Answers for those who think that "gun control" is the best for America
72Those who favor gun control fall into two basic groups. The hard core who's true goal is "people control" and those who are just ignorant on the subject and only know what they hear in the media.
The first group we can do nothing about. No amount of persuasion is going to change their minds because they simply don't care what we say. The other group though... we can change their minds if we have the ability to honestly and truly answer the questions that they have.
Here are a number of references that I use on almost a daily basis. I think you'll find something that works for you also.
A information gold mine... this site alone has answers for many of the charges made against gun owners...
Wall Street Journal article showing that gun owners are in the upper demographics of income and education
You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater despite what those who want to limit your rights continually state. And here also.
European gun laws are not necessarily stricter than ours (or even as restrictive). They are just different.
There are no good reasons for people to hunt today
A standard charge against gun owners is that we all could just "snap" at anytime and go on a killing spree. This answers that...
...and here also...
Are the media really biased against gun owners?
Trigger locks/mandatory storage laws are a good idea, And here also.
Is Europe really free from mass murderers?
Cops are against concealed carry laws
Doctors know best about advice on owning guns.
...and here
...and here also
It only takes a few minutes of debating the anti-freedom people until someone brings a the idea that gun owners just need them as a substitute for male genitalia. This pretty much destroys that. In addition to that, it is also a gold mine of information on a number of subjects.
Lot's of anti-gun people like to claim that criminals will somehow give them a "free pass" in life...
How many times have you heard "the world would be a better place without any guns".
Why are some males so anti-gun?
The favorite all time lie of the anti-freedom crowd... a gun in the home is more likely to kill you than a badguy.
...and here also...
Do guns in the hand of criminals really cost society 100 Billion dollars a year?
Pacifism is a better, more moral way to live...
Is the American public really against gun ownership?
Questions we can ask our pro-gun-control friends...
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
A powerful answer to any who think that banning guns will cause the end of suicide...
It's very common to hear, usually from someone who has no clue as to what end of a gun a bullet come out from, that "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal."
What will be the true cost if the gun banners get their way?
Are other countries with strong gun control really safer than America?
They want to play on the emotions... okay... we can play that very same game...
Firearms are not for women...
The inevitable "I'll be damned" moment in the concealed weapons debate by those who originally opposed it...
No one needs/should have an "assualt weapon"
The UN isn't really planning on disarming the US are they?
Kleck's work has been discredited... no one believes it.
Answers to the Most Common Arguments Against Concealed Carry on College Campuses
(1) Old people can't use guns and (2) You can't draw to a drawn gun
Thousands of documented, true stories from the media about ordinary people who used a gun to defend themselves.
And finally... the ultimate resource for answers to those who would attempt to take away our 2nd Amendment rights in any shape or form
You're invited to browse around and see if any other of my hubs interest you. I think you might find something you'll like.
If you like to BBQ then you definately want to check out my various hubs with dozens and dozens of recipes.
All graphics courtesy of Oleg Volk and used with permission.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
That would be nice... thank you.
And I almost forget the very best one... for all those who say that "no one needs an "assualt weapon"
A good place to start would be to enforce the current laws which are supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental cases. Most people who support more effective gun control arent't against legitimate hunting and target weapons. However, the biggest undesirable effect of the NRA is to further the election of candidates who are far to the right on a variety of issues aside from gun control.
Isn't it grand that we live in a country wherea fourteen-year old can get his hands on a gun more easily than a pack of cigarettes?
Perhaps Ralph can explain all the Democrats who are backed by the NRA? And we notice that he leaves out "self defense" as a legtimate use of firearms. Why is that, we wonder?
"Isn't it grand that we live in a country wherea fourteen-year old can get his hands on a gun more easily than a pack of cigarettes? "
yeah... isn't it just terrible how criminals will be criminals. I think banning 14 year-od boys will solve much of our problems.
Self defense can be a legitimate use of a handgun if confined to people who actually need weapons for self defense. Too often people who keep weapons for self defense don't need them and too often they end up using them for suicide, shooting themselves or someone else accidentally, letting children get a hold of them or killing a member of their family in a fit of rage. Handguns are over-rated as a means of self defense. Accidents are too easy with handguns. (BTW I own a Model 12 Winchester and a Remington 22. I began hunting when I was 10 years old. And I fired Expert with the M-1 and .45 when I was in the Army. So, pleas don't accuse me of ignorance about guns. I live in a suburb of Detroit, and I'm tired of reading in the paper every other day about needless deaths due to guns.)
Right On! I'm a college educated, Small-business owner, husband, and veteran...I am the NRA :-)
Seriously, gun owners are not criminals, the vast majority are law abiding, responsible citizens. The more of us that own and carry guns, the more criminals will think twice about vicitimizing us.
Your first sentence aboug fun owners not being criminals is true, of most of them at any rate. The problem is with the ones who are criminals. The second has no basis in fact. (I am a veteran also.)
"Self defense can be a legitimate use of a handgun if confined to people who actually need weapons for self defense."
I believe it is called the Bill of Rights, not "The Bill of What Ralph Thinks People Need."
And, Ralph, I am not sure why you think you have the ability, or the power, or the right to determine what people "need." Especially MY family.
" Too often people who keep weapons for self defense don't need them and too often they end up using them for suicide, shooting themselves or someone else accidentally, letting children get a hold of them or killing a member of their family in a fit of rage."
Suicide, eh. And would you prefer that they jump of out a window? Would that make you feel better about them? Perhaps you can explain why Japan, with far fewer guns, has a much greater incidence of suicide. And then you can explain why people STILL commit suicide even if there is no gun in the home.Shooting themselves or someone else accidentally, eh. And you do know that the Clinton Dept. of Justice said there were about 1.5 MILLION defensive gun uses per year. And some studies have shown that to be about 2.5 MILLION.And there are about 1,000 gun accidents a year. With about 360,000,000 guns in American homes that means that 359,990,000 were NOT involved in any accident last year. Looks like a pretty safe record to me.
About 40 children a year die from accidents with a gun. While it is a tragedy that no one would like to see it is still far and away less than the number of children who die in accidents from swimming pools, bikes, and even five gallon buckets.Fit of rage, eh? And would YOU kill someone in a fit of rage? No? Yes? If not… then why do you assume that others would? Are you just really thinking that you’re seeing "yourself" in how other people would act.5) The facts are right there in front of you, Ralph. Yes, bad people can use guns to do bad things. When you figure out a way to stop bad people from doing bad things please let us know. But until then, a gun is the best way to protect oneself from those bad people.
" Handguns are over-rated as a means of self defense. "
Well, folks, who are you going to believe. Some guy on the net… or the thousands of stories you can find right here concerning how people just like you and I saved themselves with a handgun.
http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.ht
"Accidents are too easy with handguns."
Hmmmm…. And YOU’RE a gun owner, eh. Tell us about all the accidents YOU have had with guns, Ralph. Or is it just ~other~ people that you think are having all these accidents.
" (BTW I own a Model 12 Winchester and a Remington 22. I began hunting when I was 10 years old. And I fired Expert with the M-1 and .45 when I was in the Army."
Thank you for your service but big deal with the guns. My WIFE fired expert with both in the military and she’s a GIRL.
" So, pleas don't accuse me of ignorance about guns. "
Knowledge of guns doesn’t confer wisdom.Knowledge of guns doesn’t confer the ability to reason Knowledge of guns doesn’t keep one from having really, really wrong opinionsKnowledge of guns doesn’t keep one from being ignorant on a whole range of subjects that surround guns."I live in a suburb of Detroit, and I'm tired of reading in the paper every other day about needless deaths due to guns.)"
Really. And these law abiding citizens of Detroit just go out and shoot one another willy nilly across the lawns every night? Or perhaps you’re really reading about the gangbangers who are CRIMINALS. Is that the case?
OIFVETERAN says: The more of us that own and carry guns, the more criminals will think twice about vicitimizing us.
Ralph responds: The second has no basis in fact.
Jack replies: Actually, Ralph, the vet has studies on his side that show just that.
Lott's work showed that law abiding citizens very clearly ~shifted~ crime. He is an economist and thinks first like an economist. "Where is the payoff greatest with the least risk" is one of the basic mantras of almost everyone, including criminals.More people carrying guns doesn't "reduce" crime so to speak, it shifts it. Less face-to-face strong armed robberiers, and more car breakins and other less risky endeavors. This makes it much more safe for citizens to walk the streets.Criminals are still going to be criminals regardless of who or how many are carrying. But how they do the crime is a different story.
Ralph... I am sure you're a great guy... but you're an "emoter." YOu really don't stop to reason things out... you just react in a highly emotional state to the idea of guns. That's why it is so easy (and somewhat fun) to tweak you so much. Those that read these notes are going to see that you really don't develope any time of logical argument... you just throw out statements that you can't possibly back up and are very easily refuted.
I don't mind because it gives me a chance to give great info to those reading who are sitting on the fence post... but you have to consider that you are doing more harm to the gun control side than you're helping it.
It's funny in a way... I post dozens of links showing the answers to al the inane lies that the gun controllers pull out of thin air... and here comes Ralph with those very lies... as if he was a rabbit that I pulled out of my hat just to impress people that the gun controllers really, really do exist.
:-)
Wow great HUB. I must admit I do not know where I stand on this. I think my only argument for gun control is to limit straw purchases somehow. Living in the notheast on the fringe of Philly, I see the amount of guns that are endig up on the street. I do not undertstand why anyone would need to buy a gun right away or to purchase many guns at one time. You stated that in the US 360,000,000 guns are owned. What is the gun per person ration?
banning 14 year old males..that was great!
You make a very strong case
As a side note, there is a city in Ca, not sure which one, that in responce to a huge jump in murders in a certain neighborhood has set up checkpoints. The ACLU and other groups are crying about human rights. It seems that liberal groups never want to address any other issue besides guns.
I suppose you would like to live under the rule of Al-Queda?
"I suppose you would like to live under the rule of Al-Queda?"
Perhaps if you directed that at a person we could comment on it intelligently.
his LandA Pain No One Can Bear to Live With Ángel Franco/The New York TimesNO LONGER A HOME The house at 201 North Hazeldell Avenue in Crandon, Wis., where Jordanne Murray, 18, was murdered last October along with five of her friends, will be demolished on June 21. “It’s like an infection,” one local resident said of the house. “Until you clean that infection, you’re not going to heal.” More Photos >
E-June 9, 2008CRANDON, Wis.
Skip to next paragraph This LandDan Barry takes readers behind news articles and into obscure and well-known corners of the United States. His column appears every Monday.
Dan Barry's Columnist Page » MultimediaSlide Show This Land: The House Enlarge This Image Ángel Franco/The New York TimesJordanne’s mother, Jennifer Blank, has a tattoo of her daughter on her back. More Photos »
The house on North Hazeldell Avenue has to go. Its two stories, its white vinyl siding, its front porch, its back porch, its windows and doors, ceilings and walls: the entire structure. It has to go. It cannot stand.
The original hope was to burn it, burn it to the ground; fire can cleanse. But city officials stepped in and said no way to setting a house ablaze in the middle of a neighborhood. So now the plan is to stage a communal, cathartic house-razing.
On the first Saturday of summer, residents will gather to watch local volunteers tear the house down. After that, a waste-management company will truck every nail and board out of sight, if not out of mind, to an undisclosed dump site in another, unnamed state, so as to thwart collectors of morbid souvenirs.
Then, someday, instead of that damned house, there may rise from the grass at 201 North Hazeldell a memorial fountain, or maybe a sculpture, to encourage reflections about life, not death. At the moment that seems a lot to ask of the inanimate.
The house, built around 1900, is almost as old as Crandon itself, here for the turns in logging and tourism, for the changes in downtown a block away and the construction of the post office across the street. Here as the city became a place of 2,000 residents related by blood, by church, by school, or by standing together in line for dipped cones at the Eats ’n’ Treats stand.
One Saturday night last October, a few of them were snug in this house, now a triplex. On the side, a tenant named Michelle. Upstairs, the owner, Paul Murray. And downstairs, his daughter, Jordanne Murray, 18, who was entertaining several friends with a pizza party and sleepover.
Jordanne had graduated in June from Crandon High School with several distinctions, including “Best Eyes” — perhaps because they conveyed her wonder and ambition. She had jump-started her college career by taking courses in the summer, and was working her way toward a degree in education with jobs at Subway and Eats ’n’ Treats.
She had grown up with her mother, stepfather and two younger siblings in a house deep in the woods, where hummingbirds flutter just outside the sliding door. But she was determined to make it on her own, and had moved into this house in August. She was paying her father about $250 a month in rent, the price of fresh independence.
Still, she and her mother, Jennifer Blank, talked every day, buying each other small gifts, meeting for lunch. Sometimes they discussed Jordanne’s rocky relationship with Tyler Peterson, 20, a sheriff’s deputy and part-time Crandon police officer. The couple had dated for four years, but the last few months had not been pretty, and Jordanne had ended it, though in the hesitant, not-sure-of-my-feelings way that often precedes finality.
“This was the first time she really stood up and said, ‘Tyler, this is what I want now,’ ” said Ms. Blank, sitting at her kitchen table, photographs of Jordanne laid before her, her thoughts again on that night, that house.
After a nightlong exchange of upsetting text messages, Tyler came to the house early Sunday morning, argued with Jordanne, and left in a rage as her guests — his friends too — called him a stalker boyfriend. He returned minutes later with a tool of his job, a semiautomatic rifle, and without a word shot everyone in the room.
He killed Jordanne, she of those large, searching eyes.
He killed Aaron Smith, 20, known as Chunk, leaving parents to cling to memories of a family trip to Alaska; Bradley Schultz, 20, a university student who hoped to become a homicide detective; Lianna Thomas, 17, who did everything with her identical twin sister, from playing sports to singing in the church choir; Katrina McCorkle, 17, known as Tink, who dreamed of working with young children; and Lindsey Stahl, just 14, but with strong stands against global warming and for animal rights.
He shot Charlie Neitzel, 21, another childhood friend, three times, but Charlie lived by playing dead. Then, when finally cornered several hours later by his law-enforcement colleagues, Tyler ran into some woods and shot himself to death.
In those gasping-for-breath days that followed, a local pastor named Bill Farr suggested the house, “a symbol of violence and a lot of pain,” be demolished. To protect the grieving families, he and a few others, including the owners of Crandon’s only funeral home, Gregory Weber and Susan Hill, soon formed what came to be known as the Fountain of Youth Memorial Committee, to decide, among other things, what to do with the empty house.
“As a practical matter, would you live there?” asks Leon Stenz, the local district attorney. “For $10 a month I wouldn’t live there.”
(Page 2 of 2)
After the crime-scene tape went away and a biohazards company had cleaned up, Ms. Blank summoned the nerve to collect her daughter’s things, knowing the longer she waited the harder it would be. There were telltale holes here and there, and certain items — including chairs and a table precious to the family — were gone.
Skip to next paragraph
This Land
Dan Barry takes readers behind news articles and into obscure and well-known corners of the United States. His column appears every Monday.
Dan Barry's Columnist Page »
Multimedia
This Land: The HouseSlide Show
This Land: The House
“It took us three and a half days to move her in,” Ms. Blank says. “And 45 minutes to move her out.”
Still, she returned now and then, sometimes to write letters to Jordanne, sometimes just to sit. And every time she drove past the house, she half-expected to see Jordanne’s small blue S.U.V. parked outside.
The snow fell, a new year dawned, and talk turned again to clearing the house from sight; after all, people were getting choked up every time they visited the post office across the street.
After protracted negotiations, the committee finally bought the damaged house from Mr. Murray in April for its fair-market value of about $71,000, using donations and money from all sorts of fund-raising efforts, including the sale of bracelets, candles and other memorial items. If you buy breakfast at the Log Cabin Café, or order coffee at Tricia’s Treasures, chances are your server is wearing one of these bracelets.
The demolition — the elimination, really — of 201 North Hazeldell is scheduled to take place on June 21. Preparations are being made.
Not long ago the funeral home owners, Ms. Hill, who had held Tyler Peterson when he was a baby, and Mr. Weber, who had prepared all seven bodies for burial, tidied up the outside. And one day last week, Mr. Weber and Mr. Farr went into the house for the first time to scout out the appliances that needed to be removed before the demolition began. They made sure not to linger.
“It’s like an infection,” Mr. Farr says of the house. “Until you clean that infection, you’re not going to heal.”
Back at another house, the one with fluttering hummingbirds deep in the woods, Ms. Blank says she has mixed feelings about the demolition. “If it’s gone, that’s another thing saying she’s gone,” she says of her Jordanne. “There’s always that slight chance she’ll be standing on the porch.”
But then this mother says that yes, yes: the house must come down. And she will be there when it does.
As I have stated in other blog entries and articles in various places over the internet:The second amendment provides to us the right to bear arms in organized militia. It provides us the right to be armed versus invading forces. It does not give us the out and out right to put a gun in each citizen's hand "just because."
Atta gamegirl!
Here's the proper attitude toward gun control!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2065320/Air
That story is just silly, Ralph!
Why would you say tha, GG? IMHO it's an example of the gun mahem that occurs every day in this country in a hundred different scenarios.
Gee... Ralph posts a story about a derranged individual who does bad things. Did you see the story about the Japanese man over the weekend who ran into a crowd with an SUV and then knifed a dozen more? When are you going to call for a ban on SUVs and knives?
And by the way... here's a couple THOUSAND stories about ordinary people who saved themselves with a gun... betcha Ralph will never browse to here. Too upsetting to his world view.
Summary of various court decisions concerning gun rights
DECISIONS THAT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PURCHASE, POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, AND IT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS:
· U.S. vs. Emerson, 5 Fed (1999), confirmed an individual right requiring compelling government interest for regulation.
· Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846) (struck down a ban on sale of small, easily concealed handguns as violating Second Amendment);
· State v. Chandler, 5 La.An. 489, 490, 491 (1850) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged that open carry was protected by Second Amendment);
· Smith v. State, 11 La.An. 633, 634 (1856) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but recognized as protected by Second Amendment "arms there spoken of are such as are borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly");
· State v. Jumel, 13 La.An. 399, 400 (1858) (upheld a ban on concealed carry, but acknowledged a Second Amendment right to carry openly);
· Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402 (1859) (upheld an enhanced penalty for manslaughter with a Bowie knife, but acknowledged that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to possess arms for collective overthrow of the government);
· In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am.St.Rep. 215, 216 (1902) (struck down a ban on open carry of a revolver in Lewiston, Idaho as violating both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);
· State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945) (upheld a ban on concealed carry as long as open carry was allowed based on both Second Amendment and Idaho Const. guarantee);
· State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157, 166 (1952) (striking down a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, acknowledging a right to carry based on Second Amendment and Montana Const. guarantee).
· U.S. v. Hutzell, 8 Iowa, 99-3719, (2000) (cite in dictum that "an individual's right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939).").
DECISIONS THAT RECOGNIZED THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS OR CARRY FIREARMS, BUT ONLY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY:
· U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876) (limiting use of the Enforcement Act of 1870 so that Klansmen could not be punished for mass murder and disarming of freedmen);
· State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367, 373 (1891) (upholding a ban on carry of various concealable arms);
· State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921) (overturning a ban on open carry of pistols based on North Carolina Const., but acknowledging Second Amendment protected individual right from federal laws).
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ARGUED OR RAISED AS A LIMITATION ON STATE LAWS, AND IN WHICH THE COURT RULED THAT IT ONLY LIMITED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE RIGHT WAS INDIVIDUAL IN NATURE:
· Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165, 172, 173 (1871);
· Fife v. Sta te, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am.Rep. 556, 557, 558 (1876); State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472, 473, 474 (1874);
· Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120, 140, 141 (1879); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 266 (1886) (upholding a ban on armed bodies marching through the streets);
· People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 403 (1912); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 636, 226 P. 914 (1924) (upholding a ban on resident aliens possessing handguns).
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS IMPLIED TO GUARANTEE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, THOUGH UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT LIMITED ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATES AS WELL, BECAUSE THE TYPE OF ARM IN QUESTION WASN'T PROTECTED:
· English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476, 477 (1872)
· State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458, 459 (1875) (upholding a ban on carrying of handguns, Bowie knives, sword-canes, spears, and brass knuckles);
· People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950) (overturning a conviction for carrying a concealed handgun and acknowledging that the right in the Second Amendment was individual);
· Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 827, 828 (1975) (denying that "concealable hand weapons" were protected by the Second Amendment, but acknowledging that an individual right protects other firearms).
DECISIONS IN WHICH THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CLASSED WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WITH NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT:
· Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282, 17 S.Ct. 826, 829 (1897); U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 1061 (1990).
And, of course… here’s a story from that notoriously famous "pro gun and pro conservative" newspaper, the New York Times which quotes that fashionable lawyer so loved by liberals across the nation, Lawrence Tribe…
"Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right."
"My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise," Professor Tribe said. "I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."
The whole article is certainly well worth reading… especially for those confused over just what the 2nd Amendment really means.
I'm so glad there are people like you around who were present when the Second Amendment was written, Jack!! What's your secret to staying youthful?
I believe that is a question more appropriatly directed towards that famous liberal professor who has been mentioned as a candidate for the SCOTUS every time a Dim president get an appointment -- Laurence H. Tribe.
You know... the one that I just quoted as saying he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
I wonder how old ~he~ is?
And... since ~you~ have an opinion on what ~you~ think the Founding Fathers meant to write... just how old are ~you~? Or are only those in favor of the Individual Right point of view to be asked that question?
{Sigh... another "emoter." This is the very best that she can do, folks. I post dozens of cites from the Supreme Court including quotes and cites from the New York Times -- and she asks how old I am. Pitiful. But typical.}
Wow! What a set of references. I’ll try to read some of the more interesting.
Yes, I believe that the world would be better off without guns. That means the entire world including criminals, police, armies, government representatives, etc. And the world would be better off without bombs, missiles, bio and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc., etc., and even clubs and knives. But it isn’t. And our subjected societies are the result.
Put into the context of the 2nd amendment, the right for individuals to have weapons was based upon the idea that such would prevent totalitarian governments from taking over. - - Something similar to the constitution’s declaration of making money in the form of gold and silver to prevent economic destruction. However, here we are, reaping problem caused by disregarding a lot of the wisdom of the founders of the USA.
Thank you budwood, that was my point precisely. However, my initial response was met with insults, so I expected no less than my perfectly valid points to be passed over. I am very glad you put it so succinctly.
Apparently senility has set in on Lawrence Tribe.
GG, I agree that tearing down the historic house was silly.
Here's one for you:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/614118/2924548
That video makes me giggle, Ralph. :P
Wow! What a set of references. I’ll try to read some of the more interesting.
Yes, I believe that the world would be better off without guns. That means the entire world including criminals, police, armies, government representatives, etc. And the world would be better off without bombs, missiles, bio and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc., etc., and even clubs and knives. But it isn’t. And our subjected societies are the result."
I would certainly encourage you to read the complete essay cited up above under that very topic… would the world be "better off."
But here’s a little excerpt from it…
------------------------------------
To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males.
Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of just this weekend in Japan.
When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot.
And what of the women? According to the custom of jus primae noctis, a lord had the right to sleep with the bride of a newly married serf on the first night — a necessary price for the serf to pay — in exchange for the promise of safety and security (does that ring a bell?). Not uncommonly, this arrangement didn't end with the wedding night, since one's lord had the practical power to take any woman, any time. Regardless of whether jus primae noctis was formally observed in a region, rich, strong men had little besides their conscience to stop them from having their way with women who weren't protected by another wealthy strongman.
--------------------------------
I don’t know about you… but THIS is not the legacy that I want to leave for my children… my grandchildren. Knowing that ANY person stronger than they can dominate and demand subservience.
Please tell us just what "weapon" this man needed to terrorize and come thisclose to killing an innocent woman… and whether or not you are (1) glad (2) saddened by the knowledge that she had a gun and saved her life.
If you are glad… then just where does that leave your desire to see a "gunless" world?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A
"Put into the context of the 2nd amendment, the right for individuals to have weapons was based upon the idea that such would prevent totalitarian governments from taking over."
And what makes us think that that will never happen in our life times, or our children’s?
"However, here we are, reaping problem caused by disregarding a lot of the wisdom of the founders of the USA."
Thomas Jefferson was a wise founder. Here was his advice:
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to
time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"However, my initial response was met with insults,"
You’re welcome to provide specific cites where anyone "insulted" you after your initial post. Give detail.
Because the ONLY insult we saw was when YOU started the nonsense of whether or not I was there with the Founding Fathers.
Playing the "victim card" is pretty hard when we all have scroll back (and thank God for Al Gore inventing that).
" so I expected no less than my perfectly valid points to be passed over. "
And ~which~ "valid points" did you actually post? Let’s review them:
1)
2)
3)
Oh… there aren’t any, are there.
"Apparently senility has set in on Lawrence Tribe."
And ~this~ is the very best Ralph can do.
No wonder we have more and more people coming to the side of pro-freedom every day when they are faced with a persuasive argument such as that.
:-)
As I have stated in other blog entries and articles in various places over the internet:The second amendment provides to us the right to bear arms in organized militia. It provides us the right to be armed versus invading forces. It does not give us the out and out right to put a gun in each citizen's hand "just because."
Read it again.
Now, as to every other flippant thing you are saying, you've completely passed over my point, I'm not surprised.
The quip about you being there when the Amendment was written was made because you believe you have the right translation into policy, when the obvious intention of the amendment taken in whole (not in part as you seem to believe) is completely different.
I'm all for an intellectual debate on this topic, if you're willing, ready and able to dispense with the petty insults and look further into the words of a young whippersnapper than just gut reaction.
“As I have stated in other blog entries and articles in various places over the internet:The second amendment provides to us the right to bear arms in organized militia. It provides us the right to be armed versus invading forces. It does not give us the out and out right to put a gun in each citizen's hand "just because."
“Read it again.”
And not a single one is a "valid point." They are all just opinions. And I posted dozens of cites from the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES that invalidate those "opinions."
Game, set, match.
“Now, as to every other flippant thing you are saying, you've completely passed over my point, I'm not surprised.”
I’m still looking for a specific “point” other than just your opinion.
“The quip about you being there when the Amendment was written was made because you believe you have the right translation into policy, when the obvious intention of the amendment taken in whole (not in part as you seem to believe) is completely different.”
Here’s the logic behind ~this~ paragraph.
Because ~I~ “believe (I) have the right translation” then it is worth a flippant remark. But when the Poster believes that she “has the right translation” then we are to take her seriously.
And I am comfortable knowing that my “policy” sure seems to agree with dozens of SCOTUS rulings.
“I'm all for an intellectual debate on this topic, if you're willing, ready and able to dispense with the petty insults and look further into the words of a young whippersnapper than just gut reaction.”
I am more than willing… but I still haven’t seen you actually, you know, put forth ANYTHING other than your opinion. It is hard to have a debate when one side depends totally upon how they “feel” about a subject.
Well, what a delirious waste of time. I'll be over here, not wanting a battle of words for once, thanks. Have fun being.. whatever.
I´m just glad I live in a country where guns are very scarce and I can understand that countries that built guns must have the need to sell them :rolleyes:.
This is useless, funride. This Hub Author is the be all end all of gun info, and BBQ.
"Well, what a delirious waste of time. I'll be over here, not wanting a battle of words for once, thanks. Have fun being.. whatever"
I agree... As long as you insist upon substituting "emoting" for rational discussion we will never get anywhere.
"This is useless, funride. This Hub Author is the be all end all of gun info, and BBQ."
Tough to argue against facts, eh. I guess actually having some at my disposal just might seem like I "know everything" when I can cite an authortative source that backs up what I say such as Prof. Tribe and the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
And which was your favorite BBQ recipe?
:-)
Fact: The Second Amendment, as written, was in response to the structures for travelling unarmed over open waters from the King. You know, that guy who oppressed people and who the colonists who came here wanted to revolt against and separate themselves from?
Fact: The Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well regulated militia is not the same as "any person who wants to tote a Glock."
Ha this is great!
"Fact: The Second Amendment, as written, was in response to the structures for travelling unarmed over open waters from the King. You know, that guy who oppressed people and who the colonists who came here wanted to revolt against and separate themselves from?"
Any cite for this "fact"? No… I didn’t think so.
"Fact: The Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is true. Which is why most liberal professors such as Prof. Tribe state, and dozens of rulings from the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agree, that it is an individual right.
"Well regulated militia is not the same as "any person who wants to tote a Glock." "
So tell us… just what is this "well regulated militia" that you are fixated on?
Be sure to use definitions found in the same time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, not contemporary definitions that have no bearing on the issue. Give specific cites as to the meaning as found in the writing of the Founding Fathers, not just what you "feel" it means.
"Ha this is great!"
So much ignorance to cure and so little time...
:-)
But is it still true? A well regulated militia may have been a necessity 200+ years ago, but surely not in 2008? And as the amendment is expressed in terms of a logical proposition and conclusion, if the proposition is false (which I believe it is) then so is the conclusion.
The more I compare the written constitution of the United States, and the unwritten one of the United Kingdom, the happier I am to live in the latter! At least we can change our constitution as we go along!
Okay, first off, putting your source in all capital letters does not make the dozens of befuddled decisions made by these people who, just like politicians, lobby for their appointment and position and for supporters.
Now, the fixation for "well regulated militia" comes straight out of the Second Amendment as it is featured in the Bill of Rights itself. :)
And now, citing William Rawle, a name I am quite sure a prolific expert on gun control issues such as yourself knows:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
"Okay, first off, putting your source in all capital letters does not make the dozens of befuddled decisions made by these people who, just like politicians, lobby for their appointment and position and for supporters."
Hmmmm…. And just who are we to presume knows more about how the Constitution should be interpreted. A Supreme Court who, over the course of decades expanding into three different centuries, have ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right… or some person posting on the net?
Tough choice, I know.
And it was put in CAPS to keep our Dear Readers understanding that you kept ducking the issue. And now they know just how you actually feel about the SCOTUS and it’s role as one third of our Constitutional checks and balances on our government.
"Now, the fixation for "well regulated militia" comes straight out of the Second Amendment as it is featured in the Bill of Rights itself. :)"
Yeppers, it is. Now attempt to explain it.
"And now, citing William Rawle, a name I am quite sure a prolific expert on gun control issues such as yourself knows:"
Hmmmm… Mr. Rawle’s didn’t say a word about firearms, did he. Not a single word. Not a word about the state or federal government having the power of gun control. Not a word about "regulating" firearms. Not a word about being in the militia as a prerequisite to owning a firearm..
I’d say that Mr. Rawle is a witness on my behalf. Thank you for giving us his quote. And, BTW, he uses the phrase "well regulated" in it’s proper meaning – well trained. Which has, of course, nothing to do with gun control.
"But is it still true? A well regulated militia may have been a necessity 200+ years ago, but surely not in 2008? "
Well, it’s not something that you really get a vote on, eh. I’d say that was entirely in the hands of Americans to make that decision.
"And as the amendment is expressed in terms of a logical proposition and conclusion, if the proposition is false (which I believe it is) then so is the conclusion."
I would trust the word of an American English expert first as to how the Amendment is constructed…
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.h
"The more I compare the written constitution of the United States, and the unwritten one of the United Kingdom, the happier I am to live in the latter! At least we can change our constitution as we go along!"
Yes… we can tell…
Ah yes, the Supreme Court, it's nigh on incorruptable, isn't it? The people who preside on it are untainted by concerns for popularity, money, possible career interests outside of their voluntary and lobbied services there.
No, the quoted passage I left you does not use the word firearms. However, if you pay mind to the context of the passage, I am rather sure an astute reader can catch the implied and clear as day meaning of the words written by one of the most respected voices of his time. You don't have to say the word Gun for people with two brain cells to rub together to know what you're talking about.
A well regulated militia:
mi·li·tia Audio Help /m??l???/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Source: DICTIONARY.COM
How's that "knife control" coming over there in Jolly Old England?
"Ah yes, the Supreme Court, it's nigh on incorruptible, isn't it? The people who preside on it are untainted by concerns for popularity, money, possible career interests outside of their voluntary and lobbied services there."
Well, instead of getting an "ad hominem attack" we are getting an "ad Supreme Courtem attack".
If that’s the best you can do, it’s ~your~ argument. But it’s certainly not very compelling, eh.
"No, the quoted passage I left you does not use the word firearms. However, if you pay mind to the context of the passage, I am rather sure an astute reader can catch the implied and clear as day meaning of the words written by one of the most respected voices of his time. You don't have to say the word Gun for people with two brain cells to rub together to know what you're talking about. "
So this passage meaning all depends upon how you "feel" about it? I prefer the plain text reading myself. Makes life so much more reasonable. A "respected voice" doesn’t need to depend upon people catching "implied" meanings.
mi·li·tia Audio Help /m??l???/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. [doesn’t say anything about gun control or "regulating guns".]
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. [doesn’t say anything about gun control or "regulating guns".]
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. [doesn’t say anything about gun control or "regulating guns".]
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. [doesn’t say anything about gun control or "regulating guns".]I’d say you’re on Strike Four if there was such a thing.
BTW... which ~was~ your favorite BBQ sauce recipe?
Point made. Unless the words on the screen are in total and unwavering (read: unthinking/uneducated) agreement with your own, there is no plausible truth or rightness to them.
Enjoy your hub alone now.
"Point made. Unless the words on the screen are in total and unwavering (read: unthinking/uneducated) agreement with your own, there is no plausible truth or rightness to them."
Remember that ad hominem attack she launched against the Supreme Court? Why does it not surprise us that this is her preferred method for "debate."
"Enjoy your hub alone now."
Me and my Dear Readers will certainly miss you. There’s been a certain guilty pleasure to watching you self-destruct in front of us.
Self-destruct? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, seriously - I've presented to you fact after fact, and the points are all there. It isn't my fault at all that you refuse to READ.
You again?
Let's review these "facts":
1) a quote from the 2nd Amendment
2)
3)
4)
Pretty light there... didn't quite see "fact after fact". Saw lots of opinions and emotion running loose... but no "facts."
But perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps you don't really know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion." In that case we understand your confusion.
But it does make it difficult to have a reasoned, logical argument with you.
So what ~is~ your favorite BBQ sauce recipe?
Thanks for opening the comments back up.
Please carefully review my previous comments again, as I do not want to have to repeat my points YET AGAIN.
:-)
:-)
I am sure you will disagree with this comment, given the viewpoint of your hub, but I feel it necessary to point this out.
Canada and the United States are similar demographically, culturally and historically. They share many common characteristics, yet they have radically different rates of violent crime and gun violence. Why? Canada restricts access to firearms.
In Canada we have a much lower rate of violent crime and very little gun violence. When gun violence takes place, the perpetrators usually acquired their guns illegally by importing them from the United States.
I have to think that the need for guns is self-feeding: the more people have guns, the more you need to have one for protection. But if they were not as prevalent, there would be less need for guns, and violence in your inner cities would decrease.
I realize that this may provoke a bunch of Canada bashing counter comments, but please note that we Canadians are a properous democracy, one of the G8 Nations based on our economy, have one the highest per capita incomes, and we are the second largest country on Earth. We must be doing something right.
And yes, we are free despite the fact that we cannot build an arsenal of machine guns in our basement. In fact we are free because we do not fear our neighbors or our government and the rule of law prevails.
Interesting debate here Jack and links!;)
As a UK citizen, im not really fully aware of all the laws regarding Guns! I do know that if guns disasapeared over night, then people would arm themselfs with other weapons that kill such as crossbows, knives, and even new weapons that would be based around the stungun and tazer, but much more powerful to kill you!!
I do know that you may like this;)
I am an old country girl and I have been hunting deer and been armed since I was 8 years old. I have never shot myself ...lol...or anyone else innocent because my Daddy taught me how to be 'gun safe'. In my home there are several rifles,black powder, shotguns ,and a few hand guns. If terrorists landed in my back yard they wouldn't make it to the fence. I have been a mamber of the National Rifle Association since I was old enough to join.I sleep with a handgun in my bedside drawer and so does my husband. We are Pretty safe anyway since we raise Bulldogs:)I carry a gun in my vehicle at all times and twice it has saved someones life.
Now all these politicians can talk about how guns kill and they should be outlawed but I don't think they have ever lived in the real world. Chances are they live in some high classed suburb somewhere where the police cruise constantly to make sure their neigborhood is safe. They are on a power trip to strip Americans of their rights and be in an all powerful government backed by a militia with weapons to RUN all of us honest law abiding folks like sheep or cattle any way they want to because they have the guns. They are always taking rights away from us by tacking small little additions on the end of good bills passing through the House and Senate and then telling Americans about it only when it is passed and it's too late to do anything about it. Americans are so wrapped up in their own little worlds they don't even realize what is going on!They are now trying to pass laws to tell us what kinds of dogs we are allowed to have! But that is another HUB.
DON'T LET THEM STRIP US OF OUR WEAPONS! WE NEED THEM! WE ARE IN A WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS FOR CHRISTS SAKE. NO ONE EXPECTED 911 BUT IT HAPPENED! NEXT TIME IT COULD BE IN YOUR BACK YARD!
PLEASE VOTE AGAINST GUN LAWS!
My point is Guns are like sex : If you are brought up with them as a normal part of your life and are schooled properly on the use and taught respect for them they are NOT dangerous but an asset . Laws are for people that abide by them. Making guns illegal would only take guns away from the honest law abiding folks who have them to protect themselves from bad people who are going to have them reguardless of laws that are made. Someone that knows how to use a gun and welds one is dangerous to bad guys. I shot a guy in the leg who was robbing a convienience store w/a 9 mm and would have surely shot the clerk to not have any witnesses to his crime. I shot him in the leg and unarmed him from the coolers in the back of the store. I saved the clerks life that day and I know it as this guy had robbed several convienience stores and killed evry clerk after he got the money. When I was 16 I went to visit my mother who lived in the city in an apartment. It just so happened while I was there a guy broke into her apartment with us both there. she was in the front bedroom and I woke up hearing her crying and begging.The guy thought she was the only one there and when I got to the door of her bed room and said hey ! he turned around and I shot him in the shoulder, disarmed him and my mom called the police while I held him down on the floor. That night I saved my own mothers life!
I will fight to the end over my guns. I will never give them up. Our Founding Fathers knew that Our government should be run By the people For the people not By the powerful people to Run the rest of the people.Thats why it is a right for us to be armed !Some day you might see me on the world news because I will truly fight to the death before I will allow someone to disarm me and take my guns!
Yes, arming yourself to the teeth because "You never know what could happen" is a viable solution to, say, setting up security systems, assisting with an extensive neighborhood watch program, or any number of other perfectly viable solutions. The fact is, most people who own several guns will never use them in defense of their families or neighbors. Criminals wouldn't arm themselves with firearms if they weren't A.) so easy to acquire, B.) So plentiful in homes and vehicles all over America, and C.) in some cases worth more than stealing a television, car radio or game console.
The answer to protecting yourself and your family is never "Get more guns." The answer is "Get more active."
Start a community effort to protect your street, your subdivision.
Work with your local police department to hold regular meetings to pass along suspicious information, behaviors, or activity.
Teach your children about morals, safety, right and wrong, what to do when strangers talk to them, where to go if they're in trouble, or feel like they are in danger of being hurt.
Install a security system in your home, and always remember to turn it on when you leave the house, or when you're in for the night.
You have options, and I'm not saying that anyone has to give up weapons they acquire legally. What I am saying is that if your gun collection looks like it could outfit a squad of paratroopers, you're doing something wrong.
Wow, gamergirl, to rely upon electronic surveillance and never the human element is amazingly full of faith...faith I do not have...and I sold security systems for a living. I fully disagree with your assessment that if my gun collection looks like I could outfit a squad of paratroopers I am doing something wrong (and my collection does). It means I have a hobby. And it is a legal one that I enjoy. Sure you teach children morals. You also teach them to defend their families. THAT is a high morality, indeed. Criminals do not have guns because they are so easily obtainable. They have them because THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Sure, blame the guns or those who are law abiding for criminal behavior. Can I blame my pencil for spelling errors, too?
Great, it's a hobby you enjoy, but do you patrol your neighborhood looking for suspicious activity? Do you take part in any of the human element activities I described? (I.E. Most of what I just commented about involves working within the community and with law enforcement)
Electronic surveillance is yet another method of protecting yourself, your family and your possessions. What good is having an arsenal of weapons in your home while you are not there? Those weapons serve no purpose in times of peace.
Of course, we could always just rely on the tried and tired response of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.."
But what would the world be like if people stopped believing they NEEDED guns to feel safe? Without the assumption that the big bad mystery evil will come and get you if you don't own at least 17 guns and 2 pocket knives?
I thought the boogey man was something that was just for children?
We have motion activated lights in our yard, and we lock our doors at night. We have never felt a need for protection beyond this simple device. Guns are okay for people with special protection needs and, I guess, for paranoids of which there appear to be many.
In answer to the Canadian friend, it is pretty well agreed that Canadians are one of the most law abiding people on earth. They have a more homogeneous society than in the USA plus Canadian heritage is less violent (i.e. no revolution, no civil war); I do not agree that there is a great cultural similarity to that in the USA.
I’ve been to western Canada (B.C. and Alberta) quite a lot and feel relatively safe there as differentiated from when I visit southern California. That’s because of Canadians not because of their laws. On a recent visit, I had a discussion with a western Canadian who pointed out that there had been a rise in gun violence subsequent to Canada’s banning of hand guns. He lamented that the political types never learn that criminals are that way because they are criminals.
You can never make enough laws to control people who have no self control. I like the bumper sticker my husband has, Gun contol is using both hands.
I suppose I may as well give my opinion also. It has been said many times through the years that guns don't kill people, people do. If every gun in the world was destroyed beyond use and repair people would find other ways to kill. The reason for that is because their hearts are full of iniquity and hate. It isn't the guns that need removed, but the hate that people have in their hearts.
I agree that the political leaders of this nation along with others do indeed want to control people. That's my opinion of course.
gamergirl, sorry, but your commentary is of sheer ignorance. "Those weapons serve no purpose in times of peace." Sure they do. First, they appreciate in value. Second, should there be a break in or home invasion, I will be well armed. If there is an uprising from the illegal invaders that have crossed the border, settled in my area (and there are a heap big amount of them here), I can arm myself and others. There is a lot of Mexican gang activity around here. If the local police need a rifle or ammo for theirs, they know where to come. If I want to take my nephews to the range to teach them respect for firearms and human life, I can easily do so. Ironically, it is usually those who choose to arm themselves that have the highest respect for human life. My five year old woke up just this morning with a nightmare that someone broke into my house and kidnapped him. If someone broke into my house, he would most likely die of acute lead poisoning, instead of taking my boy.
You mention working with law enforcement. The absolute truth of the matter is that law enforcement can not be everywhere at the same time. You can NOT rely upon them for protection, period. Even in my small town of 3.5 square miles and 3 patrol cars on the road at any one time, by the time they arrive, any confrontation would be long over. I do not have the time to wait for them when I am confronted with the need to act to save a life or protect family. Most situations are solved without even having to use a firearm. Usually, just brandishing one will case the perpetrator to flee. There are far more instances of lives being saved and crimes thwarted by a firearm than when they are actually used.
The fact is that there will always be bad people. They will prevail if good people do nothing. Cain slew Abel (the first recorded murder) without using an AK-47.
And really...how many people do you know of or have even HEARD of that strap on their weapons to go do a patrol of their own streets? I will tell you that if I take my woman and/or my boy out for a walk after dark, I strap on a pistol for protection. If I am armed and see someone being robbed, raped, or assaulted, I am more likely to render assistance. Police are no different. If they were unarmed, they would not step in. I worked for a police department for several years and am very familiar with procedure and their philosophy.
You asked, "But what would the world be like if people stopped believing they NEEDED guns to feel safe?" As long as Satan has rule and reign on this earth, we will need weapons of one form or another. I feel that I am safe with or without guns, but I sure feel SAFER with them. If I have a choice, I choose being armed. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six any day.
When clamoring about crime rates in different countries, I find it convenient that many do not take some success stories or gun positive facts into account, thereby not being objective. Where there is freedom, one can do good or bad with that freedom. The Swiss have a very low rate of breaking and entering. Why? Every home IS armed. Period. A burglar knows for a certainty that every home will have a firearm and an adult male will have been trained in its use. In the US, states that have passed conceal/carry permit laws, crime has dropped. The reason so many people get carjacked and robbed when they have just rented a car at an airport (an increasing statistic) is that criminals know that people flying do not have weapons on them and are therefore easy targets.
When plans for the invasion of America were found in conquered Nazi Germany, there were documented concerns about the fact that America had an armed citizenry and would therefore be able to provide a significant resistance, regardless of our standing army. THAT is why the founders felt that we should have the right to keep and bear arms.
I teach the Constitution and American history every week. I teach on a deeper level than most any college course together with two other men. If anyone has analyzed the original intent, it is me. I have been reading with amusement the comments about the Second Amendment in these comments and on other forums.
We should be doing a lot more to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, mental defectives, criminals, gang bangers, drug dealers while protecting the rights of legitimate hunters and target shooters. The issue isn't whether or not to control guns but how best to control their sale and use.
I'm sorry that you feel vigilante justice is appropriate, and as a law abiding Christian, being a one man weapons depot must disturb you to varying degrees. I maintain that working with your community, living safely and participating in neighborhood watch, being alert and aware to suspicious activity in your community, and creating a safe living area based on concerted effort with neighbors and local law enforcement are much better options than stocking up on a locker full of firearms.
I'm beginning to see a trend of paranoia amongst those who believe it is their God given right to be armed with as many weapons as they can afford to buy. You just don't need guns. People do not need guns to be safe in this country.
As well, I have been reading with amusement the comments and words of those who are adamant in the belief that guns solve crimes and are the be-all end-all of protecting one's family and belongings.
IF YOU LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED, YOUR HOME/CAR BROKEN INTO, OR YOUR LIVES IN JEOPARDY - MOVE!!!
Why would you want to remain in a dangerous place where your life hangs in the balance versus criminals, lowlives and attackers, and risk your family like that? I believe the truth of the matter lies closer to paranoia than overall real and significant danger.
Also, I agree with Ralph.
Gamergirl sez:
“Yes, arming yourself to the teeth because "You never know what could happen" is a viable solution to, say, setting up security systems, assisting with an extensive neighborhood watch program, or any number of other perfectly viable solutions.
Jack Responsds:
1) “to the teeth”? Not much for using biased phrases, eh? Please explain to the Dear Readers just what that means? One gun? Two guns? Thirty four and a half guns? Do you have a different standard for “loaded to the molars” or “loaded to the eye teeth”?
2) You are familiar with “layered defenses” are you not. As a former military person I would assume that would be of second nature to you. That means that whoever is seeking to do you harm has to pass thru multiple defensive zones to get to you. Such as “lights” and “alarm Systems” and “dogs” and “locked doors” and yes, even “guns.”
3) Please explain just why having a defensive gun stops people from doing all the things that you mentioned. We can, if we choose, do all of those… and we have one more option if necessary.
Gamergirl sez:
“The fact is, most people who own several guns will never use them in defense of their families or neighbors.”
Jack Responds:
“The fact is, most people who own fire extinguishers will never use them in to put out a fire in their home or neighbors home.
“The fact is, most people who own home owners insurance s will never use it to collect money for their families or neighbors.
“The fact is, most people who lock their doors at night will never have a burglar break in their home.
But we ~do~ have all these items, and many more. The “need” for an item is established not because of some “law of averages” but when we actually do NEED it.
Gamergirl sez:
“ Criminals wouldn't arm themselves with firearms if they weren't A.) so easy to acquire, B.) So plentiful in homes and vehicles all over America, and C.) in some cases worth more than stealing a television, car radio or game console.
Jack Responds:
Silly me. I have always thought that criminals “arm themselves” because they are CRIMINALS. But what do I know.
“The answer to protecting yourself and your family is never "Get more guns." The answer is "Get more active."
I enjoy the way you feel especially “qualified” to make that decision for every family living in America.
GG sez:
“Start a community effort to protect your street, your subdivision.”
Jack Responds:
Good idea… but why does that keep a person from having a gun?
GG sez:
“Work with your local police department to hold regular meetings to pass along suspicious information, behaviors, or activity.”
Jack Responds:
Good idea… but why does that keep a person from having a gun?
GG sez:
“Teach your children about morals, safety, right and wrong, what to do when strangers talk to them, where to go if they're in trouble, or feel like they are in danger of being hurt.
Jack Responds:
Good idea… but why does that keep a person from having a gun?
GG sez:
“Install a security system in your home, and always remember to turn it on when you leave the house, or when you're in for the night. “
Jack Responds:
Good idea… but why does that keep a person from having a gun?
GG sez:
“You have options, and I'm not saying that anyone has to give up weapons they acquire legally. What I am saying is that if your gun collection looks like it could outfit a squad of paratroopers, you're doing something wrong.”
Jack Responds:
Options? Really… Who was it who just posted ““The answer to protecting yourself and your family is never "Get more guns."”
Oh… sorry… that was YOU.
And I enjoy the way you feel especially “qualified” to make the decision for every family living in America just how right or wrong they are based upon the number of guns they own.
GG sez:
Great, it's a hobby you enjoy, but do you patrol your neighborhood looking for suspicious activity? Do you take part in any of the human element activities I described? (I.E. Most of what I just commented about involves working within the community and with law enforcement)
Jack Responds:
Having a license to carry a gun does not make me part of the police. What kind of neighborhood to you live in that you think you need to "patrol" it?
GG sez:
Electronic surveillance is yet another method of protecting yourself, your family and your possessions. What good is having an arsenal of weapons in your home while you are not there?
Jack Responds:
Please define "arsenal".2) Are you really naïve enough to think that an electronic surveillance system keeps people out of homes when they are intent on breaking in?
3) Guns don’t protect against lightning strikes, losing a winning lottery ticket, or Auntie Suszie coming over to spend the weekend. Nor do they protect a home when no one is there.
GG sez:
Those weapons serve no purpose in times of peace.
Jack Responds:
Listen to this and tell us just how much "purpose" the handgun had.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A
And then… ask yourself… would GG be "happy" that this woman defended herself with a handgun… or would she be "saddened" over the woman defending herself with a handgun.
GG sez:
Of course, we could always just rely on the tried and tired response of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.."
Jack Responds:
This site has been up for about TEN years now… in all that time his gun has never killed anyone. Don’t take my word for it, you can monitor it for yourself.
http://montego.roughwheelers.com/gun_cam.html
GG sez:
But what would the world be like if people stopped believing they NEEDED guns to feel safe?
Jack Responds:
Lot’s more dead women like THIS one might have been…
CORAL GABLES, Fla. --A woman said she used a gun to scare away a man who was trying to lure her teenage daughter into a truck.The mother, who did not wish to be identified, said the man approached her 16-year-old daughter on Alhambra Circle near their home."She was walking her dog in the median right out in front of our house here, and a man approached her in a truck and tried to get her to come to the truck," the woman said.The teenager ran to nearby Coral Gables Elementary School, calling her mother and 911. The mother confronted the man and showed him her 9-mm gun."It’s not until I showed him that I was armed and that I meant business to protect my daughter that he backed off," she said.Coral Gables police arrested Ramon del Risco in connection with the incident.The mother said her gun made the difference in the situation."I’m licensed. I shoot almost every week," she said.The woman said she recommends a day at the shooting range for every parent.http://www.nbc6.net/news/16557261/detail.html
GG sez:
Without the assumption that the big bad mystery evil will come and get you if you don't own at least 17 guns and 2 pocket knives? I thought the boogey man was something that was just for children?
Jack Responds:
17 guns? Barely a dent in the opportunities available.You mean "big bad mystery evil" just like this?Attacker strikes same place twice, but runs out of luck A man who stopped a kidnapping and the woman he saved are telling their stories.Their stories begin with a tale of a man who came looking for his ex-girlfriend. He threatened her life and took her money. He got away with it once.He was not so lucky the second time around.Sharon Hamblin worked as a caregiver for 85-year-old Louise Hardin.Last week, Hamblin's past came back to haunt her."I came here to kill you but I changed my mind" were the words she remembered coming from her ex-boyfriend, Gary Stewart, who police say broke into the home through a bedroom window."He said give me all the money you got," she recounted.Stewart then forced her and Hardin into the car and made them drive to West Memphis so Hamblin could cash a check for nearly $300.Stewart took the money and let the two of them go."Officer first on the scene told me it's possible this man may come back," said Louise Hardin's son Kent. He came to live in the house to protect his mother and her caregiver.Three days later, as the officer had warned, Gary Stewart was back after breaking the glass on this garage door."I woke up and looked out and saw the perpetrator with a knife to the caregivers throat," said Kent Hardin.That's when Hardin grabbed his gun. Meanwhile, Hamblin was being forced to the car again."I was backing up and I saw Kent come out the back door," she said."I ran out with the gun, opened up the car door and stuck it in his face," added Kent Hardin."I put the car in gear and I jumped out of the car and got on the ground," said Hamblin.Kent Hardin added, "When he looked up and saw the gun he just kind of faded, melted.""He told Gary Stewart, get out of the car get out of the car!" said Hamblin."He just rolled out of the car and laid down here in the garage floor put his arms in front of him, his feet back and I held the gun on him."Hardin says five minutes later, the police arrived.Stewart is charged with kidnapping, assault and burglary. He also faces robbery charges in West Memphis.On top of that, he could face federal charges as well. His court date is set for April 13th.Sharon Hamblin says her biggest mistake was telling Stewart where she worked. Hamblin is no longer working for the Hardin family.
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6300119
(3) Dear Readers… who would these thousands of innocents who have been saved by a gun in their possession consider a true "boogie man"? Someone who believes that they have the perfect right to have that gun… or someone like GG who would take it away from them if she could.
"Guns are okay for people with special protection needs and, I guess, for paranoids of which there appear to be many"
Nothing like the old "ad hominem" attack to impress the Dear Readers.
GG sez:
I'm sorry that you feel vigilante justice is appropriate, and as a law abiding Christian, being a one man weapons depot must disturb you to varying degrees.
Jack responds:
1) Either GG has no clue as to what "vigilante justice" is or she is just using the phrase to demagogue the issue. For the record, GG, a "vigilante" goes out and seeks the bad guy to do him harm. Please explain just where ANY person (other than yourself) suggested "going out" into the community to seek those bad guys.
2) Please explain why a "Christian" should not have weapons, and further explain just how you got the power to determine how many weapons a Christian ~should~ have before it becomes "disturbing."
GG sez:
I maintain that working with your community, living safely and participating in neighborhood watch, being alert and aware to suspicious activity in your community, and creating a safe living area based on concerted effort with neighbors and local law enforcement are much better options than stocking up on a locker full of firearms.
Jack Responds:
Never did yet explain to us just why one cannot do all these things AND keep that "locker".
GG sez:
I'm beginning to see a trend of paranoia amongst those who believe it is their God given right to be armed with as many weapons as they can afford to buy. You just don't need guns. People do not need guns to be safe in this country.
Jack Responds:
Back to the "ad hominem" attack that you’ve attempted to use over and over?Let’s ask these ladies their opinion… Perhaps they might disagree with you, eh.Abduction interrupted Oakland Hills home invasion ends in shootout; women safe; police seek suspect A masked man abducted an Oakland Hills woman and her maid at gunpoint Friday before driving the pair to a Vallejo marsh, where authorities speculate he was about to kill them when a property caretaker interrupted the crime. The suspect had just forced one of the women to lie down in a ditch when the caretaker, armed with a shotgun for protection against thieves, arrived around 2 p.m., authorities said. The suspect and caretaker exchanged shots before the suspect sped away in the Oakland woman's Lexus sport-utility vehicle. No one was hit, and the women were not injured, though they had been bound and gagged. Tape could still be seen around one woman's neck as investigators questioned her at the Highway 37 scene. The suspect had unsuccessfully robbed the women, and authorities suspect he was trying to find an isolated spot to kill them. "I don't know why else he would take her over there and make her lie in the ditch," Sheriff's Sgt. Jeff Brackett said. The shaken-up caretaker, Doug Paul of Vallejo, said: "I think he was doing something bad. It's pretty f---ed up to have a woman gagged and bound."
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_4567700
GG sez:As well, I have been reading with amusement the comments and words of those who are adamant in the belief that guns solve crimes and are the be-all end-all of protecting one's family and belongings.
Jack Responds:
I am not sure just how you could have "read it with amusement" because you just made that up from thin air. Please give specifics where anyone here has said, posted, hinted, or implied that "solve crimes and are the be-all end-all of protecting one's family and belongings."
You, GG, are a disgrace to the uniform you once wore. Harsh words, I acknowledge, but if you treated your shipmates with the same willingness to lie that you are doing here, you were probably the candidate most likely for a blanket party each week.
GG sez:IF YOU LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED, YOUR HOME/CAR BROKEN INTO, OR YOUR LIVES IN JEOPARDY - MOVE!!! Why would you want to remain in a dangerous place where your life hangs in the balance versus criminals, lowlives and attackers, and risk your family like that? I believe the truth of the matter lies closer to paranoia than overall real and significant danger.
Jack Responds:
Thank you for being so understanding that not everyone is capable of picking up an moving at your whim.
I'm so happy that your only response at this point is to belittle every single sentence I wrote.
Here I thought we were supposed to be having a meaningful, intelligent conversation, but I see that your aim was obviously not that.
GG sez:
I'm so happy that your only response at this point is to belittle every single sentence I wrote.
Jack Responds:
Are you suggesting that you actually ~think~ that somehow I am supposed to AGREE with you?
And I am "belittling" nothing. I am just pointing out your very serious flaws in logic, reason, persuasion, and general all around ability to present any kind of rational argument.
GG sez:
Here I thought we were supposed to be having a meaningful, intelligent conversation, but I see that your aim was obviously not that.
Jack responds"
You are more than welcome to point out any specific post or part thereof of mine that you feel was not meaningful/intelligent. But give detail.
I am the NRA!
Seriously, I'm a big guy who you would think shouldn't need guns. However, when I was followed home by two crack-heads (assumed) who confronted me as I opened the gate to enter my residence, I was PLENTY glad to have a handgun available for MY self defense!
Great HUB Jack! You've earned my fandom!
"Great HUB Jack! You've earned my fandom! "
We paranoids have to stick together, eh.
:-)
You know, I was never paranoid until I started reading and stopped watching TV!
No offense to anyone involved but I know a man that lives in Kennesaw , Ga. and if you want to know what really happens when EVERYONE is REQUIRED to own a gun and have it in their home folow this link
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
I assure you this speaks louder than words!
But what does it say? Not much.
When the gun law was passed, Kennesaw was already an upscale, low crime 20,000 Atlanta suburb. The law does not require every head of household to own a gun and ammunition. The law has many exemptions and no penalties for failure to comply and no enforcement mechanism. Nobody knows how many additional citizens bought guns as a result of the passage of the law. The law was essentially a stunt passed in response to an Illinois town's passage of a law prohibiting guns.
Most of the gun crime occurs in big cities characterized by drugs, crimes of all types, poverty, etc. What happened in Kennesaw proves nothing about the need for more effective gun laws.
Hmmmm.... we've already got 20,000 "gun laws" on the books and yet Ralph wants "effective gun laws" because guns are misused in "big cities characterized by drugs, crimes of all types, poverty, etc".
Thanks for this hub. If it were only guns that the politicians wanted to control it would be bad enough, but these politicians behave and act in a way that leaves the impression they want full control over us. Your hub and the resulting exchange shows very clearly how certain people lead with their emotions and feel that their feelings are the same as logic and reason.
For instance what kind of logic leads a city counsel to ban nuclear weapons from city limits and imposes a $500 fine for detonating one within city limits? Where do I pay my fine if I detonate one? BTW Chico California has such a law. How can you have a sane discussion with this type of mentality?
When you argue facts and they argue feelings they really do not see a difference--sigh
a sanskrit slok "ahinsha parmo dharma"means nonviolance is best religios
Non-violence doesn't seem to be catching on in the United States or elsewhere in the world, unfortunately.
Unscrupulous gun dealers sell guns every day to criminals, nutcases and others who should not be allowed to buy guns.
A steady stream of guns flow from Virginia gun dealers to criminals in New York City. This could and should be stopped. Just out of curiosity, Jack, why are you opposed to effective gun control laws? Are you worried about being deterred from your next buy? Or sale?
Nonviolence is best, but I'll keep my .40 at hand just in case the @$$hole in front of me doesn't feel the same way - thank you very much!
I just read that article on Kennesaw and how can you not see that they have had a drop in crime?
Before the law, a crime rate of 11 per 1,000
After the law, a crime rate of 0.423 per 1,000
I'm a mathemetician and that's a significant reduction in statistics!
Compare that to a similar City, Decatur: crime rate of 40.49 per 1,000.
Maybe I missed how this isn't significant?
Ralph sez:
Non-violence doesn't seem to be catching on in the United States or elsewhere in the world, unfortunately.
Jack Answers:
Yeah… darn humans. What’s up with that original sin idea anyway?
Ralph sez:Unscrupulous gun dealers sell guns every day to criminals, nutcases and others who should not be allowed to buy guns.
Jack answers:
And unscrupulous doctors sell drugs out the back door every day. And unscrupulous bank tellers embezzle money every day. And unscrupulous policemen take bribes to look the other way every day. And unscrupulous real estate sellers rip people off every day.
Ralph sez:
A steady stream of guns flow from Virginia gun dealers to criminals in New York City.
Jack answers:
An interesting question is why, with Virginia’s laxer gun laws, do they have just a small percentage of the crime that New York has? Perhaps it is not really the guns, eh?
Ralph sez:
This could and should be stopped. Just out of curiosity, Jack, why are you opposed to effective gun control laws?
Jack answers:
Gee, Ralph… just try to state an "effective gun law" that
1) Criminals are guaranteed to obey
2) And that doesn’t penalize the law abiding citizen by assuming first that HE is no different from a criminal.
Are you even familiar with the legal concept of "prior restraint"?
And then let’s discuss just how corrosive it is on the high view of the "Law" that we American are supposed to have when we see politicians passing ineffective law after another based solely upon their emotions with no real regard as to whether or not these "laws" will actually accomplish anything.
Ralph sez:
Are you worried about being deterred from your next buy? Or sale?
Jack answers:
Want to make it personal, Ralph?
Let's take a little quiz here, eh?
When confronted in a dark parking lot by a thug with a knife who is threatening to take away his date and rape her would the date prefer to be with...
1) Ralph, who will whip out his cell phone to call 911 so that a MAN with a gun can come rescue him.
Or
2) Jack, who will calmly dispatch the goblin with his carry gun which allows them to go on their way.
"nonviolance is best religios"
When you beat your swords into plows, that means that other people with their swords will just make you do their plowing for them.
This sort of debate is always a bit bewildering for us other Westerners...
I am a Brit emigrated to Canada, who also lived three years in Germany. In Canada there was recently a gun registration debate, although the homicide rate here in general (gun-related or not) is still 100 per year (compared to several thousand in the US).
In Britain and Germany, the debate is non-existent. The only people with guns are farmers, and these are hunting rifles (obviously there are SOME handguns in these countries too, but the number per capita is miniscule compared to an inner city in America -- and I have lived in inner city Britain too, so I have some firsthand knowledge).
Anyway, Toronto is now starting to have an American-style problem, but my sense is that the availability of guns in that city would be more like that in Europe if it weren't for its physical proximity to Buffalo, Detroit, etc...
Anyway, it's just my two-cents worth...
David
http://hubpages.com/hub/MAKING-MONEY-ONLINE---Will
Your experience is consistent with mine. Detroit can be like a war zone, thanks to the NRA and the likes of Jack Burton. Very few people are suggesting a gun ban. All we would like is effective laws consistently enforced throughout the 50 states. A city or even a state can't do the job by itself if another state does not have effective gun control laws and enforcement. I grew up hunting, and I am a still a gun owner although I no longer hunt. The argument that the more guns in the hands of citizens there are the safer everyone will be is ridiculous on its face. In Michigan state representative Knollenberg and a couple of other rightwingers recently introduced a bill which would encourage teachers and other school employees to arm themselves as a solution to school violence incidents. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and the bill didn't go anywhere.
Ralph sez:
Detroit can be like a war zone, thanks to the NRA and the likes of Jack Burton.
Jack replies:
Perhaps Ralph can explain just how a law abiding citizen exercising his rights can turn a city into a "war zone". But Ralph can’t explain that. Ralph is just a drive by accuser with no facts, no logic, no reason, no anything except emotional rants.
Ralph sez:.
Very few people are suggesting a gun ban.
Jack replies:
Really, Ralph? Then I guess you didn’t bother reading the material at http://www.gunfacts.info where they list, with cites, quotes from dozens of nationally known politicians and folk at the very top of the media food chain who are doing JUST THAT… calling for a national, total gun ban.
But you’d rather remain in your ignorance, wouldn’t you Ralph, no matter how foolish it makes you look in front of the entire Hubpage community.
Pitiful.
Ralph sez:.
All we would like is effective laws consistently enforced throughout the 50 states. A city or even a state can't do the job by itself if another state does not have effective gun control laws and enforcement.
Jack replies:
Everyone notice that Ralph won’t rise to the challenge and even attempt to list any of these "effective" gun laws that he claims exists.
Ralph sez:.
I grew up hunting, and I am a still a gun owner although I no longer hunt.
Jack replies:
Ralph is just like the guy we all know that says, "I’m not prejudiced, my best friend is Black, BUT…"
Ralph is a gun bigot.
A gun bigot is one who...
1) Feels that only "certain" people should have guns based upon some combination of approved criteria that he is in favor of. Usually this leaves out Republicans, conservatives, and Christians of any kind.
2) Feels that only "approved" guns should be available for Americans. Usually practices a "Goldilocks" form of acceptable guns, most are either tooooo small... or tooooo big.
3) Feels that 20,000 laws concerning guns that criminals don't obey aren't enough... we need to pass hundreds more that criminals won't obey but will deny freedom to citizens.
Gun bigots often claim that because ~they~ have guns then they can't possibly be a gun bigot. We know better.
Ralph sez:.
The argument that the more guns in the hands of citizens there are the safer everyone will be is ridiculous on its face.
Jack replies:
Got a cite on that to back up your opinion? No… of course not. It’s just your emotions speaking. Please tell us how it feels to be so spectacularly wrong virtually 100% of the time. I’d bet that if we checked your posts closely enough we’d find that you spelled "and" and "the" wrong.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11 < --------- Here’s what a cite looks like.
Ralph sez:.
In Michigan state representative Knollenberg and a couple of other rightwingers recently introduced a bill which would encourage teachers and other school employees to arm themselves as a solution to school violence incidents. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and the bill didn't go anywhere.
Jack replies:
Yes… Ralph believes that it is FAR, FAR BETTER to leave those little kids in a completely defenseless situation like little lambs where any who desire to do them harm can walk in and have a totally free hand to kill as many and as much as he wants.
Ralph… why do you hate those children so?
Well... so much for the old saying that "only police and military should have guns" eh.
I certainly can understand how so many people are upset about criminals out of control with guns. However, I live in the country and it would take at least 15 to 20 minutes to get help in this area. And that is assuming that they can find the house on the first try! I have been raised around guns and have been taught respect of them. I have 2 in my house today and I always will.
If I had been armed years ago, I may have been able to defend myself rather than being raped. If I had been armed when I was attacked by my (now ex), maybe my daughter would not have been kidnapped THREE TIMES within a year! But I was not armed and in the country, there is no neighborhood watch because there are no close neighbors. There are no patrol cars cruising by constantly because they are sitting at the local deli drinking coffee. But at that time, I was not armed.
However, the thug who robbed my daughter at gunpoint had a gun! What did the police do? NADA! He was a minor so they just let him walk. Never even arrested him! So what does he do? He goes back to the store my daughter was managing at the time and told her that he knew that she identified him and let her know that he would be back that night with his friends to take care of it! So, what does my daughter do? She quit her job, moved to another town and refused to be in any room of the house alone at any point! Now, where was this store that she worked at? Across the road (and I mean directly across) from the police station!
I will never pretend to have the extreme intellegence of those who can argue the Bill of Rights or any other historical document. But what I do know is this. I would much rather know that if someone broke into my house, I at least had a chance in hell of defending myself or my family against harm...AGAIN! It is easy to judge others when you have never been put in the positions that some have. I, for one, will fight for the right to defend myself and my family just from my own personal experience.
Bonnie
gamergirl, you should buy a gun right away>http://www.spotcrime.com/nc/charlotte
I mean, since I viewed the above weblink, I'm not only paranoid for myself now, but I'm paranoid for you, too. I hope your neighborhood watch is active and your security cams are on because the boogeyman has apparently moved to Charlotte.
Thanks for a great hub, Jack! You've got some finely honed debating skills, my friend.
I'd love to read a Hub on the SCOTUS ruling, Jack. I'm sure it shut up a few of the people on this page arguing the meaning of the 2A. Keep up the good work.
Ralph, needs to go to Crandon and ask the parents of those children that were killed if they would give up their guns. I can just about guarantee you they wouldn't. Are you suggesting that cops should have their guns taken away because the boy that killed them was a cop.
I have a son who,no matter how I or my wife tried to get him interested in other things,he lived for electronic video games,and cartoons.He started young and today is 25.His thoughts are like a 5 year old when it comes to how the world works.....he just don't get it.
I said all that to let gamegirl know that I do understand her warped view of the real world,specifically guns and self-defense.My only advise to you is to please,please understand that the world does NOT revolve around,or is in any way similar to what you're used to with Anime.You live in a world where,yes there are bad people that don't care if they hurt or kill you....and you can't just hit pause or get a replay.
I see that I have come late to this discussion, but I'll add my two cents.
The 2nd Amendment's first clause is a reason to affirm the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Being a member of an organized militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms. It is a dependent clause. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the declarative clause; since it can stand alone, it clearly says the PEOPLE have the right.
A well-regulated militia means one that functions well, and the individual members can work together in concert. It does not mean government-regulated. If the latter were true, why bother with codifying the right in the fist place? And the Founders clearly understood the difference between "state" and "people". In the 1st, 4th, and 9th, Amendments, the word "people" clearly means individual citizens. In the 10th Amendment both the words "state" and "people" are used, so there is no confusion between the two. Therefore, the word "people" means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment. It does not magically mean the "state", so one cannot by any true logic conclude that the 2nd Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. To conclude such is "Alice in Wonderland" thinking.
The court cases citing support for the 2A as written, the arguments showing defensive gun uses and overall crime reduction where people are allowed to keep and bear arms, supported by facts and historical record, have all been cited before, so I'll leave that for now. Sad, that Ralph Deeds and GameGirl resort to insult, then cry foul when insult is returned. They have proven themselves unteachable. To them I say, "Come and take mine, if you think you have the 'nads!" (FYI, "Crotalus" is the genus name for the Rattlesnakes, and I use it in reference to the "Don't Tread on Me" flags of our War for Independence--which, BTW, was sparked by gun control.)
More resources (articles from medical and legal journals supporting RKBA and exposing 'gun control' as a dangerous, counterproductive, fraud) available at Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, on the "favorite links" page - www.dsgl.org
AJMD
Hi Jack - If I would have found your article before I wrote mine about my daughters, I never would have written it :) Im one to avoid conflict at all costs and I just wanted to share my experience. What a touchy subject, huh? Your argument is nicely presented though.
well this is exciting. watching all you guys bicker over gun rights. its funny cause im pretty sure youre nothing but a bunch of city slickers. what about the people that need guns to survive? you can argue this point all day. knowing that it will never happen, but in case it does i will be baracaded in my house the day the government trys to take my guns. and i hope some of these anti-firearm yuppies knock on my door. i own 293 long guns and 76 pistols. this is a mute point to even argue. all the people that use guns to kill each other over a drug deal, or in a drunken rage, well thats there problem. guns are a responsibilty and if you cant handle that, dont buy one. but us rural pennsylvanians need are guns. i feed my family off 2 weeks of deer hunting a year. im tired of all you anti gun uneducated city people. get a life. guns have always been around and always will be. thats just the way it works. sorry but you are gonna have to live with it
You would think that someone from Detroit would be all for people having the right to defend themselves. I lived on the west side of Detroit. During the great blackout of 2003, our area was affected. Since my neighbors were elderly, I went over and offered them our home, as we had bars on both sides of the windows, and firearms to defend ourselves. I soon came to find out that my neighbors had more guns than I did.
Well, our street had little to no crime. Sure the crack house was down the block, but nearly everyone on our street was packing heat. Most criminals (and tyrants) want the path of least resistance. Armed citizens are not that path.
Very nicely done Jack. I like your style.
I think the only door at which I'll feel safe checking in my gun is the pearly gates (assuming I go there!). I hear not even the most radical, radical religious, insane, commercially or politically motivated people are able to work a gun into that place. Short of that, I'm stuck here with a personal defense system (read gun) waiting for that law that actually makes criminals toe the line without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Now that's a gun law I can endorse.
In my county, believe it or not, according to the animal control officer, and corroborated by the sheriff's deputy, an unlicensed pitbull can leave his yard, enter mine, maul my child, kill my dog, leaving a bloody trail back to his yard...and if he makes it there without being spotted by an officer of the law, he cannot be removed! We are investigating further, but the RCW regulating this conspiracy is so buried we can't confirm with our own eyes yet and we are taking the officer's words for it.
Now here you have the result of people who lovingly passed laws protecting the rights of animals...not thinking that some bastards would raise man-killing animals, never intending to register them, and allow them to roam through the neighborhoods. Of course, I'm told I can file a complaint, the owner gets a citation, but the animal is to be left untouched. This whacky thinking pushed me...the picture-perfect example of faith-oriented, peace-loving, non-gun pacifist thinking right over the edge. Now I'm still a peace-loving, faith oriented pacifict but willing to obtain and keep that peace with a peice of my own. Now, with the least amount of gunpowder and lead necessary, the blood he'll be trailing back home will be his own, from a 0.451" hole in his side.
I kid you not, the locals here actually cornered and killed a violent, loose pitbull with rakes, hoes and shovels because they didn't want to risk using a gun! Pretty brutal actually, had to be painful for the dog, and it wasn't likely an easy death to witness. Is that what dog-loving lawmakers wanted? Rakes, hoes and shovels? Sheesh!
I'm just a little country girl, wanting to throw in my two cents. The old saying is true, as cliche as it sounds, "guns DON'T kill people, people kill people." I have a medicine cabinet filled with Tylenol, Aspirin, Goodys, Cold Medicine. I have ropes, kitchen knives, electrical appliances, a CAR! What's that have to do with anything? Almost anything COULD take a life if used improperly, a gun in a responsible persons hands is no more dangerous than any of these items. I do think a person should be properly trained, and if they know the three most important rules of handling a gun, and they always abide by the rules, then there is NO possibility of an accident. Again thats if they always abide by them. I NEVER point a gun at anyone, ever! I NEVER put my finger on the trigger until I'm 100 percent ready to shoot. I NEVER keep a cartridge in the chamber. I cannot help that there are irresponsible people out there, I cannot help the fact that there are criminals out there, but I can do my part in at least making an honest, responsible attempt to protect myself and my family.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
People without the right to own arms are referred to as the "harmless masses" by the government, and "victims" by the criminals. Regardless its being victimized ether way.
Where owning a weapon was obligatory, the crime in the state dropped to nearly 0. Where weapons were banned, the crime soared higher than ever. No criminal wants to take a chance that they will be shot by an unwilling victim. They're basically cowards trying to enforce their hatred on you, or take your hard earned possessions.
A true "Gun Owner" has a high respect for human life and safety. They usually are schooled and respect others, as well as others property. For the most part, they are not criminals but far from it. They keep their weapons in good repair, and they don't own any "Saturday Night Specials" either.
They also try and find -ANY- other way to deal with a problem than to grab a gun to solve it. For instance, I have people trying to break into my property all the time, but I have a baseball bat instead of a gun ready to react with. . . Even though, the gun isn't far away, only because I've already been shot at once before. Still, its the baseball bat as the second defense, right after turning on the lights. . . That usually does the trick, because like I said, most criminals are absolute and complete cowards. BUT there still are a few who think they're Jessie James.
If weapons are taken away from us, ALL the criminals would be Jessie James, and we would be totally in their power. If you can't counter the threat, then the threat grows. FAST! All you have to do is to look at history to see that. Every country that has firearms taken from the general population has either been destroyed by their very own government who disarmed them, or was torn appart by the crooks. Even England with their limited gun ownership laws still has issues and problems with armed thugery.
gamergirl WROTE: "Fact: The Second Amendment, as written, was in response to the structures for travelling unarmed over open waters from the King. You know, that guy who oppressed people and who the colonists who came here wanted to revolt against and separate themselves from?
Fact: The Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well regulated militia is not the same as "any person who wants to tote a Glock."
GAMEGIRL, You are ignorant when it comes to what the 2nd Amendment means. If you take the time to read Federalist #28 and #46, The founding fathers described EXACTLY what it was written for!
The difference between libs and everyone else is that, everyone else reads the Bill Of Rights for what it says, LIbs, on the other hand, read what it COULD say.
troylaplante says:
13 months ago
Good job. I have this discussion often and have interviewed representatives from gun rights organizations (as well as joined them). This fight is neverending. BTW, I am a moderator over at gunandgame.com. I will probably share this article link there next time I log in.