5 ms·

I don't know anyone who is pro-gun that is going to give up his gun as long as there is a terrorism threat to his family and country. Politicians need to squelc

I don't know anyone who is pro-gun that is going to give up his gun as long as there is a terrorism threat to his family and country. Politicians need to squelch the terrorism war chanting if they ever want any form of gun control to pass in the U.S.

greenisland 11y ago
No one but scared liberals want "gun control". Freedom-loving Americans want elected officials to enforce the existing laws, not create new ones out of fear. Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed this sentiment publicly, recently stating on the record that only police and military should own handguns. Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?
- Loque 11y ago
  > Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution? Because it is adjusted as we develop and learn more about the world we live in, it has happened in the past, and I sincerely hope it continues to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Rat...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - th0waway 11y ago
    Ahh, the fallacy of not learning from history - as soon as a populace is disarmed they are helpless before their lord and master... I mean government. The battle for freedom began in Lexington and Concord when a group of British soldiers attempted to disarm a group of Colonists. You (and many people) are under the bad assumption that as we learn more our basic human nature changes, but it does not.
    - Loque 11y ago
      We live in different times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Conco...
      - greenisland 11y ago
        But human nature does NOT change.
  - hnal943 11y ago
    Then the politicians who wish to ban guns should do it through the front door and propose a constitutional amendment. They won't do that, because it won't pass because there is nowhere near the level of consensus in the country to get such a massive change to the American law done.
- celticninja 11y ago
  Surely that is all US politicians if you look at anything else in the constitution except guns.
- Thriptic 11y ago
  To some degree I agree. The problem with most vocal proponents of "reasonable" regulation in this space is that they are negotiating in bad faith. In many ways it reminds me of the current debate on encryption. Fundamentally these people don't want to seek a viable middle ground which protects freedoms while mitigating problems, they want to remove the rights or protections entirely. It therefore becomes almost impossible to take anything other than an absolutist stance because every negotiation involves the outcome of previous "reasonable negotiations" being used as the starting point for the people on defense. Their fundamental goal is to slowly chip away until there is nothing left.
LyndsySimon 11y ago
I am quite pro-gun, and terrorism doesn't even register on the reasons why. I believe the same could be said of most everyone I know in that community. It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  It was really meant more tongue in cheek than it came across. Politicians just need to stop with the terrorism war chanting, period.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    No argument here on that front :)
- developer2 11y ago
  I've never understood this argument. The day you pull a gun on "government" is the day you will be killed on the spot, or sentenced to death row, or sent to life in prison with no chance of parole. You will be permanently removed from your comfortable life, and whomever takes that life away from you will face no penalty for doing so. So you own a handgun? The government will have assault rifles. Oh, you own an assault-like rifle? The government will have RPG's and grenades. It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. We hear this argument from Americans every single time this topic is brought up. "It's to keep the government in check!". What a load of horse crap. Every time, we only hear repeated "Constitution! Constitution!". Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms. It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.
  - 11y ago
jameshart 11y ago
But that has to be cultural reaction as well. The UK was subject through the 80s/90s to a persistent, genuine, armed terrorist threat in the form of Irish republican and unionist terrorism. If the reaction of the population of Northern Ireland and England to that had been to demand that they be allowed to arm themselves, I don't think we'd have ever reached an end to the Troubles.

greenisland 11y ago

No one but scared liberals want "gun control". Freedom-loving Americans want elected officials to enforce the existing laws, not create new ones out of fear. Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed this sentiment publicly, recently stating on the record that only police and military should own handguns. Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?

Loque 11y ago
> Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution? Because it is adjusted as we develop and learn more about the world we live in, it has happened in the past, and I sincerely hope it continues to happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Rat...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- th0waway 11y ago
  Ahh, the fallacy of not learning from history - as soon as a populace is disarmed they are helpless before their lord and master... I mean government. The battle for freedom began in Lexington and Concord when a group of British soldiers attempted to disarm a group of Colonists. You (and many people) are under the bad assumption that as we learn more our basic human nature changes, but it does not.
  - Loque 11y ago
    We live in different times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Conco...
    - greenisland 11y ago
      But human nature does NOT change.
- hnal943 11y ago
  Then the politicians who wish to ban guns should do it through the front door and propose a constitutional amendment. They won't do that, because it won't pass because there is nowhere near the level of consensus in the country to get such a massive change to the American law done.
celticninja 11y ago
Surely that is all US politicians if you look at anything else in the constitution except guns.
Thriptic 11y ago
To some degree I agree. The problem with most vocal proponents of "reasonable" regulation in this space is that they are negotiating in bad faith. In many ways it reminds me of the current debate on encryption. Fundamentally these people don't want to seek a viable middle ground which protects freedoms while mitigating problems, they want to remove the rights or protections entirely. It therefore becomes almost impossible to take anything other than an absolutist stance because every negotiation involves the outcome of previous "reasonable negotiations" being used as the starting point for the people on defense. Their fundamental goal is to slowly chip away until there is nothing left.

LyndsySimon 11y ago

I am quite pro-gun, and terrorism doesn't even register on the reasons why. I believe the same could be said of most everyone I know in that community. It's not about fear; it's primarily about a worldview that centers on individuality and distrust of government.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
It was really meant more tongue in cheek than it came across. Politicians just need to stop with the terrorism war chanting, period.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  No argument here on that front :)
developer2 11y ago
I've never understood this argument. The day you pull a gun on "government" is the day you will be killed on the spot, or sentenced to death row, or sent to life in prison with no chance of parole. You will be permanently removed from your comfortable life, and whomever takes that life away from you will face no penalty for doing so. So you own a handgun? The government will have assault rifles. Oh, you own an assault-like rifle? The government will have RPG's and grenades. It doesn't matter what you own, the government will win every time. You are guaranteed to lose. We hear this argument from Americans every single time this topic is brought up. "It's to keep the government in check!". What a load of horse crap. Every time, we only hear repeated "Constitution! Constitution!". Perhaps a little rational thought is required to comprehend that a document written ~227 years ago is probably out of date with modern reality when it comes to firearms. It's a combination of amusing, frustrating, and bewildering to witness a large number of Americans' behaviour whenever this topic resurfaces. Honestly, most of the rest of the world out here just can't understand how you people are so goddamn self-indoctrinated into keeping your guns. There is no reasoning that I can apply to even begin to validate the concept that guns in the hands of citizens is a good thing.
- 11y ago

jameshart 11y ago

But that has to be cultural reaction as well. The UK was subject through the 80s/90s to a persistent, genuine, armed terrorist threat in the form of Irish republican and unionist terrorism. If the reaction of the population of Northern Ireland and England to that had been to demand that they be allowed to arm themselves, I don't think we'd have ever reached an end to the Troubles.