Am I the only one to see a connection here? As soon as you talk about limiting the right to own a gun, guns lovers get overly defensive (close to paranoia if you ask me), the same attitude that prompt them to be armed in the first place.
Alternatively you can learn self-defense in any good martial arts school like I did. They can even train you to defend against knives and guns. As a bonus, the student learns respect and confidence.
You said multiple times in this thread that guns are the best weapons right now. You seems to forget hand grenades, nuclear weapons, landmines. Why don't you bury landmines in front of your house? Warn the people you know and let the evil strangers die then harvest the ketchup. Yes that's how guns lovers sound to me.
Besides physical limitations, a person could be too old, not have the time, or simply just lack the desire.
Too old goes into physical limitation. If you're too old to learn self-defense techniques, you're too old to manipulate a gun. Trust me, I've taught self-defense to women of almost all ages and they were all able to handle me at 6'1 215lbs no problem.
You don't have time to learn self-defense? Then you don't have time to train yourself with your gun, I don't want to see you anywhere close to one. That's dangerous thinking there.
Lack the desire? Just as I thought that your desire was to be able to defend yourself... By the way, you don't always have your gun but you always have your hands.
I also notice that you conveniently avoided the remark about non-lethal weapons.
Not after the squirrels and rabbits have taken them all out. Plus, I personally don't have any way of deciding who's hit.
Squirrels and rabbits? Engineers never found a way to prevent that in the last hundreds years... right. And are you really saying that unwanted deaths or injuries don't happen with guns? They happen all the time even when fired by trained people like policemen!
I'm not following you.
Your words :
The point is that We wouldn't have to be able to win the war to dissuade them from starting the first battle.
Dissuade the intruders by having grenades and atomic weapons.
For one, its a weapon than an individual can use. A personal weapon.
You really want to go there? RPGs, grenade, flamethrower. All personal weapons, all better than guns in many situations.
I wanted a gun because its the best self defense weapon available to me.
Ask yourself why it's a better self defense weapon. Isn't it because evil strangers have guns too? Why do they have guns? Probably because you have one!
Place yourself in the role of a robber. You enter a house with you gun in hand, just in case. You happen to come face to face with a guy living there. He has a gun, would you shoot? And if he hadn't one? Would you shoot too? The probability of deaths occuring is greater when guns are present on the scene!
If you're in that wheelchair because you're too old and unable to walk, I'm not sure I can trust you with a gun.
That's not true either. For one, you could be spending your free time training yourself with your gun and then not have time for self defense classes.
Too, the gun training class that I took was 16 hours, which I presume doesn't get you very far into a martial art.
Just so you know, self defense classes are available in your free time, what a bad excuse seriously!
And 16 hours is more than enough to be quite effective with your bare hands. After those 16 hours, use your "free time" to practice...
Well, since I have a gun then I don't have any desire to learn a martial art.
Remember, we weren't only talking about you unless you're too old, in a wheelchair and have a handicap.
And I have already considered and rejected your suggestion for non-lethal weapons, which didn't move the discussion past: "Regardless, its my decision to make in how I want to enable my own self-defense..."
You rejected it without a shred of an explanation, thanks.
All personal weapons, all better than guns in many situations.
I don't think so.
Enlightening! You should write books.
Fuck that, armed robbery carries a worse penalty than burglary.
Another great rebutal, you really went into the important parts of my argument.
Why are you evading question Cat Sci?
Let me dismiss all your arguments in your fashion : Admit it, you only like guns, that's all. And you know what? You have the natural right to like them.
Again the same pattern, what are you afraid of this time? You're afraid of evil strangers with guns so you want a gun. You're afraid of loosing some freedoms with a more responsable guns regulation. Now you're afraid that thinking might change your views?
You're absolutely right, I was just using her words to make it obvious that it didn't make sense. I don't understand why they're making a great deal about the way it's written when the meaning behind is clear. I guess that's their last resort since they won't answer anything else.
The concept of natural right is meaningless to me.
I could play a different word game too! If it's a natural right to have weapons, I would insist on the world natural. A gun doesn't occur naturally. I'm fine with them carrying sticks and stones if they want to as long as they found them on the ground.
Your argument concerning the 19th amendment is that those who proposed it viewed the women right to vote as a natural right. Obviously their predecessors didn't agree because it was ratified only in 1920. So you're arguing that mentalities change and the constitution should reflect this... except for your love of guns.