Originally Posted by Requiem
This is a very interesting debate. Thanks to the guys dropping knowledge. I used to hunt pheasant, but haven't done anything but some shootin' out in the woods of Colorado for fun with target practice. Guns are kinda weird to me. There is an antique case of old wild west guns at NDSU in the alumni center. Pretty cool stuff.
Old guns fascinate me.
As I've said before, I own a Springfield M1861 (my brother owns an original), and I would love to own a flintlock someday. A Colt Lightning would be neat to have.
But see, that's what gets me about hobbies. People can have all kinds of hobbies, some legal, and some not. The people with the hobby call them hobbies and want people to respect their right to practice it. The people on the outside see the hobby as potentially dangerous for one reason or another and want it to be more regulated. Growing roses isn't the same as growing pot. Going camping isn't Civil War reenacting. Coin collecting isn't gun collecting. All of them need to be regulated, and some much more than others.
The personal protection argument is, at best, a wash. At best
. There is still no evidence (everything presented thus far other than what I posted back in December has been anecdotal) that says your home is any safer with a gun than without, and there is still a lot of evidence that suggests you're more likely to have an accident with it than an opportunity for protection. Then you're upping the ante by suggesting we need people out on the streets who legitimately think they would have had a chance to perform some sort of Rambo stunt in Theater #9 armed
? In public?? Excuse me, but no. **** no.
I don't know what the solutions to inner city violence, mental health, or the socio-economic divide are, but adding more guns to the situation defies all logic and statistics.
What burns me up even more isn't even that argument. Because despite what this board suggests, most gun owners aren't that stupid. Most want real reform. No, what makes me angry is the dishonest, disingenuous bull**** arguments you pull (and then unintentionally proceed to completely subvert) in the process of protecting your precious goddamn guns.
You whine about the class, race and social divides, not only neglecting to even discuss how
it happened and whose policies (and institutions) got us there in the first place, but then refusing to give a coherent rebuttal and/or replacement plan.
You claim to want the government out of our lives, but you have no problem determining who can get married and who can stick his dick where.
You claim to be morally superior. You want to ban all abortion, yet your attitude about what actually happens to that child after it's born is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." You say marriage is sacred, yet more marriages fail than succeed. You claim all life is sacred, yet say things like "let criminals fry" and "but that shooter in Aurora wasn't a human being and I'd have enjoyed killing him."
You b**** and moan about Obama's drone warfare policies, yet say how weak he is on foreign policy, as if somehow discreet killings are worse than foreign invasions. I mean, they may not be better, but they're certainly
And the worst part, like I said, is how
you do it. Beavis and epicnyuk are the worst. You pretend like you don't understand arguments, you purposely leave out vital information to one side of an argument...you post in the rest of the forum like normal, intelligent human beings, but when it comes to political discussion, it's like you purposely only turn on the part of your brain that wins you the argument (in your own eyes). You're not fooling anyone.