Clueless .. and loving it!

As a Navy Veteran, I Know How America Should Implement Gun Control:  Shawn VanDiver

(Liberals misuse the 2nd Amendment to abuse gun owners: A Case In Point)

TOTALLY ignoring the original premise of this no-think piece, I drilled down to the comments (oh, PLEASE do that .. it's as exciting as a dog-fart in an enclosed car!) and found one which just begs to be fisked!  

Proof gun owners are disingenuous about their safety arguments. 

1. 99% of all home invasions occur when no one is home. A gun will not protect your property when you are not home. Insurance companies will not lower your insurance rate if you own a gun because owning a gun has no actuary impact on property protection.  

2. Insurance companies have real data on what protects you: lights, alarms and other safety measures. The combined sum total which costs less than the price of 3 guns. Insurance companies will lower your home owners policy if you put the recommended home protection safety measures in place. 

Apparently, the fact that gun owners who are home owners are not at home 100% of the time is a valid argument against firearms possession to protect yourself, your property and your family when you (or your family) ARE at home!

Since non-lethal home safety measures cost less than guns and ammo and are scientifically proven to prevent home invasion before they start as opposed to a gun than can only stop an invasion in progress then gun owners claiming safety as an argument would rationaly (sic)  first procure and deploy all recommended proven non-lethal safety measures before spending money on a gun if in fact they were geniunine  (sic)  in their safety arguments. 

Since 99.99% of all gun owners do not buy and deploy non-lethal safety measures then their safety arguments are disengenuous. (sic)  They just want to shoot somone (sic) . Since non-lethal home safety measures cost less than guns and ammo and are scientifically proven to prevent home invasion before they start as opposed to a gun than can only stop an invasion in progress then gun owners claiming safety as an argument would rationaly (sic) first procure and deploy all recommended proven non-lethal safety measures before spending money on a gun if in fact they were geniunine  (sic)   in their safety arguments. 

I have never been able to find a mechanism which is guaranteed to prevent a "home invasion", except for a "man trap".  Is the author suggesting that we establish booby-traps to defend ourselves against a home invasion?   Personally, I would prefer a human-directed defense rather than set up booby-traps in my home ... which might inadvertently be initiated by myself or my family.   I have some experience (Vietnam, 1969-1970) in the use of "booby traps" ...  they do not discriminate between friends and enemies.  And if these defenses are non-lethal, they are (by definition) ineffective.

Do we "just want to shoot someone?
Not at all.
Liberals have a very low opinion of people who want to defend their home; one wonders if there isn't some truth to the adage:

"A Liberal is someone who has been arrested: a Conservative is someone who has been assaulted."

Since 99.99% of all gun owners do not buy and deploy non-lethal safety measures then their safety arguments are disengenuous. They just want to shoot somone. (sic)

PROOF GUN OWNERS ARE DISINGENUOUS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY ARGUMENTS:

I have never been able to find a mechanism which is guaranteed to prevent a "home invasion", except for a "man trap".  Is the author suggesting that we establish booby-traps to defend ourselves against a home invasion?   Personally, I would prefer a human-directed defense rather than set up booby-traps in my home ... which might be inadvertently initiated by myself or my family.

Having said that, let's look at the original article, supposedly posted by a "Navy Veteran":

Here are the "Common Sense" proposals he espouses:

1. Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step.
2. 40 hours of training prior to license approval.
3.  a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round--a manageable amount).

Author's Final Comment:

"And if they try to run you around or brush you off, remember to ask them if they think the right to own as many firearms as one wants without anyone else knowing about it is more important than the lives of America's children--including yours and theirs."

Well .. yes.  I DO think that my right to own firearms are more important than the lives of my children.

 Because these rights protect my children .. and their children .. more effectively than the "common sense proposals" presented in the original article..

I don't care to allow my Government to know what firearms I own, or what types or how many.

Because the only reason my Government can present to justify ownership of that information is to confiscate those firearms .. and leave me without defense.

There are those who would call me paranoid for taking this aggressive attitude, but I can only point to so many governments which have used the same information to disarm their 'subjects' .. and I don't care to become a 'subject':  I prefer being a "citizen",

I don't believe that the Government's priorities to defend my children, and my childrens' children, is nearly as imperative as my own.
x
x
x
x
x