Liberals Who Own Guns.

[dust1n]

But it should.
I'd love to have one.
I have this neighbor......

I'd be concerned with liability! The best part of not owning a gun is that no one knows whether or not you own a gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd be concerned with liability! The best part of not owning a gun is that no one knows whether or not you own a gun.

But sometimes a statement is so brilliant, that one must throw caution to the wind.

 

[dust1n]

But sometimes a statement is so brilliant, that one must throw caution to the wind.

And their neighbor, potentially.. :gulp: :sad:

 

[illykitty]

Not many guns in Canada?

No, we have gun control.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not always.
But it's a decent bulwark against tyranny.

Only if your only worry is a tyrannical government and not tyrannical neighbours.

Arming the citizenry is as likely to be arming your own lynch mob as it is to be creating a force that will protect your rights.

 

[sandandfoam]

I hate guns with a passion and don't think I'll ever get my head around America's love affair with objects whose sole purpose is killing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if your only worry is a tyrannical government and not tyrannical neighbours.

Arming the citizenry is as likely to be arming your own lynch mob as it is to be creating a force that will protect your rights.

Lynch mob & government....hmmmmm.....who poses the greater danger?
Government takes more money & property, & kills more citizens.
I'll take the armed citizen approach.
Plus, the idea that government should have all the might just smacks too much
of a small child & parent relationship. Tis fine for Canuckistanians, but not for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lynch mob & government....hmmmmm.....who poses the greater danger?

Judging by history, it can be either one, and which one is the greater threat varies by time and place.

Plus, the idea that government should have all the might just smacks too much
of a small child & parent relationship. Tis fine for Canuckistanians, but not for me.

Not really, because the other key part of all this is transparency in government and oversight by the people.

There's a heck of a lot more accountability (and IMO therefore a heck of a lot less risk) from a government that's watched like a hawk by the electorate than there is from a collection of weapon-wielding individualists who don't want to be told what to do by anyone.

I want the people who might try to oppress me to be accountable to me. I don't see how that would happen in the system you propose.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really, because the other key part of all this is transparency in government and oversight by the people.

That illusion of control will ebb & flow too much for my taste.

There's a heck of a lot more accountability (and IMO therefore a heck of a lot less risk) from a government that's watched like a hawk by the electorate than there is from a collection of weapon-wielding individualists who don't want to be told what to do by anyone.

Government is accountable to itself & to voters.
I don't know which I trust less.
Gov't here just decided that jailers may do full body cavity searches of innocent people without pretext.
They also decided that our protection of jury trials in the 6th Amendment may be waived by government, in violation of our Constitution.
I've more, but you get the picture.
You might find such developments acceptable, but I don't.

I want the people who might try to oppress me to be accountable to me. I don't see how that would happen in the system you propose.

You place great store on accountability. But the problem is that your remedy is available only after the abuse has happened to you.
Moreover, no one is more apt or able to oppress you than government. It's their business, & business is good.
They are loathe to prosecute themselves, and voters are.....well, you see what a poor excuse for voters we have here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Government is accountable to itself & to voters.
I don't know which I trust less.

So then why do you want those voters you don't trust to have weapons that can kill you?

 

[Revoltingest]

So then why do you want those voters you don't trust to have weapons that can kill you?

Because their weapons are less powerful than their government.
Also, I can reason with people. But a bureaucracy? It has no soul or mind.
They can abuse you without even intending it. And when it is intentional, watch out.

 

[Father Heathen]

I hate guns with a passion and don't think I'll ever get my head around America's love affair with objects whose sole purpose is killing.

If not the gun, it would be the flamberge. Violence is a condition of the human heart. Is it ugly? Yes, yet at times it is a necessary "evil" to preserve the things we value.

 

[Revoltingest]

If not the gun, it would be the flamberge. Violence is a condition of the human heart. Is it ugly? Yes, yet at times it is a necessary "evil" to preserve the things we value.

Time to quote Franklin.....
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Time to quote Franklin.....
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The irony in this statement is that it's a government official making pronouncements on what the people do and don't deserve.

 

[Revoltingest]

The irony in this statement is that it's a government official making pronouncements on what the people do and don't deserve.

This government official was a classical liberal.
He'd be appalled at what modern politicians hath wrought.
Now, they say empty aphorisms like "hope & change" while stuff like this happens....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_print.html
http://www.infowars.com/irs-travel-ban-revoking-citizenship-by-stealth/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-obamas-trip/2012/04/16/gIQAJ3bqLT_print.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47064295
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GSA_WASTE?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
You're welcome to abandon responsibility for your own defense, & depend upon government to do it for you.
But don't expect me to rely upon these bozos. Here, the cops are a worse problem than the perps.

 

[dust1n]

I always thought it strange that gun ownage = liberty in the minds of sum.

 

[Karl R]

If we take the guns away then of course there will still be crime with other weapons such as clubs,knives and fists, but at least in these cases many more of the victims live to tell the tale.

Are you aware that Mexico has strict gun laws? Even before the outburst of violence in recent years, their murder rates were approximately double the murder rates in the U.S.

Switzerland requires all of its militia members (able-bodied males between 20 and 34) to keep their combat rifles and handguns in their home. Citizens are also permitted to purchase surplus combat rifles for personal use. Their murder rate is approximately half the murder rate in the U.S.

Both of those countries are democracies.

There are other factors, besides gun ownership and gun laws that play a huge role in murder rates.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I am pretty much liberal in most of my politics, except when it comes to firearms. I proudly own and shoot many types of firearms. I was partially raised in a rural environment so I have never been a stranger to guns.

I believe the right to bear arms is as a fundamental right as free speech. So I want to ask my fellow liberals, why are so many liberals for gun control? And I also want to know if there are any other liberals out there who are also gun enthusiast?

I was raised hunting. I have been around firearms since I was an infant. I was taught to respect what they can do, to handle them properly, and would NEVER have played around with them! I would definitely be considered a liberal in the extreme, and I can tell you that the controversy on this subject boils down to the fact that the problems with guns have more to do with a lack of educating children about them while over-saturating our media with violence that isn't shown to produce real consequences. If a child is educated on the proper use of a firearm, they are much less likely to do anything stupid. Hiding the gun away in a locked box in your closet, and never taking it out and teaching one's children about it can make a child much more curious, and more likely to find a way to satisfy this curiosity when the parent is not around, which can be a recipe for real tragedy. If someone hurts or kills someone with a gun, it is the fault of the fool who made the decision to point a loaded weapon at another person, period!

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Umm...what if the guv'ment gets out of hand and the citizens need to take care of business?

The government has already gotten out of hand and most people are clueless about it. All they do is chant 'Merica! #1!

 

[Jacksnyte]

I always thought it strange that gun ownage = liberty in the minds of sum.

If we do not have the right to bear arms, we will be completely subject to those who do: the government and criminals (often the same people).
our founding fathers included that right so that we can overthrow our government if it becomes too corrupt, and so that we can all defend ourselves and our families, and not have to depend on the police, or national guard all the time!