The New York Times asked the Democratic Presidential Candidates this question… " In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?" On the linked page there is a mashup video of their answers. Some of their answers are not surprising at all, others were. What really stood out to me was the accepted premise by most of the candidates that there could be an “ideal” world. I carry and live the life I live, because I accept that the world isn’t ideal. What are your thoughts?
If the ideal world existed nobody would need any sort of protection whatsoever. That’s entirely fantasyland.
The world will never be ideal, there’s always going to be someone that tries to take advantage of someone they perceive as weak. It’s been going on since the dawn of time. With that said, I’ll keep my handguns. Even if all the law abiding citizens would give up their guns, the criminals would not give up theirs. Then nobody would be able to protect themselves.
Be sure to check out their responses - you might be surprised by some of them!
Heard a lot of double talk in those answers.
The interesting part was the I’m not against gun ownership I’m against gun violence.
That seems to be how many ignorant people think. That if you are for gun ownership then you are for gun violence.
As much as I cannot stand Corey Booker I’ll give him a little respect he is the only one taking a firm stance on the issue. I couldn’t disagree with his stance more, however everyone knows where he stands.
We do NOT live in a ideal world, so this question is just a form of mental masterbation.
Painful as it was I watched it in it’s entirety.
It’s obviously a planted softball question that requires only ambiguous answers in which the candidates can talk out of both sides of their heads claiming on the one hand to be “Pro 2nd Amendment” while still touting legislation that would effectively eliminate lawful carry.
“not an unlimited right”, “sporting purposes”, “police should have handguns”, and on and on.
These are people that enjoy a lifetime of armed security provided at taxpayer expense, live in access controlled walled compounds and gated communities and get around in armored limos driven by armed security officers.
Don’t kid yourselves as we’ll see as the campaigns progress the most aggressive anti gun rights platform since the 70’s when their predecessors gave their all in an attempt to completely outlaw civilian possession of handguns.
Yes, if only for the sport. But alas…
In a utopia existed it would collapse internally. This brings to mind a show on some years ago about some utopian society and eventually they all collapsed from my recollection. Fast forward now if utopia existed we would not need guns, medicine, doctors, ambulances, hospitals, government, government services, Funeral Homes, band aids, auto body shops, on and on and on. I don’t trust any Democrat politicians, they have been trying to get our gun rights away since the end of the Civil War about 1865.
If Trump buys Greenland, it would be a good place for all the anti-gun nuts to colonize their utopia😁
Complete and utterly stupid question but I’ll play along for fun. Yes I would still need them because in an ideal world I could shoot competitions all day everyday:grin:
If an ideal world exisred, handguns would never have been invented. There would also be no need of government or laws or politicians or law enforcement. Even the concepts for these things would never have arisen.
Ridiculous question intended to allow them to talk without saying anything. Like they need more excuses for that.
Well, in an ideal world, my hubby would exist, and hes been something of a weapons prodigy since he was a kid, so I think they’d still exist. If they didn’t, he’d invent them. But there wouldn’t be any bad guys we’d need to stop with them, so we’d do all our shooting for fun.
No ideal world though, so it’s a good thing guns are a multipurpose tool.
In an ideal world, I might not exist. Deeply flawed, but mostly in ways that are dangerous only to myself. Mostly.