An example of folks willing to slit their own throat, to spite their nose..

[virginia mountainman]

I made a post yesterday in GD, about the potential effects of a loss in the McDonald v. Chicago gun case, on a womans right to choose, that is coming up before the SCOTUS in a few months. I will never get used to the idea, that people can completely, toss out all reason, and act on a pure emotional basis, when such an act, could clearly come back, to bite them in a wholly unrelated manor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7074087

Why do some people, fail to see the big picture, when it comes to the Bill of Rights? Why don't they see the connection between all the rights recognized in the document?

How do they justify, using the weakest arguments against a right, that is guaranteed by the US Constitution? With the full well knowledge that if they are successful, they run the very real risk of have their very own arguments, turned around, and used against the rest of the Bill of Rights?

Why are people so damn shallow? Some of these people have no inkling of the danger of say the "needs" argument. You know we hear it ten times a day down here, the good ol' "you don't NEED that to hunt with"...

Don't they see the danger in endorsing a "needs" qualifier to a civil right?? Who needs the internet to have free speech? Who NEEDS an abortion???.. The list could go on and on. And that is just ONE example of their weak arguments.

They are so hung up on "getting rid of guns" that they are willing to burn their own house down to do it.

[mullard12ax7]

1. Didn't ya hear, The Iraq War is Over!

People lie to themselves constantly then reinforce the lies to make themselves feel better so give some money to a gay charity and then vote against women and gay rights!

[paulsby]

2. the need canard is one of the most ridiculous ones

constantly spouted by anti-gunners. that's why it has a name. it is used that much

e.g. "why do you NEED to carry a gun on your person" or why do you need a gun in your house or...

no other constitutional right has to be justified by a need criteria

"why do you need to remain silent"
"why do you need privacy" (in regards to agreeing to a consent search)
"why do you need free speech"
"why do you need an attorney"

in none of those cases does one generally NEED to exercise those civil rights. in some cases, it might be better advice NOT to exercise them. that's irrelevant. they are a choice.

as is the choice to keep and bear.

[Taverner]

3. Let me retort a little

When I ask the "why do you need to carry a gun" question I am not questioning the legality of it at all. I am merely asking why do you feel you need to carry one. Hell, IMO the 2nd ammendment allows you to do a lot of stupid things, and it should stay that way. But as my Grandma said, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[virginia mountainman]

4. Now Taverner, that it a very different deal

I, along with most "pro gunnies" have no problems with questions like you just posed above.

The problem arises with a statement like this;

"You don't NEED that (insert hated gun of the moment, according to MSM HERE)to hunt with, so it should be banned"

Statements like that are extremely common, they even make it to the nightly news. Thier is a very real danger to all of us, even the anti's if the "needs" argument ever wins in court...

[paulsby]

5. the fallacy is that

i (or others who carry) do feel (or more correctly think) a NEED

i don't. and i often do NOT carry.

compare to abortion. in most cases of abortion, there is no NEED. there is a desire, a determination that when weighing all the negatives and positives (cost/benefit analysis), that they WANT an abortion.

nobody has to justify this with a NEED (unless they are in the last trimester, etc.)

and i readily agree that there are lots of things that the constitution allows that are bad ideas.

the constitution allows us (as US citizens) to use racist hate speech. this distinguishes us from europe, canada, etc. where same is generally illegal. it does not therefore follow that one SHOULD use racist hate speech. this is an extreme example since racist hate speech is always wrong (imo), whereas carrying is sometimes a good idea, and sometimes not so much.

it's about choice and freedom.

i am not advocating that everybody should carry, or that they shouldn't have choice.

i am merely saying that my belief that RKBA is 1) constitutionally mandated 2) a very important civil right does not mean that i believe that i NEED to carry a gun (off duty)

[Taverner]

6. I have no problem with the RKBA. I do wish, however, there was some kind of education...

Hell, I don't even mind gun safety classes in elementary school

But it all goes back to common sense and personal responsibility for me...

[virginia mountainman]

7. We had it!

I took it, it was in middle school, back in 1988. I also took a hunter safety class too..

But they don't have those anymore....

Part of the gun safety class, and the hunter safety class, was HOLDING a gun, and showing proper handling...

They can't do that no more.....School is a "gun free" zone, NO exceptions....

[paulsby]

8. my state does not mandate

any education or training classes etc. i am not theoretically opposed to such, but i would be interested if there was any evidence they decrease unintentional shooting incidents or other such negative gun uses.

i get the sneaking impression, based on many years in law enforcement, that regardless of requirements, the VAST majority of people who carry choose to take training (formal or informal) that is adequate. my brother-in-law for instance recently got a CCW, and he asked me to train him ( i am an instructor).

i have investigated several cases involving people with guns (and ccw's) and it seems they generally know the basics of safe firearms usage, based on their actions and statements. considering the national statistics in regards to CCW holders, this is consistent. they are very unlikely to misuse a gun, and fwiw unintentional shootings are near historical lows.

but if there is evidence that training requirements for CCW'ers is beneficial, i have no problem with it

[eqfan592]

11. I don't have a link on hand.

But I did remember reading a study that showed children who were educated about firearms instead of having them be a sort of "forbidden" item were significantly less likely to be involved in a firearms related accident. I think I saved the document at home, so I'll try and get the info posted if/when I can.

[paulsby]

13. oh, that is undeniably true

i've seen those studies as well. also, whatever one thinks of the NRA politically, their eddie eagle program for kids is outstanding.

i am referring though to adult training classes for CCW'ers. i do think that schools should teach some basic facts about guns (like assume they are always loaded, etc., and at least for older kids, maybe show some photos of gun shot wounds (king of like scared straight), because the movies (with some exceptions like saving private ryan) don't show how horrific gun wounds can be

[eqfan592]

16. Ahhh, gotcha. My mistake then.

I think the best states to look at then would be Vermont and Alaska, given that there is no sort of requirement at all in order to carry concealed, and compare accidental firearm related injury and death rates from those states to states that have CCW but require a training class, or even if you compared within one state the rates between non-ccw holder and ccw holders.

Hmm, lots of variables to take into account here. I do wonder if some sort of comprehensive study has been done in regards to this.

[eqfan592]

10. I love the idea of gun safety classes in elementary school.

By hiding guns away and making them this big secret to children, we are simply making them ignorant and creating a potentially dangerous situation.

What's interesting to me is that many of the people who would oppose this sort of thing are entirely for having a comprehensive sex education program because by not doing so "we are simply making them ignorant and creating a potentially dangerous situation." I just wish these same people could apply the same level of rationality to guns as they do sex.

[cognoscere]

9. The best answer I heard was,

"I carry a gun because it is lighter and easier than carrying a cop."

[Katya Mullethov]

20. The traffic stop stopper ......

"Bescause your wife likes it when I dress up like a cowboy "

[PavePusher]

21. Cough.... splutter.... gasp.....

need... keyboard... cleaning... service....

:spray:

[PavePusher]

14. Because 100% of the times I have needed a police officer right that second...

There hasn't been one in sight.

How would you like to fix that for me?

[Taverner]

17. Carry a gun then - knock yourself out

Just promise me society won't turn into one big Mexican Standoff

[jeepnstein]

18. "Just promise me society won't turn into one big Mexican Standoff"

If it does it won't be over the 2nd Amendment. Politics in this great nation of ours is as polarized as I've ever seen. It'll be over money, or the power to control it, if we really see things fall apart. The fact you or I might have a pistol in our pockets will be insignificant.

[NewMoonTherian]

22. Isn't a Mexican standoff...

a situation in which no party is willing to attack another, for fear of retaliation?

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Similar

Everyone has to have their cocks out at the same time .

MAD ....mutually assured destruction, more closely fits the definition you laid out .

[NewMoonTherian]

25. I think I understand the distinction now.

Mexican Standoff implies that if someone breaks the status quo, the everyone starts shooting and everyone is in danger. I think those fears can be put to rest by looking at states that have adopted the Castle doctrine and "make my day" laws.

On a another note, who do we have up there? Trinity's on the right, looks like Nic Cage next to her, maybe Scarface in the front? LOL, the guy on the left is doin' it wrong.

EDIT: Just noticed white-suit-guy is using fingers. He's doin' it VERY wrong.

[Katya Mullethov]

26. Did I say cocks again ?

Of course I meant Glocks® !

[NewMoonTherian]

28. You did in fact. I was gonna let it slide, so to speak.

Does this count as the dreaded gun/penis post? Fortunately it's hidden off in an obscure little tangent of the thread.

[Euromutt]

27. I recognize two others

The guy with sunglasses and the beard is "Il Duce," Billy Connolly's character from Boondock Saints, and the guy with the sawed-off shotgun on the left is Antonio Banderas' character in Desperado (the original movie, El Mariachi, was much better in my opinion, incidentally).

[Taverner]

19. Good answer

But it begs the question, should every adult in America be armed?

I don't have an answer on that - its not a cut and dried question

And if we were to look at statistics, the two most dangerous settings are (1) on a highway in stop and go traffic and (2) at home.

So should one stay armed at home? (the threat in #1 is other drivers plowing into you at high speeds)

Again, the answer isn't a simple "no"

If I were an abused spouse (male or female) with no idea when my partner might get violent - I might want to be armed at home

I don't know...

[benEzra]

24. I believe every mentally competent adult with a clean record should be able to choose for themselves

I don't know of anyone who suggests that guns are for everyone, merely that responsible adults should retain the right to choose.

[krispos42]

12. We're fighting for the rights of people that apparantly don't want the right

I don't understand that, just like I don't understand women that vote anti-choice.


"Yes! Yes! I WANT the government to declare souvreignty over my internal organs!"



I don't care if they use the right, but how could you not want the right?



I want the right to marry a guy. I don't want to marry a guy, but I want the right to, because I am by definition freer with that right secured.

[PavePusher]

15. Awesome! n/t