why "WE" own guns...?

[88GT]

For attention. So far it's been a near complete failure.

 

[jlwest1213]

Because there are actually ppl out there (believe it or not) that want to hurt or kill you/your family. And because of what the old man in the gun shop said. I especially like the part about "don't ask any stupid questions." That's great

 

[IndyDave1776]

Recreational Shooting

Personal Protection

Because millions of fundamentalist, racist, homophobic lunatics own them, and that scares the hell out of me.

1. Why would strict adherence to a religion that demands kind, peaceful treatment of one's neighbors scare you?

2. How do you define 'racist'? By some people's definition, I am automatically a racist by virtue of not agreeing with Obama and more so by having a problem with the likes of Jackson and Sharpton making a cottage industry out of perpetuating a rift that needs healed.

3. How does disapproval of selected behaviors based on the belief that they are morally wrong translate into an irrational fear of the behaviors and/or the practitioners of these behaviors?

4. How do any of the above serve to indicate that a person is insane? In some cases I would agree that such a person is misguided, but that does not stand in evidence of being mentally deficient or unstable.

I don't see jr's comment as being hate oriented at all. Just the opposite. It's realistic. He is protecting himself from the haters. People who hate others for no other reason than the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, etc. truly are scary people deserving to be feared.

How does disagreement stand in evidence of hate. In fact, I get sick and tired of being accused of 'hate' when disagreement is the actual condition at hand. You also fail to take into account that valid, objective observations are no less truthful when they are not politically correct. A favorite example would be the cry of racism on account of prison populations being demographically dissimilar with the general public and the charge that this is prima facie evidence of racism while completely ignoring the simple fact that the prison population represents the people who were caught, tried, and found guilty (and also that people of all demographics occasionally get unjustly convicted).


In case I have failed to adequately make my point, once again, disagreement=/=hate. People who hate necessarily disagree, but it does not necessarily work that people who disagree must also hate.

I will also point out that liberty ultimately defaults to the right to be wrong (in the opinion of the beholder).

 

[femurphy77]

Recreational Shooting

Personal Protection

Because millions of fundamentalist, racist, homophobic lunatics own them, and that scares the hell out of me.

I read that last line as sarcastic humor based in some truth, but then maybe I'M the one misreading it?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can't speak for jrogers, and in fact, often disagree with him, however, I'll offer some thoughts as to the answers to your questions, below (in blue)

Recreational Shooting

Personal Protection

Because millions of fundamentalist, racist, homophobic lunatics own them, and that scares the hell out of me.

1. Why would strict adherence to a religion that demands kind, peaceful treatment of one's neighbors scare you?

Because while a religion may demand it, the so-called faithful of some religions do not always follow the teachings. Whether that's attributable to prejudice or to their simply being fallible human beings, I cannot say.

2. How do you define 'racist'? By some people's definition, I am automatically a racist by virtue of not agreeing with Obama and more so by having a problem with the likes of Jackson and Sharpton making a cottage industry out of perpetuating a rift that needs healed.

You're not the racist. They are. That word has become the latest in a series of trump cards to use when losing an argument. Certainly, there are some who own guns and are *exceptionally* racist, in many directions. I personally find such behavior contemptible, moreso when it results in violent action.

3. How does disapproval of selected behaviors based on the belief that they are morally wrong translate into an irrational fear of the behaviors and/or the practitioners of these behaviors?

See above, on both points. Mere disapproval is not, in and of itself, worthy of fear. Sadly, however, there have been many people who have been injured or died because some took their belief and turned it into action. (look up the name Matthew Shepherd) Groups such as the Pink Pistols and posters such as this one, from Oleg Volk, exist to put a quick end to such threats, hopefully without violence, but allowing for the necessity, should it be there. "Better to have it and not need it..." and so forth.

4. How do any of the above serve to indicate that a person is insane? In some cases I would agree that such a person is misguided, but that does not stand in evidence of being mentally deficient or unstable.

I don't see jr's comment as being hate oriented at all. Just the opposite. It's realistic. He is protecting himself from the haters. People who hate others for no other reason than the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, etc. truly are scary people deserving to be feared.

How does disagreement stand in evidence of hate. In fact, I get sick and tired of being accused of 'hate' when disagreement is the actual condition at hand. You also fail to take into account that valid, objective observations are no less truthful when they are not politically correct. A favorite example would be the cry of racism on account of prison populations being demographically dissimilar with the general public and the charge that this is prima facie evidence of racism while completely ignoring the simple fact that the prison population represents the people who were caught, tried, and found guilty (and also that people of all demographics occasionally get unjustly convicted).


In case I have failed to adequately make my point, once again, disagreement=/=hate. People who hate necessarily disagree, but it does not necessarily work that people who disagree must also hate.

I will also point out that liberty ultimately defaults to the right to be wrong (in the opinion of the beholder).

I agree with you in re: the above points. Someone who irrationally hates is not be definition insane (lunatic) solely on that basis. I think jrogers was continuing in the vein he'd started, assigning labels and giving his own frustration some release, which action I can't fault other than the minor inaccuracy. They are, however, as you said, misguided; such people need to be gently taught that different does not equal evil. (That lesson would benefit both sides of the argument, IMHO.)

Again, I don't speak for jrogers, the above thoughts are solely my own.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

Well, it's a good thing we're moving towards absolute secularism then. We all know those atheists never do anything bad.

 

[WebSnyper]

To remind our government that we can... and as others have stated very eloquently, to protect our other rights.

 

[KG1]

Recreational Shooting

Personal Protection

Because millions of fundamentalist, racist, homophobic lunatics own them, and that scares the hell out of me.

That last part was'nt intended as code for the GOP was it? Just curious. I mean, if it was'nt then you could've just ended the post with "Personal Protection"

 

[KoopaKGB]

while looking down the barrel he asked the following "why would you want to own this" ...so why do we own guns?

The answer lies in history. In fact our AMERICAN history so the fact that your friend hadn't thought about this while in school (at whatever grade he was taught our bill of rights) is troublesome.

Since our society is actually peaceful on the surface and some folks will go their whole lives, having never witnessed evil. They might not understand the "need" for a firearm. Of course in a perfect world there would be no need for a weapon of any sort. In a "perfect" world guns really would just be for sport as they are just inanimate objects. The world is far from perfect, so we use them mainly as weapons towards fellow human beings. Not without good reason for doing so. Protection.

In the case of the old man owning the big .50 cal. That just boils down to insurance. Insurance to protect Americans from our own government. As are ALL firearms in possession by Americans. Now the likely hood of big government becoming tyrannical is low. How low? Well so far 0 chance in 236 years. But one reason for this is because it is our inherent RIGHT to own a firearm that protects us from our own government.

I think your friend needs to reflect about what arms control can allow to happen. Once again he can look back to our own history to find out if the Brits would think it a good idea for the colonies to possess arms. The answer is no because firearms are the great equalizer, bringing power to those who wield them. So in this case power to the people.