Freemoronian Logic

It's nice to know that Freeman disapproves of legally owning a gun that could theoretically be used to break the law. Does he likewise disapprove of every other lawful instrument that has potentially illegal uses? Better round up all of those cars that can go over 75 MPH. And baseball bats, of course, since we recently had someone beaten to death with one of these Louisville Slugger death machines. Then ban booze, smokes, and "men's magazines" (potential possession by minors). While we're at it, I have heard rumors that there are some individuals who actually wager on the outcome of sporting events in jurisdictions where gambling is illegal! We must take immediate action to ban all such events, lest some poor soul destroy his family and career through illegal gambling. Thank goodness we have self-appointed protectors of the weak and stupid to save us from ourselves. Heaven forbid that we should have to make (and be responsible for) our own choices.

You sir, fail in your criticism of Reggie’s reply.  True he could have added the materials of metal piping, nails, bee-bees, marbles, and cleaning supplies to his list; doing so only to enhance the shock value of destruction possible with common elements… or better yet he could have even mentioned airplanes.  But, I think the point was not to name every possible item than can be used to cause harm.  Rather, it is intended to point out that it is the fault of the criminal involved when others are harmed.

<o:p>  </o:p>

You could be killed by a drunk driver on your way home to work, would you feel better for your family that your untimely death was not caused by gun violence.  Life is a short, do the best you can with the time you have.  You’ll probably never come across someone blindly looking to kill, but if you do, hope that someone else is there with a gun ready to shot them dead before that criminal exacts some Louisville Slugger vengeance on you.<o:p> </o:p>

You, illiterate tool, wrote:Freeman never says that guns should be banned.

If you had even a rudimentary grasp of English, you would have noticed that Freeman wrote: You call me an anti-gun media weenie. I see that and raise you Columbine (13 dead, 23 wounded), the University of Texas massacre (14 dead, 31 wounded), Virginia Tech (32 dead), Northern Illinois (five dead, 18 wounded), the Red Lake High School massacre (seven dead) and the Jonesboro school massacre (five dead, nine wounded).

 That is an appeal for a gun ban, plain and simple. If you can't see that, you're even dumber than you sound. And that's saying something.

"Just to name a few school shootings of innocent women and kids.

But I digress.

This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or someone trying to pry the gun from your cold, dead hands. So cease with the phony, false choices.

Keep your firearms. I target shoot. I'm ex-Army (basic training at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma where I was the worst shooter of an M-16 probably in that base's history)."

The fact that you pick and choose which part of the article you pay attention to justifies me calling you a reactionary. His argument is not at all that you should not be allowed to have a firearm, he admits that he target shoots. The point is whether a gun actually makes famous athletes safer. He argues that it doesn't. Hell, a machete (a weapon used to murder myriads of Rwandans not too long ago) could not keep Sean Taylor safe.

In the end it's not a question of rights, or a question of safety, but a question of whether owning a gun causes problems in and of itself. For Harrison, if he was not the shooter, it did. For Steve McNair, it did a couple years ago when he got pulled over on suspicion of DUI and they found a concealed handgun in his vehicle. Freeman just makes the argument that carrying a gun gives the illusion of safety while putting yourself at legal risk.

Now to continue with the ad hominem attacks: you should read the whole article before making posts because you are the one that sounds stupid, not me.

Imagine that , a bar owner with a firearm. I bet Paul Pierce or Sean Taylor wish they had one of those Belgian firearms when their mishaps occurred.

One of the posts mentions that Paul Pierce and Sean Taylor probably wish they had a gun when they were attacked. I do not remember the specifics of Pierce's stabbing, but I do know that Sean Taylor was shot through his bedroom door. He never even saw the shooter's face. Yeah, a gun really would have hepled him there. This proves Freeman's argument--guns do not make a person safe inherently.

Please, read and think before you post and call me an idiot.

The argument connecting gun ownership to Columbine or all the other massacres is a weak one. The truth is every single one of those massacres involved kids who were on medication (Prozac and other medications that were supposedly designed to help them out.) Guns are definitely something that can kill people, but the route of the problem isn't the guns--its the society that drugs its children like we do or a society that produces absent parents who don't have a clue of what is going on in their childrens lives. I have two kids and have been "encouraged" to put one of medication--which thankfully I didn't because she is doing great without it.

I believe it is a good thing that people have the right to own a fire arm. It gives us the opportunity to protect ourselves from some of the scum bags that the police sure as hell arn't going to be around to arrest. Marvin Harrison, due to his fame and wealth, is a natural target for kidnappers and criminals so if he feels better able to protect himself and his family I think he should be allowed to have his gun and not come under scrutiny by guys like this writer. Harrison has a pretty clean record and has been a role model on and off the feild, I see no reason that his reputation is being sullied because he owns a gun.

PhillyWest, you must be a genius. You have just perfectly and succinctly articulated the basic moderate point of view ascribed to by the silent majority of Americans. Pro-gun advocates and gun control advocates are both extremist points of view with self-serving and singular objectives. Both sides can be equally discounted.

However, to put the impetus back on the owner of the gun as to whether the risk is worth any perceived reward is a well conceived argument. I don't want to take your guns away from you; I just want you to think about what you are risking by carrying it, legally concealing it or brandishing it to emphasize your point of an argument.

Discharging a firearm within a legal jurisdiction (town or city) is a criminal offense whether the projectile strikes an individual or nothing at all. In Virginia, shooting within an occupied dwelling constitutes another offense. Frankly, some firearms offenses in Virginia carry mandatory minimum sentences up to 5 years in prison. And I think we all know how easy it is to convict someone who in possession of a firearm even if the weapon was not illegally used (self-defense).

As the cliche states, "Dead men tell no tales." Those tales untold include reasons for self-defense. The dead person may have used every provocation and intimidation technique ever devised, but unless they physically harmed you first, the court sees the dead person as the victim.

Reggie, I had the same reaction when I got the the columbine/VT part of his article.  I very nearly created this same thread.

However I urge you to go back and reread the entire article.  Freeman's point is about responsable gun ownership.  He is suggesting that many NFL players might have guns for the wrong reasons.  That is a very valid point.

The article is poorly written in the sense that he includes too many facts that seem to suggest that he is for stricter gun controll (it gets in the way of what he is really trying to say).  However that is not what he is suggesting at all.

I am sure we can all agree with the core of Freeman's message: that NFL players need to be more responsable with their gun ownership, and may need to re-evaluate why they carry guns.