Ann Coulter's good question on Gun Control: what would you add to her list?

Today's Ann Coulter points out that politicians are asking us why we even need guns. She responds asking when else do we find ourselves having to justify a right to a politician? Some examples she gives:

www.anncoulter.com

"I don't know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.

I don't know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can't we shut down the gossip rags?

I don't know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.

I don't know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.

I don't know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they're constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost -- all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions. "

I think she has a point. I'd add, "I don't know why anyone needs a lawyer. Shouldn't even a simple man be able to defend himself from simple charges"?

What can you add to the list?

 

Theatrics plays well for 5 second video and audio bites for both sides. Activist need it.

 

I got one:

"I don't know why anybody needs a stupid, pathetic blonde (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to tell them how to think."

 

Mhmm. I likewise think anyone who disagrees with me is stupid

 

I don't know why a society needs Anne Coulter

 

Ann herself might be amused by this. Do you now license government to "take care of her"? I hope not.

 

she will self destruct

 

we should bring back dueling, that'll take care of the need for lawyers, and the objection to gun control.

 

Non-gun people will say it is not PC because not everyone is equal in that regard. Some people will be better and that might hurt some peoples self-esteem.

 

Ain't false analogies fun, though. I'll pretend this has anything to do with gun control if you will pretend that guns really don't kill people, at least more efficiently than other methods available to the average citizen.

 

Good quote again from Ann on this. She appears to agree with you, that guns are effective at killing: "Liberals' advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times' advice is: Get a protective order. The NRA's advice is: Blow the dirtbag's head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack. " www.anncoulter.com

 

Here's a question: What exactly is securing our right to vote in the first place? Is it the government?
If we can trust the government to protect our right to vote, why not trust the government to protect our best interests too? Why even have any elections?
You see, the right to vote is very much intertwined with the right to the means of force. (not the legal right to use force, which is different)

I would make the argument that the world is very much interconnected, and that the individual gun rights in some influential countries indirectly help secure the freedoms in other countries. There have been countless times where a tyrannical government has attempted to seize power in some other part of the world and NATO, or sometimes the UN, has intervened. The freedom in one country helps secure the freedom in the rest of the world. I very much believe that if real democracy was ever lost in the USA, there would be a gradual loss of freedom in the rest of the world. China has made no secret about its disdain for personal gun ownership in the USA.

I do not think it is a good thing for people to be forced into complete reliance on the government for one's livlihood or protection. Taking away guns would make communities defenseless and vulnerable.

Localized independence offers a buffer against potential political instabilities and excessive control from higher up. If the average person can be trusted to vote, why then can they not be trusted with a gun? Surely their votes have the potential to do much more harm than their guns.

 

So, our choices are to be armed at all times, particularly on dates or with family when most rapes occur, or to find other means of coping. Ann, as is her practice, has thought for two seconds and given an answer absolutely worthy of the length of thought given. The lady? has never thought at length about anything but offers final opinions on everything.

 

Yup your first line is all we need to realize....our choices are to be armed at all times, good call. Now you are getting it. eh?

 

Absolutely not. I will not go armed to the family reunion, on a date, and I pity you the sense that you need to.

 

I pity those of you who don't have the tools, there is a name for people like you....victim. EH

 

No. Sane.

 

no victim

 

This from someone that needs the likes of Barrack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to tell him/her how to think.

 

No. Sane. Want to go around in endless circles. If you need to go to a family reunion armed, I'm very sorry for you. Poor, damaged person. Date : are you sure that is the hard thing you want her to feel. My sympathy to you, poor damaged creature.

 

If everyone is equal, then why do we need Affirmative Action to make some more equal then others?

If there is a separation of Church and State, then why does the Government regulate a religious ordnance like marriage?

Why is an administration that has been caught smuggling guns to Mexico so interested in removing legally owned firearms here in the US?

In Obama-speak, does "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." actually mean we will do nothing and see that no justice is done.

 

No victim, want to go around in endless circles. If you need to go around unarmed allowing yourself to be a victim no matter where you go I feel very very sorry for you., Poor victimized person. Date : are you sure you don't want me to have the tools to protect you from the animals or that you don't want to be responsible enough to protect yourself? My sympathies to those who choose to rely on others to defend them....those who believe the gubberment will save the day

 

I think what he is saying is that you appear to have thought the matter through for 2 seconds yourself. I could be wrong, but you seem to be writing that people have two options: be armed at all times or never, leaving potential rape and battery victims with options such as, call the police. I think it proper but people need to understand the following: the police have no legal obligation to protect you. You can call them, scream, "a murderer is in my house" and they must have (or the government could be sued for every crime they don't stop) the right to say, "we really don't feel like coming to your neighborhood tonight." If everyone really understood this, I wonder what percent of the people in the USA would still support gun control.

 

trains, planes, and automobiles are very efficient killing devices. So are cell phones and Big Gulps. Bicycles are a hazzard to foot traffic, oh, and skate boards.
Hell, life is a killer, probably the most efficient of them all.
Swords, bowie knives, slingshots, and air guns are potentially dangerous.
Shop tools, stairs, broken elevators, showers bathtubs.............the list of things that will do a better job than a gun?
Government
unchecked LEO
drones
falling bricks
fire
......................... I don't live my life worrying about death. We all have the same ticket. No one gets out alive.
I wonder, has a firearm ever intruded upon your life? Has someone shot you? Has someone threatened you with a firearm?

 

does the word martyr ever come to mind?