Court says individuals have right to own guns

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The debate itself is often framed under "gun control" instead of "gun rights." The main point is that pro and anti gun rights for most people doesn't mean that they want 100% on either side of the coin.

Yet I understand the fear, on both sides, of what some infringement (or a decision rejecting such infringement) means as precedent. I think a lot of people have such fear, and thus while they may not personally object to reasonable restrictions (or lack thereof) they get uncomfortable traveling down that path. As a result, a lot of people I've encountered won't move much on this issue, despite their sincere opinion that some alteration would be reasonable.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yet I understand the fear, on both sides, of what some infringement (or a decision rejecting such infringement) means as precedent. I think a lot of people have such fear, and thus while they may not personally object to reasonable restrictions (or lack thereof) they get uncomfortable traveling down that path. As a result, a lot of people I've encountered won't move much on this issue, despite their sincere opinion that some alteration would be reasonable.

Fear is a powerful thing and it shouldn't be used to fuel the gun access discussion. But it will be and that's why I stay away from such discussions unless people are able to more objectively and realistically discuss the issue.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Fear is a powerful thing and it shouldn't be used to fuel the gun access discussion. But it will be and that's why I stay away from such discussions unless people are able to more objectively and realistically discuss the issue.

Fear is often legitimate, and I thus think it must play a significant role in many discussions of current political or legal issues.

I think people on here have displayed that this is a topic where many can and do discuss rationally and realistically, but perhaps you've reason to feel otherwise.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fear is often legitimate...

It usually is not.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

...but perhaps you've reason to feel otherwise

Definitely.

In this thread, starting with nate's rant about criminals looting and smuggling drugs.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It usually is not.



Definitely.

In this thread, starting with nate's rant about criminals looting and smuggling drugs.

I think it often is. Fears often don't come true in such matters, but I don't think that makes them illegitimate. When it comes to government regulation, I think there are numerous outcomes which would warrant such apprehension.

Perhaps your named exception aside, I think the discourse has been pretty rational and well-mannered.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fears often don't come true in such matters, but I don't think that makes them illegitimate.

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Perhaps your named exception aside, I think the discourse has been pretty rational and well-mannered.

I don't care about the well-mannered part. Rational, perhaps, but that's because what can irrationally and/or emotionally be said about guns has been said in other threads.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Not to beat a dead horse, but could your provide an example?

From my perspective, when we're talking about fear, I'm talking about people who fear the government knocking on doors and taking away guns when people need them the most. That may seem irrational to some, but I suspect some citizens of NOLA feel differently.