Gun ownership in this day and age

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Strange… no one is allowed to carry firearms on an airplane and there are no shooting massacres up there… should this tell you something? I am somewhat surprised that none of the frothing-mouth gun advocates scream that the Second Amendment should allow anyone to carry guns on an airplane. 🙂 Why this oversight?
 
vz71 said:
If the owner of a private airplane does not want people to carry on the plane, he is perfectly within his rights to do this.
Click to expand...
I was talking about normal, commercial planes, and I was sarcastic (obviously). And the “oversight” referred to the gun-toting people whose aim is carry a gun, come hell or high water. By the way, can the owner of a private restaurant forbid the patrons to carry a firearm into his establishment?
 
LionHeart said:
Strange… no one is allowed to carry firearms on an airplane and there are no shooting massacres up there… should this tell you something?
Click to expand...
Because everyone passes through the same security, including any wanna-be shooters. Unlike all the gun free zones, where just a sign is posted.
 
Owners of private restaurants can post a no-gun sign (depending on state, that may or may not have the force of law). And I will choose to dine in places that are not so posted. (Around here, places that are posted have a tendency to go out of business.)
 
prayerrider said:
Because everyone passes through the same security, including any wanna-be shooters. Unlike all the gun free zones, where just a sign is posted.
Click to expand...
You don’t get the point. Why are there those security checks? Maybe to prevent mass murders? If it is sensible to have gun-free zones on the airplanes, then it would be sensible to have gun-free streets, gun-free cities and gun-free countries. The fact that it is more difficult to establish such zones is merely a question of technicality, not a question of principle. So, if we can agree that general no-gun zones are desirable, we might get into a useful conversation about how to create such zones.
Melissa said:
Owners of private restaurants can post a no-gun sign (depending on state, that may or may not have the force of law). And I will choose to dine in places that are not so posted. (Around here, places that are posted have a tendency to go out of business.)
Click to expand...
Strange. I had no idea that guns add some nutritional value or make dishes more flavorful.
 
Actually, no, it is not to prevent mass murders. I consider it neither sensible nor desirable to have “gun free” zones.
 
Melissa said:
Actually, no, it is not to prevent mass murders. I consider it neither sensible nor desirable to have “gun free” zones.
Click to expand...
You may have your own preferences. Fortunately most people start to be fed up with senseless mass murders (like the ones in Las Vegas, or in high schools) and eventually the laws will be changed to eliminate such events. It will happen some time in the future… and there will be more mass murders until it happens. But as the example of New Zealand shows, we can have a reasonable hope that it will happen.
 
One thing I’ll never agree with: the disarmament of the American people.
 
Leftist statists always want to disarm the American people. Otherwise how can they bring about their totalitarian dystopia?
 
Last edited:
prayerrider said:
One thing I’ll never agree with: the disarmament of the American people.
Click to expand...
So what? You are not the one who will make that decision.
prayerrider said:
Leftist statists always want to disarm the American people. Otherwise how can they bring about their totalitarian dystopia?
Click to expand...
What is a “dystopic” about getting rid of mass murders? Do you find them a positive aspect of our society? What is so desirable to allow every Dick, Tom and Harry to have easy access to WMD-s? Could you explain it to me?

By the way, your expression of “leftist statist” is just another ad-hominem, which is not a proper method of arguing.
 
LionHeart said:
So what? You are not the one who will make that decision
Click to expand...
No. The American people will make that decision. Specifically, the 3/4 of the states required to change the Constitution.
Good luck with that! 😂
 
Last edited:
LionHeart said:
By the way, your expression of “leftist statist” is just another ad-hominem
Click to expand...
I merely display a general garment. Should someone claim it’s cut to their particular fit, so be it. shrug
 
Last edited:
prayerrider said:
No. The American people will make that decision. Specifically, the 3/4 of the states required to change the Constitution.
Good luck with that!
Click to expand...
We shall see… By the way, you did not enlighten me what is so desirable to allow everyone to have easy access to weapons that allow mass murders. I am really curious. 😉
 
LionHeart said:
By the way, can the owner of a private restaurant forbid the patrons to carry a firearm into his establishment?
Click to expand...
The owner can ban whatever they wish.
Although that would not be wise.
It would be a bad idea to advertise to criminals that everyone in your restaurant is unarmed.
Also, why would you want to dissuade potential customers from spending money in your establishment?
 
Breaking just laws is never a good thing to do. Firearms are not toys, they must be heavily regulated and closely tracked by the government.

Sneaking a gun without your wife consent and by breaking the law, would be sinful indeed to do.

While owning a gun by itself might not be sinful, it does little to give you the protection you are seeking, while increasing the risk of things going “wrong”.

God knows how many “accidental” shootings have happened already, not to mention the increased risk of violence escalation when a gun is nearby and accessible. There is a reason why even the military, lock them up so carefully and restrict gun use within their quarters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top