You meet the nicest people at the gun range...

Excuse my abruptness, but horse(*)(*)(*)(*). They don't think it is a right to own a gun and misinterpret the second amendment, whittling away at every angle, infringing anyway they can, even though it is unconstitutional for them to do so, to eventually make it illegal for a private citizen to own or bear arms of any kind.

Just pay attention to what they say in their arguments. Total disarmament is the goal. If they wanted to go after criminals they would, and if they actually wanted to do something about the mental health issues in this country they would. Harassing the law abiding until they can turn them into criminals is the only goal.

Chiming in on que;

 

That's rather prejudicial - if not flat out racist - of you to say.

 

A disarmed society is a recipe for disaster.

 

What a stupid post.

 

This has also been my experience. Although i think it has less to do with guns and more to do with the type of people who are more likely to be in a gun range or store. Conservatives, Christians, i.e. people filled with love, kindness and generosity.

In my experience most of the hard leftists i have met were miserable and hateful people. The conservatives were almost always loving, good people.

 

So one example of polite behavior by gun owners is "simple minded rubbish"?

Then I would offer that criticizing gun owners for one example of bad behavior by a gun owner must also be "simple minded rubbish".

- - - Updated - - -

No they don't.

 

Yes by and large we are.

 

Generally don't find snooty, self absorbed folks on the gun range. I love to play golf but if you don't belong to the club and grace the 19th hole your not a real golfer.

 

There it is again. This association of nice with people who are armed. Your entire thread is making ridiculous assumptions about people you don't even know because they are buying ammunition. I know a popular ice cream spot in my town where in the summer people line up by the tens to purchase some. The line is orderly and no one complains. Can I use your logic and make the statement ice cream people are nice people? Or does that sound like a presumptuous pile of nonsense?

If you can't handle people blowing up your ridiculous thread as an empty, useless pieces of nonsense, perhaps you should think before you post.

I'm not sure how the world would have gotten on without your astute observation of "gun people are nice people." Very, very profound and thought provoking. The idea that firearm ownership leads to good manners is just silly.

 

The assumption that since people don't trample each other for ammo makes them nice people, without knowing ANYTHING else about them, yes. That is simple minded rubbish.

 

Anecdotal evidence at best. Some gun owners are nice while other gun owners are mean... but the same can be said of just about any other large group of people.

 

One is generally judged by how the behave. Act like an ******** and you'll be judged as an ********. The point being that not being trampled while trying to buy ammo in what was once a very scarce availability market is much better indicator of character versus getting beat down to save 2 dollars on that 20 dollar Chinese toaster.

 

Again, your reading comprehension seems to be deficient here. Or you are intentionally misstating my position. In either case, you're just wrong. Cheers.

- - - Updated - - -

I never claimed this was a scientific study. I am merely sharing my empirical observations.

 

Here we go again. . . . Yes they do. . . You're it, and I quit!!

 

Indeed, and it has been my empirical observation that those of the same group in general have a positive view of others in said group.

 

Exactly when was ammo scarce availability? Even in chicago, the land of gun control, I've never had an issue buying ammo

 

That's in your OP. Your position is not very easy to mistake. Perhaps if you had put a little more thought into the post, instead of baseless assertions about people you don't know, perhaps people would take your posts seriously.

 

Had I been in your country 3-4 centuries ago I would have wanted a gun too but you no longer live in a wild and untamed land with no government.
Today I would not wish for any civilian to have a gun. The state needs a monopoly of violence. Having large armed groups is extremely dangerous to the wellbeing of a society and it will cost many many lives to have so. As you witness on a daily basis. If you add some kind of sedition movement or crazy people those numbers can explode to a degree beyond imagination.

And let us not kid ourselves. People being armed with their private muskets was not what beat the best and most professional army of the time. Real weapons, cannons and war ships did.
And the French.

 

I would like to see you face the parents of the 20 Sandy Hook Elementary students killed and tell them: "No response is necessary."

 

I am both a golfer and a gun owner. I find people at the gun range more polite than those on the golf course. Yet I belong to both "groups." This is my objective observation. You may rationalize your objections to my observations any way you wish, but they are still my observations.

 

That's fine. But don't project your wants onto the rest of us.

This is where we differ. A gun is a tool. Like many tools, they are designed for a specific purpose. Also like many tools they can be dangerous when misused.

Violence is committed by humans. What other tools will you take from free men to insure your utopian state violence? Clubs? Kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Pianos? Fists?

.

Especially is those large armed groups are solely composed of agents of the government. Ask North Koreans... Oh wait, you can't - they'll be shot for merely speaking to you without government premission.

Most acts of violence committed with firearms in the U.S. is thug-on-thug. They are doing us a favor.

Citizen militias were absolutely an essential part of our defeat of the Crown.

 

That can change when drinking starts afterwards at the clubhouse.

 

You're right, my position is not easy to mistake: By anyone with even a shred of reading comprehension. You are now repeatedly trying to intentionally misrepresent my position. I'd like you to stop. Thanks.

 

.22LR is very scarce as the demand has increased dramatically during the Obama years. But, your reading comprehension being what it is, I'm not surprised you missed that.

- - - Updated - - -

No law would have prevented Sandy Hook.

 

It's not about my wants but about what kind of age and society you live in. It is not the same living in 2016 and 1616.

A tool that shouldn't be necessary in a modern democracy.

Read political philosophy and what monopoly of violence means. Failed states are states that cannot enforce its will on its citizens. Whether because the population is too well armed or the state is not strong enough.

We are not living in North Korea or any repressive state. We live in democracies where our forces of state is our primary security. As always our protection lies in having a enlightened and democratic force of defence. That being both military and police. If they fail us no amount of guns will save us because if they betray our society we will lose.
Sure... Even peasants can fight the most modern force but they can so when their country is behind them and the enemy is foreign.

If none of them had weapons like here it wouldn't be a problem at all.

People were.... Call them militias if you so please. In reality we are talking about a form of nationalism. You had people willing to die for their freedom. Like Italians were when they fought the Austrians or any other national uprising wanting their own state. It was the number of people. Italians didn't call them militias. you do... there is no difference between the two though. In both cases they needed real arms, cannons and the French to beat their opponent.