Originally Posted by MP0WER
Because you're a sharp guy, i'm assuming that you don't really believe that someone posing an argument about the 2nd amendment being related to stripping a tyrannical government from power means they live in fear that the government is coming to get them, right?
Well, I dont think YOU live that way, but based on some the wording of some posts, for certain others, honestly I really have to wonder. Some truly do remind me of doomsday preppers, who really believe the shit will certainly hit the fan in their lifetime, and I'm the nutjob if I cant see it.
I try and ask "well, why dont folks in other places, who legitimately have damn good reason to be more concerned than you based on recent past (not 200 years ago), why arent they in a panic", and you get no real answer to what I think is a fair question.
I dunno man, if most other people I asked couldnt see a monster, but I could, my first reaction would NOT be, "they are all wrong", or, "or I dont care why they dont see it, I'm still gonna prepare to fend it off". Instead my first gut reaction would be, "hmmm... maybe there is no monster". Have you ever heard the one about the proud mother exclaiming: "everyone is marching out of step except my Johnny" Yeah, I think maybe, just maybe, theres some of that going on.
Your high school story is interesting; (I guess they were right when they said there is no Free Lunch! ha ha)
Anyway, I grasp that some kids didnt know that they were missing. As a result, was their High School life that much worse? Was the cost of the additional safety too much? Or, were they able to have happy, fulfilled high school lives anyway? Flying commercial is a huge pain in the ass now. Would I argue that the safety stuff should all be rolled back to 1995? Nope.
People are OK with limits on the 1st amendment. Nobody is going around saying, "well first you tell me I cant yell fire in a crowded theater, and before you know it, I wont be able to criticize the POTUS in public."
You apply it to the 2nd amendment, and suddenly the argument which sounds crazy in the first case, becomes fine in the second case.
Originally Posted by MP0WER
Do you live in fear of being shot? I most certainly don't. For a short time when i was younger i did, but i channeled that fear into preparedness and that fear is no more.
I dont live in fear of being shot, so it's harder for me to understand the "I need to protect myself" argument. I've never been shot at, either, so that could change my tune. I hope I dont find out... I do get the recreational user tho, but I still think there's a place for stronger regulations. Adam Lanza's mother was a responsible recreational gun owner too, who legally got her guns and would probably have easily passed any mental health or background test you gave her. She probably wouldnt have hurt a fly.
In a controlled range, it would be safer to relax some things, and folks could then get to shoot full auto Uzi's or whatever they want. Fine with me, as long as the uzi doesnt end up in a closet, where a kid could find it when they break into your house while you are in Hawaii. But then, people would scream that keeping it at a gun club doesnt help them defend against gov tyranny, so you're back to zero.
If I did worry that much, instead of arming myself, I'd probably take the position of "if this is what it takes to have 'freedom', that aint free at all, and I'm outta here". Got a co-worker who left South Africa because of that very thing; when it gets the point where you must arm your vehicle against carjackings, starting over elsewhere seems like a better option.