Posted on 09/08/2013 9:14:29 AM PDT by rktman
One of the most amazing aspects of the gun-control fight in America is how short-sighted the focus on guns and violent death is. I don’t refer only to gun-control advocates when I say this.
Of course, I support the right to keep and bear arms, and I encourage every law-abiding American to consider owning a gun for self-defense. Unless you are in one of the high-risk groups — convicted felons, people with serious depression or other mental illness, or people with substance-abuse problems — or live with someone in those high-risk groups, having a gun available to you has very little downside. If someone breaks into your home or if you are attacked on the street, being armed is a clear advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
He could be right, but I live in a 4 bedroom, 2 bath house 2500 sq foot house with a 2.5 car garage and several outbuilding. If I am to have a firearm within reach at all times, I need a lot more than I have now.
Until such time as you rectify the shortage, carry one...
Let’s say the members of your family are obese, so much so that each will likely eventually die of obesity related conditions. Should you be more concerned about this, or a group of armed home invaders torturing your family in front of you before murdering them.
“They all died horribly, but at least they were slender.”
I ave more than I need, but less than I want. :-)
My friend used to have a loaded handgun in every room of his house. We used to kid him about, but the more I think about, the more it makes sense.
“Unless you are in one of the high-risk groups — convicted felons, people with serious depression or other mental illness, or people with substance-abuse problems — or live with someone in those high-risk groups...”
Funny. That never seems to stop ‘em from getting guns!
But anyway, wishing, ‘Guns, God & Butter’ to all Freepers! :)
My comment on the PJMedia column:
The author commits a primary logic and rhetorical error in argument construction by basing it on “need” and who is the proper arbiter of “need.” When it comes to rights and individual choice, the word “need” is non-operational. If the author makes his personal choices on the logic and data presented in the article, then that is all fine for him. However, that does not empower him to make choices for others or to ask the government to use that logic to enforce those choices on others.
Extreme gun-control advocates such as Barack Obama, who also holds title to The World’s Greatest Gun Salesman are the reason for many of us owning far more guns than we need.
When someone in authority says, “I am going to take this right away from all the people. They will not be permitted to ever buy another firearm”, that has but one effect. It makes people want to buy a firearm before we lose the right to buy one.
Now when the say comes that someone in authority says, “The people must surrender all of their firearms, that will be the day that the SHTF. Because that will be the day that legislators, state and federal, Mayors and Police chiefs will die unnecessarily. They will be targeted because they are the ones who will give the orders in their area of authority for the armed officers to go and collect the guns from those civilians who refused to surrender them.
I pray that day won’t happen if I am alive. I don’t want to see American citizens fighting for the 2nd Amendment anywhere outside of a courtroom.
Agreed. It will indeed be a sad day. But, owning more guns than we need? LOL! I suppose some folks would be consdered hoarders then.
Some people buy guns to arm their less fortunate neighbors should they ever need a gun. That’s what I was referring to. Need is a very flexible word.
Seriously? Did you read the article? And you presume to instruct Clayton Cramer on Gun rights?
From Mr. Cramer’s post: “If gun-control advocates were primarily concerned about reducing unnecessary deaths, the same energy would be better spent on discouraging obesity, smoking, bad eating habits, unsafe promiscuous sex, IV drug abuse, couch potatoism, alcoholism, and the rest of the lifestyle choices that contribute mightily to the lifestyle-induced deaths. These cause vastly more deaths each year than firearms.”
He’s talking about gun-grabbers, and is not arguing that you should not have some guns and ammunition. His point, as noted above, is that if the gun-grabbers really wanted to save lives, they should focus on something other than “gun deaths”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.