tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post2592356289119130759..comments2023-11-03T03:52:37.873-05:00Comments on Cognitive Dissidence: Sure, You Can Own These GunsSomebody DO Something!http://www.blogger.com/profile/08717747685928127724noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-89131839879175298762013-01-14T15:09:27.929-06:002013-01-14T15:09:27.929-06:00"Go ahead and reread what you have there"..."Go ahead and reread what you have there"<br /><br />I have re-read it, and nowhere in those words have I said nor implied that guns rights should be unlimited. I simply pointed out that the Second Amendment has the most/heaviest restrictions on 'em, and asked if you would also accept those same type of restrictions on other basic freedoms and rights.<br /><br /><br />As I said before, obviously this issue is way too emotional for ya to discuss rationally. I guess that should've been clear when you said you have no choice but to call people names when talking about this, but I was holding out hope that if I kept it respectful that you could bring yourself around and have a mature convo. <br /><br /><br />My bad for expecting too much of ya. I'll try not to let it happen again.<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-27343931254708124892013-01-14T00:04:43.045-06:002013-01-14T00:04:43.045-06:00"That seems counter to your entire paradigm t..."That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited"<br /><br />"Where did I ever say that gun rights are unlimited? Where did I even imply it?!"<br /><br />Go ahead and reread what you have there and tell me where the fail happened. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty, or is it reading comprehension again? <br /><br />"Please, before you respond to something you think I said, double check to see if I actually said it. Thanks."<br /><br />Please, before you say anything, double check to see if you're saying it to validate an actual point, or if it's just to be an argumentative ass. You're welcome. <br /><br />"Seriously...I totally understand your fears & concerns, but I gotta ask: Would you accept any of these limitations/restrictions on any of our other basic rights that are protected, by name, in the Constitution? "<br /><br />"Which is why I ask: Would you accept any of these proposed restrictions on any other basic rights that are protected by our Constitution?"<br /><br />"Shane, I totally understand that some of our rights are already restricted. But the right to bear arms is already the most heavily regulated & restricted of the basic rights protected by the Constitutions, and ya'll are demanding even more restrictions and limitations. So I'm curious to know if folks are willing to accept the same kind of limitations on any of the other Bill of Rights."<br /><br />"And yes krshorewood...having those type of heavy restrictions on a Constitutional right is nonsense. That was the exact point I was trying to make. We don't accept those kind of draconian restrictions on our other basic rights, so why should they be acceptable on this one?"<br /><br />"But none of that is neither here-nor-there now...I was just wondering if you would accept any of the same kind of heavy limitations/restrictions on other basic rights that are on the Second Amendment. Safe to say that your answer is "no", eh?"<br /><br />Nope, you never implied that there shouldn't be restrictions on the second amendment at all. The entire crux of your BS false equivalency examples wasn't that there shouldn't be limitations on constitutional rights. You never once used ridiculous examples to try to show that we wouldn't accept limitations to other constitutional rights, so we shouldn't with the 2nd amendment either. Now, bring on your semantic argument where you try to backtrack and reinterpret your entire argument. That way, we can chuckle at you and move on to someone who's interested in a serious discussion. <br /><br />Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-53597953528089109972013-01-13T16:22:59.585-06:002013-01-13T16:22:59.585-06:00"That seems counter to your entire paradigm t..."That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited"<br /><br />Where did I ever say that gun rights are unlimited? Where did I even imply it?!<br /><br />*rolls eyes*<br /><br />Ya know, you're just proving that the "gun nuts" aren't limited to the rightwingers...'cause you're pretty nutty about this issue yourself.<br /><br />Seriously. It is obvious that this is a very emotional issue for you, so emotional that you HAVE to call people names. But I don't get why you are using me as a proxy for any things said/done by others. <br /><br />Please, before you respond to something you think I said, double check to see if I actually said it. Thanks.<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-43681563165778051672013-01-11T18:06:44.410-06:002013-01-11T18:06:44.410-06:00(Cont'd)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...(Cont'd)<br />http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map <br /> "In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed." <br /><br />"If that is true, then should we disarm the police as well? "<br /><br />That's a good question. Whether or not we should, there is evidence to suggest we may be safer. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398<br /><br />Police are increasingly relying on non-lethal weapons over firearms anyway. <br /><br />""...gun nuts...gun nuts...gun nuts..."<br />*sigh*<br />Do ya really gotta go there?"<br /><br />Yes, I really gotta. What would you call these people? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADIAStLQjOI<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ<br /><br />So yes, gun nuts.Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-25080834672610438382013-01-11T18:05:29.239-06:002013-01-11T18:05:29.239-06:00"According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, ..."According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html)"<br /><br />That same SCOTUS ruling you cite, also says that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.<br />http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf<br />That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited. <br /><br />Not always. Sometimes there are far less victims because someone else had a gun. (http://www.infowars.com/total-media-blackout-on-shooting-where-private-citizen-stopped-mass-murder-by-using-gun/) (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-don-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272)<br /><br />The NY daily news link is an Op-Ed that gives three examples. The first two, no one actually stopped the shooter. In both cases, the shooter was leaving the premises when they were confronted and taken into custody. The third example, the shooter was taken out by a SWAT sniper team after the shooting occurred and they were in a standoff. The Infowars piece is about the recent San Antonio theater shooting in which the shooter was confronted and stopped by an off duty officer who was working as a security guard. In none of these examples was a mass shooting stopped, or were there "far less victims". You could make a case that the San Antonio shooting could have turned into a mass shooting but law enforcement was already on the way, and the shooter appeared to be mostly firing randomly. At any rate, your links don't address how many fewer casualties would have undoubtedly resulted if NO ONE, including the shooter, had a gun. That's the point. <br /><br />Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-83877258801127645162013-01-11T16:59:11.844-06:002013-01-11T16:59:11.844-06:00When any of your asinine, completely arbitrary, an...When any of your asinine, completely arbitrary, and totally unrelated comparisons results in 30,000+ people being dead, then yes, I would support restrictions of the nature you suggest. Until that time, of course I don't support them as they're completely illogical and in no way germane to the particular conversation. <br /><br />If we get to the point where the only guns we have to worry about are personally manufactured zip guns and the like, then we likely wouldn't have to have this conversation as the problem would largely be solved. <br /><br />"And actually, street gangs have been caught with LAW rockets before. "<br />Again, if all firearms become as rampant as LAWS, then we really won't have a problem. <br /><br /> "And yes, people...elected officials even...are honestly suggesting that some guns be banned. "<br />Which isn't what I said now is it? I said no one is seriously suggesting a total gun ban. Are you suggesting that no guns should be banned?<br /><br />"Plus, justgottaaddrealquick, cocaine is manufactured by a company in St Louis and is used in legitimate medical procedures. "<br /><br />Actually, not quite. Mallinckrodt doesn't manufacture it, nor do they use it in medical procedures. Your information is dated. It's used almost exclusively for clinical testing as safer, more effective alternatives exist for any medicinal use of cocaine. Furthermore, Mallinckrodt is hardly equivalent to a Ruger or Sig Sauer now are they? You love the false equivalencies don't you.Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-65434019283160037092013-01-11T10:45:24.983-06:002013-01-11T10:45:24.983-06:00What I love about those assertions is that those c...What I love about those assertions is that those commando role players would be squashed like bugs by our military, the same military that they vote for every time they walk into the polls to put the GOP in office.Keith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-15909675491147115112013-01-11T09:41:02.355-06:002013-01-11T09:41:02.355-06:00Setting aside their complete disregard of the &quo...Setting aside their complete disregard of the "well regulated militia" part, my personal view is to let Second Amendment invokers have as many barrel-loaded muskets as they'd like and tell them the STFU. I can be an "Originalist," too! However, I'm rational and mature enough to realize that it is unlikely (and probably inappropriate) for my personal views to become the whole cloth of public policy. Accordingly, it seems important to develop policy that speaks to the concerns and interests of those for whom the Second Amendment is paramount...and I'm with you in thinking this kind of legislation largely does.<br /><br />I'm also with you in thinking that such a policy would not fly without government subsidy to cover any personal expenditure to comply with its provisions (folks don't have a lot of discretionary funds left over after dropping a few hundred or more on guns). <br /><br />Though those who live responsible gun ownership, rather than just giving it lip service, would be generally unaffected by this kind of legislation, I'd foresee major push back from the gun lobby during the first wave of prosecutions of irresponsible gun owners and sellers, as irresponsible gun owners constitute a not insignificant percentage of the gun industry customer base (even numbers in the single digits can translate to some serious profits). Unfortunately, the NRA's mission to increase sales for the gun industry supersedes any of its efforts to represent responsible gun owners. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-74580805774466260732013-01-11T09:37:03.261-06:002013-01-11T09:37:03.261-06:00"Yeah we do, because that is the case"
..."Yeah we do, because that is the case"<br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />No, you don't HAVE to call names...you're CHOOSING to. And that is some really weak sauce right there...can't your opinion stand on its own merits without having to resort to grade-school taunts and namecalling?<br /><br />Looks like Jeff was wrong; this blog ain't much different than the right-wing ones. Extremists on Althouse call me a "libtard" and "union thug" for expressing my point-of-view and here the extremists call me a "gun nut" and "zealot" for sharing my opinion. Two different sides of the same coin. <br /><br />Sorry for upsetting the echo chamber. Perhaps I should go back to only commenting on this blog about things we all agree about, eh?<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-50583258588816158912013-01-11T09:26:18.640-06:002013-01-11T09:26:18.640-06:00"The second amendment is not a fraud.. The wi..."The second amendment is not a fraud.. The wild interpretations of it are."<br /><br />While I totally understand that you disagree with the Supreme Court's "wild interpretation" of the Second Amendment, I'm still curious to know exactly what you personally beleive it protects.<br /><br />Could you please point out any restrictions/regulations that you think would go too far?<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-87761862711159702462013-01-11T09:14:35.209-06:002013-01-11T09:14:35.209-06:00Unfortunately, the NRA's real function as the ...Unfortunately, the NRA's real function as the sales and marketing division of the gun industry is rarely mentioned, and those unwilling to recognize them as such too often bring them to the table to develop policy...much like bringing a used car salesman in to craft lemon laws. It's a shame that law-abiding gun owners don't really have an organization to support their interests and, instead, have been sold the NRA's bill of goods...it's disheartening to see the partipulation (participation in one's own manipulation) of gun owners whose earnest concerns have been co-opted by a group whose primary mission is to get people to spend more money on guns. How many astronomical quarterly sales reports from gun manufacturers do we have to see before folks realize the gun industry is laughing all the way to the bank while the NRA plays on the emotions of largely well-meaning people, and works actively to ensure (if not promote) the kind of fear and disorder likely to increase future gun sales? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-6019642759729065592013-01-11T08:14:59.667-06:002013-01-11T08:14:59.667-06:00Let's tamp out this crap about Hitler and guns...Let's tamp out this crap about Hitler and guns once and for all. <br /><br />Try facts next time.<br /><br />http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/01/sorry-gun-nuts-hitler-actually-relaxed.htmlKeith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-15285003912958820002013-01-11T08:11:49.217-06:002013-01-11T08:11:49.217-06:00Correct Shane which is why they immediately send t...Correct Shane which is why they immediately send the echo chamber out to try and stifle any kind of discussion at all as being "too soon". Jeff Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12118335402641807712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-46685727478167690722013-01-11T08:08:05.498-06:002013-01-11T08:08:05.498-06:00Drive by quoting.Drive by quoting.Keith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-85467282810032435292013-01-11T08:06:26.885-06:002013-01-11T08:06:26.885-06:00By the way, there is that pesky Heller ruling whi...By the way, there is that pesky Heller ruling which stipulates assault style weapons have no on constitutional protection - http://tinyurl.com/bh87v27.<br /><br />You to keep forgetting we can read, we can Google, we can get outraged.Keith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-58559459945244170942013-01-11T08:04:56.261-06:002013-01-11T08:04:56.261-06:00The second amendment does NOT mean you can have an...The second amendment does NOT mean you can have any weapon anywhere anytime with no questions asked....get over yourselves please. <br /><br />Jeff Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12118335402641807712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-67696763111176769662013-01-11T08:03:36.045-06:002013-01-11T08:03:36.045-06:00As long as I have been here we have never edited o...As long as I have been here we have never edited or deleted comments. We arent the right blogs we welcome debate from all sides...<br /><br />That being said...i actually agree with you. Gun owners actually taking responsibility would go a long way in easing the fears of my mind. yet the NRA has no interest in doing that, which is why everytime we pass a new CCW law they also have to pass a get out of jail free law (castle doctrine) right with it. <br /><br />If they had to actually pay the consequences of owning their guns the ywould be much more responsible with them. Jeff Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12118335402641807712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-68212745722120356982013-01-11T07:52:36.576-06:002013-01-11T07:52:36.576-06:00I just chuckle every time a 2nd Amendment zealot s...I just chuckle every time a 2nd Amendment zealot spews portions of the 2nd Amendments verbiage. The one part the almost always tend to leave out is the "well regulated militia". Either they don't know what regulated means, or just like they do with bible verses, they only pick out the parts that help to enforce their hair-brained ideas.WhatIsCommonSensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048050176971497842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-77139658311874276412013-01-11T06:20:23.616-06:002013-01-11T06:20:23.616-06:00Yeah we do, because that is the case. Time and tim...Yeah we do, because that is the case. Time and time again, gun lovers prove that their objects are more important than people's lives. For some of them, there is pathological attachment to their gun. Like we've seen with George Zimmermann, a gun can make a putz like that feel important.Keith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-66995835270575348192013-01-11T06:17:55.488-06:002013-01-11T06:17:55.488-06:00The second amendment is not a fraud. The wild inte...The second amendment is not a fraud. The wild interpretations of it are.<br /><br />Let's face it. The NRA has never been able to have a gun regulation tossed out on the basis of the second amendment. On the Brady bill, they never went after it in court.Keith Schmitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802172470532380488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-90932304188753393812013-01-11T02:33:39.768-06:002013-01-11T02:33:39.768-06:00"Please, enlighten us, just what does the &qu..."Please, enlighten us, just what does the "Constitutional Second Amendment" actually say, and what is its legal meaning?"<br /><br />According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html)<br /><br />What do you think it means? (And it doesn't matter to me if you're an accomplished constitutional law scholar or not, I'm just curious about your point-of-view.)<br /><br />"Body counts in mass shootings are far higher (with greater lethality) because of guns"<br /><br />Not always. Sometimes there are far less victims because someone else had a gun. (http://www.infowars.com/total-media-blackout-on-shooting-where-private-citizen-stopped-mass-murder-by-using-gun/) (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-don-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272)<br /><br />"We are demonstrably less safe in the presence of guns then not. That's a statistical reality."<br /><br />If that is true, then should we disarm the police as well? <br /><br />"...gun nuts...gun nuts...gun nuts..."<br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />Do ya really gotta go there?<br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-60192450343867273702013-01-11T02:16:15.021-06:002013-01-11T02:16:15.021-06:00"Is there a demonstrable societal risk to fel..."Is there a demonstrable societal risk to felons having first amendment rights? Or Medical Marijuana users having the right to a speedy trial? Or to same day voter registration?"<br /><br />Well...we're told that all felons are so dangerous that they need to have the basic right to bear arms stripped from them for the rest of their life, so why is it so absurd to think that they should be trusted with the more powerful pen? Especially in this day&age of the internet.<br /><br />And many folks are saying that same-day registration makes voting fraud too easy...not to mention the whole voter ID issue. <br /><br />*shrug*<br /><br />Also, it is very easy to make a firearm with a basic machine shop, and it would be easier to hide than a grow room. Gonna be even easier as the prices of 3D printers come down & the tech improves. (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/21/click-print-shoot-guns-made-on-3-d-printers-not-as-farfetched-idea-as-it-sounds/)<br /><br />And actually, street gangs have been caught with LAW rockets before. (http://www.streetgangs.com/news/021310_chicago_weapons_seized)<br /><br />And yes, people...elected officials even...are honestly suggesting that some guns be banned. (http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22351788/white-house-sees-assault-gun-ban-one-part)<br /><br />Plus, justgottaaddrealquick, cocaine is manufactured by a company in St Louis and is used in legitimate medical procedures. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326142016AA4SU6S) <br /><br />But none of that is neither here-nor-there now...I was just wondering if you would accept any of the same kind of heavy limitations/restrictions on other basic rights that are on the Second Amendment. Safe to say that your answer is "no", eh?<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-67177170084333531362013-01-11T01:07:55.048-06:002013-01-11T01:07:55.048-06:00I have seen similar on Facebook, but hadn't tr...I have seen similar on Facebook, but hadn't traced it back to the origin. It's got all the things conservatives love - guns, personal responsibility, money - that is they love it until it's up to them to be responsible and spend their own money.capperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08751967312821403092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-76534595685085860752013-01-11T01:01:07.850-06:002013-01-11T01:01:07.850-06:00"For instance, what would you say about felon..."For instance, what would you say about felons automatically losing their first amendment rights for life? Or if the President decided that medical marijuana users no longer have a right to a speedy trial? Should there also be a waiting period (ie, no same-day registration) when it comes to voting? "<br /><br />Is there a demonstrable societal risk to felons having first amendment rights? Or Medical Marijuana users having the right to a speedy trial? Or to same day voter registration? Your entire assertion is a non sequitur as it is in no way equivalent. Just naming arbitrary rights lost for no corresponding reason is not in any way the same thing. Yes, all rational people realize there are limitations to rights. Although it's an oldie an example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. We place reasonable limitations on rights when they impose upon the rights, safety, and freedoms of others. <br /><br />"a gun ban (or "management" or "control" or whatever) will be no more effective than the marijuana & cocaine ban has been. "<br /><br />First, no one has suggested a "gun ban". Second, again you draw a false equivalency. For one, criminals can't grow firearms in their basement grow room. Firearms are manufactured under rather exacting specifications rendering them unlikely candidates for underground or cartel black market manufacture. Furthermore, gun manufacturers would still have a legal, legitimate market, (law enforcement and military.) There exists no equivalent in the cocaine and marijuana world (no Ruger, or Sig Sauer of cocaine if you will). There is no question that an all out gun ban would be effective if implemented. After all, how many T.O.W. missiles or LAWS do we see in public use? The problem with an all out ban is in the implementation and confiscation of current legally owned firearms. There is no feasible solution to that that doesn't create far more problems then it solves. A ban is not a feasible and realistic solution, and no one is honestly suggesting it.Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888314760091661875.post-31859383131779514082013-01-11T00:34:05.764-06:002013-01-11T00:34:05.764-06:00"Gee, thanks - but, actually, those of us who..."Gee, thanks - but, actually, those of us who actually obey the laws DON'T REQUIRE YOUR (or, lawfully, anyone's) PERMISSION. We have an inherent RIGHT to keep what we currently own."<br /><br />No, you don't require anyone's permission, but you do require society's continued acceptance of our permissive gun culture. See, one thing the gun nuts don't seem to understand is that the biggest threat to gun ownership isn't liberal hippies that want to take away your guns. It's their own unwillingness to even discuss the possibility that we may need to have rational discourse about sensible regulations of firearms. Every time another tragic shooting happens, gun nuts run the risk of society finally saying enough is enough. You may think you have an inherent right to keep what you own (shouting something in caps doesn't make it any more true), but there is plenty of precedent for the courts and legislators disagreeing with you. If the public decides that they want to see changes in our gun laws, sufficient public pressure can make it happen, regardless of your intent. <br /> Shane_Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943711279049756819noreply@blogger.com