Cob Pile
good piece.I`m gonna start reading you instead of the papers.
We`re accepting it `cuz we dont give a shit, K ?
Most of the serious gun nuts I've seen raging about this don't care what race people are, they are raging that law abiding citizens of the USA are having their guns taken away.
Once again it is the "love me, I'm a Liberal' types that are happy to see guns being taken away, happy that the State is taking care of the problem. The ones bitching are the anarchists and the libertarians. The anti-statists.
Then I might be an anti-statist.
At least I'm not crazy.
I guess I'd have to be one of those gun nuts that is upset that everyone is loosing their right, race withheld. However, I can at least see the federal side of things. If this is a state of emergency and a temporary nature only for the limited area I can accept it, but once returned to the people the rights should also be returned.
The right to bear arms is more a privlege than a right. Criminals are already prohibited, by law anyway, and if a person is seeking refuge its well within the rights of those providing refuge to attach accountability to that refuge.
All that being said, I'm in favor of Gun Control. Gun Control after all is hitting your target, preferably with a 2-3 inch grouping.
BS, Charles: "The right to bear arms is more a privlege than a right." Just because the gov't acts like it at times doesn't make it the law forever. They won't be taking mine. Not for any reason. (Not all of 'em, anyhow!)
I used to be able to drill a business card at 50' with a .45 Government Model. I need practice but...
PTG - There are several instances where a person can and should have the privelege of gun ownership revoked; mental instability, criminal background, not being a citizen all come to mind.
In this sense it is a privelege, granted a privelege that we have a right to, but it comes with accountability and expectations.
I don't object to limiting that right when there is a clear precident for doing so. The current situation in N'awlins is one example where people need to give up their armaments if they expect to go somewhere like a conference center or stadium for public refuge.
I don't object to limiting the right to bear arms under certain conditions either. The first condition is that the limits don't apply to me. But now I sound like Ted Kennedy or Diane Feinstein.
As for access to a shelter, I have no gripe with the owners of any shelter, auditorium, movie house or saloon telling their patrons or invitees to check their gats at the door. This is their property; they make the rules.
I do have a gripe with the state telling me I can't pack heat while otherwise minding my own lawful business. If I keep it out of sight, nobody will be adversely affected at all.
Commenting by HaloScan
