= new reply since forum marked as read
I come from a long line of Democrats who valued gun ownership. I have enjoyed target shooting handguns for most of my life and currently have a carry permit. But then I am 70 years old. You might call me a dinosaur Democrat.
I'm so damn old and so much of a dinosaur that I still like wheel guns for self defense. My carry gun is either a S&W Model 642 .38 snub nose or a S&W 351PD AirLite 22 Magnum. My home protection weapon is a 12 gauge double barreled coach gun.
Funny thing...I have spent all 60 years of my life in a house with weapons, and none of them have ever hurt me. Or anyone else, for that matter. Before that. my father spent all of his life in a house with guns, and none of THEM ever hurt anyone either. Before him, my grandfather grew up with guns, and once again no injuries.
So, based on personal experience, my family has had guns in the house for at least the last 3 generations, since 1892, with no casualties at all. To go even further, no one, at least in my fairly wide circle of gun-owning friends, has ever been hurt by a gun.
As for arming myself, my guns have little to do with self defense, and a lot to do with trying to maintain a skill - target shooting - I learned as a kid. Face it, I'm running out of hobbies. I had to give up archery, because an old shoulder injury caught up with me. I had to give up running because of bunions on both feet. Golf is becoming less fun because of my feet, and bowling is problematic if I cant find shoes to fit over those outrigger bunions. Shooting is something I can still do.
I intend to keep on shooting until I am no longer able to wither see the target, or hold the gun on target. At that point, I may jsut hang out at the range and tell stories to people who don't move fast enough to get away from me...
Because progressives have always favored restriction of rights rather than the expansion of rights.
is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.[1][2][3] Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).[4][5][6] In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[1][2][3]
Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate.[1] Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.[2] "Think of the children" has been invoked by censorship proponents to shield children from perceived danger.[7][8] Community, Space and Online Censorship (2009) noted that classifying children in an infantile manner, as innocents in need of protection, is a form of obsession over the concept of purity.[7] A 2011 article in the Journal for Cultural Research observed that the phrase grew out of a moral panic.[9]
It was an exhortation in the 1964 Disney film Mary Poppins, when the character of Mrs. Banks pleaded with her departing nanny not to quit and to "think of the children!"[10] The phrase was popularized as a satiric reference on the animated television program The Simpsons in 1996,[11][12] when character Helen Lovejoy pleaded "Won't somebody please think of the children!"[13][14][15] during a contentious debate by citizens of the fictional town of Springfield.[13][16][17]
In the 2012 Georgia State University Law Review, Charles J. Ten Brink called Lovejoy's use of "Think of the children" a successful parody.[13] The appeal's subsequent use in society was often the subject of mockery.[8] After its popularization on The Simpsons, the phrase has been called "Lovejoy's Law",[15] the "Helen Lovejoy defence", the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome",[18] and "think-of-the-children-ism".
Are the amount of gun deaths lies?
Do we have an "epidemic of gun violence"?
Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #34)
"diamond in the rough" pile. Hate it when that happens to me. Always a day late and a dollar short.
If you have any more "no *true* Scotsmen" to post, by all means please hesitate to post them.
Response to Kang Colby (Original post)
