APP - Shut up about guns

[I'm Watermark]

To liberals: We have a constitution for a reason. People have very real concerns pertaining personal injury and harm to their property and loved ones. Guns provide a sense of security, and actual security. So next time you say it's time to make gun free zones, remember that the folks who're about to break the law will not follow that one. At some point, people need to take security into their own hands - we cannot always rely on law enforcement to provide us ample protection.

To conservatives: Grow up. We don't need a domestic arms race. And in a real situation, a gun won't always protect you. if someone plans to walk up and kill you, it doesn't matter if you're armed. Unless you can properly see the attack coming and fire off a shot in time, you're toast. In a civilian atmosphere, the one who starts first will have much more time, and, ultimately, a far better chance of doing harm than receiving it. Guns are important, but not the only answer to self defense. And, as for assault weapons. sure, there's a valid reason for having them. But what the hell kind of person needs a military grade arsenal? Your kids should not be handling this stuff, you don't need it, and if we increase access to it, criminals will cause more harm than ever.

So... pass some legislation to limit the sale of assault weapons to criminals, but let law abiding citizens protect themselves if the need arises. We need a second amendment, not a domestic arms race. You loons look at this in absolutes, and that's completely unacceptable.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And, as for assault weapons. sure, there's a valid reason for having them. But what the hell kind of person needs a military grade arsenal?

what are you trying to say with this? there's a valid reason, but what kind of person needs them?

 

[I'm Watermark]

what are you trying to say with this? there's a valid reason, but what kind of person needs them?

I'm saying moderation is a good thing.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm saying moderation is a good thing.

in some things, yes. in defense of freedom and the constitution? no. the more extreme you are, the better.

 

[I'm Watermark]

in some things, yes. in defense of freedom and the constitution? no. the more extreme you are, the better.

In defense of freedom? Absolutism is a prerequisite to intelligence. Democracy, liberation, freedom - all of these things are not merely the antithesis of those "opiate of the masses", but also the realization of human nature. And, though we may disagree on how to bring them about, they do a good job of defining the common interests of the socialists and Austrians.

But in regards to the constitution? Toss it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

In defense of freedom? Absolutism is a prerequisite to intelligence. Democracy, liberation, freedom - all of these things are not merely the antithesis of those "opiate of the masses", but also the realization of human nature. And, though we may disagree on how to bring them about, they do a good job of defining the common interests of the socialists and Austrians.

But in regards to the constitution? Toss it.

feel free to start your revolution then, see how it succeeds or fails.

 

[Don Quixote]

To liberals: We have a constitution for a reason. People have very real concerns pertaining personal injury and harm to their property and loved ones. Guns provide a sense of security, and actual security. So next time you say it's time to make gun free zones, remember that the folks who're about to break the law will not follow that one. At some point, people need to take security into their own hands - we cannot always rely on law enforcement to provide us ample protection.

To conservatives: Grow up. We don't need a domestic arms race. And in a real situation, a gun won't always protect you. if someone plans to walk up and kill you, it doesn't matter if you're armed. Unless you can properly see the attack coming and fire off a shot in time, you're toast. In a civilian atmosphere, the one who starts first will have much more time, and, ultimately, a far better chance of doing harm than receiving it. Guns are important, but not the only answer to self defense. And, as for assault weapons. sure, there's a valid reason for having them. But what the hell kind of person needs a military grade arsenal? Your kids should not be handling this stuff, you don't need it, and if we increase access to it, criminals will cause more harm than ever.

So... pass some legislation to limit the sale of assault weapons to criminals, but let law abiding citizens protect themselves if the need arises. We need a second amendment, not a domestic arms race. You loons look at this in absolutes, and that's completely unacceptable.

if you are really worried about being shot and not being able to defend yourself in time, there is always a bullet resistant vest along with a firearm

if you are worried about kids getting their hands on your firearm(s), there are trigger locks and firearm safes

however, in my 68 years, i have never needed a firearm to save me, as, i think, is the case of most people

however, there was one time when i was asked by my employer to get my pistol out of my care and sit in the lobby of his business, but was during one of the la riots and, fortunately, i did not need it, but it made my fellow employees feel better...

 

[Minister of Truth]

In societies where firearms are not permitted, you are far more likely to need one. Yet another reason why living in the US is awesome - you can be some anti-gun nut, and probably be safe from harm.