Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

Holly, Holly, Holly. Dear Holly.
You've reached the point of impasse it seems.
Everything you wrote is of the highest caliber. You're highly perceptive, very well expressed, and evidently well raised. Your parents are very proud of the person you are and have worked to become, I feel it in my heart. You're doing an excellent job of making great points without falling for the traps. They want you to concede to things in order to further misinterpret you or perhaps even to find a way to accuse you of making threats. Why? Because you stand for what's decent and right. You're part of the group who wants to continue building the country by preserving freedom and encouraging wealth building. That's really scary for the unmotivated who are looking up on the hill coveting the nice hard-working family's home. There's a contingent of people who feel they deserve the same without having to put forth the effort and compete. Some would be perfectly happy with a Fidel-like wealth redistribution and prohibition of wealth building. Those people want to disarm the general population because they know good and well their destructive Utopia will come to fruition much quicker and easier if the people defending the Constitution lack firepower. And they will use all sorts of arguments and tactics to their end including swaying unsuspecting people to their side to help in a fight which they haven't thought through to the end game. Those followers feel they mean well and have no clue how destructive such an outcome would be.

Hang in there. You either are, or will make, a great mom. Keep building your proficiency with tools. Encourage other trustworthy productive people to do the same. You never know what you'll need nor when so strive to be ready for come what may. Stay positive and sweet while practical and alert. And God bless you!

 

Wow. Thank you! I appreciate that more than you think!

 

Wonderful! If an armed minority of nutcases wants to move against our elected government, you think that's okay? If that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind (which I doubt), good thing they aren't around anymore. When, BTW, was the last time anybody did this against a modern army? And are you advocating rule by 10% to 15%?

Yeah, it says that weak-minded NRA fans are having Red Dawn fantasies. When the Cubans and Chicoms move in, we can head for the hills with our rifles and survive on urine and deer's blood while engaging them in guerilla warfare. BTW, I'm for firearms suitable for reasonable self-defense and hunting, but not for mass killing, but not the rationale you're giving.

 

Trudg

LOL - Oh good god pass the sick bucket – you come across as a love sick 14 year old who’s never been kissed?

Anyway – you seem to be suggesting that this is some type of class war with strong tones of Ayn Rand thrown in.

That the richer (and hardworking) 20% need to be armed to keep the lazy 80% in their place.

That sound like guns been used for tyrannical purposes not as a guard against it.

 

Aw, you're in love. Beguiled by a dancing Barbie. Looks can be deceiving--especially on social media!

 

Interesting tactic there, big B.

Better that than a moron, though, methinks.

 

Trudg

Oh what a comeback I fairly swoon from your wit, you cut me to the very heart…LOL

Anyway can you please address what’s been said on the subject of guns been held to stop tyranny?

 

Okie

I get your meaning but that’s not Barbie as the father of a daughter I think that is Rapunzel from the film Tangled.

 

Same difference.

 

Are they real girls btw?

 

Okie

Well while we wait for the gun lobby to get there orders back from the…..[deleted by order of the Illuminati] ….

I’d just like to say that this is knowledge I never thought I would have until I had a daughter and now it cannot be unremembered, I’ve watch every one of those type of films at least 5 times every face is imprinted on by brain so yes, yes I can tell my Mulan from my Jasmine now allow me just this moment to shine…..and I promise i'll never to do it again.

 

I'm all for good conversation on here. I know we all get passionate about topics like this and that is awesome. But why start insulting and calling people names??

I'd rather respond to some real genuine discourse but I don't do the school yard name calling stuff or putting words in people's mouths to slander opposing views.

 

Because it builds a powerful ego while crushing the soul of someone who is clearly beneath them. And don't bother with logic in the face of modern tactics for "winning" an argument. Facts be damned in the age of the feelies. And be ready for the circular motions.

I used untoasted coconut on my granola this morning, so I'm a racist. (See how simple it is!)

 

I beg to differ. The main purpose the Founding Fathers had in mind with the Second Amendment was to enable the defense of our country at a time when there was no standing army. The Amendment opens with the words: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." It was necessary, because there was no standing army, and there was no standing army because the Framers were afraid of it. It was a way of keeping military power under civilian control. There were of course some radicals like Thomas Jefferson (who was absent from both the Constitutional Convention and the Congress where the Amendment was proposed) who thought that periodic revolutions were good for the system, but most were of a more conservative mindset, who saw the militia as a necessary evil--an alternative to a standing army. But that was then, this is now. What would the Founders have thought if they knew about assault rifles in the hands of people who run amock, killing school children and innocent people for whatever reason? And given the fact that we have a really big standing army and are a player in an international arena filled with dangerous nuclear competitors, what would they think now? Which is of course a question too iffy to answer and pretty much irrelevant. The "well regulated" verbiage is an indication that they didn't contemplate a bunch of hotheads who didn't like this or that government program or leader taking matters into their own hands. Every member in the U.S. House of Representatives who spoke about the Second Amendment before it was ratified spoke only about militias. State laws prohibited law-abiding white citizens who refused to pledge allegiance to the Revolution from owning firearms. There was never a time when gun ownership was regarded as a purely individual right free of public militia duty or reasonable restrictions.

 

It's called respect, and credit where credit's due.

It's also supporting the good ideas violently opposed by mediocre minds.

 

It's called freedom. Hard concept to wrap one's head around the days, but still...

 

That's what the great Britain rulers said, those damn American colonists are "a bunch of hotheads who didn't like this or that government program or leader taking matters into their own hands"

 

The thing is, this is not such a black and white issue. The US legal system is a tangle of latin and accounting terms designed to split the finest hair between legal and criminal. But, people are not stupid and can readily see when the government is managing things badly.

Too often the assumption seems to be that a direct jump to guns and the 2nd amendment is some sort of normalized protocol. And nothing could be further from reality. Falling back to collect weapons is a last resort. There's a lot of bargaining to be done before that discussion should be considered.

In all likelihood if there's ever a gun threat designed specifically toward the top tiers of our government, I doubt any of us will feel very safe no matter how many rounds of brass and packs of dehydrated turkey surprise we have stashed in the basement (or is that just me).

The title of this thread has always been a shadow of skew hanging over it.

 

this sort of feels like a charade, no?