He Always liked Guns?

[Uncle Bill]

I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

I would expect no less from a lefty. Why are you people so quick to have our freedoms legislated away?

UB

[HPL]

I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

Owning guns is NOT about the right to hunt (hunting is a privilege). Owning guns is about the natural right of self defense (read Scalia's opinion that I linked earlier.) Owning guns is not about helping protect the nation against foreign invaders, it's about the right of the individual to resist the tyranny of the state (again, read Scalia's opinion). These are two CRUCIAL points in any discussion about the right to keep and bear arms.

[menmon]

Maybe..but my only purpose for a gun is to hunt. If the government turns on me, my guns will lose against theirs so maybe I'm selfish to want to keep my hunting guns at the expense of your protection guns, but the end game is we all lose if we hold our guns....no pun intended

[HPL]

Everyone seems to say that an armed populace has no power against a standing army, but look at what is going on all across the world where armed rebels are fighting abusive regimes. In many cases, some or even many of the military members realize the corruption in the regime and join with the rebels. On the other hand, Hitler disarmed the populace and then just marched people in to the death camps. If those who hold my position lose, so will those who hold yours.

[Ken Bora]

......Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[BonMallari]

IMO you can't start picking and choosing what guns we can and cant have, with one caveat....the general public does not need a .50cal SMG or something similar...there may come a day when my "hunting" weapon is put on a banned list, just because of the action of the bolt (semi automatic shotgun)...Hope I never see that day

[mjh345]

I will be the first to agree guns don't kill without a person involved. So you have two options, get rid of the person or get rid of the gun. Both options are very difficult, so what do you do then? It's complicated but I'm a firm believer that if the postion of Zero Tolarance for guns is taken we will lose in the end, mainly because too many folks think the way the ESPN announcer does. Maybe not today but in time the votes will win the battle.

Now my position maybe selfish because I want to keep my guns to hunt, and I believe that some concession are going to have to be made to make sure us hunters do not lose that prevledge. Somehow we have to de-couple our hunting guns from guns and I think we have a chance in the end.

No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

[charly_t]

No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

Good post !

[road kill]

No votes wont win the battle. This isn't a popularity contest. It is a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. As such it cannot be repealed

I really don't care what you or others want their guns for, and it really shouldn't have any effect on my RIGHT to keep guns for reasons in addition to hunting and recreation. You give in to the anti gun lobby with your stance and what is your argument if they say you can keep your hunting weapons at a govt depository and check them in & out for your hunt. That might suit your hunting needs, but it sure doesnt work for those of us who prefer to meet aggressors with decisive deadly force 24/7/365.

The founders intention was clear that we have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves from our own government as well as other aggressors

It's called "incremental progressivism."

And they win by increments.

[BonMallari]

Now Costas tries to backtrack his statements and ends up saying that "no on should own a semi automatic weapon"...just goes to show how misinformed the anti gun rhetoric has gotten...they latch onto a catch phrase like semi automatic, assault style, self defense style....my Remington 1100 is semi automatic, my Sig Sauer is designed for self defense, my ex's S&W revolver is potentially as deadly as either one of my guns