Guns or no Guns

[migtig (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Another good indicator is when they twist words to skew the debate. Two that come to mind:

Illegal immigration - The pro-illegal crowd NEVER calls them anything but "immigrants" and if you disagree with them, you are "against" immigration. But most people aren't against immigration at all - it's the *illegal* part that they don't like. That didn't work so well, so now the pro-illegals have taken to calling them "undocumented workers", which sanitizes it.

Stem cell research - I don't know a single person who is against stem cell research in and of itself. What they're against is government funding for *fetal* stem cell research, which is taking stem cells from aborted fetuses and using it for research. But you never hear the screamers mention this; they simply call it "stem cell research", which misses the whole point and redirects the argument.

That's a very good point. It's all in the wording. I do have a problem with illegals - I don't have a problem with immigrants.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

And the other side is doing it too.
Saying "if one person had been allowed to carry their firearm in class it could have been prevented. Therefore i should be able to take my gun EVERYWHERE i go...."

the obvious flaw being that their are clearly places and times where weapons are inapropriate.

It could be that those that are stating that, are using the Appalachian Law School shooting as proof of the theory

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

And the other side is doing it too.
Saying "if one person had been allowed to carry their firearm in class it could have been prevented. Therefore i should be able to take my gun EVERYWHERE i go...."

the obvious flaw being that their are clearly places and times where weapons are inapropriate.

And to me that's not the obvious flaw; the *obvious* flaw is that the element of surprise was on the killer's side. Very few people react instinctively by reaching for a gun to fire back. The more likely first reaction is to duck and cover.

It's like some woman getting attacked. Even if she had a gun to defend herself, all the attacker has to do is surprise her and knock her out. That pretty much puts an end to "fighting back" because the only women who can take a knock over the head or a punch to the face and still stay on their feet are in the movies.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

It could be that those that are stating that, are using the Appalachian Law School shooting as proof of the theory

your shaking that one instance to death there.....

it still doesn't mean that you should be able to take your guns EVERYWHERE.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

And the other side is doing it too.
Saying "if one person had been allowed to carry their firearm in class it could have been prevented. Therefore i should be able to take my gun EVERYWHERE i go...."

the obvious flaw being that their are clearly places and times where weapons are inapropriate.

Where? If I am legally allowed to carry and I carry responsibly, where should I be prevented from carrying?

[migtig (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

It could be that those that are stating that, are using the Appalachian Law School shooting as proof of the theory

I actually haven't been reading everything, so I did my own search on that. Very interesting.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/01/13/lang.htm

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

it still doesn't mean that you should be able to take your guns EVERYWHERE.

I agree with that. But you should be able to own a gun to defend your home against invasion, and you should be able to own a gun to carry for protection. Individual businesses or institutions would certainly be able to make their own regulations, and then you can choose to patronize them or not.

Kind of like with smoking.

[migtig (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

And to me that's not the obvious flaw; the *obvious* flaw is that the element of surprise was on the killer's side. Very few people react instinctively by reaching for a gun to fire back. The more likely first reaction is to duck and cover.

It's like some woman getting attacked. Even if she had a gun to defend herself, all the attacker has to do is surprise her and knock her out. That pretty much puts an end to "fighting back" because the only women who can take a knock over the head or a punch to the face and still stay on their feet are in the movies.

Not true - I am living proof.

Of course I wasn't thinking too clearly after it.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

And to me that's not the obvious flaw; the *obvious* flaw is that the element of surprise was on the killer's side. Very few people react instinctively by reaching for a gun to fire back. The more likely first reaction is to duck and cover.

It's like some woman getting attacked. Even if she had a gun to defend herself, all the attacker has to do is surprise her and knock her out. That pretty much puts an end to "fighting back" because the only women who can take a knock over the head or a punch to the face and still stay on their feet are in the movies.

Being rendered unconscious is certainly a prevention to being able to defend oneself, but not having the means to defend oneself makes one an easy target. The mere idea that a person may be able to defend themselves is a deterrent of some measure.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

Where? If I am legally allowed to carry and I carry responsibly, where should I be prevented from carrying?

Well, let's say I don't want guns in my house. That should be my right, and if you aren't comfortable leaving your weapon behind when you come to my house, then you wouldn't come to my house.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a school to say you can't have firearms on school property. They say you can't smoke or drink alcohol - both of which are legal - so carrying a weapon is right alongside that.