Must see SCOTUS cases.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

A gun is an unnecessary want, not a need.

Well.... if you're trying to re-enact/demonstrate something like the battle of Waterloo a 'Gun' is just kind of part of the furniture. Much like bringing along a cannon.

Cheers.

[onlinebiker]

A gun is an unnecessary want, not a need.

Right up to the point that you are trying to fend off an armed attacker.
About then your thinking on the subject is likely to change.

[Foxaèr]

Incorrect.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't that what hideously militarized police are for, allegedly? "Dreams of starting a firefight" tells us quite a bit about their desire, but nothing about their needs. I think they need counseling, but hey, if they want a gun instead....why not. Tell em you need it as a paperweight.

[onlinebiker]

Incorrect.

So if a gun isn' t your plan - what is?


Gonna bleed all over the attacker?


Saying " It won' t happen to ME" is also a poor arguement against seatbelt use.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cant recall the last time someone accidentally strangled their spouse fumbling with the car keys in the middle of the night..with a seatbelt. You know my position. That arguments like these are self inflicted wounds for anyone interested in preserving our rights. Bringing up the self defense argument...which is not a requirement of a right, introduces the reality of that situation - and it's not a good look. Gun ownership is security theater, and a particularly dangerous form of it, to ones self and everyone around one's fearful self. People in fear for their lives can be expected to be the least responsible of all gun owners. The last people we want running around with a pistol jammed up their asshole in the kroger... to hide it from the bad hombres prowling the organic food aisle.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All sorts of stuff coming up.

I'm betting that they will go against NY and find favorably for the NRA.

Best I can figure it - what it will do is simply remove the need for CCW applicant to " show need".

The applicant will still have to meet all other legal criteria. Felons and whackadoodle will not have the legal right to carry a gun.

But if you apply and meet criteria - they have to issue the permit.

Sounds good to me. Why should only the rich and powerful be allowed to carry? - as is now the case.

What kind of ‘need’ would applicants be required to show? I mean, it seems like a silly requirement, because no one really needs a gun.

Also, I didn’t realize that you were one of the ‘rich and powerful’. Well done!

Boru

No one needs a gun. No one needs car insurance. No one needs bottled water....

Except when there are emergencies, accidents, and breakdowns in civil order. Maybe you live in a protected world where those things never happen or perhaps you rely entirely on outside authorities to protect you but what gives you the right to decide what other people need to manage risk.

[onlinebiker]

You don' t like me carrying a gun and I don' t like hearing you talk.

So I guess we' re even.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if the united states was suddenly occupied by a foreign power? It would be my duty to resist and I can't do that without an apc, depleted uranium rounds, a few wire guided missiles, and a tactical nuke.

Who is the us government to decide what I need to manage my risk?

---

You don' t like me carrying a gun and I don' t like hearing you talk.

So I guess we' re even.

I can't imagine you hurting anyone with it out there at your rural junkyard...but, if the solution to the self defense problem is moar guns..then what we need to do is get more pistols into more hands in the inner city, amiright?

[Foxaèr]

If you need to argue for gun needs, there's a one-hundred percent chance you don't need a gun.