greenfarmer wrote:45 makes sense on this... Why are prisons full of people who have shot or murdered someone? Shouldn't it be the gun thrown in there? I mean really, the guns are the problem according to these people. Not the people. So why are my taxes paying for someone in prison? I'd much rather my taxes were supporting someTHING in prison. That gun would sit there with the same sandwich and watch it get moldy over the next 20 years rather than a person.
What a joke politicians are!
Thanks farmer.
You never hear anyone say "The car was legally purchased and when the DUI was committed. We need Car Control laws to stop the endless and senseless violence. Think of the children!!"
If someone drives drunk and kills someone, they blame the person, not the car.
If someone shoots sober or drunk and kills someone, they blame the gun, not the person.
In both cases, neither the car nor the gun end up in prison, only the person does....so why does the thing get blamed in one scenario and not in the other?
If a car is stolen, it gets mentioned on the news, but rarely does the stolen gun get mentioned. In the case of Sandy Hook, the fact the madman stole his mother's gun(s), nary made more noise than a mouse fart. Why is that?
Plain and simple, guns are a legally guaranteed right to bear arms to defend against tyranny, be it against an individual or a government. I consider criminal acts against myself or my family a form of tyranny for imposing harm upon our lives and freedoms. Guns are a matter of equalization of force among individuals. If my neighbor has a knife, I should have a knife. If he has a gun, I should have a gun too. Our force should be equal as should our tools. If however, my neighbor has a gun and I have a knife, he is a threat to me. Likewise if vice versa. Even though I may not be a threat to him or he to me, the perception and thus each's truth will be that the other is a threat...simply because the other may have the force which the other does not. It's a mini arms race.
When it comes to pure force of weaponry, we the people have already lost... because to my knowledge, there's no such thing as the legal private ownership of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons by private individuals. Only governments (and not even all of them), have such force at their disposal. Be that as it may, our right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment of which we're all well aware and versed in; but any group is comprised of individuals and our hope is that we could affect enough individuals that their made up collective whole of an organization would not be able to implement damage upon other individuals when acting as a collective whole against another. This of course is the very basis of "us vs. them" be it in a war, sports games, business, and many other things as well.
There's much hypocrisy in people, even the much-loathed Dianne Feinstein had a carry permit and owned a gun. I believe you could take the most anti-gun person out there and if in harms's way, they would use a gun to defend their own life and the lives of their own family, all while trying to deny you the ability and right for you to do the same. Your neighbor wants a gun, but for you to have a knife.
Well, one can die from a thousand little tiny cuts and make one giant pool of blood, so let's hope we can shred the efforts being made to give us all knives and our government all guns. Let us hope that their aim stinks and they can't hit the target to make these proposed nazi bills stick. Let's keep up the pressure and efforts against the anti-freedom bills.