I've stayed away from posting to this thread until now.
I've been persuaded some time ago to think about this issue from the premise that the right to self defense is a basic human right. It isn't granted by men, but an acknowledgement of the nature of sentient beings and free men. We also ought to have available to us an effective means of self defense.
S&W620 said: I don't really understand the point of these threads.
This is a gun forum.
You are asking if gun enthusiasts agree with anti gun legislation.
Common sense should answer this.
Well, the point is that many, MANY gun owners do not agree with us. I've belonged to private ranges and clubs, not the cinder block rental facilities but bona fide private ranges, that prohibit men who carry arms about society the means to practice on their range. They don't permit any sort of "rapid fire", movement, or drawing from a holster. They even go as far as to banish members who use a human sillouette target.
When I asked the officers at club meetings about this situation, the response is that they don't want "that crowd" in their membership. They prohibit men from being afforded the opportunity to practice those skills; these are self-imposed restrictions. They come from gun owners. They come from men who don't think we should carry guns, in a state with a LONG history of carrying arms, and only see guns as recreation.
Pengiun, there was a time that men here can recall where a young man could walk into a shop, buy a gun as a 16 yr old, and walk away that day. Boys took guns to school, and we policed ourselves to know who we were selling to. The nature of man has not changed in the modern age. Bad men have always preyed on others, and governments have always sought to gather more and more power unto themselves. Introducing laws serves little more than to remove personal responsibility from our community and give it to the nanny state. Those laws just don't work. They don't. Same with the state of social welfare.
People have a right to an effective means of self defense. Even the young and the former criminal. If you assert a man cannot be entrusted with arms, how can you with a straight face conclude we can trust him to walk about society, and simply barring him access to guns keeps us safe from him? You aren't naive enough to believe a law is sufficient to prevent him from obtaining one, are you? I'm persuaded once we deem a man can be released to return to society, that he ought to have some opportunity to regain full rights as a citizen. Loss of a basic right for LIFE is one free men have historically been loathe to impose.
And, the Brady Campaign are treacherous liars, my friend. I would no sooner compromise with them negotiate with than a wild animal.
