More "Good Guys with Guns" not a Solution: Have Your Say

bigfatfurrytexan

macman
reply to post by Logarock

 

Starbuck's statement was mainly about not wanting people to open carry in their locations. it is not a statement of no guns allowed.

I think it is more about them letting politics seep through into their business. Of course, the clientele thing is likely true....but the primary point being that a company based in Washington state is likely to show the traits of the people that make it up. Such as the "liberal" mindset of that region.

For right or wrong.

Yes it is. Starbucks does have a Du jure about it. Their probably isn't much anxiety about open carry in Bozeman Montana at the Cattleman's Café.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I guess that he/she is okay with "lists" being kept of people, so that they can sleep better at night.

But, once that list is expanded to say, reading certain books, making certain statements, being of a certain religion, then it chaps the delicate rear end of someone like MysteriousHusky, because then is affects them negatively.

Got love people that are so scared of life, that they need Govt there to protect them, from themselves and others.

reply to post by macman


We aren't so scared we rely on the government to protect ourselves. Rather in most cases, the government is appointed BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, to protect the country. Country = all inhabitants, not just those capable of protecting themselves.

MysteriousHusky


You are right, as a non US citizen perhaps I should mind my own business. Yet, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Okay then.

MysteriousHusky
But by that logic, would the U.S. have continued a policy of isolationism from Europe during World War I and World War II, minding its own business?

WW I we intervened with a direct attack towards us. I disagree with our involvement.
WW II we were directly attacked. I have no problem with our response.

MysteriousHusky
When something is going down some place else, it is a universal trait we human beings have to investigate and find out what is going on.

Investigate is fine.

MysteriousHusky
I am merely presenting a side of the argument that is rather unpopular - hence the lack of stars

Unpopular and wrong.

macman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I guess that he/she is okay with "lists" being kept of people, so that they can sleep better at night.

But, once that list is expanded to say, reading certain books, making certain statements, being of a certain religion, then it chaps the delicate rear end of someone like MysteriousHusky, because then is affects them negatively.

Got love people that are so scared of life, that they need Govt there to protect them, from themselves and others.

There's a difference between lists kept for those with weapons capable of killing folks from a distance, vs lists kept to record your book preferences etc. Those are completely different things. As a side note, local libraries may have a record of previous holds and withdrawals so it may already be possible to paint a picture of a person using their library or ebook history.

reply to post by macman


I gotta say while by the end of this I may have to agree to disagree, I do admire your fire when it comes to protecting all Rights laid out on metaphorical table - as antiquated as they may be. Believe it or not, while I disagree with your stance I am glad you have it as folks sharing your position are one of the few remaining bastions of freedom remaining.

MysteriousHusky


Amen. You are 100% right there. You can't change the present setup but through dialogue perhaps we should reconsider the future of the 2nd Amendment.

Actually, the Progressive Govt has found hundreds of ways around this.
What is there to be discussed? The numbers are not in the favor of Anti-Guns rights people.

MysteriousHusky
Out of curiosity do you believe it should have an expiry date?

No, as we have the mechanism to change things.

MysteriousHusky
Or perhaps it should always remain as it is - one of those clauses that gives you the right to something most take for granted.

We have the mechanism to change the amendments. People are just not wanting to pursue them in regards to the 2nd because they know it would fail miserably. So, in order to continue with their actions, which have shown to be wildly unpopular and illegal, they avoid the big showdown so they don't have to deal with the huge truth that they are not in the majority.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


That is a really nice and fluffy statement, but in reality, I don't depend on the Govt to protect me. Nor is the Govt worried about that. They would rather disarm me, siphon from my paychecks, continue to dole out free crap and stick their nose in the business of other countries.

MysteriousHusky
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I tell you why it singles you, or said person, out. It singles said person out because exercising that right is antiquated. It was meant for an era far different from our present day collection of metropolises. That is why it can be seen as odd for someone to hold on to a relic of a right.

The 2nd wasn't included due to time relativity but as a primary stipulate to the peoples right of self governance. It also takes it impetuses from the stores of political history relative to centralized power. All of this can be found in the defense of centralized government and the federal constitution as argued in the Federalist Papers.

The collection metropolises then and now is not even relative to the Bill of Rights. That it would seem odd or a relic for this reason is a modern day rhetorical affixation.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


So, which is more dangerous. My pistol or a book about how to make EIDs?


You have fallen for one of the biggest pitches for enslaving people out there.

MysteriousHusky
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I tell you why it singles you, or said person, out. It singles said person out because exercising that right is antiquated. It was meant for an era far different from our present day collection of metropolises. That is why it can be seen as odd for someone to hold on to a relic of a right. Now I know rights are things you are born with. They cannot be removed. Yet, the Framers were not Gods. They were humans like you or I and surely would have amended the Constitution several times over to better serve each subsequent generation.

Peace out.

edit on 23-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: (no reason given)

I live in the country. My town has about 30k people living in it. This week we have had 2 shooting deaths.

Problem with living out in the "frontier" is that the various state and federal authorities do not budget you much cash to do the things that are done elsewhere. Thus, our roads are in bad shape and we lack funding for just about everything.

So, out here on the frontier, we are left to our own resources most often. Because even when the cops show up, you don't know if they are "friendlies" or not.

Antiquated? I hardly think so. No, the nation just wants us to keep giving up our oil, but they don't want to pay to repair the roads that the 18 wheelers use to cart the equipment around. Go figure.

So now I have someone thinking that my lifeline represents an "antiquated system". Pardon me for being a little peeved by it....but when you mentioned "metropolis" as a justification for your viewpoint, it just reminds me how much the city folk continue to screw us over out here in the country, where we provide them their lifestyle.

I can not get why many people believe more guns would prevent crimes...

reply to post by Cabin


Australia put a ban on guns, then their crime rate shot up.
In fact they had to "invent" charges for home invasion because until they banned guns, they never had any.

bigfatfurrytexan

So now I have someone thinking that my lifeline represents an "antiquated system". Pardon me for being a little peeved by it....but when you mentioned "metropolis" as a justification for your viewpoint, it just reminds me how much the city folk continue to screw us over out here in the country, where we provide them their lifestyle.

edit on 23-9-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

Couldn't have said it any better.

macman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I guess that he/she is okay with "lists" being kept of people, so that they can sleep better at night.

But, once that list is expanded to say, reading certain books, making certain statements, being of a certain religion, then it chaps the delicate rear end of someone like MysteriousHusky, because then is affects them negatively.

Got love people that are so scared of life, that they need Govt there to protect them, from themselves and others.

That government won't be there to protect me when a Bandito or Latin King decides to rob me while I do my daily bank run from my business.

Nope. I keep my .40 tucked away, just in case. Antiquated or not.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


But......But...........Can't they just make more laws to make it a crime for people to attack others???


Laws have yet to stop crime. People seem to lack the ability to understand this.

macman
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

So, which is more dangerous. My pistol or a book about how to make EIDs?


You have fallen for one of the biggest pitches for enslaving people out there.

Very good example. In that case the book would certainly be more dangerous as it passes on information that potentially threatens the safety of the public. Aside from government officials, military historians, and other academics who else would opt for that book? But you see that's my point! Who else would exercise their right to bear arms! While there are many LEGITIMATE reasons for owning a firearm

Hunting

Self Protection

Recreational target practice ~

City folks exercising their right to bear arms seems kinda fishy, as most cities are already - generally speaking, safe spaces with almost immediate police intervention if anything breaks out. Exceptions apply like Detroit which has arguably adopted the atmosphere of a rural area with all those abandoned buildings.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


A human exercising any rights never seems fishy to me. It just seems human.

What you are stating is a "fear resposnse". Nowhere in US law does a person have a right to being fearless.

The thing about me being a country boy....my business takes me into the cities quite a bit. I am a regular at the Driskill in Austin and the St. Anthony in San Antonio. And you can bet that when I go to sleep at night my .40 is on the night stand.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Do you watch Supernatural or other shows depicting folks travelling across the states? They almost always pack a firearm for self-protection. Then again, that's tv. However, the situation you wrote for yourself sounds perfectly acceptable. With that said, would a stranger who never met you feel the same way? They don't know if you're a "good guy" and the presence of your firearm - even though it is a right, may intimidate those without firearms. This leads us to ask, was the head of the NRA right to say more good guys with guns?

Addition: The fact that few to 0 folks have sided with my opinions via a reply or "star" indicates that this thread is lacking a variety of feedback. Same case for political primaries - the folks who go out to vote aren't the Mom's worrying about putting food on the table for little Jimmy, but rather those with a more polarized outlook willing to drive through a blizzard to vote. Similarly, I feel I'm getting more extreme responses rather than a mix of level-headed responses. Prove me wrong, show some empathy from my opinion's perspective. Play devil's advocate etc.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky

Sorry, but your response is very much typical of someone that is uniformed about the issue, and has an unrealistic view of what Govt can do to protect people, or what they are obligated to do.

Police are not lawfully bound to place themselves in harms way to protect someone. Neither is the Govt.

So, while you offer the cities as an example, as a safe haven because of the amount of police in an area, and offer Detroit as the single exception, you have either willfully excluded numerous other cities or are...............uninformed.


The numbers/stats show that more guns in the hands of citizens is correlated to less crime.

macman

The numbers/stats show that more guns in the hands of citizens is correlated to less crime.

I google searched that and found this book and opposition to it.


Opposition:


Ultimately, there is a rift in statisticians which means there is no consensus. If you believe there is consensus you are arguing from ignorance or ignoring the other side.