What is that?

Also, remember I was only clarifying a point which someone had trouble understanding.

So what about those people in society who aren't strong naturally, such as the old and infirm, the handicapped or simply those who are frail for any other reason? Do they not deserve freedom also? Doesn't society owe them the same priviledges as other more able bodied citizens?

Again, I suggest that one should not have to be strong to be free.

not strong, just well-armed.........

Machine guns? They have proven it to be a problem, Bonnie & Clyde, 1932 to 1934, and they have been pushing that example ever since.:rolleyes:

MaggieL I guess my point was completely missed. Then again you are so sure of what you think that there is no longer any discussion of other opinions. Just so I'm not accused of ignoring your points I'll respond.

1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
2) I planned on taking my son out to a local club for firearms safety training, but decided against it for a number of reasons.
3) I meant accidents, as in a child or other person unfamiliar with firearms getting their hands on one. Like one of my children or their friends, nieces, nephews, neighbors - whomever. Nothing more "sinister" no need to be paranoid.
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.

PMRC aka "The Mothers of Prevention."

(warning, small, but naughy bits exposed, picture of Rage Against the Machine toward the bottom of the page)

Ouch! Great band though, one of my top five.

Thanks wolf. Interesting little group there although definitely far from my cup of tea.

Perhaps rkz has been taking lessons on how to be insulting from some of his compatriots.

And uncessesary laws shouldn't be designed at all, they should be forgotten.

Joe Average may be Christian, shall we forbid all other religions? Or only shall we only require that someone show a "realistic purpose" to their religion, and prove that they're not going to go "a bit overboard"?
Why?
I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that?

"I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.

No, that's the first time you suggested that. Previously you said:

Not at all the same thing.

Sounds like a compelling argument for armed citizens. By disarming the old, the infirm, the handicapped and the frail, you place them at the mercy of the physically strong.

The best way to avoid accidents is to teach firearms safety.

We used to consider it essential to teach a child to look both ways when crossing the street. Having nearly macked any number of children in parking lots while their clueless parents chat away on cellphones, I doubt that this is the case any longer. But it still makes sense to teach these very basic skills.

Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.

And I chose not to take my son hunting because his grades were not what we discussed for him to EARN the right to do things like that.

I *read* what was written, and it was unclear; that's not my fault. "Because accidents do happen" does not explain your use of quote marks, which is what I was asking about. Were the quote marks an error?

I agree. Somehow yesman's gone from "firearms training" to "hunting"...I suppose he'll say if the son doesn't go hunting the training is superfluous.