Our love of guns is nutty

"Peter Hansen is a retired chemistry professor who has been living in Iowa City since 1999."

I think Peter should have retired sooner, obviously the chemicals he was instructing with have affected the logic process of his brain.

Why is it that it's always a sagging-faced, triple-chinned librul whom pens those tirades?

Peter Hansen is a typical delusional intelligentsia cretin

"Furthermore, in 1789, when the Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, what was meant by "arms"? Most guns possessed by hunters and farmers of that day were smooth bore muskets"

Does Peter Hansen even know anything about the Minutemen (a rhetorical question...), and the technical advantage they had over the British (who really had the smooth bores, unlike the rifled bore bearing Minutemen)? Who were the Minutemen again? Right - hunters and farmers... Hunters and farmers actually using technologically advanced firepower against the British Army in revolution and in daily life before that.

In this sense the exact opposite can be interpreted from what Peter Hansen infers here. The author of this story (as in fictional) couldn't be more clueless...

If you believe a well regulated militia refers to the govt's military it's because you were bred and groomed to be a Nazi (so either your parents are Nazis or you swallowed the Nazi propaganda issued by the newsmedia).

If you believe a well regulated militia refers to a concept of freedom (an abstraction to some) it's because you were taught (or you taught yourself) the 2nd amendment limits the powers of govt (our worst enemy).

The anti freedom, anti gun propaganda common in our society, can easily brainwash a chemistry professor.

Teacher teach thyself!

Strangely enough, Peter Hansen does not attack the GOVERNMENT'S love affair for guns.

The "Emotion" of guns is what is nutty.

The person who wrote the piece "hates" guns.

And seems to assume that if you are against him... then you must LOVE guns.

It's the emotions of guns. I feel sorry for him and others who can only "emote" when it comes to guns.

That's why none of them can argue their points in this debate.

Because... really... either you "feel" what he fells or you don't.

I don't.

I do not fear or hate guns.

I do fear a government that fears it's people having guns cine it indicates that they want a monopoly on lethal force.

Systematic and institutionalized GUN control laws started after the Civil war when certain states wanted to control the "new" free minorities in their communities.

Why are so many minorities getting killed in inner cities today?

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai Lama,(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.

Can YOU imagine somebody trying to "kill" the "minority" who went to the protest in TX?

He had a pistol and a rifle.

This may not stop criminals killing others.

It does help in stopping them from killing HIM.

It's called deterrence.

Criminals fear civilians with guns MORE then cops.

Want to know why?

Cops have RULES that they must follow.

Rules that many civilians are not even aware of and so they may unknowingly break them.

And the bad guys know it.

They see a cop... they know the cop can ONLY shoot under specific circumstance or the media WILL tear them apart and the local community that HE PREYS ON will back up HIS civil rights.

But he is NOT sure what a civilian will do.

Gun-toting civilians IS unpredictable for criminals.

The writer's "love" for criminals is nutty.

He even seems to imply that he would call a cop.

He does it cause that cop shows up - WITH A GUN - to deter some crime.

When he calls 911 for the police, he summons an officer with a gun to use "up to lethal force" on his behalf. The fact that he doesn't personally own a firearm doesn't make him morally superior to those of us who own one.

On the contrary, it makes HIM appear like a hypocrite.

He seems to believe that he can absolve himself from having to use ANY force whatsoever by shifting that responsibility to another person, and then he congratulate himself on his "civilized" attitude.

I call that a MAJOR weakness.

You can call it whatever you will.

Michael Ejercito wrote:

Strangely enough, Peter Hansen does not attack the GOVERNMENT'S love affair for guns.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fedle.htm

Number of full-time non-military Federal officers who are authorized to carry firearms (this excludes officers in foreign countries)= 106,354.

THIS is just federal... Now I would love to see the numbers for state and local.

There are 1,662 FEDS per 100,000 residents in the District of Columbia.

Isn't THIS one of the TOP FIVE with gun-related deaths on the books?

Since these FEDS are NOT protecting the "residents" in DC... WHO are they protecting?

Or are they the ones who are "killing" all the others?

A cop with a gun does NOT help or protect me.

non-LEO's IMO need more capabilities than the police in some instances because:

1. We often don't have an armed and trained partner with us.

2. We don't have backup a radio call away.

3. We may not have a shotgun in between the front seats, nor a rifle in the trunk.

4. Dispatch doesn't know our approximate location BEFORE a call for help is placed.

For many of us, we either resolve the threat in a few moments, or we lose.

We can lose a child's life or innocence, our mate's life or health, or our own life or health.

THOSE stakes are as high - if not higher - then ANY a cop has when they are in the same situation.

But for some it IS OK for the cop to have a gun and it is NOT OK for you and me to have one.

Why?

homepcmd wrote:

The "Emotion" of guns is what is nutty.
The person who wrote the piece "hates" guns.
And seems to assume that if you are against him... then you must LOVE guns.
It's the emotions of guns. I feel sorry for him and others who can only "emote" when it comes to guns.
That's why none of them can argue their points in this debate.
Because... really... either you "feel" what he fells or you don't.
I don't.
I do not fear or hate guns.
I do fear a government that fears it's people having guns cine it indicates that they want a monopoly on lethal force.
Systematic and institutionalized GUN control laws started after the Civil war when certain states wanted to control the "new" free minorities in their communities.
Why are so many minorities getting killed in inner cities today?
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai Lama,(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.
Can YOU imagine somebody trying to "kill" the "minority" who went to the protest in TX?
He had a pistol and a rifle.
This may not stop criminals killing others.
It does help in stopping them from killing HIM.
It's called deterrence.
Criminals fear civilians with guns MORE then cops.
Want to know why?
Cops have RULES that they must follow.
Rules that many civilians are not even aware of and so they may unknowingly break them.
And the bad guys know it.
They see a cop... they know the cop can ONLY shoot under specific circumstance or the media WILL tear them apart and the local community that HE PREYS ON will back up HIS civil rights.
But he is NOT sure what a civilian will do.
Gun-toting civilians IS unpredictable for criminals.
The writer's "love" for criminals is nutty.
He even seems to imply that he would call a cop.
He does it cause that cop shows up - WITH A GUN - to deter some crime.
When he calls 911 for the police, he summons an officer with a gun to use "up to lethal force" on his behalf. The fact that he doesn't personally own a firearm doesn't make him morally superior to those of us who own one.
On the contrary, it makes HIM appear like a hypocrite.
He seems to believe that he can absolve himself from having to use ANY force whatsoever by shifting that responsibility to another person, and then he congratulate himself on his "civilized" attitude.
I call that a MAJOR weakness.
You can call it whatever you will.

Nicely written HomePC.

I own a shovel. When I need to dig a hole I grab my shovel to dig the hole. I take care of my shovel by keeping it clean and dry. I appreciate having my shovel because it makes it much easier to dig the whole. I don't love or hate my shovel.

I own a gun. When I need to protect myself from harm I grab my gun to protect myself. I take care of my gun by keeping it clean and dry. I appreciate having my gun because it makes it much easier to protect myself. I don't love or hate my gun.

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Nicely written HomePC.
I own a shovel. When I need to dig a hole I grab my shovel to dig the hole. I take care of my shovel by keeping it clean and dry. I appreciate having my shovel because it makes it much easier to dig the whole. I don't love or hate my shovel.
I own a gun. When I need to protect myself from harm I grab my gun to protect myself. I take care of my gun by keeping it clean and dry. I appreciate having my gun because it makes it much easier to protect myself. I don't love or hate my gun.

You have a way with words!
.
;o)
.

They believe govt is superior to the people. That belief gets many people harmed or killed. It's degrading and humiliating. It helps erode our rights and freedom.

I love my guns. Only if they're defective do I hate them. We're just passing thru.

Make America better (more free) for your kids and their kids.

Give that plant lady some water and sunshine!

Good post!