Assume the position.
It's whipping boy time. Someone commits a crime, someone else pays the price. Unless it's some line of fire position.
We're going to have to re-brand everything in self-defense, because using guns against this kind of attack on freedom, well, it's sort of immoral. I
mean, people voted these guys in. People are NIMBY about it, not in their back yard, with anti-tyranny, but if some guy all the way over there does
it, it takes some time for the shock to set in.
Why do politicians have to react? The gun pathogen ran its course, people got sick and died by the gun virus. Why must we punish the guns? My gun
didn't hurt anybody; I never hurt anybody. Why do I have to be screwed for this?
I will give a real story though, of what happened to me once: my brother shot me with a BB gun, and it hurt me. My dad destroyed his BB gun, by
bashing it against a tree. My brother cried; he got what he deserved. And then brother got calloused and grew up to be a gun nut who committed
crimes of having an automatic weapon in the wrong state, lost his rights, but still he has illegal guns.
Meanwhile, I have a gun, I never pointed it at anybody, I kept it in self defense. Using it meaning mostly like, pointing it at attackers (like
kidnappers), not exactly firing it, except in an emergency. That's the way good gun owners hope events play out, that there are no shots. But I'm at
risk of losing my freedom for weaponizing myself because of the history of mental illness, which was mostly, you can guess, from being victimized by
cruel people with guns. Where is that equalizing weapon for me here?
Why would I have to pay for someone else's deviance? The gun is there so I don't have to pay for it!
Just the offender's gun is what I'd prefer. Where is the respect for the respectable? That whole innocent before being proven guilty thing is
important. I hate the rights segregating that seems to be looming on the horizon.
edit on 12-1-2013 by Sandalphon because: (no reason