Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Magnetic Poles, Jan 27, 2013.
Both characters are fiction. Are you saying it is fiction to label gun owners as "nuts"?
These characters represent each end of a Bell Curve of gun ownership. Are you saying that to portray gun owners as "nuts" is using the extremes rather than the median?
From the extreme left you get nonsensical extreme remarks.
C'mon guys don't be so hard on MP he's a good ole comrade. :smilewinkgrin:
Did I say all gun owners are "gun nuts"? The answer, to make it easy for you, is a definitive 'no'. In fact, I own several firearms.
That said, there are definitely gun nuts. The NRA, pry my cold dead fingers, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum types.
Yeah, what kind of nut is willing to stand up for his rights.
The problem with your opening post was that you didn't specify "all" or "some"; thus, you left it open to interpretation as to whether you meant "some" or "all."
Perhaps, but I don't think that one would self identify as a "gun nut" because they own firearms. I sure don't.
If what you posted is the definition of gun nut then I'll proudly claim the title. Our rights were not granted just so we could easily give them up. Our rights certainly do not exist as being granted by the fed, nor are they meant to be so easily surrendered.
Apparently, "gun nut" needs to defined. According to your OP pictures, if I own a .44 magnum or Police .38 revolver, I could be classified as a gun nut.
Your OP is derogatory, and doesn't specify who you're being derogatory towards.
No it isn't. It is just a piece expressing a view on a current political topic in a humorous way. Maybe a sense of humor would help.
And so, how many times have you had to use a gun to protect yourself (outside of any military action)? I'm gonna guess....none.
I have never had to defend myself with a gun, but I am not the type of person that people mess with.
I have a fire extinguisher that I have happily not needed too. There's also items in that are in my first aid kits than I am glad to not have needed.
It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
How many times does it take to end up dead?
Oh, please. When is it ever "humorous" to have a laugh at the expense of others? Have I tried to have a laugh about the obvious innate fear that anti-gun proponents have? It'd be easy; but I respect their right to an opinion, no matter how much I believe that opinion is based on fear.
You wanna make fun of people, and then justify it as "just a piece expressing a view on a current political topic in a humorous way"...well, I guess the same Constitution that identifies the right to keep and bear arms gives you that right, too.
You want to talk about fear? The "gun nuts" live in constant fear of someone breaking into their home. That, my friend, is fear. People are much more likely to be injured by their own gun than by any intruder. Statistical fact.
Statistics say that anyone now 20 years old stands over a 70% chance of being a victim of a violent crime.
Your statistical fact is an outright lie.
Mighty quick to accuse me of lying I see. Out of facts?
However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.