Plymouth State University in New Hampshire - Pro-Gun Demonstration

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. No problem...

How many times have you needed your gun and used it?

About as many times as I've needed my seat belt, helmet and other protective gear - which is to say none. However, I am REQUIRED to buy a car with a seat belt whether I want them or not, and required to wear it when I am even a passenger. In many states I am required to obtain a helmet at my expense and wear it in order to protect me from others who aren't paying attention.

Why is one device which might save my life required by laws which violate my rights but yet another device which may also save my life is something you wish to see forbidden by law, also violating my rights?


I support the right to own and to carry when necessary, but not the practice of compulsive concealed carry. What is hard to understand about that?

First off, define "necessary". Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method to predict said necessity. Then provide me with a 100% foolproof method of ensuring my gun is available to me when it is necessary.

You may not like someone carrying a firearm, but it does not harm you and honestly, your opinion as to if it is compulsive is irrelevant.

I support the right to carry as part of a well organized militia, which I translate today as the NG.

Two things:

1) It is well REGULATED, not well organized. If you wish to apply that standard, I will then assume you have no problem with me carrying an M4 (select fire please) and an M9?

2) The National Guard is defined as a select militia. Then there is the unorganized militia which is everyone else. If the terms of the Dick act were applied, you would essentially be saying you want to disarm all women, men over 45 and public officials. Let me know how that works out for you.

Thankfully, militia membership is not a condition of the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not support the use of a handgun outside the home as a self defense tool.

Got something more effective to suggest? No? Then really keep your opinion to yourself. You're welcome to apply those restrictions to your actions, but not to mine. Do you not get it?

I support free speech, but I don't support assholes with megaphones standing on the corner of my street at eight o'clock every Sunday morning.


So you support free speech as long as you don't have to know about it? You may not like to hear those "assholes" but they have EVERY right to speak and to be in public.

What you said sounds suspiciously like "I am OK with black people living in my city, but I don't support them being in my neighborhood"

People who abuse their rights are polluters.

It would appear, based upon what you have stated, that you define "abuse" as "exercise in ways different than I would choose to". Is a person who attends worship services daily abusing his right to practice a religion? According to your arbitrary standards, he is.

Compulsive handgun toting is an addiction, the same as any compulsive behavior. What don't you understand about that?

I understand the message you're attempting to send, however the statement is flawed on its face. Are you suggesting a cop, for example, is suffering from an addiction? Are my wearing of a seat when I drive and a helmet when i ride examples of compulsive behavior? Even if they WERE, are these behaviors harmful to anyone?

The behavior, even if it is an addiction, is not harmful to others. Hence, you have no legitimate reason to even know about it, let alone restrict it. What do YOU not understand about that?