Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
I find it interesting and maybe I am just misreading, but it seems that DK argues for everyone owning a gun.
I am hypothetically believing that is the case. If I am wrong I sincerely appologize, and I am not trying to attack DK personally, but the issue that I see here, which is people not believing they must tell others that they NEED to own a gun for protection and if they do not own one then they are asking for trouble.
I don't need either side dictating to me how my opinion on gun ownership is wrong or lectured on why I need/do not need to own a gun.
|
I can see how alot of my arguments could be construed in that fashion, so I take no offense at your perceptions of that, nor do I see it as a personal attack.
What I see as the issue is one side (anti-gun) saying that 'civilians' have no business, are not professional (qualified) enough, or not competent enough to use a gun while the other side argues the complete opposite. As I present my case for the 'pro-gun' side, I stress that the right to individual self defense is paramount because that right exists for me to exercise. When the anti group tries to deny me my right to self defense, or to only allow lesser alternatives, I have issue with that. The hard part about determining what/who has rights is having to look at it as NOT what you are allowing some to have, but what you are denying to others.
I have the right to use a gun for self-defense/defense of my family. Everyone has that right, whether you choose to exercise that right or not, is completely up to you, but it is not anyones right to deny me/mine that right to life. The anti-gun crowd feels that it is. The ones who are 'on the fence', like you Pan, are simply choosing not to exercise your right to own/use a gun for self-defense while not denying it for others, and there is absolutely no problem with that.