11 comments on “Seven Pro-Gun Arguments Examined

  1. Pingback: The News… Just for today « jennroig

  2. “This forces the Left to lead with diplomacy and compromise right out of the gate instead of starting negotiations based on ideology (as conservatives do) and then working their way to the compromise. ”

    Spot on! I have always voted, but I was inspired to volunteer for Obama in his first campaign . . . Fast forward a couple of years later, after what I perceived as him and the Dems ALWAYS compromising, I said screw it . . . I’ll still vote as a progressive, but I wont do the foot work again. In short, I get tired of the Repubtards always eating the Democrats lunch (or at least that’s my perception).

    Most recently, during the fiscal cliff debate over taxes, the Dems ceded their negotiating strength by agreeing to taxes going up on those that make $400/450k. WTF? They could have waited till after the 1st of the year and it would have been $200/250k and the Right wouldn’t have been able to do anything about this. Equally important, the military would have been cut significantly . . . Something that I absolutely think needs to be accomplished vs. cutting social programs. Anywho, I am done ranting, because it doesn’t do any good.

    Gun control? Dollars to donuts the Dems screw this issue up as well . . .

    By the by, excellent post. 🙂

  3. Addendum: I do quite a lot of volunteer work, e.g., certified by the State of Colorado to enter State prisons, where I speak to inmate groups about spirituality, drug and alcohol abuse; work with “at risk” teens; served as a board member for a local non-profit agency in my community; etc., etc. All of these activities are direct and I can see specifically where good is being done by these organizations . . . My point being that I haven’t necessarily given up on progressive causes (as might be perceived in my 1st message), but rather – I concentrate my efforts locally vs. nationally.

    ‘Nuff Said. 🙂

  4. I just wanted to point out that in reference to the 2nd amendment.
    “1) The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own weapons.
    Okay. So here what the 2nd Amendment actually says:
    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    If you drill into the 2nd amendment it flat out states.

    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.

    • And I don’t disagree with that. But “arms”–as far as the framers were concerned–were single shot muskets. Not rapid-fire assault rifles capable of killing a massive number of people without a reload.

      Keep your hunting rifles and handguns for hunting and protection. That’s fine. Despite the deeply paranoid and inaccurate things being spouted by the right and the NRA, “liberals” are not coming after your guns.

      But these high-powered assault weapons do not belong in the hands of untrained civilians. Sorry.

      • “liberals are not coming after your guns”.
        Have your read Fienstiens bill ? If a person currently owns, what she determins to be an assault weapon, they are grandfathered. That firearm can not be sold or transferred. So what happens to it ? I have several firearms passed down that I would like to pass down.

  5. That bill is not “coming after your guns,” sunshine. You get to keep your highly violent firearm capable of killing multiple people without a reload.

    You just don’t have the right to hand it over, pass it down, or sell it. And what gives you the right to?

    Nevermind the fact that the person you hand this weapon could be mentally ill or planning something sinister. No one needs these highly violent weapons, anymore than they need to own a nuclear warhead.

    No sympathy here.

  6. “gun owners are much more likely to hurt and kill loved ones” – about 20 times as much! The problem seems to be one of lacking mathematics education. If guns-protect-me-advocates could count, they’d change their mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s