Make up your mind, you GUN BAN HOPLOPHOBES!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Well, I'm seeing a lot of what I consider hypocrisy from the anti-gun left. Think Rosie O'Donnell's screed against gun owners, but sending her kids to school with armed bodyguards. Think Dianne Feinstein railing against gun ownership but having a nearly-impossible-to-obtain California CCW license herself.

So I want to find out where people stand about guns.

I want to say in advance that no offense is intended nor should be inferred.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Oooh, so far, 100% pro-gun and zero hypocrites. Amazing. No one wants to admit they support restrictions on everyone but themselves, I guess.

BTW, sorry some poll responses got cut off for being too long. It allowed me to type them so I thought they'd go through. And yes, I see that I typed "potect" in the last choice. "I'm just a man."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TypicalFish 0]

I don't need one because my d&%k is big enough alrea... Oh, wrong thread...

Don't have an aneurysm, Jeffrey...

From a (personal) philosophical standpoint, I think gun control, strenuously enacted from the beginning before they were widely available and present in our everyday society, would have been a good thing. Banned for EVERYONE. Period. (And save me the "hobby" bit, there is plenty of stuff that would be fun to have that you can't buy.)

That didn't happen, though. Things being what they are, I believe it is the right of every American to be as well protected (armed) as whoever may try to harm them or their family, etc.

And on a more "procedural" note, (and this is something I have been giving alot of thought to, especially in the context of some of the gun threads posted here), right or wrong, it IS in the second ammendment, and until someone gets off their ass and makes a change to our contry's constitution, the right to own a gun is the law.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Nightingale 0]

I've said over and over that I support gun rights.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Whats a hoplophobe? and where is the box that says "I am happy with the current legislation, no change required here thank you very much".

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

The same way mister "I voted against every pro-gun and for every anti-gun bill that came to a vote" Kerry supports gun rights?




I'm just giving you shit. This is my first post to the Corner in a while.

You have to admit, almost every anti-gun politician has stated they "support the second amendment" or that they support gun owners" but don't mention the multitude of conditions they place on a statement like that.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I still haven't found the real root for the word, but I believe it means "having a phobia of weapons," or maybe power or guns. Maybe this time google will answer my pleas....

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Newbie 0]

without taking this TOO far off topic, i was just wondering - why is it so curious to people that anti gun "celebrities" like Rosie and anti gun campaigners have armed guards?

Sure, you can shout "hypocrisy!" and i agree, it can be seen as hypocritical to a degree, but i think these cases need to be looked at on an individualistic basis - these "protestors" or advocates of gun control will, by default, increase the likelihood of being targeted by some nut, either because of their celebrity status which you or i don't have to worry about and/or their views on gun control.

I think it's reasonable that you can protest that the average citizen on the street should not have a gun on their hip/under their coat/in their handbag, but someone who is involved in either law enforcement or close protection security work should. It's the tools of THEIR trade, not your average Joe Bloggs.
Anyway my view is that, sure in an ideal world, everyone would be allowed to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit, but with that goes a heigtened sense of responsibility and adequate training. I think a lot of people with guns equate ownership to neither of those, hence problems arise.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I still haven't found the real root for the word, but I believe it means "having a phobia of weapons," or maybe power or guns."

Very close, the word your missing is "irrational".
Good ole google...
"Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. The word has not become common, though twenty years is perhaps too short a time in which to test it, but I am nevertheless convinced that it has merit."

Its a makey up word from a guy called Jeff Cooper...
http://members.wserv.com/~crimson/hoplo.htm

So if Hoplophobe is a reasonable word, there must surely be the equivalent which would mean irrational love or admiration of guns or weapons, Hoplophile anyone?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[tkhayes 348]

you limited the choices pretty much - How about adding:
1. The USA has a gun problem, even if no one else seems to want to admit it
2. If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun
3. Cars are registered...why not guns?
4. I support some sort of gun control to help keep unnecessary guns off the streets.
5. I support gun ownership, but only if the owner is properly trained in its use, for both hunting and for self defense.

etc
etc
etc
TK

[Ron 10]

Quote

you limited the choices pretty much - How about adding:
1. The USA has a gun problem, even if no one else seems to want to admit it
2. If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun
3. Cars are registered...why not guns?
4. I support some sort of gun control to help keep unnecessary guns off the streets.
5. I support gun ownership, but only if the owner is properly trained in its use, for both hunting and for self defense.

etc

England has strick gun laws...So strict that the Oylimpic team has to train in another country...Yet the cases of violence are RISING. And they still have people who kill other people.

Gun laws don't work.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Nightingale 0]

I think the ONLY condition I'd put on gun ownership is that if they've ALREADY been tried and convicted of attacking someone with a deadly weapon, they've proven themselves untrustworthy with a gun and therefore probably shouldn't have one.


anyone else? go buy whatever gun you want. the bad guys have them. why shouldn't we?

[Newbie 0]

the term hoplophobe seems to be oxymoronic - who in their right mind wouldn't (or shouldn't) have an irrational fear of something that they have no knowledge or understaning of, of something that can kill you and everyone around you in mere seconds, particularly if you pick it up and hold it incorrectly (i.e. putting a finger on the trigger and pulling).

How is that fear deemed "irrational"? To me, it's irrational people wouldn't have an inbuilt fear of guns if they know nothing about them.

Nac not directing this at you BTW, just tagged it onto your post, as i found the definition of the word to be stupid.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[tkhayes 348]

Is that really the reason the Olympic team is training in anbother country? I doubt that there is a document somewhere that states that - so stop trying to twist things.

read my post again
"If there were NO hangunds, then no one could get killed by a handgun"

Same as today - no one gets killed by a left-atomizing parallel deflector phaser - because they do not exist.

Violent crime has many reasons for its existence. The USA is not necessarily any safer because there are so many guns. But the USA has thousands more unnecessary killings than other countries - probably directly related to the number of readily available firearms.

I did not say to ban them, but making people learn how to use them would probably be all that is needed to get the unwanted guns off the streets.

Of course, most Americans would say it is unrealistic. Too bad no one has 'ideals' except the anti-gun lobby. The pro-gun lobby appears to not have any particular ideals on solving violent crime, expect more prisons and more guns.

That should solve it by God, soon we will all be in jail...
TK

[Nightingale 0]

sure, the USA has more killings, if you're comparing it to contries in Europe... thing is, we've also got a lot more people.

to get an accurate comparison, you'd have to look at percentages rather than numbers.

[soilman 0]

The NRA has stated that it would not be against mandatory training and licensing as being a requirement for gun ownership, as long as licensing can be done without registering and keeping track of who is licensed and who is not licensed -- as this would be anti second amendment, which describes ownership of arms as something we need to have to protect us from armed forces that would keep a citezenry unarmed and thus unable to form an armed rebellion to overthrow a non-representative government: if the armed forces know who has a gun or who can be expected to be likely to have a gun, they can target those individuals for "special treatment."

I think it is about time we came up with a licensing scheme that protects our anonymity and that can be supported by the NRA. I like responsible gun owners; I don't like criminally minded gun owners and I don't like incompetant gun owners. The right kind of anonymous licensing will reduce their numbers, and possibly even increase the number of armed citizens who know how to use their firearms safely and for protection rather than harm.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[tkhayes 348]

OK, let's look at the percentages then (for murders)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

We are #24, but the difference is that England, Canada, Norway, Germany, most of Europe are much better than us. Most of the countries that are worse than us are 3rd world poverty countries - we keep some good company I see.... right up there with Venezuela, Costa Rica, Zimbabwe - woohoo!

Now let's just look at gun related deaths:
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

We are at the top - again the nearest 1st world countries are Ireland and Finalnd, with less than half the deaths that we have. Both countries have 'slack gun laws', but most of the world countries we compare ourselves to have death rates that are a fraction of ours.

and for more numbers:
http://students.washington.edu/mitsuo/gunDeathStats.html



So once again I state "We do have a gun problem"

TK

[tkhayes 348]

kind of hard to enforce training and protect anominity - how would you know who was trained and who was not?

The NRA called me yesterday playing some tape about the gov't trying to take away my freedom of speech -

I think the NRA is a paranoid organization funded by large businesses, like winchester and the chemical manufacturers that make bullets.

It is big business. If they really cared, then why are they not pushing forward with proposals for said training and said 'anominity'?

TK

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

read my post again
"If there were NO hangunds, then no one could get killed by a handgun"

Sure . . . let's fly over all the cities and towns with a giant magnet and suck up all the guns! Short of that, all you can do is take them away from law abiding citizens. It's a tired, tortured argument.

Quote

Same as today - no one gets killed by a left-atomizing parallel deflector phaser - because they do not exist.

But since guns DO exist, your comparison makes no sense.

Quote

I did not say to ban them, but making people learn how to use them would probably be all that is needed to get the unwanted guns off the streets.

How does this affect criminals? Felony Gun Crime 101?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Ron 10]

Quote

Is that really the reason the Olympic team is training in anbother country? I doubt that there is a document somewhere that states that - so stop trying to twist things.

Ask and ye shall recieve:

Quote

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/commonwealthgames2002/story/0,12238,767173,00.html Shooting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
England's exiled shooters get fired up over the BBC's misses

Richard Rae
Thursday August 1, 2002
The Guardian

As sporting venues go, Bisley does not go out of its way to attract the casual spectator. A discreet sign in the village suggests a right turn after the Hen and Chickens pub. Only then, a few hundred yards from the entrance, do the red Commonwealth Games banners begin to appear.
Being 220 miles south of Manchester, a sense of separation from the main body of the games is unavoidable. There are, however, some within the sport, particularly the British pistol shooters, who believe there is more to it than simply distance.

Mick Gault is one. Gault, a slightly portly 48-year-old from Dereham, Norfolk, won his second gold of the games yesterday, dramatically coming from fourth with three shots remaining to win the men's 10-metre air pistol. The former RAF man kept his nerve while his rivals faltered. "My psychologist said let the others make mistakes," he said, and they did.

Earlier in the week he was rather less happy. He and Peter Clark finished fifth in the 25m pairs and made it clear they believed they would have been at least third were it not that the English pistol team have had to train abroad since 1997, one of the unfortunate side-effects of the legislation introduced after the massacre in Dunblane.

The cost, according to Gault, is prohibitive. That the sports minister Richard Caborn chose Monday morning to make a fleeting visit to Bisley is not regarded as coincidence; nor the fact that he avoided the main entrance, where members of the Sportsman's Association are picketing the event.

The sense of persecution is exacerbated by the lack of mainstream television coverage. Simon Clarke of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation said he had been told BBC staff were under instruction to treat it as a regional rather than national sport; in other words, supply coverage of winners to their local BBC centre only.

"We're not asking for wall to wall coverage, simply a fair reflection of the interest in what is the third largest participation sport in the country," he said, and he has written to the BBC director general Greg Dyke to say so.

Unfortunately for Gault, Clarke and others of their persuasion there is almost certainly no conspiracy, at least not involving the BBC. The fact is that shooting simply does not work on television. The few hundred spectators watching Gault's heroics yesterday were raucous and involved but the cheers came only as his scores were flashed up on the board.

The clay range offers a more effective spectacle but only slightly. While a hit or miss is more immediately apparent, the puffs of purple dust as the clays explode becomes so repetitious that the scoreboard quickly becomes the focus of attention. On that basis the opinion of most sports fans would be that shooting, as a spectacle, gets the coverage it merits.

Like any sport, however, it throws up some wonderful stories. The life of the 15-year-old Bangladeshi schoolboy called Asif Hussain Khan changed forever yesterday, when he won the men's 10m air rifle gold medal, his country's first medal of the games.

It was his first international competition and the ecstatic reaction of his team-mates gave an indication of the reception he can expect back home.

Unlike India, which gives all its gold medal winners a £10,000 prize, the Bangladeshi government offers no set inducement, but it seems safe to say he will be suitably rewarded. The best reward would be time off from college for training. He was too young to go to Sydney in 2000 but his goal is now to win an Olympic medal in Athens. Of his achievement here he said: "It helped we were on our holidays for the last few weeks, so I could practise longer."

Quote

Violent crime has many reasons for its existence. The USA is not necessarily any safer because there are so many guns. But the USA has thousands more unnecessary killings than other countries - probably directly related to the number of readily available firearms

Worked for these people:

Quote

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/History.aspxKennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.

During the 1980s the economy grew as nearby construction of shopping malls and businesses put the City of Kennesaw into the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Today the estimated population exceeds 21,000. Kennesaw's growth will continue well into the 21st

Here is some more reading for you:

Quote

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902 Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

Australia has the STRONGEST gun laws...Funny huh?

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:


The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Stongest gun laws remember Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.


Yeah, gun laws worked for them

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
Related stories:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some more for you:

Quote

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200301\FOR20030116h.html Academic, Gun Control Advocate Disagree Over British Laws
By Mike Wendling
CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
January 16, 2003

London (CNSNews.com) - An American academic has suggested that despite recent U.K. laws designed to restrict gun use and ownership, what Britain needs to cut crime is less gun control.

Joyce Malcolm, professor of history at Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts, and author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," said that dismantling of self-defense laws has resulted in increased crime rates.

But a leading British gun control advocate has taken issue with Malcolm's conclusions and argued that less gun control would intensify the level of violence on British streets.

Strict Laws

Britain implemented some of the toughest gun laws in the world after a mass school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996.

Under current rules, handguns are banned, and all rifles and shotguns must be registered with police.

Recent initiatives have gone even further, and last week, the government proposed a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal possession and use of a firearm.

In a phone interview, Malcolm argued that restrictive British gun laws dating back to 1953 haven't worked in the way legislators intended.

"They have, in fact, had a perverse effect," Malcolm said. "When there were no or relatively few restrictions on guns in Britain, there was a very low level of violent crime. Since the ban on handguns, crime has skyrocketed."

Government statistics released this month showed a year-on-year gun crime increase of 35 percent.

"Current gun laws in Britain are not making people safe," she said.

Per-capita violent crime rates in Britain are now greater than in the United States for all categories except murder and rape, Malcolm said. According to statistics released by British police last year, a Londoner is about six times more likely to be mugged than a New Yorker.

Malcolm said gun laws were part of the larger issue of self-defense and stated that successive British governments have largely done away with the average British citizen's right to self-protection.

"This really is a larger self-defense issue," she said.

Gun restrictions have made burglars and muggers more bold, she said, and pointed to statistics that show only about 13 percent of U.S. burglaries occur when people are at home, compared to 53 percent in England.

If gun laws in Britain were relaxed, Malcolm said, "burglars would never know who would be armed."

Malcolm cited the case of Tony Martin, a farmer convicted of murder in 2000 after shooting to death a teenage burglar. On appeal, Martin's conviction was reduced to manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years in prison, and a parole board denied his early release petition Thursday.

Malcolm said the case was an example of how self-defense laws have been stripped away in Britain.

"Martin was charged with the same crime as someone accused of being a cold-blooded serial killer," she said. "There's no reason for this."

Control Advocate Disagrees

Despite the recent crime wave and an increasing number of high-profile shootings, one of Britain's leading gun control advocates called Malcolm's conclusions "irresponsible."

Jill Marshall Andrews of the London-based Gun Control Network said numerous worldwide studies bear out her point.

"Where there is a proliferation of weaponry, there is more gun crime and abuse of weapons," she said. "The suggestion that we would be safer with more guns is just plain nonsense."

Marshall Andrews said that although gun crime in Britain has risen in recent years, the number of gun-related homicides is much lower than in the United States.

The number, not the RATE.

"Where the numbers start from a low base figure, a very small increase can seem much larger, percentage-wise," she said.

Fewer than 100 people were murdered using guns in Britain in the 12 months leading to April of last year, according to recently released government statistics, but nearly 10,000 firearms crimes were reported overall, a one-year increase of more than 2,500.

Marshall Andrews admitted that the overall level of violent crime in Britain is high but said that relaxation of gun laws would only exacerbate the situation.

"The high level of violence is yet another reason why we need tight controls," she said. "Otherwise, we would see an enormously high rate of gun-related homicide and other gun crime."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

without taking this TOO far off topic, i was just wondering - why is it so curious to people that anti gun "celebrities" like Rosie and anti gun campaigners have armed guards?

Sure, you can shout "hypocrisy!" and i agree, it can be seen as hypocritical to a degree, but i think these cases need to be looked at on an individualistic basis - these "protestors" or advocates of gun control will, by default, increase the likelihood of being targeted by some nut, either because of their celebrity status which you or i don't have to worry about and/or their views on gun control.

I think it's reasonable that you can protest that the average citizen on the street should not have a gun on their hip/under their coat/in their handbag, but someone who is involved in either law enforcement or close protection security work should. It's the tools of THEIR trade, not your average Joe Bloggs.
Anyway my view is that, sure in an ideal world, everyone would be allowed to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit, but with that goes a heigtened sense of responsibility and adequate training. I think a lot of people with guns equate ownership to neither of those, hence problems arise.

So - what you are saying, is that if you are against gun control you require more guns to protect you than . . . no that can't be it -

So, what should happen is that the people advocating gun control shouldn't heed thier own words - oh that can't be it either -

Damn this is hard trying to figure out what a liberal thinks - it crosses over itself ina linear thinking way.

OK - one more try - If you want gun control - it is neccessary to have guns to protect yourself with the very thing that you say will not protect anyone but is still a protector for you?

I guess i just don't get it.

Kinda like a guy that pickets infront of a major oil company for poluting the world and using up all the fossil fuels, getting into his Humvee, driving to the DZ and making some jumps.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AndyMan 7]

You left out my option:

America's gun supported culture of fear does not make sense to me.

Honestly, I'm neither pro-gun, nor anti-gun. Hell, I'll say that not only are they useful tools, they can also be fun toys. Like any tool, there are good sides and bad sides. In this case, the downside can be quite serious. They stand alone in the US among very dangerous tools that are largely unregulated.

I just don't get why Americans are so nuts about it. I suspect the pro-gun culture is largely being driven by the manufacturers.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Newbie 0]

Quote

Quote

without taking this TOO far off topic, i was just wondering - why is it so curious to people that anti gun "celebrities" like Rosie and anti gun campaigners have armed guards?

Sure, you can shout "hypocrisy!" and i agree, it can be seen as hypocritical to a degree, but i think these cases need to be looked at on an individualistic basis - these "protestors" or advocates of gun control will, by default, increase the likelihood of being targeted by some nut, either because of their celebrity status which you or i don't have to worry about and/or their views on gun control.

I think it's reasonable that you can protest that the average citizen on the street should not have a gun on their hip/under their coat/in their handbag, but someone who is involved in either law enforcement or close protection security work should. It's the tools of THEIR trade, not your average Joe Bloggs.
Anyway my view is that, sure in an ideal world, everyone would be allowed to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit, but with that goes a heigtened sense of responsibility and adequate training. I think a lot of people with guns equate ownership to neither of those, hence problems arise.

So - what you are saying, is that if you are against gun control you require more guns to protect you than . . . no that can't be it -

So, what should happen is that the people advocating gun control shouldn't heed thier own words - oh that can't be it either -

Damn this is hard trying to figure out what a liberal thinks - it crosses over itself ina linear thinking way.

OK - one more try - If you want gun control - it is neccessary to have guns to protect yourself with the very thing that you say will not protect anyone but is still a protector for you?

I guess i just don't get it.

Kinda like a guy that pickets infront of a major oil company for poluting the world and using up all the fossil fuels, getting into his Humvee, driving to the DZ and making some jumps.

no, don't get confused - it's simple. The arguement could go thus - don't deny those who require guns as tools for their jobs (law enforcement, close protection bodyguards etc). Some people are more likely to be targeted by nuts than you and i (celebs/politicans). They will require heightened security.
Gun control does not necessarily equate to a blanket ban on guns.
And if you can find me an environmental protestor, picketing a major oil company driving a Humvee, i will put on the monkey suit and dance down the street while playing the banjo.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[turtlespeed 221]

So - then - you want ONLY the military and police (and the like ) to bne able to possess guns.

Nice -

Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Not in true standing with why the constitution exists - but that's pretty normal."
With all due respect to The Constitution, it doesn't mean a thing in Newbie's country.
So yeah, it is pretty normal.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson