Reasonable control

I think all of you are missing the point. It's not the pressure cooker or the ball bearing, it's what the ball bearing is made of. Think of it like this. Suppose the ball bearing is made of lead (or has a certain amount of lead content in it). The pressure cooker blows. People get maimed, killed, injured. The evil lead ball bearing harmlessly falls on the ground and ends up in the city sewer. A large rat, fascinated by the shiny object, eats it. The rat later dies of lead poisoning while he is above ground somewhere. A bald eagle sees the dead rat and swoops down to capture it and takes it back to it's nest with all the baby eagles. They all feast on the poisoned rat and tragically all die of lead poisoning also. A member of the Sierra Club finds the dead fowl, reports it to CNN, and a national movement to ban lead from the planet begins. There is the real tragedy. Dead protected eagles - all caused by nasty lead!

1967cougar wrote:
I think all of you are missing the point. It's not the pressure cooker or the ball bearing, it's what the ball bearing is made of. Think of it like this. Suppose the ball bearing is made of lead (or has a certain amount of lead content in it). The pressure cooker blows. People get maimed, killed, injured. The evil lead ball bearing harmlessly falls on the ground and ends up in the city sewer. A large rat, fascinated by the shiny object, eats it. The rat later dies of lead poisoning while he is above ground somewhere. A bald eagle sees the dead rat and swoops down to capture it and takes it back to it's nest with all the baby eagles. They all feast on the poisoned rat and tragically all die of lead poisoning also. A member of the Sierra Club finds the dead fowl, reports it to CNN, and a national movement to ban lead from the planet begins. There is the real tragedy. Dead protected eagles - all caused by nasty lead!

Are you saying we should get rid of all the lead in cars? ;)

BroncoBot wrote:

I think all of you are missing the point. It's not the pressure cooker or the ball bearing, it's what the ball bearing is made of. Think of it like this. Suppose the ball bearing is made of lead (or has a certain amount of lead content in it). The pressure cooker blows. People get maimed, killed, injured. The evil lead ball bearing harmlessly falls on the ground and ends up in the city sewer. A large rat, fascinated by the shiny object, eats it. The rat later dies of lead poisoning while he is above ground somewhere. A bald eagle sees the dead rat and swoops down to capture it and takes it back to it's nest with all the baby eagles. They all feast on the poisoned rat and tragically all die of lead poisoning also. A member of the Sierra Club finds the dead fowl, reports it to CNN, and a national movement to ban lead from the planet begins. There is the real tragedy. Dead protected eagles - all caused by nasty lead!

Are you saying we should get rid of all the lead in cars? ;)

No, just all the eagles. Then we could have our lead.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Where I differ from all of you guys I think is that I believe this right can be and has limits to its exercise, just like we set forth on the First Amendment and you guys do not appear to agree. All I can say is I respect your view but disagree.

and the second amendment already has hedge laws, licenses, protections, prohibitions, waiting periods and multiple outright bans.



you think there should be even more?



What do you think would make a difference?

CougarClaw wrote:

Where I differ from all of you guys I think is that I believe this right can be and has limits to its exercise, just like we set forth on the First Amendment and you guys do not appear to agree. All I can say is I respect your view but disagree.

and the second amendment already has hedge laws, licenses, protections, prohibitions, waiting periods and multiple outright bans.



you think there should be even more?



What do you think would make a difference?

Most of our friends that have been posting do not think there should be any limits. Some even think the Second A protects the grenade launcher. That said, I do think there should be more limits in place. I think more background checks in more instances, for example, is something that would make a difference. I am not saying it will stop the unwanted violence, but I think it could make a difference. But what I think makes little difference.

No logical discussion on this topic even matters. What it all comes down to is our govt wants to gradually limit all of our rights, including serious limits on religious freedom. And as long as the populous is armed the govt is at risk of facing insurmountable opposition. So the govt's primary goal right now is to limit gun ownership to govt agencies to enforce its repeal of rights.





Part of the liberal BIG govt argument is the govt having bigger guns than the citizens to enforce its will on the people rather than answer to the people.



Anyone read about the defense dept's limit on religious speech in the military? Yes, policy now in place that directly restricts religious speech for members of the military. Prosyletizing is now cause for a court martial. It's laws like that that have caused past civilizations to use their guns against their own govt.



Any govt that tries to disarm its citizens does so not to protect the people but rather because it is afraid of the people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

CM, Totally agree with you. Any call for more safety from the government is usually a ploy to take more right and freedoms away, even if the intentions are pure.