Ok well then let me speak for those who are anti-gun. They're anti-gun in THIS WORLD. This world right now that we live in. And they have that opinion for whatever reason they see fit.

Why does that make them a hypocrite for enjoying a show about a fictional occurrence?

 

Not many people other than fanatics and trolls want to grab your guns. You're like a paranoid schizophrenic who just needs a straw man to fight with.

And I see you are still perpetuating the dumbest concept on the thread. Yeah, those damn hypocrites who think that viruses are bad, yet they watch a show about viral induced zombies. They piss me off.

 

Are you against B.O.? If so you're a hypocrite for watching TWD, because I guarantee everyone on the show had it for like 20 episodes straight.

 

I hate world hunger, and they were so hungry in 5-10 that they had to resort to eating worms and feral dogs. Ugh, I'm such a hypocrite :/.

 

Dude, be careful. There are Americans arguing about guns in here.

 

I'm super anti-BO, which is why up until he hit puberty, Carl was my favorite character.

 

Nah. Gimple ruined Carl's character in season five. It's ****ing bullshit that they killed Beth off. To be honest, Eugene is the only reason I watch anymore.

 

No of course it would not.

But if you were watching a show where rape was a central theme to the show with multiple rapes per episode and the show was obviously portraying rape as positive thing and you're against rape, then yes, we are right back to exactly the issue being discussed with being anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment, against the rights of gun ownership, and watch a TV show week after week that glorifies guns. You're supporting a media vehicle whether you realize it or not and obviously most don't that through your watching of it you allow it to sell advertising and allow it to continue to air the very message you are so against, which is guns are a positive thing when used by people for the right reasons. No anti-2nd amendment person makes this distinction, all guns are bad, they are the root of the problem and only banning them from private citizens no matter how much good they can do matters.

 

Except they're not the ones acting like little boys.
I'm sure there are people fascinated by the different guns, which is fine, but I'm sure there are just as many if not more who don't pay any attention or think to take notice of things like that.

I don't think I've ever seen a gun-related thread on a forum end well.

 

I think you're overrreaching a bit here. Look at cities like NYC, Chicago, etc., and there are plenty of politicians who want to grab your guns, and people that obviously support them, or it wouldn't be a politically viable action. Or another way to look at it would be is that if no one was trying to take it away as a right, there wouldn't be an issue. For example, how many times in the last few years has quartering soldiers in your home been an issue? None? Then it's probably not a problem. Free speech questions? Gun rights questions? Religious liberty questions? Yep, still present, so still contested issues.

 

By your definition of hypocrisy, EVERYONE is a hypocrite. No one, anywhere, sees every issue that they have an opinion of and follows it in every facet of their lives. That would be near impossible. And where is the limit? If you are pro environment, every aspect of your life must be entirely devoted to that cause, lest you become a hypocrite. If you are pro gun, to avoid hypocrisy as you defined, you would have to devote your very existence to gun rights. Following your definition, if you have formed an opinion on something, and have then spent even 5 minutes watching a sitcom, you have become a hypocrite. You could have spent those 5 minutes fighting for your cause instead.

If you've watched any show or movie, or played a video game, that didn't paint guns in their best light, and then didn't immediately stop playing/watching, then you are a hypocrite too, following that logic. It just doesn't make sense. For the record, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. Just understand that, barring the most extreme individuals, people form opinions on issues without devoting their lives to the following of that issue (such as refusing to watch Walking Dead because someone saved themselves from a zombie using a gun).

Hmm, I also wanted to comment that I believe the % of Americans who own at least one gun has gone down, but the number of guns owned per capita has gone up. So, less people are owning more guns. I could be wrong, but I believe that explains the rising number of gun sales.

 

That's *amazing*! I can remember shooting in the seventh grade. If you ever get the urge to go shooting, start with something like a .22 that doesn't have kick to it. Some jerk will always try and give a woman the biggest caliber gun they have to watch their reaction - and thereby turn off another person to shooting for life.

It IS fun though, and being able to put a shot exactly where you want it to go is very satisfying. Plus, it's definitely an area where men and women compete on equal footing (at least with small calibers).

 

Conservatives often love drumming up the 'gun-grabbing' issue. Why? Because many conservatives, just like some politicians on all sides, thrive off of fear mongering and scare tactics. Are there rogue politicians out there who would want to have all guns taken away? Sure. Are there fanatics who support them? Sure. Is it still mostly a non-issue? Yep.

 

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

 

I know, you made it so clear with your TWD examples. I think driving around using 18 month old siphoned gas is bad for my car, so I feel so much guilt over my hypocrisy, being a TWD fan.

 

It's a right to bear "arms". My understanding is this is a handheld weapon, such as a gun or sword, etc., even in the 1700's they had bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, and the second amendment does NOT say you can carry those. Anyone who thinks you have the right to carry a nuke is mistaken.

 

They did have red-glare rockets and air-bursting bombs.

And this is the problem that I have with the self-styled pro-second amendment crowd. They never state where the line should be. What about hand grenades or flamethrowers? Does a person have the right to walk into a Starbucks with an Uzi?



Fwiw, I realized that I have been mistakenly referring to the DC v Heller case as Casey v Heller. Casey v Planned Parenthood is a signature abortion case. Mea culpa.

 

Oh, yeah, I just lurrrvve these debates. I posted something here because someone from another country asked a question about the gun debate here in America. I figured I was in the best position to provide a middle-ground perspective.

That said, on Thursday I am going to be visiting Gettysburg National Military Park again. Only this time with a companion who is a liberal Democrat. I have advised her to expect to hear some vocal conversations among southerners about how the war was about economics, states rights, northern aggression, etc, etc--anything but slavery. I have asked her not to take the bait and get us dragged into an unproductive debate.