Gun Rights and Politics

[jammin]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

The pursuit of something is very different to the actual thing now isn't it.

[Kuronin]

The pursuit of something is very different to the actual thing now isn't it.

 

You're missing the point, owning a gun can be described as a liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

 

If you think you are going to be happy owning a gun, you should be allowed to.

 

 

Oh, and I also agree with Lo's position about McCain, and I refused to vote. If Obama can get something done, so be it. I've always supported Bush's position on the Iraq war and it looks like Obama isn't really doing things that much differently. Please don't contest me on that, this thread is about guns.

[jammin]

You're missing the point, owning a gun can be described as a liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

 

If you think you are going to be happy owning a gun, you should be allowed to.

 

I'm not sure what point I'm missing?

 

I suppose you could define gun ownership as that if you wanted to.

 

As for the "if you think you are going to be happy owning something, you should be allowed to own it" logic, that seems very strange to me.

[Kuronin]

That was my point

 

Thinking you will be happy with a gun = Pursuit of happiness

[Andrewr05]

You can usually tell when someone has a gun on them it may noy be obvious at first.

Either you've been watching movies or you've seen an amateur concealing a weapon.

 

There are quite a few ways to disguise that you have a weapon.

[jammin]

That was my point

 

Thinking you will be happy with a gun = Pursuit of happiness

 

Ah, I see.

 

Is there anything you wouldn't allow in the pursuit of happiness?

[Andrewr05]

If you think you are going to be happy owning a gun, you should be allowed to.

As for the "if you think you are going to be happy owning something, you should be allowed to own it" logic, that seems very strange to me.

AGREED

 

It'd make me happy if I could go up to any hot chick and just lay her down and have at her right there, that doesn't mean I can without legality issues.

 

It'd make me happy if I could just whip my pecker out and piss in the streets instead of hunting around for a public bathroom, that doesn't mean I can without legality issues.

 

It would make me happy if I could obtain any media I want for free, that doesn't mean I can without legality issues.

 

It would make me happy if I could drive as fast as I felt like no matter what the posted speed limit, that doesn't mean I can without legality issues.

 

I'm 100% for gun ownership I just wanted to agree that that doesn't really work, if it did then NOTHING could be deemed illegal.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Andrewr05

[Kuronin]

You could argue that position against liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not life. You have a right to defend yourself if you feel your life threated do you not?

[Andrewr05]

Absolutely...

[Verran]

It's not disingenuous at all. I don't say it's a fact unless it is.

That doesn't make it a fact. There are countless other factors at play in those examples.

 

Are you saying that any outcome in a situation makes it an "irrefutable fact" that that outcome will be repeated in all similar cases?

 

If I flip a coin and the outcome is tails, does that mean that it is an "irrefutable fact" that coin tosses will result in tails?

 

I gave my proposal. I also gave a specific example of the "slippery slope." Read the post.

But that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant, and I think you know that. What I mean is that if you have a problem with a proposal, don't talk about "slippery slopes", talk about the problem that you have with the proposal. I understand the concept of a slippery slope. I don't need that explained to me. What I'm saying is that it's not good enough for me. By that rationale we could never again change gun policies in any way because all of it is a slippery slope. Sorry, but that's just not a discussion I'm interested in participating in.

[ExRoadie]

I feel that we're two people with vastly different histories trying to compare our upbringing.

 

Europeans had organized "countries" for centuries before the founding of America. This sense of continuity from the Middle Ages to present time might have established a benchmark for personal freedoms that simply do not apply when discussing things "American".

 

From my point of view, Americans were born and bred on the frontier of civilization. The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock had their trusty Muskets with them for protection against the unknown and to take game for food. My ancestors three generations before me fought and died in the Civil War. Just two generations before me they lived and died in the Western Frontier that is so vividly portrayed in the movies.

 

My Grandfather on my Dad's side proudly wore his revolver on his hip every day of his life. My Mom's father only took his gun off when he came to "town" or went to church. As a child, I was taught how to handle firearms almost as soon as I could walk.

 

So compared to someone that has never been around guns, I believe you guys will have a decidedly different outlook on the subject. It's these different views that I wanted to explore with my original request in the prior thread.

 

To touch on a few of the points made in previous posts let me rant a bit.

 

Tools don't kill people, people kill people. Now you can substitute just about any implement for the word "tool" and it doesn't change the truth of the statement. Banning guns because their use has been sensationalized in either the actions of an individual or the reporting of said actions, does not change the truth that only people kill other people. Any statements to the contrary are either rhetorical or outright lies.

 

The guy that drives his car into the Farmers Market killing many is no different than that same guy taking out a handgun or rifle to accomplish the same end.

 

Much like the massacre at Virginia Tech University in 2007 or the 1993 Long Island Railroad shootings, people hear of such tragedies and their first response is we need to control handguns. But, if you look at it from another point of view, how many lives would have been saved if only one person close to the scene had carried a handgun and been able to take the gunman down?

 

The reason the bad guys pick these locations is precisely because they believe that they will be the only person with a gun and have complete control of the situation. Bad guys never barge into a rodeo, hunting lodge or redneck bar and start shooting because they know at best they might get one or two shots off before they become a bloody mess of hamburger meat slumped on the floor.

 

Don't blame the tool!

Edited February 4, 2009 by ExRoadie

[Kash]

I don't know why we keep talking about the Constitutional aspects. That issue was laid to rest months ago. You're allowed to own a gun and the government is allowed to reasonably control the sale of guns, just like it reasonably controls the sale of anything that's potentially lethal. Stop digging it back up.