An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

reply to post by roguetechie


Oh. I thought I said as much. I thought I put Assault rifles under the machine gun definition. Assault weapons are the strange things that are illegal because they resemble military weapons.

Assault weapon vs assault rifle. It's no wonder the power mongering politicians (on both sides) have clung to that term.

reply to post by howmuch4another


Oh wow. I hadn't even noticed that I had millions. It must be a glitch. How do I get this resolved? Last I looked I had about a 2.5ish to 1 star per post ratio.

Dear Gun Grabber,

As you accuse me of not loving people in general, but loving the freedom of guns, you are slapping me in the face. I am a patient person in general, but let me say that I have finally reached the end of my patience with this.

So, let me ask you something: all these killings that occur, what do they have in common? They happen in gun free zones. The young man that murdered all those children in Connecticut murdered his own mother to take her guns. You are delusional if you think that you can stop people like that with laws that mirror the War on Drugs campaign. How's that War on Drugs thing going, by the way?

Do you love children? Then why do you want to take away a tool that single mothers can use to defend them in high-crime areas? Do you care about violence against women? Then why do you want to take away the most directly effective and greatest equalizing tool for women against rapists and others seeking an easy victim? Why do want to rob people of a self-defense tool when so many areas of the country have police response times of over ten minutes? Do you hate rural people so much that you want to risk their lives by taking away their ability to effectively deal with coyotes? Do you hate farmers and ranchers so much that you want to take away their ability to defend their cattle?

We both know that you are so terrified of guns that you don't actually even understand them. I know that all those things your government officials are legislating against are just cosmetic pieces that don't really make a difference; they just look scary, and you lap it up because you've not taken the time to actually understand how much their jibbering is pure trash.

We both know that you think I'm evil because I am okay with guns in the same fashion that those conservatives that we both hate so much think that pro-abortion people are advocates for baby-killing. Oh, wait? What's that? I'm not some anti-abortion, tea-party neo-Nazi? I'm an actual person and don't fit your little straw man narrative against pro-gun people?

The tears of frustration that you cry as I type this are delicious, your outrage that I turn your blame game around you is even more delicious. Which, in case you missed it, is exactly what I'm doing.

That's right. All the blame for these massacres can be put directly on your shoulders because you went out of your way to steal the basic right to self-defense in many of these places and outrightly ban all tools of self-defense in these facilities.

There, that is my response to the person that wrote the truth-out.org letter.

NavyDoc

FyreByrd

thesaneone
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

We all know that words can lead to fights that can end with someone getting beaten to death with someones hands so should we change the 1st.a? Would you be fine with that?

what about screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre? This is completely irrelevant to the OP and so reactionary as to be a case study (I'll let you decide on what).

Ah, yes, that old saw.

First of all, it is perfectly legal to scream fire in a theater if, in fact, there is a fire in the theater.

Secondly, no one is gagged before they go into a theater just because they might scream fire. They are left with their vocalizations intact until they actually say something that may harm their fellow man.

Exactly!
And it's this kind of logic that causes people like me to not be punished for something that I/we have not done. People are not gagged going into a theater. They have to yell fire to break the law then be dealt with accordingly. Gun owners only wish the came level of independence.
..And yes..Yelling fire can get someone killed..

reply to post by FyreByrd


PROPAGANDA.... If you look AGAIN, at the cities and states where there are more gun violence, they are the cities and states where guns are either completely banned or heavily restricted such as New York, and Detroit. How can you, or the op claim that the problem is because of people's right to own and bear arms? CRIMINALS don't give a crap about gun control and they will get guns illegally.

About your children, if you think that getting rid of your guns alone is going to make them safe, you are fooling yourself. What you have to do is TEACH your children to have a healthy understanding about guns, or even common household chemicals. You need to spend time with your children teaching them to respect firearms, that they are not toys, same with household chemicals.

There is a myriad of commons household chemicals that can as easily kill your child if you do not teach your child to have respect for these.

This letter is nothing more than PROPAGANDA from the anti-gun lobby.

Heck, more young adults are killed from car crashes than from guns, and the problem is that parents are letting their children do whatever they want.

Teach your children to respect and treat guns not as toys, but as a defense tool.

For crying outloud during the times of the settlers of early America children were allowed to use guns, and hunt, yet there were no massive deaths from children killing each other, except during wars/conflicts. Back in those times children were mature enough to use firearms daily, and there were not massive accidental deaths from firearms. This happened because PARENTS took the time to talk and teach their children proper respect for firearms, something that is of lacking these days.

The problem is not guns, just like the problem is not household chemicals, or cars, the problem is that many parents are not talking and teaching children the proper respect for these instruments.

You also have to teach your children on how to deal with bullies and the stress from school and daily lives. TAKE RESPNSIBILITY. the problem is not guns, as it is not cars, or common household chemicals, the problems is that YOU, the parents are not taking the time to talk to your children to respect and teach them about these tools, instruments.

It is obvious that the op is a shill for the anti-gun industry.

reply to post by FyreByrd


How are you not a willing victim then?

reply to post by FyreByrd

To encroach on someone or something.

Sounds like the current laws right now.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Does the right to bear arms outweight the right to life, liberty, and happiness that the constitution lays out as the supreme right of citizen. 

My right to bear arms is the guarantee that I have to protect my rights to life, liberty and thereby, my happiness.

As usual the anti-2nd amendment operatives are foaming out of their mouths once again about various leftist statistical nonsense.

A few of the usual suspects like FyreByrd & Superfrog are bypassing anyone who destroys their frequent weak arguments. Kind of like them ignoring Galvatron's posts, which were spot on, as well as many others on our side.

The last thread one of them started, they for the most part ignored me because I exposed them for what they are. For who or what is another question my friends? It could be a personal vendetta, or just simply nothing more than a week, or two week business transaction. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by butcherguy


I'd like to point something out that I noticed in butcherguy's quote of firebird....

He seems to think you have the right to LIFE LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS.... which you do NOT just like you do NOT have the RIGHT to FEEL SAFE..... for that matter you do NOT have the RIGHT to FEEL ANYTHING!

Do you know why?

Because feelings are entirely subjective and not subject to logic or reason, just like these threads and the arguments being used to "prove" gun owners are evil christian extremists that fashion gun racks out of the skeletal remains of all the children killed in the rampage shootings their so LOVED guns have created....

See we can paint with a broad brush too.... doesn't feel nice does it? Doesn't feel good when someone just completely moves the goalposts and puts words in your mouth does it?

You should probably stop doing it too because it hurts us and makes us angry too, and more importantly it prevents you from actually getting anything out of the conversation.

One thing I"ve noticed in the uncountable legions of these threads is that the anti gun posters seem to have this completely unjustified thought that anyone who supports gun rights is not intelligent, an extremist, or any number of other things, but PRIMARILY nowhere near as SMART as people who do not support gun rights. Not only this but I see countless calls to muzzle, institutionalize, arrest and imprison, or outright KILL anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

Whereas,

For the most part gun owners see the people truly pushing the gun control agenda as very smart people with ulterior motives. Further the people who are unwittingly drug into parroting these lines we don't even see them as stupid for the most part! What we will say time and again is that they are misguided or giving into emotion over logic.... hell even that their OPINION on that subject is outright stupidity, but we don't automatically think anyone who is anti gun is all around unintelligent or less deserving of voicing their opinion than we are.


Now this is interesting.... what's also interesting is in these threads you will see time and again that the talk of violent revolution or government overthrow is time and again brought up by people who are anti gun, while the progun posters time and again say guys it doesn't work that way violence is NOT the answer!

This has lead me to think a couple things:

1. It's probably good that most of the people who are anti gun don't own guns because they are SHOCKINGLY immature, and would undoubtedly be one of the "bubba's" they constantly tout as the rule rather than exception which is what they really are among gun owners.

2. They use their own immaturity as reasoning why other people shouldn't be allowed to have or do things that would be dangerous if they had or did them.

3. They also tend to think they have a "right to feel safe" which they do not. You have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS! Notice you can pursue it, but you have no RIGHT to be happy! It infuriates me to NO END that people with law degrees especially those that claim to be constitutional law EXPERTS *cough el presidente* come up in front of the cameras and out and out LIE to the people who trust and support them by telling them they have a right to feel safe. You don't! Nor SHOULD YOU! There is a reason why feelings aren't legislated.

If your children do not show respect for household chemicals do you get rid of them completely?.... Do you stop cleaning your house because your child might die by ingesting Clorox or any similar household chemical?? NO... If after trying to teach your children RESPONSIBILITY, and seeing they don't learn to respect your "control" (Yes you have to learn to balance to control your children while giving them love, and understanding) so they don't become "a brat", you find a way to keep those household chemicals away from your children. You should do the same with firearms, and even cars. Heck, if your 16-17 year old gets a speeding ticket, you don't let him continue driving, you take the keys away from him/her and ground them until they come to understand that they have to be RESPONSIBLE.

reply to post by SuperFrog


It appears you are arguing from a position of not having a clue about how we have rights in America. The right to free speech and to own guns and many other rights are not given to the people by the government at all.. Figure it out.. "Oh how generous my government is, they are letting me speak freely!" or "I love how nice my rulers are because they have given me permission to defend myself."

So, anything the government does to curb or reduce gun ownership, or buying up all the ammunition, or anything else is an infringement.
It is an infringement because it is trying to dictate that they must give permission first, which is total rubbish.

Rights are ours to invoke on our government, not have government invoke their version of rights on the people.

FyreByrd

Does the right to bear arms outweight the right to life, liberty, and happiness that the constitution lays out as the supreme right of citizen.

It really isn't a simple question and making it sound so is unreasoning.

You have no constitutionally guaranteed right to be happy. You have the right to pursue it, but attaining it is not guaranteed.

If I owned a firearm, it would in no way infringe your rights to life or liberty, so the construction of the question is flawed - it doesn't demonstrate any sort of supremacy of one's rights over the other's.

So, yeah, it really IS a simple question.

(self deleted)

SuperFrog
This is all I care for - how more safer our children are due to guns and guns crazy folks. About 5 million new guns per year is large number. More guns, more chance to get injured either by accident or misuse of weapons.

It is proven fact that more guns don't make us more safer, actually it is opposite - with more guns you have more crimes.

Here is study:

Objectives. We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy—the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm—and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level.

Methods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Please stop with this unreasonable comparison with stuff we need in life - gun is not necessary for everyday life like car. It is very childish and does not prove your point - it just prove that you are willing to go to extreme to validate your 'hobby' that put as all into more danger.

YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Your linked study correlates guns with GUN homicide.. well no sh|t sherlock. Your assinine comments correlated guns with CRIME. You know in MExico it's very hard to legally own a gun. I guess that explains Mexico's super low crime rate the last 10 years huh?? LOL Here's a NEWSFLASH for ya. In countries with strict gun control, most murders are done with knives or... wait for it.... ILLEGAL guns. Try running that study in the UK and you would find that amazingly for a country with near ZERO gun ownership, there's still a large number of people killed with GUNS.

Banning guns to stop murders is like banning airports to prevent plane crashes!!!

Ultimately you're probably right though... Making laws totally stops peoples actions... One day, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to make CRIME itself illegal, then no one will do it.... ahhh Utopia.....

reply to post by FyreByrd

I was thinking about the title of the thread.

'Lovers of the gun' in particular.

Many like the idea of being able to have something to depend on to defend themselves from evildoers that might be planning to do them harm. Evildoers that might be armed.

That isn't love.

It reminds me of my first wife. Her 'love' for me was (by her own admission) only the feeling of comfort that she got by having me there to support her, she needed someone to depend on. That isn't love. But between human beings, it can be part of a loving relationship.

I don't feel love for any inanimate objects.

ETA: I am not criticizing my first wife, she is a really great person and she has been a wonderful mother for two of my children.

8675309jenny
YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Your linked study correlates guns with GUN homicide.. well no sh|t sherlock. Your assinine comments correlated guns with CRIME. You know in MExico it's very hard to legally own a gun. I guess that explains Mexico's super low crime rate the last 10 years huh?? LOL Here's a NEWSFLASH for ya. In countries with strict gun control, most murders are done with knives or... wait for it.... ILLEGAL guns. Try running that study in the UK and you would find that amazingly for a country with near ZERO gun ownership, there's still a large number of people killed with GUNS.

Banning guns to stop murders is like banning airports to prevent plane crashes!!!

Ultimately you're probably right though... Making laws totally stops peoples actions... One day, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to make CRIME itself illegal, then no one will do it.... ahhh Utopia.....

As you can see, this morning I asked my self if is really worth it to discuss gun control with gun advocates, and it appears that ATS is full of those. So after I wrote comment regarding someone trying to change meanings of word 'regulated militia' from 1791 to today, while not compering situation of 1791 to today, I came to conclusion that some folks are still in mind-set that they are somehow in danger from government, army, neighbors etc. so they do require 'additional' protection.

Quite often some of those in danger act proactively and start shooting at us, rest of people. Just this morning was hearing about this case. He shot only 2 dozens cars on highway, and his reasoning - "He says he fired a gun at drivers because he believed they were part of a government conspiracy against him. "

So for example, you bring argument that there are gun related deaths in UK, even they have strict gun control. For your info, and this is 4 year old statistic, UK has 41 TIMES less gun related deaths per 100K people than USA. Here is stat:

United Kingdom 0.25 (2010) per 100,000
United States 10.3 (2011) per 100,000

Since than (2011) in states was sold over 15 million guns, while UK has 'total' ownership a bit over 4 million.

As you can see, this is exactly what study shows - more guns = more gun related deaths. More deaths = less security. It is just simple mathematics here, not too complicated, I hope.

I never asked for ban of guns, but better control, but if you like to go to that extent (which in USA really IS utopia, at least at the moment) and compare it with ban of airport to prevent crashes, this is another FAIL comparison. We already had comparison with cars and people willing to part with life as we know it rather then give up some gun control, but let me tell you, having gun regulated is like having air traffic regulated - more control - less crashes.

So, yeah - this discussion is not leading anywhere. We all know what 'well regulated' militia means in 2nd amendment and if this ever get to supreme court, you would see that gun advocates would loose by large just because of that part of wording. If our founding fathers were thinking differently, they would write it differently, and exclude this 'now confusing' words.

SuperFrog


So, yeah - this discussion is not leading anywhere. We all know what 'well regulated' militia means in 2nd amendment and if this ever get to supreme court, you would see that gun advocates would loose by large just because of that part of wording. If our founding fathers were thinking differently, they would write it differently, and exclude this 'now confusing' words.

I have bad news for you. The Supreme Court actually has ruled on the meaning of 'well regulated militia' as recently as 2008's DC v Heller decision. In it, they ruled that the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment are unconnected to militia service.

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Regardless, it actually doesn't even matter! The 2nd Amendment does not grant a right. It states that the government may not infringe upon it. Even in the absence of the 2nd Amendment, a person would have a legal right to firearms ownership until such time as some state, local or federal law prohibited it. As of now, those laws essentially do not exist.