(07-15-2016, 11:13 AM)playwrite Wrote: Let me clarify a couple things here for you.[color]
Ammosexuals are a sick and disturbed sub-culture in our society. They are single issue oriented on the supposed right of access to high-powered military grade guns. If you peel back the onion, a lot of them have irrational fear of government, but many just get off on having high powered weapons, period. This single issue/position blinds them to any and all other concerns. There may be a tiny segment, as with any sick and disturbed subculture, that would be insane enough to become a mass killer, but the vast majority will not. Rather, they are enablers, and they don' give a shXt if they are because of the single issue that drives them. Capche?
Needless to say people with a pathological, single-minded fascination with firearms and ammunition scare the Hell out of me. Anyone who believes that personal firepower resolves all issues has a problem.
I'd be scared to have a firearm and ammo in my residence. If the crook gets it he can turn it against me, which is hardly my idea of security. [/color]
Quote: Taking political and legal steps to remove the access to high-powered military grade access will NOT result in your so-called spiral of violence.; it will actually reduce the potential. One problem I have with you is your implying that limiting access tot these weapons will lead to a shXtstorm and therefore we should just resign ourselves to the status quo that provides unlimited civilian access to military weapon platforms regardless of the mass shootings that will come our way.
Less of a firearm culture and fewer firearms means less gun violence. Does anyone really need an arsenal?
Quote:The bigger problem I have, however, is your assumption that the real road to true resolution is to change each other's minds and come to some rational compromise. That's not how 4T's resolve; they resolve because one side wins and the other side loses - that doesn't necessarily always require the scale of violence of a WW2. But more importantly, lots of issues, whether or not part-and-parcel of a 4T, do NOT get resolved by compromise but by clear wins and loses. Why do you insist that gun restrictions are going to either have to be resolved by 100% consensus or by violent revolution? That sure seems like it would come from someone very comfortable with the status quo.[/quote]
The decisions will have to be made by people who have no use for single weapons capable of mass murder or a number of weapons suited to mass murder due to their number alone.
There's big money in firearms -- but especially when the customers have multiple arms and huge stocks of ammo. It's almost as with alcohol: the booze business would be unprofitable without the alcoholics.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.