BHPshooter
Member
My sister came home from school today with one of those cable-style gun locks. She said they had a lecture about guns in the home and gave everyone a gun lock.
Many will ask, "What's the harm?"
What's the harm? What's the harm? There are 2 problems that I've got with this:
1) This is tax-funded, meaning you and I are shelling out our hard-earned overtime to give a gun lock to everyone, regardless of whether they need it or will use it. This gives the image that we as gunowners, as a whole, are unsafe, and there NEEDS to be a federally-funded program to "save the children." Additionally, schools have a nasty habit of poking their noses where they don't belong when it comes to talking about guns.
2) This is part of the anti's "bigger picture," believe you me. In the booklet (which shows sponsorship by the NSSF ), it lists oodles of "necessities" when locking up guns, like having both guns and ammo locked up, in separate parts of the house...
...See if you can follow me here: It is already popularly believed that you MUST lock up guns and ammunition separately.
If you DO, then a gun is essentially useless as a defensive tool, as it takes lots of time that you don't have to gain access to both guns and ammunition... And if it is useless, you don't need it.
If you DON'T lock up guns and ammo separately, then you are negligent, and shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Is this another well thought out gameplan of the antis? I think so.
I'd like to hear what you think about it.
Wes
Many will ask, "What's the harm?"
What's the harm? What's the harm? There are 2 problems that I've got with this:
1) This is tax-funded, meaning you and I are shelling out our hard-earned overtime to give a gun lock to everyone, regardless of whether they need it or will use it. This gives the image that we as gunowners, as a whole, are unsafe, and there NEEDS to be a federally-funded program to "save the children." Additionally, schools have a nasty habit of poking their noses where they don't belong when it comes to talking about guns.
2) This is part of the anti's "bigger picture," believe you me. In the booklet (which shows sponsorship by the NSSF ), it lists oodles of "necessities" when locking up guns, like having both guns and ammo locked up, in separate parts of the house...
...See if you can follow me here: It is already popularly believed that you MUST lock up guns and ammunition separately.
If you DO, then a gun is essentially useless as a defensive tool, as it takes lots of time that you don't have to gain access to both guns and ammunition... And if it is useless, you don't need it.
If you DON'T lock up guns and ammo separately, then you are negligent, and shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Is this another well thought out gameplan of the antis? I think so.
I'd like to hear what you think about it.
Wes