Is it time to talk about guns?

How many gun owners would there be if the only guns allowed were muskets? You know, the only type available when the constitution was written.

 

I don't know. I can only guess. The far left is 500 Jeffery. Far right is 505 Gibbs.

 

Not anymore. When I worked in the woods in Northern Wisconsin and hiked in Grizzly country of Montana I certainly did. I’m not against gun ownership, just against the deluge of killer weapons that have no use besides killing people and lots of them. Recent years have made most people more unsafe, the gun companies richer, and given free reign to those who want to intimidate and threaten others.

 

Well I am not american so whatever flag they brought along with them doesn't concern me, and is btw irrelevant when it comes to a talk about guns.
The fact that the troops americans and alies brought guns with them is relevant, but what do you expect going to war typically involves fighting an enemy, that enemy often and certainly in theese cases are armed

 

you are incorrect as I stated in post 763 it was their choice , which is what I support the choice to live or die for your convictions, supporting choice is not the same as supporting the actions of choice

if you see here
The Sad Truth | Hip Forums
and here
The Dump Trump Thread | Page 24 | Hip Forums post 467

thats my stance on the events of 1/6/21

 

are we giving up cars, indoor plumbing, computers ,the internet and all of the other modern conveniences as well?

 

see post #811

 

Is capital punishment murder? is robbing from the rich and giving to the poor ok?

 

Sounds like an Amish paradise

 

if you choose not to see the parallels inferred I am way to lazy to type it out

 

hardly you sked about murder, is capital punishment murder? is it ok? is all stealing wrong? are you looking at black and white or shades of grey? is everything absolute and concrete or?

 

and again as I have said SEVERAL times what is the point of this thread? is anybody going to change their mind? is it accomplishing anything except creating division? and again the title is a complete misnomer the thread is about gun control and legislation.

 

Got to thinking, this kinda hit home, conservatives who like slow, careful, pro/con analysis typa change VS the "others" (not really sure the best label to use here) who see a need and want immediate change, relying on their heart, without considering the cost and side effects - each sees the other as trying to derail progress.

One side sees govt as the answer to all problems. More laws, more agencies to oversee them, more law enforcement to make sure they're obeyed, which of course means more spending and more taking from the portion of the citizenry which produces.

The other side sees the govt as a necessary evil, and wants minimal interference with carrying out their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They believe many solutions to problems lie with individuals and private organizations rather than adding to govt.

Of course govt itself wants to grow. Everyone gets "more important" the more people and things they're in charge of. And as once famously observed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Weirdly, each side sees their position as the only viable position any reasonable person who wants the best for society can take. And as an extension, anyone who takes a different position must be doing so out of evil intent and/or ulterior motives.

As for calling people "commies", I see the limited govt folks calling the bloated govt folks that because communism is the epitome of large govt. And we see what a civil rights disaster that is so it's derogatory.

From what I've figured out so far, the left has some good goals for society but the right has the systems to get us there through prosperity and human motivation.

 

We could make a deal.

I'll let you decide what tools are necessary and appropriate for me, but you'll let me decide what food is necessary and appropriate for you.

 

I used to hunt but gave it up.