I just finished reading Guns, wow. I'd like to shout out an amen from the choir.
I was reading something someone said about storing and stockpiling weapons to stave off government forces, because they wholeheartedly believe that the government will eventually come knocking at their door to take all their stuff and enslave them.... wot?
I'd like to counter that supposition with the fact that if the government decided to invade us (actually "us" "is" "the government") we'd all be dead meat on a pogo stick no matter how many guns we stash in our closets and under out pillows... can you say drone? Can you say a well planned accidental release of a deadly virus?
I have nothing against guns or their ownership, but I strongly support the "well regulated" part of said ownership deal. That's my two cents.
And don't make it personal. Just an observation, but for the most part all of the discussions in this forum and in Hot Topics since the Sandy Hook massacre that have been between members who have been here for a while were respectful even when expressing differences of opinions. Please let's continue to take the high road when posting and maintain that level of civility and lead by example that we can agree to disagree.
Arguments like these are interesting to me, because on both sides people feel that they are 100% correct. Logic would seem to say that the actual correct path would be in the middle, but then again, logic is not always correct. But I understand that some poeple's opinions are different than mine, and that is fine. Our opinions and beliefs are just that, ours, so civilaty would make the arguments go smoother, and perhaps we could get somewhere. As it is, poeple on both sides are passionate, which is also good, so all of these things tend to contradict one another. Its part of being human, I think.