Reply #19: I think what needs to be understood... [View All]

... is that to the gun-rights people, it is such an automatic and understandable right as to hardly be worthy of comment except where people (who dislike gun-rights people on a cultural level, which taints objectivity) try to restrict that right. Often times the citizens that supports such bans are woefully ignorant of the specifics of either firearms, ammunition, or accessories and are manipulated by fear-mongering and our wonderful corporate media to support restrictions that are billed as "reasonbable".

It is not that gun-rights people don't think that any restriction is unreasonable, it's that usually what is billed as "reasonable", isn't. They generally feel that any laws restricting guns should be minimally invasive to the law-abiding and should only be enacted if such a law has a good chance to fix some ill in society.

This is the hallmark of good government and we see what happened when it is not adhered to. Marijuana laws and speed limits are two examples of bad lawmaking. There is no good reason to outlaw marijuana and speed limits are often set ridiculously low. Both laws are largely ignored every single day by the population at large.


The right to keep and bear arms is seen by the "gun nut" with the same clarity as DUers see the rights of gays to marry or women to have control over their bodies.




Since when did DUers have this kind of "oh, well, get over it" attitude?