide under the innocent until proven guilt clause.

Trillion dollar question, If the current Constitution is so great why have hardly any other countries out there adopted it???? It is something that is clearly out of date. Wrong century. Wrong Era. And has been greatly taken out of context, period! Even a total gun ban is irrelevant until that huge loophole is reformed.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[rebeccajo 14]

I'm just glad rebeccajo isn't in charge of handing out rights and how we are allowed to use them.

Just be thankful you didn't use her bathroom and leave the toilet seat up by mistake.

Awww. Aren't you going to bless my toilet seat?

No. You're one of the bible-thumpers who stands in judgment of others with your cute little sideswipes that drop into threads now and then.

I think your posts have gotten far out of line. It is not your decision if someone wants a gun to protect their home. You'd have to be an idiot to think that taking out an intruder with a bat is a better idea than a gun. I'm a woman, more than likely the intruder will be a man much larger than me and I want that a$$hole to know not to mess with MY personal space or MY body. I have EVERY right to do that; you seem to want to take that away and have me take my chances with hand to hand combat. Currently, that is the biggest threat in many peoples minds that would necessitate a gun; overthrowing the government not so much, but hey, we have the guns just in case don't we.

And by the way, I don't get off on gunpowder powder and I would be devastated if I ever had to actually shoot someone but if it's me against someone who thinks they have the right to intrude upon me or my personal property, then you bet for damn sure I'd rather be armed. They would get a fair warning I had a gun; hopefully that will be deterrent enough. If not, you can bet I won't be going for the knees. I'm not stupid.

You have your Constitutional right to own that gun.

I have a Constitutional right to speak out about how I feel about it.

My polite comments and inquiries were mocked. That wasn't out of line?

I'm not saying everyone in this thread is an angel but attacking someones viewpoint is quite different from declaring someone a judgment passing bible thumper. It just seems that your anger against some comments ran away from you a bit and you certainly are one who strives to provide a good, balanced reason for all of your viewpoints most of the time. And I still don't see how owning a gun for personal protection is sickening - yes, it does make me "stronger" that someone without a gun, but that isn't something pleasurable, it is simply a factor that may ensure that I don't get taken advantage of. Going to the shooting range is fun, I won't lie, and I see nothing wrong with that past time so long as very serious training measures and safety regulations are in place to train people to respect firearms, not treat them like toys that go boom. My grandfather shot a gallon jug of water the first time I went to the range with him to show me what that gun would do to my head if I didn't take it seriously, so while I can't speak for anyone else, I would 100% say that I am about as responsible of a gun owner as you can get.

Miranda -

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

The post wherein the member claimed he owned his gun to protect himself and not others was sickening to me. He comes back to the thread later and expounds upon how he would supposedly, of course, protect others should a time of national oppression actually arise. I think that's back-peddling.

[Heracles 417]

After spending time off and on in the thread over the weekend, I've come to the conclusion that for many people gun ownership isn't really about their Constitutional preservations. It's because owning a weapon makes them feel safe in their homes, or because they like to hunt, or because it's fun.

I agree with you on that point. I find it funny to hear people think they are some kind of John Wayne and will shoot the person before they kill them. My family friend won the World Olympics in shooting and he even laughs at that concept. I like owning a gun myself but have never thought I will have it because I will kill the bad guy before they kill me. LMAO

What happens if the gunman has the gun at a person's or their spouses head. If they reach for the gun they are dead. That is reality.

Or how fast can someone reach a gun if thugs are doing a stereotypical American drive-by. How many cases have we heard of where a John wayne gun owner has actualy killed the bad guy shooting up the mall, school etc. Anyone with that mentality needs to come back to reality.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Boo-Yah!