Does The NRA Represent Sane Gun Owners Anymore?

[Themiclesia]

I do.

Yes, I agree. You DO know jack shit about firearms.

May I sig this?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yes, I agree. You DO know jack shit about firearms.

Good, I always like to end on a note of agreement.

[Themiclesia]

But you may not use it as a weapon, or anything as a weapon, unless a situation demands it. As guns have no clear function except as weapons under most contexts, it ought not be allowed where other weapons are disallowed.

And you've given no valid reason why weapons should be disallowed under most contexts.

I have just told you: they are dangerous.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And you've given no valid reason why weapons should be disallowed under most contexts.

I have just told you: they are dangerous.

No, when used properly they are not.

[Diopolis]

And you've given no valid reason why weapons should be disallowed under most contexts.

I have just told you: they are dangerous.

In the hands of people who either 1) are malicious or 2) don't know what they are doing
Licensed concealed carriers generally fit neither category.

[Themiclesia]

All right, we've deviated form the OP for far enough that even I am aware. If you intend to hear my views, give me a TG.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yes, I agree. You DO know jack shit about firearms.

May I sig this?

Only if you quote the whole post.

[Themiclesia]

May I sig this?

Only if you quote the whole post.

Too late.

[Galloism]

All right, we've deviated form the OP for far enough that even I am aware. If you intend to hear my views, give me a TG.

Given you don't even have a basic knowledge of what you're trying to scare everyone about, your view are about as relevant as a toddler's views.

[Paddy O Fernature]

All right, we've deviated form the OP for far enough that even I am aware. If you intend to hear my views, give me a TG.

Given you don't even have a basic knowledge of what you're trying to scare everyone about, your view are about as relevant as a toddler's views.

Actually, I'm fairly sure I know young children with more actual knowledge then what he presented here.

[Mavorpen]

The key difference will be that reasonable restrictions to "bear"ing arms can and will be made to the effect that idiots who carry machine guns into Starbucks will be refused entry at the threshold for the sake of preserving the calm atmosphere of a cafe', crowded with patrons and where spontaneous ignition, misfires, and backfires will be catastrophic.

This doesn't answer the question. In a hypothetical scenario where this is already the case but people STILL have the right to own guns, what is the functional difference?

These people are exercising their so called "civil rights" to "feel safe" at the expense of others' identical rights as well as creating an environment which is objectively unsafe. Guns are objectively unsafe due to the charge within their chambers and bullets. It's the same reason why keeping barrels of gunpowder in one's own basement is illegal in most places.

See above. I don't really see a need for this. Why is taking away their right to own a gun necessary if you could just introduce legislation stating that guns in public accommodations aren't allowed? Or, as is the case in many areas, allow these businesses to decide for themselves.

[Fartsniffage]

I have just told you: they are dangerous.

No, when used properly they are not.

Umm, yes they are. That's kinda the point of firearms, that they're dangerous.

[Themiclesia]

Post #26401670 screenshot and saved.

[Galloism]

Post #26401670 screenshot and saved.

Ok?

I'm not editing it.

[Diopolis]

Given you don't even have a basic knowledge of what you're trying to scare everyone about, your view are about as relevant as a toddler's views.

Actually, I'm fairly sure I know young children with more actual knowledge then what he presented here.

I think I know GCA's with more knowledge of firearms than what he presented, so that's a bit of an understatement.

[Themiclesia]

The key difference will be that reasonable restrictions to "bear"ing arms can and will be made to the effect that idiots who carry machine guns into Starbucks will be refused entry at the threshold for the sake of preserving the calm atmosphere of a cafe', crowded with patrons and where spontaneous ignition, misfires, and backfires will be catastrophic.

This doesn't answer the question. In a hypothetical scenario where this is already the case but people STILL have the right to own guns, what is the functional difference?

These people are exercising their so called "civil rights" to "feel safe" at the expense of others' identical rights as well as creating an environment which is objectively unsafe. Guns are objectively unsafe due to the charge within their chambers and bullets. It's the same reason why keeping barrels of gunpowder in one's own basement is illegal in most places.

See above. I don't really see a need for this. Why is taking away their right to own a gun necessary if you could just introduce legislation stating that guns in public accommodations aren't allowed? Or, as is the case in many areas, allow these businesses to decide for themselves.

Because people who don't understand the common good act like sore thumbs and walk their guns more than their dogs.

[Mavorpen]

This doesn't answer the question. In a hypothetical scenario where this is already the case but people STILL have the right to own guns, what is the functional difference?

See above. I don't really see a need for this. Why is taking away their right to own a gun necessary if you could just introduce legislation stating that guns in public accommodations aren't allowed? Or, as is the case in many areas, allow these businesses to decide for themselves.

Because people who don't understand the common good act like sore thumbs and walk their guns more than their dogs.

I... what?

[Paddy O Fernature]

No, when used properly they are not.

Umm, yes they are. That's kinda the point of firearms, that they're dangerous.

A firearm is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. When used properly, it's no more dangerous then anything else we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

[Themiclesia]

Post #26401670 screenshot and saved.

Ok?

I'm not editing it.

This doesn't pertain to you at all.

[Galloism]

Because people who don't understand the common good act like sore thumbs and walk their guns more than their dogs.

I... what?

Here glockie glockie glockie *whistles*

[Mavorpen]

Umm, yes they are. That's kinda the point of firearms, that they're dangerous.

A firearm is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. When used properly, it's no more dangerous then anything else we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

Something being dangerous simply means that it's able to cause harm. Guns certainly fall under that category.

The problem though is, like you said, that almost anything can be dangerous, so while they're right that guns are dangerous, it's also true that they can be, and most often are, used for things other than harming others.

[Paddy O Fernature]

A firearm is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. When used properly, it's no more dangerous then anything else we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

Something being dangerous simply means that it's able to cause harm. Guns certainly fall under that category.

The problem though is, like you said, that almost anything can be dangerous, so while they're right that guns are dangerous, it's also true that they can be, and most often are, used for things other than harming others.

No disagreement from me here at all.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I... what?

Here glockie glockie glockie *whistles*

Intruders best beware, Colt doesn't like being disturbed by uninvited strangers at 3am and has a pretty nasty bite to match her bark.

[Fartsniffage]

Umm, yes they are. That's kinda the point of firearms, that they're dangerous.

A firearm is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. When used properly, it's no more dangerous then anything else we expose ourselves to on a daily basis.

Which is why there's such a fierce debate amongst military strategists about whether it's better to arm troops with firearms or screwdrivers.....

Seriously, I've not come across many tools where the instructions for safe operation start with phrases like "never point this tool at something unless you want it to die."

[Themiclesia]

While I would like to quote the whole post from Gun Manufacturers, that would make my sig too long by 16 characters.

For the record, I did not intend to amputate his post this way. Sorry.