The 2nd Amendment

All I need to hear is "Mr and Mrs America, turn em all in".. That is more than enough for me. I don't really care to argue semantics. That is advocating illegal disarmament.

And yes, that is very far reaching. Did you read that list? I can post it for you. It would ban .22s for god's sake. And where does it end at that point?

 

No you aren't wrong. Balbus sees in black and white, and only from his perception.

He asserts that anyone who owns a gun just in case they might need to defend themselves or their family one day is living in fear. Which is absolutely ridiculous. It has appeared to not even cross his mind that we as Americans think it's smart to have the tools to take care of yourself if it comes to that, and it's smart to exercise our rights.

Some people just can't even consider ideas other than their own.

 

Being prepared for a possiblity is not a case of unreasoning fear merely the precautions of a prudent man. One need not be fire phobic to have fire extinguisherss ready at hand.

 

It's not semantics, it's about a true reflection of what she did and did not say.
You said: 'Senator Feinstein has been quoted saying her ultimate agenda is to disarm Americans.' Is that true or false?
When you say: 'All I needed to hear' smacks of 'I heard what I wanted to hear.'
It's worse that suggesting 'a bedroom full of guns' for pity's sake
You can't have a go at that and come out with, atleast 2, possibly 3 whoppers, as far as I am aware:
'Obama was quoted saying he doesn't think people should be able to own guns.'
'The administration is dancing with the UN now, which would disarm us under the small arms treaty.'

I know how many she wants off the streets (as it were).
I didn't have to read a whole list. Feel free to post it, if you wish.
He approach is ass backwards - but she leaves a significant No. of weapons on the streets (as it were).

 

OdonII

It is on record and I did give you a list - he has four and wishes for six.

Well I don’t know - to me having four guns in one room (let alone six) means it is full of weapons (what’s the old saying two’s company, three’s a crowd etc) but if the picture is anything to go by you seem to think ‘full’ is only reached when there are more that 63 guns in a room.

(PS Just a hint but people who keep saying ‘in my humble opinion’ come across as people who actually don’t think their opinion is in any way humble)

 

I've known Senator Feinstein since her first run for office when in an effort to drum up votes she came to dinner at the Church of the Good Earth and afterwards gave us a letter saying we were invited to dinner when she gained the White House which we still have in the church archives. I've known a very few politicians whose word you could trust with your life, shes not one.

 

You added the list after I started responding to the post.

Would you prefer I say that to 'imho'?

Well, that's a little over the top.
Well I don’t know - to me it means a little more than: There are a couple of guns in that safe, and there are a couple of guns in this safe.
It would be: There is some there, there, there and there, oh, and some over there, too.
It's that combined with the impression you are trying to conjure up, imo.

(Perhaps I should refrain from including 'humble' - you might be right)

 

OdonII

He has in his bedroom - a shotgun – a Mauser 98k – a AR – a P226 – and is looking to add a bolt action rifle and a Glock to the arsenal.

How many guns would you like to have in your room?

 

4 firearms. One used for waterfowl hunting (the shotgun), one for historical reenactments (the Mauser), and then two for general preparedness, or "just in case".

I am looking at adding a bolt action hunting rifle for deer and other big game hunting, as well as possibly another pistol. The bolt action hunting rifle is the more realistic of the two though.

Ehhh, pride may be a strong word when it comes to all of them. I would say pride in regards to the Mauser because it is a part of history. Other than that I don't feel I have pride over the rest.

I doubt it would matter to Balbus if my weapons were stored in a safe on a different floor of my house, and at the opposite end of that house. He would just switch from "bedroom full OMG!!!!" to "house full OMG!!!!!" Anything to prove his "theory".

 

You've already said that, and I replied. Is there any need to go over it again?

I don't need any guns, for any reason, not even for 'just in case' - so the answer is 0. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd probably have a couple.

I can't remember if Siq said they were all for the same purpose, to be honest.

 

Thanks.

I didn't really have a word for your (paraphrase) 'five seconds' and 'within easy reach of your bed'. I knew it wasn't fear - bravado?

Yeah, I agree. I'm waiting for you to have a hidden bunker in your garden for your rocket-launchers, and IED'.s.

 

Bravado? Nah. Its not like I go around telling people "Check it out, I can get it in 5 seconds!! Beat that!". I wasn't trying to convey anything with the 5 seconds, honestly. Just stating a fact.

Who the fuck told yo.....oh wait. Yeah, yeah, right, that would be fucking crazy. Nah, man, not one of those guys.

 

Hey it came with the house! Most all my neighbors have 'root cellars' too....lol

 

Fair enough.

You might not have an awful lot of choice, the way things are going in this thread.

Yeah, lots of houses here had a bomb shelter once upon a time.
I think our area had a communal shelter.

 

Indeed. Perhaps I should start digging, and maybe finally get around to joining the NRA and a local christian militia

 

O.O - Lol. I'm picturing it as we speak.

 

Why is it ridiculous? The reason for having weapons is to either cause harm (or threaten harm) or because harm is feared. You can say 'I’m only prepared to cause harm' (which is threatening) or 'I’m prepared to defend myself from harm', but again why be prepared if you didn’t fear that harm?

But guns are not work tools they are weapons to cause harm or defence if you fear harm.

I believe in balancing the rights of the individual against the good of the community. Is an individual ‘right’ that is harmful to the community a ‘good’ right?

But again I’d ask why would someone feel they needed a gun for defence?

Fire extinguishers were designed to save lives by extinguishing fire

Guns were designed to main and kill people.

As I say the problem is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to see the difference. I mean would you have gun in a glass case in every workplace and home that can be grabbed ‘just in case’? Have there been many extinguisher killings, I suppose one could be used as a weapon but I don’t think it would make a very good weapon.

 

Strange all the arguments against what I’ve said are along the same lines – 'you are wrong because I’m telling you that you are wrong' – nobody seems able to actually address what I’ve been saying.

And as I say to me being pro-gun seems to be a symptom of wider attitudes and again many of them seem reluctant to discuss that either.

I’ve presented some theories, they are not getting challenged by any rational counter argument just the assertion that they’re wrong, ridiculous, laughable, untrue, etc etc.

The longer that goes no the more valid the theories would seem to become.

 

Aren't you just saying:

'It can't be for that reason, it must be for this reason'
...and then when somebody explains further you say:
'Mmmm, ok, like I was saying...'

Hasn't it, or more likely always been the case of twisting peoples words and exaggerating the circumstances: 'surrounded by guns' 'a bedroom full of guns' - just to continually beat people into submission?

It feels like a debating competition more than a conversation.

You can't understand why some people have a couple of guns 'just because and 'to be prepared' - simply because they can.
It must be because of one or more of your 'theories'.

I don't know about anybody else, but It feels like too much like hard work at this point...

I think at this point you are just being a troll.

 

OdonII

But that is the point, I can but I don’t, many people could but they don’t, if I actually feared the type of situations and the harm that’s often expressed it is likely that I’d want a weapon to protect me from that harm, but I [and others] don’t, because we don't have those fears.

Saying ‘they can’ does not explain why they do. I mean if someone self-harms is that because they can or more likely for more deep seated reasons even they may not be aware of? If someone commits a crime out of need is that because they can or because they are driven by socio-economic or political factors?

Because they can take an action does not explain why they do take an action.

Also Odon you can’t talk for others, so yeah you’ve accepted what they say and fine you are not interested in the why beyond ‘they can’ and that’s fine, but it means I don’t think you can explain the why.