Trouble with you and your kind, you yield no ground to accomplish any of these goals.
things r open to negotiation;
e.g., if u have a yard sale of your "gently used antiques"
u might be open to hondle and dicker over the price of a painting,
but if a customer wants to dicker your wife or your mom,
maybe u 'll not be willing to compromise.
Do u agree with that, Farmer?
The mantra of "itll never work and the 2nd amendment doesnt allow it" is very tiresome.
That is an appeal to emotion
, instead of to reason.
U might be tired of snow falling in winter, but that does not make it less true.
What is "tiresome" to u can be thrilling
to someone else.
Im a gun owner and I carry in specific circumstances,
What is your defensive gun of choice ?
Loaded with what ??
yet I feel that guns are a major problem in our society.
Thay r major problems to violent criminals on-the-job
whose lifespans might be thereby adversely affected.
There is a criminal element, the control of which can NOT be the universal arming
of the rest of the population by guys like you or me.
For years and centuries, I have advocated that men
who have proven by histories of recidivistic criminal violence
that thay r intolerable menaces to the decent people shud be removed
from contact with them, preferably off of the North American Continent.
I have merely pointed out that by the Bill of Rights,
government was granted the privilege
subject to the condition that it NOT
interfere with any citizen's possession of defensive firearms
any more than it has jurisdiction to interfere with his possession of BIBLES
If Im not threatened, would I use my gun to protect anyone else?
I dunno. I suspect that is related to how much u LIKE
the person in question.
Ive often thought of that and my answer is HELL NO!
If the victim is your mom, or your little child??
your first love ?
(I would cal 911 immediately and would render assistance but I would NOIT draw my gun)
Good idea. When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.
Im not going to expose myself or my family or colleagues by joining in a gunfight to save someone else.
This may be cowardice but Im being honest.
Its not cowardice if u have no duty to defend the victim.
SO a "universal arming of the citizenry" wont lead to more safety from gun deaths.
Year after decade after century Vermont has had very low gun deaths
and it has never had anti-gun laws.
To my mind: that is a logical, factual refutation of your theory.
Ive been fired upon and have lived through several attacks by para-military units
and have lost a person at my side to gun fire, so Im not speaking out of ignorance of the experience.
Forgive me if I wonder whether more aggressive defenses 'd have successfully nullified the threat.
Your attitude as supreme hedonist in NYC seems to underpin me.
I dont think that youd help someone either even though you are armed
(your reasons of doing so may be different but the results would be the same).
I join in your philosophy,
in that it all depends on the degree of my affection for the victim
How would you see this dilemma being handled (excluding universal armament)?
For the record:
my position has always been very simple, to wit:
government has NO JURISDICTION
qua defensive personal armament of citizens.
The way u wrote that made it sound like obama's universal mandate
that everyone get health insurance whether he wants it or not.
I just say that no government shud take any notice in matters of defensive personal armament,
the same as it respects the privacy of any citizen in his choice of religious beliefs.
See above qua BANISHMENT
of criminally violent recidivists.
You should periodically refresh our memory of what you think rather than believe that everyone reads and "buys" your verbal extracts from the press.
Yea; maybe u r right.