i ask this question partly rhetorically - in demonstration that a few armed folks in a park watching kids play doesn't guarantee a war, and partly because i simply don't understand their view. kind of like if you don't like something, then don't eat/buy/play/smell/whatever it, but don't tell me i shouldn't/can't do something just because you don't like it...
i don't know, maybe i am too laissez faire or something, but it just seems to me that that is the way things should be.
zundfolge was the first to respond w/ the control thing, and after reading several of the other answers, i think that may very well be correct - so that sheds some understanding. but, giving up control certainly leads to the confiscation of many of the freedoms and liberties we, as a nation, hold so dear... therefore, i'm not sure that control is the absolute answer.
in my view, and i do not know - which is why i asked, dmack seems to have nailed it perfectly. are we to believe then that all these anti's are completely, and totally irrational to their very core?? but mhdishere provides some insight that really backs up dmack's thoughts...
surely the majority of anti-gunners know that there are plenty of ccw's at events they attend? that these events don't get shot up, inspite the presence of guns? not long ago i carried my sig 229 to accompany my family to chuck e. cheese's. i am sure i was not the only one carrying - maybe i was - but still, nothing happened...
i gotta run to the store. seems i need some more components for reloading. and, i'll be carrying my s&w...
i just can't grasp the anti's angle, and it frustrates me.
pokey- yeah, i wish i had moved here years ago. i thought i knew freedom when i lived in los angeles and san diego. but, after i moved here, i understood freedom. been here 10 years now, and don't miss socal even a tiny bit - its more, much, much more than just gun laws. gun laws are just the start.