Catle doctrine bill, on its way to Governors Dayton's desk soon, in Minnesota.

[beevul]

63. There is a reason for that.

"The only way is to enlighten people as to what is better for them as individuals..."


The reason I quoted that? Because thats the part of the quote I was referring to. Of course it also applies to society, to some degree.

That quote demonstrates a disturbing level of smug superiority, and an astounding level of arrogance.

"I assume you mean those who don't care to be enlightened."

I refer to people who would't characterize your views on guns as as "enlightenment". Feel free to count me among them.

You, the poster of that nonsense, presume to know what is better for individuals, in the context of the gun issue, with absolutely no working knowledge of the particulars of the lives of any of the individuals to which you refer.

In other words, its a fancy way of saying that you want to attempt to bamboozle the ones u can into buying into the bullshit your selling, and force it down the throats of the ones you can't, through force of law.

At the point of a gun.

Because when its all said and done, laws are enforced, in the end, at the point of a gun.

What makes you so sure that YOU know whats best for individuals or society, as opposed to "this is what I want for individuals and society"?


Oh, and on this:

"As a fan of shooting sports myself, I am not a gun banner or controller."

I would rather say what guns I would permit, because I believe this would significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms to an "acceptable" level.
Shotguns, single or double barrel. Bolt action or lever action rifles. Winchester comes to mind.
Anything else would require very restrictive permit based on demonstrated need.

Those who want more than that are free to join the military, or just get over themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=458958

The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public

I could live with a total ban on all guns. Wouldn't bother me. But I'm not proposing that or advocating it. I don;t think they are necessary, but that's just my opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x399373#399796

No I would support banning the manufacture of all weapons designed solely for the killing of humans. I would also support legislation that would ban the carrying of same in public places. Shotguns I have no problem with. Rifles, depends on their mass killing capacity. Pretty much like the UK. Seems to work well there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387857&mesg_id=388795


And then theres this:

Yes, thank you. All of those should be banned along with all handguns. You can keep the Mossberg if you change barrels.

Which was in response to this:

My Yugoslav Mauser, designed specifically as a German military weapon? My SKS, designed as a Russian military weapon? My Mosin-Nagants, designed as Russian military weapons? My 1917 Eddystone, designed as an American military weapon? My AR-15, original ancestor designed as an American military weapon? My Mossberg 500-series shotgun, which is used by police and military forces throughout the world, but with the right barrels is also a bird or deer gun?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=469511&mesg_id=469845



And this:

Now there's an idea though I think 2 is more realistic.

in response to this:

Also, are you suggesting a ban on magazines larger than 1 round?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=393066&mesg_id=393300

I don't want widespread bans and I don't want proliferation of carrying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11728606#post52

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?