Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster
The initial question was whether you'd surrender your firearms to the police voluntarily in a disaster. I answered the question no, explained clearly why and what I would do instead. Where you get all the rest of this is anyone's guess.
You don't have to guess. All you have to do is read what I wrote.
Yes, some people responded with some very reasonable alternatives. Leave them with a friend. One person even suggested leaving them with someone just up the road during a flood, which I found particularly amusing since it is likely that the family just up the road would also be flooded. Personally, I'd rather not give them to the Police for no other reason than because they have problems with logistics and I'm almost sure that I can handle my guns with more care than anyone else. They're mine, after all.
But in addition to these alternatives, many people, including yourself, have framed your response within the the context of protecting your rights, which, again, I find interesting, since the OP's question was never about your rights. It was about whether or not you'd accept a service.
Now, those of us who don't think that the American government would love to get its hands on everybody's guns (since even the most developed assault rifle probably isn't going to do much good against a missile launched from hundreds of miles away by one of America's 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers) didn't see that question as an issue of rights. That's why you didn't understand the cheese analogy. Placing cheese in a context of your rights is silly, which was your point, but your response doesn't make any sense to anybody who correctly perceived this question as a matter of pragmatic response and not as an issue of rights. So of course you couldn't understand that analogy. It caused a brief moment of cognitive dissonance because you are not capable of viewing any issues relating to guns as anything but a civil liberties issue. Responding to floods pragmatically by offering a basic service isn't a civil liberty issue, so why did your response and so many other responses take it that far? Was it a coincidence? An accident?
Or...
You were baited by the poster of the OP and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a very basic question--would you respond "yes" or "no" if the Police offered to safeguard your weapons in the event of a flood. The OP didn't even bother asking "why" because he knew that all the ra-ra-ra gun owners were gonna respond with litanies about government intrusion and their rights and all that.
The purpose of this OP was to make gun-toting conservatives (or libertarian conservatives, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) look bad and that's exactly what it did.
The question was initially asked from a Canadian perspective, where they cannot lawfully transport or store their firearms except under very limited circumstances, which is very different from American issues and concerns about the issue, many of which are tied up in the Katrina/NOLA firearms confiscation, and our different laws regarding storage and transport... far less stringent than Canada.
I don't really understand what that has to do with anything. Someone from Nigeria could have answered such a basic question. I related to the answers which had to do with logistical considerations, but you, yourself, took it way further than that. If you hadn't, we wouldn't have been discussing whether or not a socialist could form a decent answer to the relevant question.
So is it a logistics issue or a rights issue? You don't know. Whatever sounds best at the time, right?
London is not Britain, New York City is not America. Ok. As I said, you lot do things your way, we'll do things our way.
Hold on. First London was a classic British example, wasn't it? You brought it up, not me. Suddenly the tables are turned and it doesn't represent Britain? Somehow, New York City isn't at all relevant to America?
What kind of insanity is this?
And what do you mean "you do things your way"? What, the conversation is over, now? We can't talk about it any more? I'm not from Canada or Britain, so phrasing it like you're talking to someone who isn't from the exact same country as you is kinda odd.
Socialism: explained that too. Socialism is one of the ideologies that tend to put State action above individual liberty, whether it makes sense or not.
No, you haven't explained anything about socialism. You threw a couple remarks at it to poison the well by referring to socialists as state-worshippers.
As I said before, being able to carry pocketknives has nothing to do with socialism. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production.
How's it feel to have been successfully baited by the "Canadian OP"?
