Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;

Good Evening Zoltan: Because we all know that the military has the ability to protect our country from foreign armies without help from home bound vigilantes,

Hi Gary:

Whoah! Let’ stop right there…if you are referring to our Militia as “home bound vigilantes”…please bear in mind that YOU are a member of the Militia (If you are able bodied and under the age of 45…or .you can still volunteer if you are older) whether you like it or not. Every state Governor has the authority to appoint the Commander of his state’s Militia. Not affiliated with the National Guard in any way.

I have to assume that you mean protecting your freedom from the country that protects you, as you have in fact mentioned your perceived need to be able to protect yourself from the government if necessary. So, if I am clear, you need your gun to protect yourself from the government, foreign invaders, home invaders, random shooters, gang members, robbers and other criminals, burglars, disgruntled employees, homicidal maniacs, and so on. Did I leave any out?

You are making assumptions…:tsktsk:

I was focusing on the rights that are defended by our Constitution. Not my own personal “needs” or fears.
I was pointing out the reasoning and thought that went into the writing of our Constitution.

I agree with it and took an oath to protect and defend it. I still feel bound by that oath. Apparently you find fault with it.

My only firearm “need” are two highly specialized competition shotguns (actually provided by my sponsor) for International Trap Shooting.

Let me give you my perspective, and I freely admit that it is just my view on the matter, but I thought I would share it anyway. The way I see it, none of these people or entities you think you are protecting yourself from have any power to take your life or your freedom away from you. The reason they can’t take them is because you have a greatly diminished reserve of either life or freedom to give or to lose, having lost much of both to your own fears and paranoia regarding the government, foreign invaders, home invaders, random shooters, gang members, robbers and other criminals, burglars, disgruntled employees, homicidal maniacs, and your preparations to meet up with them someday. This just doesn’t sound like any sort of fully realized life or iteration of freedom that meets my understanding of what they two should be. Granted, just because you might be paranoid doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you, but why worry about such things when it seems that you’ve already done yourself in? I think you’ve done just that Zoltan, and while there may be millions like you, it is hard to fathom why anyone would wish to have a life like that.

I am totally unarmed and unafraid. You on the other hand sound as though you might be armed to the teeth from what I can gather, but are still giving considerable thought to matters such as who might take your freedom from you or your possessions from you, or all sorts of things you never really owned in the first place, because in truth you and I are just passing through this life. None of it is yours or mine to keep, so you’ll have to excuse me if I choose to just enjoy it while I can. What I think you are in fact protecting yourself from is any real sense of freedom.

Just my opinion Zoltan.

Thank you,
Gary

Gary, old sport:

A very wise man once told me that a fiercely anti-gun liberal remains that way until he is mugged. Then he becomes either a strong advocate for carrying a concealed weapon or he acquires one, carries it, and never tells his liberal friends.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Technology is in fact a game changer, however, all of the power in the United States is in the hands of a few small and very rich families, who control industry, the media, and even the Federal Reserve, which borrows money from a handful of corporations, that are in turn run by those few families who have never worked a day in their lives.

Thank you,
Gary

Who are these people who control the power in the U.S.?

Kennedys? John Kerry? George Soros? Ted Turner? Oprah Winfrey? Warren Buffet? Tom Steyer?

Who are these very rich and evil people?

 

[ethereality]

I couldn’t vote in the poll because I felt no option best represented my position: “anti-gun, but plan to own one” – that is, I feel obliged to conceal-carry in the USA for self-defense.

I encourage you to read Michael de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote: He makes a compelling argument that firearms are both evil and cowardly: Cowardly because a man can take another man’s life from a distance, without risking his own life, without striving against him manfully; evil for the obvious reason of inflicting grave harm almost effortlessly, even accidentally.

The fact is that firearms are tools only for destruction, only to end life. Their prevalence makes society more dangerous. If you disagree with the latter statement (you cannot disagree with the former), try living in Japan, where the fear of a mass shooting is absent.

Moreover, firearms are offensive weapons, not defensive ones.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Zoltan Cobalt;12061540]Hi Gary:

Whoah! Let’ stop right there…if you are referring to our Militia as “home bound vigilantes”…please bear in mind that YOU are a member of the Militia (If you are able bodied and under the age of 45…or .you can still volunteer if you are older) whether you like it or not. Every state Governor has the authority to appoint the Commander of his state’s Militia. Not affiliated with the National Guard in any way.

Actually, I have an exemption in my state, whereas my Pappy is too old to run the still by himself and my younger sisters aren’t big enough to operate the cotton gin yet. Although I really do miss the hardtack and could use some grapeshot. You crack me up Zoltan.

I was focusing on the rights that are defended by our Constitution. Not my own personal “needs” or fears.I was pointing out the reasoning and thought that went into the writing of our Constitution.

I saw all the 21st century relevant stuff you posted from it about able bodied white males.

I agree with it and took an oath to protect and defend it. I still feel bound by that oath. Apparently you find fault with it.

I don’t find fault with it Zoltan, but you have to understand that what has meaning and value to you may have no meaning or value to me.

A very wise man once told me that a fiercely anti-gun liberal remains that way until he is mugged. Then he becomes either a strong advocate for carrying a concealed weapon or he acquires one, carries it, and never tells his liberal friends.

Sen. Edward Kennedy lost both of his brothers to gun violence and remained a staunch supporter of gun controls throughout his life. Now to you that may not resonate, but to me it shows strength, self control, resolve and clear headed thinking. Your thinking and mine are polar opposites on a lot of things - maybe most things. That said, I want to be clear that I respect your opinion, and you as a person in spite of that.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Annie39]

Hi Gary. Would you give me the definition of a staunch supporter of gun control throughout his life as it relates to Teddy Kennedy? You do know, do you not that he had at least one body guard who carried a “machine pistol” which is fully automatic?

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Etherealty

Yours was the most interesting reasoning I have ever read regarding gun control. I’m thinking that is okay for me to comment since you posted it on an open forum so I thought that I would do that.

You write: I couldn’t vote in the poll because I felt no option best represented my position: “anti-gun, but plan to own one” – that is, I feel obliged to conceal-carry in the USA for self-defense.

May I ask you what, in your opinion, obligates you to conceal-carry?

You: I encourage you to read Michael de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote: He makes a compelling argument that firearms are both evil and cowardly: Cowardly because a man can take another man’s life from a distance, without risking his own life, without striving against him manfully; evil for the obvious reason of inflicting grave harm almost effortlessly, even accidentally.

Me: If I believed what you believe, nothing in this world could induce let alone compel me to carry a weapon. I will not knowingly engage in evil behavior nor have something in my possession that I believed to be evil. BTW, I never read Don Quixote. It never appealed to me. Maybe I’m not remembering correctly but I think that I heard that he was insane.

You: The fact is that firearms are tools only for destruction, only to end life. Their prevalence makes society more dangerous.

Me: Oh well I disagree with this. The firearms that we have are used mostly for target shooting but its side job will be to hopefully stop a bad guy from doing us harm should the occasion arise.

You: If you disagree with the latter statement (you cannot disagree with the former), try living in Japan, where the fear of a mass shooting is absent.

Me: It seems that you are advocating a very controlled society. I have never lived in a society like that so I can’t comment on whether or not I would prefer that.

You: Moreover, firearms are offensive weapons, not defensive ones.

Me: Well the weapon I own, a Ruger SR22, is only for offense if you are against offending a paper target. It is in my case also there for defense. What would you suggest that I do for self defense if someone breaks in to my home while I’m alone intent on no good? I am a 70 year old grandmother and I’m not one to think that “it could never happen to me” because when I was younger a man tried to kidnap me. That is something that leaves a lifetime impression on one, believe me.

Annie

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually, I have an exemption in my state, whereas my Pappy is too old to run the still by himself and my younger sisters aren’t big enough to operate the cotton gin yet. Although I really do miss the hardtack and could use some grapeshot. You crack me up Zoltan.

I am pleased to make you or anyone happy.

Hopefully, when your exemption expires, you will soon be able to rejoin our “band of brothers”

I saw all the 21st century relevant stuff you posted from it about able bodied white males.

Actually the “white male stuff” was from the 18th Century. The Code was updated in the 20th Century to include ladies as well as ANYONE who even intends to be a citizen (illegals??)

I don’t think there have been any revisions during the 21st Century.

I don’t find fault with it Zoltan, but you have to understand that what has meaning and value to you may have no meaning or value to me.

I am SHOCKED! Do I understand that our Constitution and all it stands for has no meaning or value to you??

Sen. Edward Kennedy lost both of his brothers to gun violence and remained a staunch supporter of gun controls throughout his life. Now to you that may not resonate, but to me it shows strength, self control, resolve and clear headed thinking. Your thinking and mine are polar opposites on a lot of things - maybe most things. That said, I want to be clear that I respect your opinion, and you as a person in spite of that.

Thank you,
Gary

Ted Kennedy lost his brothers to a wannabe communist and an Islamic jihadist. They just happened to choose guns .
Ted Kennedy spent the rest of his life supporting gun controls because it was politically expedient. It made his supporters “feel good”. He was instrumental in passing the “Gun Control Act of 1968” the most sweeping infringement of our rights at the time.

Does it register with you that Ted Kennedy’s support of gun control has not stopped a single mass shooting or assassination attempt to date??? Gun control just does not work.

I know we are polar opposites on a lot of things. I enjoy your writing style and envy your ability to express your ideas even if they come across as sort of intellectual elitist. I also respect you as a person…hell I like you. But I can never accept or respect your opinion.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Gary. Would you give me the definition of a staunch supporter of gun control throughout his life as it relates to Teddy Kennedy? You do know, do you not that he had at least one body guard who carried a “machine pistol” which is fully automatic?

Annie

Because in truth, there aren’t any gun controls. Think about that.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Actually the “white male stuff” was from the 18th Century. The Code was updated in the 20th Century to include ladies as well as ANYONE who even intends to be a citizen (illegals??)

 

[migueltojose]

You put your gun rights in…
You put your gun rights out…
You put your gun rights in and you shake 'em all about…
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around…
That’s what it’s all about…

---

I like Gary’s signature…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;12062771:

It can be updated again to do away with things that aren’t necessary.

Then perhaps it’s high time.

Only insofar as it is useful. No more than a hammer or a nail. If it needs to be changed, it should be changed. If it needs to be replaced, then we should replace it. It is here to serve us, not the other way around. I have no reverence for it. It’s a working agreement within a society - a utility. In my opinion it is nothing more than that.

Actually they are legal documents. If you have strong feelings against them…change them. The mechanisms are in place. If done legally, I will have to accept them. And I will.

Which is precisely the point, isn’t it?

Exactly! Anti-American Communists and Islamic Jihadists have no place in our society. Laws should be written to exclude them or imprison them.

People don’t die from mass shootings because people fight for gun control. People die in mass shootings because there is no gun control.

But Gary, don’t you remember the Gun Control Act of 1968? That was supposed to end all gun violence, promote peace and, I think there was something about ending world hunger some where in it.

It didn’t work.

Now, really, think about it. If something doesn’t work, why keep doing it? If a doctor prescribes a new drug and it shows no improvement even after increasing the dosage…would he be prudent to keep prescribing the same drug?

 

[pnewton]

Because in truth, there aren’t any gun controls. Think about that.

There are gun controls throughout the United States. Here is a list of the history of gun regulation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

 

[pnewton]

I couldn’t vote in the poll because I felt no option best represented my position: “anti-gun, but plan to own one” – that is, I feel obliged to conceal-carry in the USA for self-defense.

I encourage you to read Michael de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote: He makes a compelling argument that firearms are both evil and cowardly: Cowardly because a man can take another man’s life from a distance, without risking his own life, without striving against him manfully; evil for the obvious reason of inflicting grave harm almost effortlessly, even accidentally.

It is an interesting point. I would rather modify Cervantes a little. I do not think killing with a gun is so much cowardly as it entails a greater risk of error. At a distance, mistakes can more easily happen with more deadly consequence.

 

[Gorgias]

I encourage you to read Michael de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote: He makes a compelling argument that firearms are both evil and cowardly: Cowardly because a man can take another man’s life from a distance, without risking his own life, without striving against him manfully; evil for the obvious reason of inflicting grave harm almost effortlessly, even accidentally.

If memory serves, the argument wasn’t against self-defense, it was against self-defense with guns. The context was that real men should defend themselves honorably – with swords. Are you suggesting that we go back to hefting sabers on our belts?

The fact is that firearms are tools only for destruction, only to end life. Their prevalence makes society more dangerous. If you disagree with the latter statement (you cannot disagree with the former), try living in Japan, where the fear of a mass shooting is absent.

Right: no fear of mass shooting. On the other hand, fear of mass stabbing or even individual criminal stabbing incidents, or mass gassing – those are real, and feared.

Folks cry ‘gun control’ as if it implies ‘violence control’. It doesn’t. Take away guns, and bad guys will still have hundreds of other means with which to threaten life. You can have your ‘gun-free utopia’ – I’ll pass…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

[Zoltan Cobalt;

Actually they are legal documents. If you have strong feelings against them…change them. The mechanisms are in place. If done legally, I will have to accept them. And I will.

This doesn’t conflict with what I said. Legal documents are simply utilities that are there to serve us. There Is nothing sacred about legal documents either. They’re just tools of a society.

Exactly! Anti-American Communists and Islamic Jihadists have no place in our society. Laws should be written to exclude them or imprison them.

That is a different subject, and the Constitution that you quote so often protects the rights of people to believe in communism and Islam.

But Gary, don’t you remember the Gun Control Act of 1968? That was supposed to end all gun violence, promote peace and, I think there was something about ending world hunger some where in it. It didn’t work.

There are laws against murder, but murders still happen, laws against robbery, but robbery still happens, laws against theft, but theft still happens. If we apply that same logic that you apply to gun laws ubiquitously, we should do away with all laws.

Now, really, think about it. If something doesn’t work, why keep doing it? If a doctor prescribes a new drug and it shows no improvement even after increasing the dosage…would he be prudent to keep prescribing the same drug?

You try something else, but you don’t let the problem prevail over you. I
[/quote]

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There are gun controls throughout the United States. Here is a list of the history of gun regulation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

There are some marginal controls, but in a lot of places you can buy and own anything from a handgun up to an assault rifle with Teflon bullets. I do not consider that to be sufficient in regards to laws governing such things are firearms.

 

[pnewton]

There are some marginal controls, but in a lot of places you can buy and own anything from a handgun up to an assault rifle with Teflon bullets. I do not consider that to be sufficient in regards to laws governing such things are firearms.

Insufficient control in the opinion of one is not even close to the same thing as no control. Perhaps more control is needed in one area or another, perhaps less. The point remains, we have the right to bear arms in America. We have the moral right to self-defense and defense of others up to deadly force as per Catholic social teaching. A government has the right to balance these two rights against the common good.

We would go a long way if we could stop decrying any and all gun regulation as an attempt to take away our guns. On the other, end we need to realize that guns are not evil and gun-owners are mostly responsible citizens.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

pnewton Insufficient control in the opinion of one is not even close to the same thing as no control.

It is not the opinion of one person that people are going around with assault weapons and it is not the opinion of one that people are killing each other with guns. It is for this reason that my opinion is that the controls are insufficient, and in the state where I live, there are virtually no controls. You can walk into a convenience store with an AK47, and no one knows your intent until you leave.

Perhaps more control is needed in one area or another, perhaps less. The point remains, we have the right to bear arms in America.

We have the right to do a lot of things that there is public debate about. Like abortion.

We have the moral right to self-defense and defense of others up to deadly force as per Catholic social teaching. A government has the right to balance these two rights against the common good.

That is not cause to increase the instances where self defense is needed by introducing weapons into the mix.

We would go a long way if we could stop decrying any and all gun regulation as an attempt to take away our guns. On the other, end we need to realize that guns are not evil and gun-owners are mostly responsible citizens.

People with guns are the only people killing people with the use of guns, whether they are responsible citizens or not.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[pnewton]

It is not the opinion of one person that people are going around with assault weapons and it is not the opinion of one that people are killing each other with guns. It is for this reason that my opinion is that the controls are insufficient, and in the state where I live, there are virtually no controls. You can walk into a convenience store with an AK47, and no one knows your intent until you leave.

I do not understand your reasoning. You compare gun control with abortion when they are morally as different as two issues can be. Your last sentence has is simply a reflexive rewording of a phrase, like only dogs are canine. It has not meaning.

Yes, more than one person has the opinion the controls are insufficient on weapons today. However, when it comes to what exactly is the right way to control, there are as many opinions as there are people.

 

[DianePa]

I’m not “pro-gun” per se; I’m pro-2nd Amendment. Under which carrying a gun - amongst other arms - was deemed a protected right.

Actually one of our founders, (I forgot which one) said it was not a government right, which DEEM would insinuate, but in fact an inherent right. The only actual rights that were granted were not those given to the people but those given to the government by the people.

I have a number of guns in my home, most of which belonged to my late husband, but I have a 38 and had a concealed carry permit while living in another state. I intend to apply for the same where I now live.

I would not make a comparison between Australia’s gun laws and our right to own arms as guaranteed by our constitution. We have a history of a tyrant (King George) attempting to confiscate our weapons. For that reason the 2nd amendment was codified otherwise many at the Constitutional Convention would have walked out the door.