Thread: The Guardian Plan

Originally Posted by Jessica80

Okay so if you are playing a game and are holding a gun you expect the person on the screen to automatically also have a gun.

However,

If you are holding a real gun and real life you are saying there is no way you would have the same response? If someone lifted up a shoe to you and you had a gun you wouldn't use it thinking that person must also have a gun?

I have never seen anyone walking around town holding a gun in thier hand. Have you?

No-- but I've seen two cases recently of unarmed young men shot dead by a person holding a gun who "thought" they saw a gun or "thought" the person was reaching for a gun.

Originally Posted by boilermaker

No-- but I've seen two cases recently of unarmed young men shot dead by a person holding a gun who "thought" they saw a gun or "thought" the person was reaching for a gun.

Law enforcement are taught to look for guns.

Not law enforcement. Citizens carrying guns who shot victims that they thought had a gun that really didn't.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Law enforcement are taught to look for guns.

They need more training. There have been many police shootings where no guns were found.

Originally Posted by boilermaker

Not law enforcement. Citizens carrying guns who shot victims that they thought had a gun that really didn't.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with whatever situation made them feel the need to go get a gun to protect themselves. They were probably just walking down the street on a bright sunny day with a gun in their hand when they thought someone else had a gun.

Interesting article about whether armed citizens actually stop massacres.

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. | Mother Jones

Originally Posted by ethanwinfield

They need more training. There have been many police shootings where no guns were found.

Even just purses.

Originally Posted by ethanwinfield

Nor does the first amendment read "only certain speech" or "only certain religions." The 24th amendment doesn't say "except for purchasing something else in order to vote." Nor does the 21st amendment read "only certain intoxicating liquors."

Yet, we seem to be okay with interpreting those amendments to ban hate speech, religious sacrifice and same-sex marriage. We are okay with requiring someone to purchase a document to vote. And we are okay with banning things like moonshine or everclear. In fact, we even have dry counties where they have banned the sale of alcohol completely.

Keep the "we" to yourself.. for most of those I don't. The only ones I do are when they cross over other rights, like sacrifices. I don't think government should have a say in marriage period.. there should be no marriage licences, etc.

Originally Posted by Potter75

So you recognize that you have ZERO chance in your little fantasy of playing Rivergallery: Minuteman soldier vs. The big bad US Government gone rogue..........but you want the right to die for nothing EVEN if it means that these murderous rampages continue and continue at the accelerated pace that they seem to be on? You won't even entertain the notion of gun control because you want to protect some false version of the 2nd amendment that you cling to fiercely and against all logic, even as you see babies gunned down before your eyes? Wow.

What are you talking about? "false version". Protecting the 2nd amendment is not causing babies to be gunned down.