General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Patton Oswalt: What gun owners think they look like... [View all]The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)If one is in heat of battle and being attacked and you shell an enemy position and innocent people die you can say it was self defense.
Blowing up 2 teen aged boys on donkeys going from point a to b on the ground where you have no troops in harms way is, to me at least, not war. It is killing.
"How this should affect the quality of my understanding that in many instances, a person's attraction to firearms, and dedication to possession of firearms, has irrational roots, "
And this is where you lost me. Is this like saying people who feel they have a right to do something (speech, protest, abortion, etc and so on) and are passionate about protecting it have as their basis for that an irrational basis? Or does it only apply to things you don't personally like and don't think are a right? People tend to have a deep passion over keeping rights safe from the few who want to remove them for their twisted reasons (like religious ones, etc).
Now, you were so kind as to mention "Nor is it clear to how pointing out that fetishist fantasies are a poor basis for law and public policy regarding implements of deadly force is incongruous with awareness of the actual applications of the laws of war to governments at war." I will tell you why it is congruous to me:
Like in the wars and enemy combatant stuff you have tossed out we have laws right now that say we can keep and bear arms, which ones, and where we can carry them and conceal them.
That is the law whether it pleases you or not. And when people try to change laws that affected the many but allow the few to retain those rights (the rich will have armed guards, companies will have them, govt) and people get a little ticked off at that idea maybe it is not because they equate guns with sex but because they value the ability to continue having rights they have had for centuries and enjoyed.