After the recent killing spree by the mentally ill college kid on the West Coast, a woman I went to high school with stated that there is NO reason anyone in the United States should have guns except for those in Law Enforcement and the Military. I obviously take a contrary view. What really confounded and bewildered me was the position this person maintained regarding hunting.
During the debate, I queried whether or not she viewed gun ownership for hunting as a legitimate issue. She did not. I then posited the fact that many people, including some I know well in rural Pennsylvania, literally and absolutely rely on the deer they kill over the season to feed their families. This anti-gun advocate would not even concede this point. In her mind, an absolute prohibition is necessary to prevent gun crime and gun violence. In her naive construct, her right to life trumps my right to own a gun. It is when I hear this kind of anti-gun extremism that I consider re-joining the NRA.
3 comments:
Might I be so bold as to suggest the following? For the most part, those who commit crimes with guns (forgetting for a moment those isolated, occasional, and tragic "accidents" and copycat events by unbalanced individuals), largely belong to the urban demographic (statistics back this up), and they will always manage to find a way to get guns regardless of what the law(s) might dictate.
Best Regards,
Heinz-Ulrich von B.
When guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns.
I'm surprised you wasted time debating that liberal. They have a very limited mindset that does not extend beyond their programmed belief systems. The right-wingers always gleefully point out that the lefties have a rampant debilitating mental illness. I personally think they have a self-limiting intellect unable to see two sides of anything. You mentioned she wouldn't concede your point of hunters feeding their families. I posit she was merely unable to believe such circumstances exist at all.
Post a Comment