The Glade 4.0

They are also a great deterrent (both in existence and in personal possession) for the man who wants to kill you or rob you with a kitchen knife. Societally I think we are better with them than without, even if you could wave a magic wand and make all the guns disappear. Of course you can't, so outlawing them means as the old saying goes "only outlaws have guns"

You're falling into the liberal trap: The idea that if the right people had enough power, they could prevent all the pain and suffering in the world. 5000+ years of history disproves that.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

In WI you can transport firearms as long as they are unloaded and in a carrying case.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

But not if you're not a resident of the state of Wisconsin, last time I checked.

_________________

There is no distinction between a resident and non-resident of which I'm aware.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

There is a big difference between banning guns and harassing people who walk in public with them.

I've never met a liberal who has thought this. And I know a lot of liberals...

Don't take him that literally, Aizle. Recognize the statement for intentional hyperbole, and realize that what Rorinthas refers to is the primary identifying mark of a modern "liberal" -- the concept that the right people with power can make this world a better place. But they can't make the world a better place, because there are no "right people" to have power over others. "Use government to solve problems"...what an oxymoronic idea, when government is usually the source of most of society's problems. Power in the hands of an organizational authority is always a problem. In a very few cases it is a necesary problem that is better than the alternative, but still a problem. Society as a whole is usually better off when the individual's rights are given priority, and the intervention of some "authority" is minimized.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

How about folks actually speak what they really mean, instead of hyperbole? Is that so much to ask?

Meh. It's second nature. I proofread my reply to you before I posted it and decided to replace several "Always" comments with "usually". We do it because it's easier to argue black and white, right and wrong, yes or no, than to deal in shades of gray. It's easy to categorize any appearance of the promotion of a "nanny state" with "the idea that if the right people had enough power, they could prevent all the pain and suffering in the world." Doesn't matter that it's exaggeration (nobody sensible believes that "all the pain and suffering in the world" can be prevented by any means)...the concept is the same.

Government cannot prevent pain and suffering, period. "The right people" with "the right powers" (and those right powers are damn well limited) can minimize some of the damage primarily by protecting individual rights, but any attempt by authority to correct the general unfairness of life mostly results in more pain and suffering.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Also because all liberals are currently the problem. To be sure, this is a radical departure from the previous idea that all conservatives were the problem. This paradigm shift happened when liberals gained control of both Congress and the Presidency.

Ask yourself if that's a coincidence.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I think that current gun legislation is about right. Nothing should be drastically changed in my opinion (yet).

Also the government by itself can't fix the rest of society. There is no law that can solve every problem, especially those involving people's behaviors.

Essentially "Liberalism" is the idea that government is answer to problems and "Conservatism" is that leaving people alone is the answer to our problems. I'm a center right person myself. I'll happily point out perceived flaws in those who are too conservative/libertarian. I do believe you can have too little government.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The world is a very complicated place and everything should have different amounts of government intervention or oversight. However in general, the less the better.

I think it's great how Massachusetts (where I live) has strong anti-gun legislation. I find it somewhat barbaric for people to be walking around with unlicensed firearms like it's the Wild West, and hope that eventually people can calm down enough to adopt stronger anti-gun laws. I don't think we should impose this on states if they don't want it, though.

In that case I misunderstood what you said before. However the person in question had a license for his firearm.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Sure is easier than taking responsibility one's self though isn't it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Is this Monte in disguise- Seriously these arguments have been hashed through before.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

It's Lex, actually.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █