One of the Most Naive Statements Ever

It's unfair to denegrate 'liberals' as being anti-guns. Most are not. It's only the idiot drool dribblers on the far left that think we should tear up the Consitition.
 
It's unfair to denegrate 'liberals' as being anti-guns. Most are not. It's only the idiot drool dribblers on the far left that think we should tear up the Consitition.
No need to tear up the constitution.
It was just a "Goddamn piece of paper" anyway/
The flag waving, God talking to, conservatives tore it up back in 2001.
They're called Patriot " acts".

They love to use words like Patriot, FreeDumb, Terror and DemoNcrasy to keep the spirit of the sheep in order.
 
I think you need to find a watering hole in that Costa Rican jungle amigo.
 
It's unfair to denegrate 'liberals' as being anti-guns. Most are not. It's only the idiot drool dribblers on the far left that think we should tear up the Consitition.
No need to tear up the constitution.
It was just a "Goddamn piece of paper" anyway/
The flag waving, God talking to, conservatives tore it up back in 2001.
They're called Patriot " acts".

They love to use words like Patriot, FreeDumb, Terror and DemoNcrasy to keep the spirit of the sheep in order.

*Passes Douger a Kleenex*

Wipe the drool off your chin. Or get your mom to do it.
 
hmmm i am a very liberal gun owner...i grew up in a gun house...didnt realize that everyone didnt have a gun within reach at all times till i was in my early 20's...

cf you are a fucking idiot...saying liberals dont own guns is like saying fred phelps represents all conservative christians....why dont you quit beating the liberal drum and be a decent poster?
 
So I'm having a conversation the other day with a group of people. Where really doesn't matter but you can guess. We're discussing guns and whether people should even own them. Obviously, I take the stance that there should be some regulations obviously such as background checks, waiting periods, etc.

However, the other side was more extreme to say the least. And then someone said one of the most naive if not one of the more ignorant statements that I've EVER heard.

"Guns should be in the hands of only authority figures."

At that point, I was sort of stunned though I shouldn't of been. I sat there, hearing a slight sound that would of been the founding fathers rolling in their graves if they had any sort of body left.

And that wasn't even the most shocking thing. It was the fact that plenty in the group agreed with her. I tried to make the common sense arguments about why people should have guns. And then some people actually thought that it was wrong to shoot someone if they try to rob you or whichever. I sat there stunned once again.

I pretty much chalked it up to not being in any sort of situation where you feel guns are necessary. Sheltered sort of living, etc. I felt the need to share this story because I want your opinion on it USMB.

That, and is my thinking correct about people being totally against guns since they have not been out in the real world?

Theoretically I believe one thing, but when it comes to real life and practice, I'm much more comfortable with the 'other' thing.

I believe that people should have the right to bear arms. On the flipside of the same coin though, I feel much safer in a place where I know people aren't walking around with guns.

The answer might be in my life experiences. I grew up in a gun-free environment in the Czech Republic, sparked and refined my "libertarian" views in the US, and now I'm living in Sweden. What I believe is one thing, what happens is another ... and in Atlanta, somebody seemed to get shot every day while here in Stockholm that shit happens once in a blue moon.

But I know all the arguments already - so you really don't have to waste your breath - in case you are planning on it. I won't disagree with anyone... I simply still don't know how to reconcile my belief and my principle with reality.
 
The worriesome thing about those attitudes is that those folks may be called to serve on a jury where the defendant is on trial for actions related to discharging a firearm in self defence. It's difficult to explore all the possible variations in a self-defence situation but if someone's starting out with the view that it should not be lawful to use a firearm to defend yourself then the defence is under the hammer and I don't think there could be a fair trial with a juror or jurors of that predisposition.
 
I beleive law abiding citizens are guaranteed a right to gun ownership. But, I din't think that means without sensible regulation. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT now. Waiting a reasonable time to get the t's crossed and the i's dotted should not be that big a deal. if it is, that's a red flag in my book.
 
The worriesome thing about those attitudes is that those folks may be called to serve on a jury where the defendant is on trial for actions related to discharging a firearm in self defence. It's difficult to explore all the possible variations in a self-defence situation but if someone's starting out with the view that it should not be lawful to use a firearm to defend yourself then the defence is under the hammer and I don't think there could be a fair trial with a juror or jurors of that predisposition.

Most likely their beliefs would be discovered during voir dire (I believe that is the correct term and spelling for the chosing of a jury) and these people would automatically be excuded from such a case by the defense.

Immie
 
Last edited:
I beleive law abiding citizens are guaranteed a right to gun ownership. But, I din't think that means without sensible regulation. Nobody needs a gun RIGHT now. Waiting a reasonable time to get the t's crossed and the i's dotted should not be that big a deal. if it is, that's a red flag in my book.

I just picked up a S&W model 64 two weeks ago. Took all of ten minutes to do the paperwork and instant check.
 

Forum List

Back
Top