Quote:
Originally posted by jaguar [
Since when did the burden of proof lie with me?
|
Since the minute you propose restricting my rights, you need a damn good justification. I don't need a justification to exercise my rights, that's why they're called <i>rights</i>. Sorry you don't have those rights anymore, but it's not my fault.
I was trained to use an M-14 by the military, I found it to be a very satisfactory weapon, accurate, pleasant to shoot, and a fine piece of machinery. It is my right to own one, and if I had the money to spare (I don't) there would be one here right now. I don't need any more reason than that.
There are state game lands only a few miles away from my home, I might use it to hunt. (Or I might not; I'm not really fond of venison but would certainly survive on it if I had to. We're so ovepopulated with deer here that the Feds actually hire hunters to come into the local parks and thin the herds.) I would very likely use it for target shooting....it's definatly *not * the same thing as shooting as a .22 match rifle.
But I don't owe *you* a justification for this, especially since you've already declared yourself hostile to my rights. This is a matter totally within my discretion.
Quote:
I don't think bush sits there and this 'if i sign this will all thsoe armed citizens out here get pissed off.
|
You don't? Then you don't know squat about US politics. Bush would have lost the election <b>big-time</b> without the support of armed citizens, and he knows <b>that</b> very well, I assure you.
And once again I've grown weary running after you around in circles over this thing.
If I deny "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" and assert "One purpose of a gun is to deter violence" you jump right into "so the only purpose is deterrance?". And then <i>in the very next sentence</I> you wander off down the "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" street again. Where did you learn logic?
No, the *only* purpose isn't deterrance, but it *is* a damned good one, and one that does not require killing. If a weapon isn't potentially lethal, it doesn't make a very good deterrant. And your proposal "let's give non lethal weapons to people who are too stupid to use guns safely" doesn't appeal to me much either....most non-lethal weapons require even <b>more</b> skill to use effectively and safely than firearms do. .
But this is all pointless...I don''t <b>need</b> a reason that will pass your muster, which is a good thing in my view, because no purpose <b>will</b> pass your muster. I remain convinced the reason it can't is because <i>you've</i> already lost your rights on this score, so everything else is sour grapes.
Enjoy your enlightened civilization, sooner or later you guys may figure it out. Or not.