Anything that I could offer would be soundly dismissed. In the end, we just disagree.

 

I am getting ready to sign off for the night (unless any Mods text me) but I would love to hear your side and I promise to be nice.

Who called you a "libtard"?

 

Easy...... I guess I should have thrown in an emoticon or two. It was mostly meant to be tongue in cheek, and to be fair, I haven't seen that term thrown around on BGP, although it is commonly thrown around in other social media outlets.

 

The non-tongue in cheek part, was simply, like I said, not all libs are anti gun (probably more than you think), and just because no one has posted a comment about a pro gun article, doesn't mean we are all running scared or in silence because we've been beaten into submission by an argument we can't refute.....there is the not so subtle implication of conservative superiority....the whole we are better and smarter than you guys, even though in reality, myself like many other liberals are much closer to the middle than some would like to believe or care to admit.

It's what inevitably gets worked in. Just taking it head on.

 

Baloney. You and rjs4470 came into this one with a chip on your shoulders, looking to be offended from the start.

Easy...... I guess I should have thrown in an emoticon or two. It was mostly meant to be tongue in cheek, and to be fair, I haven't seen that term thrown around on BGP, although it is commonly thrown around in other social media outlets.

 

The non-tongue in cheek part, was simply, like I said, not all libs are anti gun (probably more than you think), and just because no one has posted a comment about a pro gun article, doesn't mean we are all running scared or in silence because we've been beaten into submission by an argument we can't refute.....there is the not so subtle implication of conservative superiority....the whole we are better and smarter than you guys, even though in reality, myself like many other liberals are much closer to the middle than some would like to believe or care to admit.

 

Then why use the term in the first place if its not used on here, which it isn't?

 

Let's not pretend that those that lean left don't act quite superior as often as those on the right do. I've seen it many times, so let's not play the victim here.

Then why use the term in the first place if its not used on here, which it isn't?

 

Let's not pretend that those that lean left don't act quite superior as often as those on the right do. I've seen it many times, so let's not play the victim here.

 

I'm not playing victim, no chip on my shoulder. Again, I'm mostly on your side on the issue. In fact, can only think of one regular poster that is vehemently against guns...I'm just saying don't assume silence is us slinking away in defeat. Sorry for using the term...I guess a little self deprecating humor wasn't appropriate in this situation. And that's really how I meant it.

Edited December 20, 201510 yr by rjs4470

I am getting ready to sign off for the night (unless any Mods text me) but I would love to hear your side and I promise to be nice.

 

First, I know of very few people who want to actually ban guns. The conversation always ends up there, but that is not what people like myself are pushing for. But the conversation about what measures can be implemented ALWAYS ends up as someone like me pushing for a ban, and thus, a violation of the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.

 

Secondly, the article just really states the same positions of most on BGP. There was nothing new there for me, because it's been stated in countless threads about the subject on BGP over the years. I really don't have anything to add to that conversation because my position is well known (or should be if anyone can look past my decision to not own a gun, which somehow seems to make me anti-gun for all).

 

It always seems to boil down to those who staunchly defend their 2nd Amendment rights calling those who choose not to as naive. There's always that "I'll be there to save those who don't have a gun". It's insulting and reeks of patronization. I know I am not asking for anyone to save me, nor expecting it.

 

I believe that while all the points made in the article mirror the information imparted here on BGP, and are factual, none do anything to assuage my concerns. I agree that mass shootings will happen regardless of any bans. I also believe they will happen without bans. I agree it is not the gun, but the person wielding the gun. But regardless, it seems like the questions I have about why someone would want to own guns or be allowed to carry anywhere they choose come down to the core answer of "because we can" and "it's my right". OK. Good for you. Now, what are we going to do about the issues this right creates?

 

Yes, I am uncomfortable with the thought of potentially having to constantly wonder who's got a gun in a public setting I may be a part of.

 

Maybe to some of you, heck most of you, I don't value my life or safety. But it's actually the opposite. I choose a different way to live, because I am a different sort of person, with a different idea of living safely and different ways of self-protection. I choose ways that match my ideology.

 

Again, none of this should be new to anyone who has participated in previous discussions about this subject with me. I don't know what anyone wants me to add. I'm not changing my position. I've read other articles stating the same as imparted in this one. I've been unwavering in my position, which unfortunately for some, translates into me wanting to somehow overturn your rights.

 

If anyone wants to discuss or provide information about why changing the laws regarding ownership, that's a more relevant discussion. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment. I'm against unfettered, completely unregulated rights of any of our Constitutional rights, including this one. Rights do not come without responsibility. And when someone wants to discuss how we can make changes that improve responsible ownership, I'm in. But there has to be something offered besides the same old "it's the beginning of the end" as far as reasons why the discussion should be scrapped.

I'm not playing victim, no chip on my shoulder. Again, I'm mostly on your side on the issue. In fact, can only think of one regular poster that is vehemently against guns...I'm just saying don't assume silence is us slinking away in defeat. Sorry for using the term...I guess a little self deprecating humor wasn't appropriate in this situation. And that's really how I meant it.

 

Fair enough, but since you're not anti-gun and mostly on our side of the issue I don't get why you would respond that way. I get that you're being silent didn't mean defeat, and honestly I don't think those comments were directed at you. I also think you have to agree that sometimes humor and sarcasm is difficult to pick up on when you're reading something. Lastly, I know of two posters that want all semi-autos banned. That's two that admit it, I'm betting there are more on here that feel that way and just haven't said it. Not saying you're one.

Fair enough, but since you're not anti-gun and mostly on our side of the issue I don't get why you would respond that way. I get that you're being silent didn't mean defeat, and honestly I don't think those comments were directed at you. I also think you have to agree that sometimes humor and sarcasm is difficult to pick up on when you're reading something. Lastly, I know of two posters that want all semi-autos banned. That's two that admit it, I'm betting there are more on here that feel that way and just haven't said it. Not saying you're one.

 

Why do you feel this way? You expect to be taken at face value when you post something. Why do you not extend the same courtesy to others when they state their positions?

 

I would say this for myself: I don't "want" any guns banned. Would it upset me if some were? No. But I'm not pushing for it.

Why do you feel this way? You expect to be taken at face value when you post something. Why do you not extend the same courtesy to others when they state their positions?

 

I would say this for myself: I don't "want" any guns banned. Would it upset me if some were? No. But I'm not pushing for it.

 

Things they've said in the past. Simple as that. Support they've shown for the two that really push for a ban is another reason.

 

I'm not sure if you're feeling I think you're one or not. My concern is with others based on their arguments.

 

You also need to realize we have a president and many democrats that call for a ban every time something happens, that's why we pro-gun people react the way we do. Obama will be using executive orders within the next month or two, somehow if he can't ban something then he will push for a ban as hard as he can all of 2016. How can we not feel people want to take guns from law abiding citizens? We hear it almost daily.

I am all for keeping guns out the hands of criminals.

 

Things need clearly defined. I was depressed when my nephew died of SIDS, my worry is that because I was on medication, does that mean in the future someone will take guns?

 

 

Have you saw what President Obama said about our founding fathers hamstringing him and keeping him from doing what he wants with guns?

I am all for keeping guns out the hands of criminals.

 

Things need clearly defined. I was depressed when my nephew died of SIDS, my worry is that because I was on medication, does that mean in the future someone will take guns?

 

 

Have you saw what President Obama said about our founding fathers hamstringing him and keeping him from doing what he wants with guns?

 

I can understand the worry about those seeking assistance for mental health might result in the loss, either temporarily or permanently, of their firearms. Since many of the mass shooting shooters had serious mental conditions (Aurora, Sandy Hook, VT), do you feel that there should be some level or mental illness in which someone's second amendment right should be suspended until they are well?

I can understand the worry about those seeking assistance for mental health might result in the loss, either temporarily or permanently, of their firearms. Since many of the mass shooting shooters had serious mental conditions (Aurora, Sandy Hook, VT), do you feel that there should be some level or mental illness in which someone's second amendment right should be suspended until they are well?

 

 

Absolutely. I am also for people at that level of crazy not to be walking the streets.

 

The problem is politicians use incrementalism to get all of us.

 

It will go from being diagnosed with a severe mental issue and your not allowed to have guns, to ever been on Zoloft? Your not allowed to have a gun.

Absolutely. I am also for people at that level of crazy not to be walking the streets.

 

The problem is politicians use incrementalism to get all of us.

 

It will go from being diagnosed with a severe mental issue and your not allowed to have guns, to ever been on Zoloft? Your not allowed to have a gun.

 

So, what do you see as being a step in the right direction? Or do you think that we are doing as well as we can in this regards already?

The right direction is sitting down and agreeing on a mental health guideline and enforcing laws that are on the books.

 

No talk of bans or confiscation.

 

I would say you and me or several others on this board could sit down and agree who shouldn't have guns.

 

The problem comes with politicians like President Obama, Pelosi, and Mrs. Clinton taking those guidelines and twisting them to fit their agenda.....not yours, mine, or what is best for this country.

I believe that while all the points made in the article mirror the information imparted here on BGP, and are factual, none do anything to assuage my concerns. I agree that mass shootings will happen regardless of any bans. I also believe they will happen without bans. I agree it is not the gun, but the person wielding the gun. But regardless, it seems like the questions I have about why someone would want to own guns or be allowed to carry anywhere they choose come down to the core answer of "because we can" and "it's my right". OK. Good for you. Now, what are we going to do about the issues this right creates?

 

Yes, I am uncomfortable with the thought of potentially having to constantly wonder who's got a gun in a public setting I may be a part of.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, RM, I know where you stand on this. This isn't me trying to get a response from you.I am going to offer my perspective on this line of thinking.

 

No matter if we have carry laws, we have that constant wonder/worry because criminals have guns and they walk among us.

 

I'm glad KY has a concealed carry law and I support that 100% for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Concealed carry permit holders have proven themselves to be responsible, trustworthy and law abiding as a group. I am not aware of any issues arising out of having licensed, CC permit holders (who pass training and background checks) around us in daily life. They have taken the steps to be vetted and they are protecting themselves from any evil that may come their way. They are not going around like the wild west and shooting up towns.

 

2. I want to be able to protect myself and my family if faced with a criminal intent upon causing us harm. I do not choose to be a victim and for me, having a firearm at my disposal increases my odds of being able to provide the level of protection I feel like my family deserves. It is a personal choice, but one I think I have a right to exercise. I am not a danger to anyone and I do not think I make life more dangerous for anyone else.

 

If we take away concealed carry then the only people we have to constantly worry about who's got a gun in a public setting is the criminals who most certainly have them. By reducing our chance of having some firepower to oppose the bad guys, I think it weakens the public safety overall.