Basically what I am asking is for what reason a person needs a firearm to protest health reform. I assume it is to represent violent opposition to the government. Is it a metaphor? If not when are they going to start opening up?

Where were they protesting health care reform? The police said they were demonstrating for their 2nd amendment rights. You can assume what ever you want, but unless you can prove otherwise, conjecture is not proof, I'll assume the police know what they're doing and they were peacefully demonstrating for their 2nd Amendment rights. Whether you perceive those rights under attack or not is irrelevant. They do.

 

People who own guns, and demonstrate for their rights to do so, are not automatically in violent opposition to the government. Gun owners are not terrorists by extension.

More media driven image, no more, no less. Let's ask Australia how that gun control thing has worked out for them. If we can't learn from that, then God help us.

 

 

RTS already said he walked around his neighborhood with a 22 on his shoulder. I got off the bus the other day, in my decidedly peace-love-and-happiness neighborhood, and as I got off, I accidentally stepped into the path of a guy which caused a minor collision. When I looked up, he had halfway drawn a side arm from it's holster. Yep. I feel much safer knowing that any Tom Dick or Harry can get a license and carry a gun anywhere they please. Yep....much safer.

Here's an interesting observation, even if it does take us off topic.

 

Outlawing guns will only put the guns in the hands of criminals. Yet, many of the same "pro-gun" crowd are also in the "anti-abortion" group. Making either illegal won't stop them (gun related crime or abortions) from happening, so how can you be against making one illegal and the other not?

 

Let it be noted that the converse is true also. I think, perhaps, only the libertarian philosophy would not be hypocritical, as it would promote both being legal.

At the moment (and I know that you'll correct me if I'm wrong) isn't the only gun legislation that has passed while Obama has been president been to make it legal to carry guns into national parks? Didn't he sign that into law?

 

No one can comment on this?

 

Perhaps let me say it this way...what evidence do I have that Obama is coming to take my guns?

 

Maybe this guy will help. :popcorn:

Here's an interesting observation, even if it does take us off topic.

 

Outlawing guns will only put the guns in the hands of criminals. Yet, many of the same "pro-gun" crowd are also in the "anti-abortion" group. Making either illegal won't stop them (gun related crime or abortions) from happening, so how can you be against making one illegal and the other not?

 

Let it be noted that the converse is true also. I think, perhaps, only the libertarian philosophy would not be hypocritical, as it would promote both being legal.

So I'm just to give up because both will still happen illegally? I don't want criminals to obtain guns illegally just like I would not want abortions performed illegally. I want to legally own guns and I want abortion, as a substitution for contraception, made illegal. Where's the hipocracy?

So I'm just to give up because both will still happen illegally? I don't want criminals to obtain guns illegally just like I would not want abortions performed illegally. I want to legally own guns and I want abortion, as a substitution for contraception, made illegal. Where's the hipocracy?

 

The hypocrisy (perhaps not the right word, maybe illogical thought process) by reason exists if one believes that making guns illegal won't stop gun crime - that it will just mean that ONLY criminals will have guns, yet at the same time believes that making abortions illegal will stop abortions from occurring.

The hypocrisy (perhaps not the right word, maybe illogical thought process) by reason exists if one believes that making guns illegal won't stop gun crime - that it will just mean that ONLY criminals will have guns, yet at the same time believes that making abortions illegal will stop abortions from occurring.

No it doesn't. Only criminals will have guns. Only criminals will have abortions. uuuuuu ... A philosophy argument. Logic 101. :banana:

Here's an interesting observation, even if it does take us off topic.

 

Outlawing guns will only put the guns in the hands of criminals. Yet, many of the same "pro-gun" crowd are also in the "anti-abortion" group. Making either illegal won't stop them (gun related crime or abortions) from happening, so how can you be against making one illegal and the other not?

 

Let it be noted that the converse is true also. I think, perhaps, only the libertarian philosophy would not be hypocritical, as it would promote both being legal.

First of all, libertarians are split down the middle on abortion.

 

Second of all, the fundamental difference is that illegally owning a gun is not an infringement on rights. Having an illegal abortion is an infringement on rights. Crimes exist when we infringe on the rights of others.

The hypocrisy (perhaps not the right word, maybe illogical thought process) by reason exists if one believes that making guns illegal won't stop gun crime - that it will just mean that ONLY criminals will have guns, yet at the same time believes that making abortions illegal will stop abortions from occurring.

It is true that abortion being illegal will not be the end of abortion. However, I'd wager that making abortion illegal would have more of an effect on abortions/year than making gun ownership illegal would have an effect on gun crime/year. Criminals are already breaking the law- why wouldn't they also illegally obtain a gun? I'd also wager that gun crime is often done with illegally-obtained guns currently anyways, although I don't have any data.

Where were they protesting health care reform? The police said they were demonstrating for their 2nd amendment rights. You can assume what ever you want, but unless you can prove otherwise, conjecture is not proof, I'll assume the police know what they're doing and they were peacefully demonstrating for their 2nd Amendment rights. Whether you perceive those rights under attack or not is irrelevant. They do.

 

People who own guns, and demonstrate for their rights to do so, are not automatically in violent opposition to the government. Gun owners are not terrorists by extension.

 

Among others, a

carried a loaded firearm to a healthcare rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire last Tuesday. His sign quoted Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

I'll ask again: For what reason does a person need a firearm to protest health reform. I assume it is to represent violent opposition to the government. Is it a metaphor? If not when are they going to start opening up?

No it doesn't. Only criminals will have guns. Only criminals will have abortions. uuuuuu ... A philosophy argument. Logic 101. :banana:

So, the point is that outlawing either won't PREVENT them from occurring.

First of all, libertarians are split down the middle on abortion.

 

Second of all, the fundamental difference is that illegally owning a gun is not an infringement on rights. Having an illegal abortion is an infringement on rights. Crimes exist when we infringe on the rights of others.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying that if guns were outlawed, than owning a gun illegally wouldn't be a crime, because it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights?

So, the point is that outlawing either won't PREVENT them from occurring.

See drug enforcement.

Among others, a

carried a loaded firearm to a healthcare rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire last Tuesday. His sign quoted Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

I'll ask again: For what reason does a person need a firearm to protest health reform. I assume it is to represent violent opposition to the government. Is it a metaphor? If not when are they going to start opening up?

Why can't it be a metaphor? By your logic, when some protester burns someone in effigy, why don't actually go grab that person, strap them to a stake, and fire up.

I'm confused. Are you saying that if guns were outlawed, than owning a gun illegally wouldn't be a crime, because it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights?

No, I did a poor job of explaining it. What I meant is that, in a libertarian society, crimes would be action which infringed on other's rights. Therefore, since owning a gun is not an infringement of rights, but abortion is an infringement of rights, it is not a hypocritical or illogical position to hold.

 

The litmus test for laws is NOT merely if the law is effective at stopping crime. Just because laws against abortion wouldn't stop all abortions does not make those laws invalid.