I personally find Point of View's appearance just to pontificate and offer unwanted opinions mildly arrogant and more than just a little offensive.
They are a tool and if you do not post about your power drill and post about crap like gun jokes, the amount of guns you own, and other unrelated crap then perhaps you carry for the illusion of power or attention you may get when you enter a room.
What's it to you? Who the hell are you? Would you find it appropriate to appear on a First Amendment forum and pontificate about your agreement with folks freedom of speech, but offer condescension about their foolish attraction to a particular computer they use, or how they're strangely obsessive about a pen or pencil they write with? Who the hell are you to judge how I choose to express my Second Amendment freedom? Why don't you go over to a Jewish website and complain about how they wear their yarmulkes? How about hitting a Catholic forum and complaining about how gaudy their gold plated candelabras are? According to you, freedom of religion is probably just fine, but the way folks express it is open for judgement according to your rigidly applied standards.
And you call yourself liberal. I can agree with that: Freedom is great as long as people use their freedom to agree with you, and enjoy their freedom in a manner you approve of. Yup. Definately liberal.
I enjoy and utilize the right to carry as much as anyone. I open carry and conceal carry every day (whatever is comfortable based on the clothes I put on) when I am not heading onto base and it has served me well. I find my reasons for carrying is that I refuse to feel threatend by less than desireable people in a country I defend. This is my home and I will not be a victim of being unprepared for any situation. I defend my family and simply care less about the valuables of a business who should be insured and not depend on me taking up for them as their overpriced products found in their store.
Nice try. However, your use of multiple tactics fails. You can neither make your argument acceptable to me by appealing to any sense of cameraderie, nor can you use an appeal to authority. Point out how you also carry
just like me, all you want. Point out how you are in the military all you want. You are neither a friend of open carry, nor any type of authority on the subject. Trying to influence my acceptance of either idea by making these appeals = FAIL.
I also think that if you cannot defend yourself with a reasonable amount of ammunition in your mag, you should not carry a firearm as you are not qualified.
.....and you are the authority on how to define the term "reasonable", right?
Guns are no different and in the recent incident in AZ, the mag size did matter.
I agree. Had Loughner used a standard mag, the woman who was able to grab the extended one would have probably failed. Although, you do agree that legislating inanimate objects such as firearms fails to decrease crime. After all you're a fellow OC'er. I simply wonder why your agreement that regulating inanimate objects suddenly applies when it comes to magazines? Why does the regulation of firearms fail at preventing crime, but the regulation of the magazine that goes into them suddenly work? How do you propose to get this bloodthirsty killer to agree NOT to use an illegal hi-cap magazine? Are magazine restrictions the only type of law that criminals are strangely compelled to follow?
You can argue that if someone there had a weapon they could have minimized the damage. This is true, but just as it is your right to strap your tool to your hip in the morning, it is your right to not carry a firearm. (admit you know someone that you just don't think should carry a weapon for your own safety) A firearm is a responsibility, and the responsible thing to do is support viable laws and limitations that generally enhance the ability of law enforcement to catch bad guys, and ensure they are not outgunned.
Uh.....someone there did have a gun. Haven't you payed attention to the news about Joseph Zimudie? You know? The CCW holder who was there, but didn't draw his weapon because he was responsible and determined that it was unneccessary?
You were preaching about responsibility. Too bad you chose to ignore an obvious case of it in order to preach to the folks who exercise it.
BTW: In order for law enforcement to be able "to catch bad guys", don't the bad guys have to commit a crime first?
Maybe you could explain to us how expecting other human beings (law enforcement officers) to come running at your beck and call in order to risk their lives to save yours (after something happens) is
more responsible than undertaking to do it for yourself beforehand?
After all, you do elect to show up here and educate us showoffs about responsibility.
Feel free to disagree, and I am down to have coffee with someone who in the Yorktown area if you would like meet up as I am on R&R for a few more days. I made it home again! Thank you for your time and consideration.
You're quite welcome. Please don't confuse my indignation at your point of view and offense at your pontification as disrespect. I thank you for your service, and wish you nothing but the best. I simply disagree with your views and the manner in which you choose to communicate them.