The Right to Arm Bears
Feb. 13th, 2009 07:55 amOn another board, in response to one of my posts about an incident, someone decided to be a yammerhead about gun rights.
My response:
I am sick to death of "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Bullshit. While I'm not for more restrictions on handgun use, I AM all for changing the training requirements necessary to get a permit to make ongoing handgun safety training and conflict resolution part of the package. Specifically because of idiots like this, who ruin it for everyone by thinking that grabbing their piece from behind their belt, cocking it sideways and gesticulating with 'Better step off, m'fucka, or I'll pop a cap in yo ass!' is the proper way to solve a problem.
On the other hand, they're the kind of idiots who store a gun in their belt and thus run a bigger risk of shooting their junk off and leaving the gene pool. Hmm. Maybe I should rethink this.
Another example of why our right to bear arms is a quintessential right.
I thank my lucky stars I live in a country where I can protect life and property with lethal force if needed.
If we ban guns, only criminals will possess them AND THEY KNOW IT.
These cuckoos probably didn't pose a harmful threat, but we never know who will come knocking on our door...or kicking it in.
My response:
This was a bad moment. It did not escalate into a physical altercation. If I'd pulled a gun, it would have, and there would have been possibly fatal consequences.
That is NEVER a good option. This is NOT an example of why guns r good mkay. If anything, it should be an example of how to resolve a bad situation WITHOUT it resorting to a physical altercation.
I have two handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun. I can use all of them. They're all in a gunsafe. My first weapon of choice is my cellphone, not my guns. With the cellphone, I can call the police. THEY have guns, but more importantly, they have the unequivocal right to use them in carrying out their duty to protect and serve and the training to know how to resolve a conflict WITHOUT using them..
My family are police officers, military members. I grew up around guns and the kind of people trained to use them with specific and deadly force. The one thing this has taught me about the Second Amendment is that not everyone should have the right to own a gun. If someone thinks a gun is the first and best option to conflict resolution, that person should not have the right to own or fire one until they learn better. A gun should be a last resort, not a first. Never, not ever, a first.
My birds are not worth someone's life. Not mine, not anyone else's. No matter how much I love them.
I am sick to death of "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Bullshit. While I'm not for more restrictions on handgun use, I AM all for changing the training requirements necessary to get a permit to make ongoing handgun safety training and conflict resolution part of the package. Specifically because of idiots like this, who ruin it for everyone by thinking that grabbing their piece from behind their belt, cocking it sideways and gesticulating with 'Better step off, m'fucka, or I'll pop a cap in yo ass!' is the proper way to solve a problem.
On the other hand, they're the kind of idiots who store a gun in their belt and thus run a bigger risk of shooting their junk off and leaving the gene pool. Hmm. Maybe I should rethink this.