People have too many rights

[96D]

No! It's not that people have to many rights, They just know how to exercise their rights.

[RandomTask]

Originally Posted by TRB

...She said that, "The problem in America today is that people have too many rights.

I would have said, "Very true. If you didn't have the right to free spreech, I wouldn't have to listen to the shit coming out of your mouth...beeee-otch."

[PhilA]

Originally Posted by Skuggi

What does it take to change this kind of persons perspective? Well my multiple gigs of information doesn't help. What helps is when they've been put in the situation that the police couldn't protect them.

Sad, but true. You really can't do or say ANYTHING that will change some people's minds. Tastes great! Less filling! The best you can do on some days is agree to disagree, and let people make up their own minds. I, for one, have chosen to arm myself at home and (slowly but surely) in public when I can. I also keep my gun ownership to myself a lot, because I live in a neighborhood where I'm not sure how many of my neighbors would react if they knew I carried. Not that I care what many people think of me, but my kids play with their kids and I'd feel really bad if someone's knee-jerk reaction to the "guns are inherently evil" mantra caused them to limit their kids' playtime with mine. I'm an incredibly responsible gun owner (safes, locked cabinets, educating my kids, etc), but again--closed minds are closed to many rational arguments to the contrary.

When people DO ask me why I carry a gun in this pleasantly quiet suburban enclave, I ask them why they have auto and homeowner's insurance. "In case I get in a wreck/in case my house catches fire." Well, I ask, how many times has that ever happened? "None," they say. But (catching on) that's TOTALLY different." How, I ask? "Because its not violent and we're not talking about killing anyone." No? You mean to tell me car accidents and fires never kill anyone? Do you further mean to tell me your car, your couch and your TV set are worth more than you and your family's lives?"

Thats when the eyebrows raise a bit. The words, so quick to come moments before, stick on the lips. The mouth, silenced, closes. "Well, I just don't think guns are the answer." I'm not asking you to. But if you ever decide to protect your life the way I have, I'll be happy to tell you what I've learned.

[Calvin]

People dont have enough rights and when you are unarmed you have no chance. I would rather have some chance then none. When I am around the house/ yard I OC and the people that live around here never bat an eye.

[markheck1]

the only "People" with too many rights are the Criminals..IMHO

[God's Country]

Hey TRB,

The next time this comes up ask your cousin's wife which rights of hers you can erode. After all it's a two way street. We can eradicate rights vindictively, or ignorantly, until none of us have any, or we can read and understand the Constitution to our mutual benefit. But then again if Rosie or O'bama says guns are bad it must be true.

[PhilA]

Originally Posted by RandomTask

I would have said, "Very true. If you didn't have the right to free spreech, I wouldn't have to listen to the shit coming out of your mouth...beeee-otch."

I hope my tongue-in-cheek sensor is on the fritz tonight, RandomTask, and that you're just showing your sense of humor, because statements like that are EXACTLY what we as ambassadors to gun ownership need to avoid.

[NorwichGrad97]

It is indeed ironic that the deceased was a WWII vet.

Today I was asked by a fellow engineer who is fairly new to the company. "Are you a member of the militia?" was his question.

My response was, "No, I am not. But I am a staunch supporter of the US Constitution. I honor those who gave their lives for this country by responsibly exercising my inalienable rights."

When it comes to discussing politics I am not afraid to speak my mind. I was not surprised he asked me that question.

[Turbinesaint]

Originally Posted by PhilA

You attempt to prove the credibility of legal firearms ownership to already closed-minded people by using a poorly-designed website with zero references to anything resembling well-researched and documented fact-based statistics? No wonder there's a credibility gap. Oy.

My $.02, but the one article the page cites is from the journal of criminology at Northwestern's school of law. Pretty credible source. Now, the drawback is that it is only the one source, but if you do a search on a scholarly database like EBSCO or even Google Scholar and search for gun or gun control or something of that nature, you'll find the necessary statistics and (more) credible sources. They should add more articles to the page (and redesign the layout).

[PhilA]

Originally Posted by Turbinesaint

My $.02, but the one article the page cites is from the journal of criminology at Northwestern's school of law. Pretty credible source.

Yeah, but its a twelve year old study. On a site that appears to have been designed by a twelve year old, twelve years ago.

More current studies would carry a lot more weight. It would also appear more credible if the numbers matched: In one instance, it says "Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: 1690504" while farther down the same page it says "Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: 3139515."

If I'm a disbeliever and someone sent me to this site to prove a point, they'd only succeed in jading me even more.