- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,233
- Reaction score
- 1,184
- Location
- The Wild West
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Sorry EROD, don't mean to step on all of your statistics...which are pretty cool by the way...but I encourage all to read them.
Now, back to "TheAngryAmerican's post...
Wow...for some reason...my post to your reply to this just disappeared so it turns up later..I'll try to get close to my point as possible as the previous in my following comments.
I'm a gun owner. That being said....
I'm confused by your comment about me supporting or imposing restrictions of any kind. In fact, I've never mentioned anything close to supporting or suggesting restricting guns.
You might want to re-read my comment to a poster who basically said, "Selling guns to the mentally ill is illegal" and I also assumed that the poster was alluding to: Since it's illegal, therefore the mentally ill can't get access to a gun.
I just stated the fact that guns are bought and sold daily under the radar of authorities. It's been like that for eons, and will continue to be like that. And it doesn't really matter if a person is mentally ill or a criminal...or whoever wants a gun...can buy one via an illegal street vendor.
I don't hunt. So, I might not own a gun if it weren't for criminals, mentally impaired who might just go off the deep end...and of course governments.
Welp, that's it...thanks.
By your quotes in this thread, you very clearly support restrictions on where firearms can be carried. You appear to be against allowing responsible gun owners to carry guns on a college campus, if they choose to. Restricting where a gun can be carried is restricting guns, period. You sound like the comment from the article I posted on the first page where someone basically said, "We don't want to restrict your rights to own guns, we just want you to keep them all locked up!" (I recommend reading the quote if you haven't already. It was hilarious.)
By your own admission, those who choose to disobey the law will always be able to obtain firearms. Since they already are comfortable disobeying the law, there is obviously nothing forcing them to comply with a simple restriction like a "Gun Free Zone," right? Still with me? So, those who choose to abide by the rule of law have effectively been disarmed and placed at the mercy of those who do not. Only a fool would try to resolve a conflict by placing all the power in the hands of their aggressor.
That’s what I meant by saying that you support restrictions that only serve to threaten the law-abiding.