Anyone Proud to Not Own a Gun?

At least rocks dont talk back!

 

That's called paranoia

 

Actually, I'm firmly opposed to safety classes. Just like the other rights (free speech, assembly, fair trial, etc) in this nation's Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be subject to government-approved safety classes, with a potential government denial of that right associated with it. That's contrary to the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights (..shall not be infringed, etc).

Government background checks (again with a denial of a right associated with it) are another matter, but obviously should be handled with great restraint as well.

 

The Violence Policy Center have long tried to force more gun control laws within the US. Pretty sure their stats are obviously skewed and only reflect their true views which is more gun control.

 

So , you prefer people to be untrained ?

 

I have a gun and a dog and a knife. My children are 6 and 9 and they have guns as well.

 

The media is good for something...

God forbid we have classes that actually show people how to use a firearm. That would be horrible...

 

I'm a hunter and outdoor enthusiast. I own several guns. They remain locked up safely in a gun cabinet and they get taken out when I go hunting. They go back in the cabinet when I return home...

After reading the comments on here, I feel fortunate (and proud) to be living in a place where I don't have to worry about having to use them on another human being or sleep with one under my pillow to feel safe... I see them as tools, not protection.

 

Ok im in the process of looking for some on the NRA website and foxnews

 

When you find them, average them with the others and you'll likely end up close to the truth

Statistics should not be construed for fact. Statistics can be easily manipulated to portray a certain story, it's all in how they are presented and the inclusions/exclusions.

 

Yes! and to add to it.

The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers "that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound."

So I should not have to buy militia gun one should be supplied to me at the age of 20. like they do in Sweden

and I'm pulling the race card.

 

hahah good idea!

 

Just a thought for those who feel hiding from criminals is a viable option, apologies if it's already in the thread:

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20500750/woman-shot-during-violent-home-invasion

 

You seem unable to separate law-abiding civilians from criminals. They're not the same. My gun is here at home with me, not out on the street in the hands of a criminal seeking to do harm in some way to another. My gun is here to help prevent that harm from being done to me or my family.

Same with law-abiding civilians.

 

Merica fuck yea!

Home of the brave and land of the stupied.

You're shit out of luck. When the founders signed that document 1/4 of them owned slaves.

 

Again (and I'll keep saying it each time you repost this), that's a bloody silly argument. Why not say for everytime a police officer uses a gun in self-defense, a gun will be used in x number of whatever. Even though to the two are not in any way linked, you could use that same twisted logic to argue for the disarmament of police officers (something criminals would surely love).

 

The mandatory military / militia service / supplied weapon concept in Sweden is there to repel a forgein invading army , which has historical precedent for them

Not exactly the same as the 2A argument to oppose your own government

Would you not agree ?

 

Im pretty sure that data means there are more accidental gun deaths than when a gun is used in self defense. Its like a fraction you know in math.

 

Yes please. Let's give everyone an M16 when they turn 20. That will solve all of our current issues.
People aren't murdering because it's what society has taught them, it's because they didn't get a military weapon at 20.