re: Everyone just look at this sign and think

quote:

---

pretend it stands for an entire movement,

---

Ok, then what does said movement stand for?

quote:

---

We have people on here that think a gun the is answer to every problem and that you can't be safe unless you have a gun which is absolutely ridiculous. Bunch of paranoid and scared people. Sad.

---

No, I just like guns. And that's the only justification I need.

I’m sure that child put in hours of thought and research before preparing her sign. It’s not a frigging manifesto. It’s a simple sign for a March and rally.

quote:

---

Ok, then what does said movement stand for?

---

At its core it is nothing more/less than a movement of people who recognize that there is a significant number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. which are exponentially higher than other industrialized country and think that certain regulations could be placed on guns to reduce such number of deaths.

You have people on one end of that spectrum who would ban all guns. You have people on the other end of that spectrum who believe there should be certain licensing (e.g., require minimal safety classes to own a gun).

The point is that it is incredible how many people on both side of the political divide take a photo/quote/etc. from a single stupid person and hold it up as an example of the entire movement. It is wasted energy.

quote:

---

No, I just like guns. And that's the only justification I need.

---

That is great. I don't have a problem with that nor do I want to regulate or take your guns from you. But, your gun isn't the answer to every problem you have in life and it isn't a magic shield.

quote:

---

We have people on here that think a gun the is answer to every problem and that you can't be safe unless you have a gun which is absolutely ridiculous. Bunch of paranoid and scared people. Sad.

---

Congrats for posting a top 3 most ignorant post of the thread. Also for proving the point.

#1 you are wrong. No one is saying you absolutely cannot be safe without a gun. We are saying it’s a right directly given in the founding documents of this country.

#2 you fall right in line with what government wants you to believe. “The government can protect you”.Then it’s “the government can provide for you” then it’s the government can do better things with what is yours than you can”. Next thing you know you are at the mercy of the government for health care, food, employment, etc.

#3 you absolutely prove the point. You have swallowed the exact propaganda the person in the picture has. “We need safety more than freedom”. So let’s just dial back some of our own freedoms and give them to the govt. let’s give the govt control. What can go wrong. Its allll for safety! Yea well the people in the Soviet Union were pretty safe too... if you just did what you were told and didn’t over consume your rations.

#4. Say gun owners give leverage to amend the 2nd amendment as long as gun owners get to amend one in the bill of rights also. Which one do you choose to let gun owners amend? In the name of safety of course.

Isn't safety part of being free. Can you truly be free without having safety?

quote:

---

We are saying it’s a right directly given in the founding documents of this country.

---

Debatable as the right granted in the 2nd Amendment is far from clear. I'd argue the freedom of speech granted under the 1st Amendment is far more clear and I don't here the right complaining about restrictions thereupon.

quote:

---

Next thing you know you are at the mercy of the government for health care, food, employment, etc.

---

That's a bigger slippery slope than that time your wife sat on fresh paint.

quote:

---

Say gun owners give leverage to amend the 2nd amendment as long as gun owners get to amend one in the bill of rights also. Which one do you choose to let gun owners amend?

---

You forgot to take your meds this a.m.

quote:

---

Then why is the debate centered around a class of guns that represent less than 5% of gun deaths? Why are gun owners who feel safer with these rifles having their constitutional freedoms challenged?

---

First, I do not wholly disagree with. I think the emphasis on, say, AR-15s is misdirected but also understandable (given that so many mass shootings in recent history involved an AR-15). However, Congressional attempts to go after more wide-spread gun reform (e.g. requiring one-time safety training before being able to purchase a weapon) have failed and thus recent attempts to pass any sort of gun legislation has been narrowed to particular types of guns. This piecemeal approach has been the only viable means given the 2nd amendment as the third rail of politics.

quote:

---

You are imposing your definition of safety on someone else. Not everyone sees safety in the arms of government.

---

We allow the government to impose a standard of safety on us all the time. We allow car safety regulations (e.g. seatbelts, driving classes, licensing, etc.). We allow food safety regulations. We allow drug safety regulations. The list is endless.

The point is that we do allow the gov't to determine safety standards. That does not mean we should allow them to be responsible for absolutely all aspects of our life--but the basic premise that we don't or shouldn't allow the government to determine safety standards is simply no true.