|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 18, 2008 7:05:53 GMT -5
The US Supreme Court is today listening to arguments concerning the constitutionality of Washington D.C.'s gun ban. What is your opinion?
Do you think an outright gun ban is constitutional?
Do you think the 2nd Amendment provides for gun ownership for private citizens, or was it written to allow for state militias? Does it mean both or something else?
How do you think the Supreme will rule on this?
Let's hear your thoughts on this and on gun ownership in general.
Vlad
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Mar 18, 2008 9:55:20 GMT -5
The US Supreme Court is today listening to arguments concerning the constitutionality of Washington D.C.'s gun ban. What is your opinion? Do you think an outright gun ban is constitutional? Do you think the 2nd Amendment provides for gun ownership for private citizens, or was it written to allow for state militias? Does it mean both or something else? How do you think the Supreme will rule on this? Let's hear your thoughts on this and on gun ownership in general. Vlad As to the Constitutional issue, I'm just not sure what was meant by "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." I mean, clearly it means to say that a well regulated militia is necessary - but the second part can be read to either imply that individuals must be allowed to keep weapons in order for this militia to exist, or that it's referring back to the members of this militia. And it also depends on what you mean by "infringed". Absolute infringement would mean no gun control of any kind. But if what it means is that all people must be allowed to own a gun, then the government can regulate what kind of gun individuals may own. I tend to fall into a mid-way interpretation. I think the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep a gun if you're an ordinary citizen. Period. I also think it's unfortunate, but we'll get to that in a minute. But I also think that there's a lot of leeway to regulate guns without infringing on that right. Just because you have the right to "bear arms" does not mean you necessarily have the right to own an Uzi. Personally, I wish the Second Amendment had been left out of the Constitution, even though I understand, historically, why it was so important at the time. But it's there, and I'm not one for amending the Bill of Rights. Start with guns, end with religious establishment.... So an outright gun ban within a city is unconstitutional. Even the one in San Francisco.  However, I could see a law saying "all guns but this little two-shot Derringer" getting by. Okay, that's extreme, but you take my point. I detest guns. Living in a place where guns are not legal is one reason I'd consider a move to Europe. The data are clear that easy gun availability leads to more gun deaths - vast numbers more. Per capita, the U.S. has the highest number of gun deaths of any nation - 14 per 100,000 people in 1994 (yes, old data - but the trends have been the same for decades), while Japan, where the police routinely raid homes of those suspected of having weapons (a practice of which I do not approve), is at 0.05 gun deaths per capita. That's 280 times more gun deaths PER CAPITA in a nation where guns are legal vs. one where they're completely illegal. It's just not as simple as "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns". While that's true from a stupidly logical perspective, it overlooks the fact that making guns hard to get does, in fact, significantly reduce gun violence among the criminal element, as well. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights is clear. You have the right to own a gun. Of some sort, at any rate. ETA: Although...the D.C. ban is handguns, and my personal opinion is that banning handguns is acceptable within the bounds of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Mar 26, 2008 23:06:41 GMT -5
My personal feelings about guns? I hate them.
That said, I think passing any law banning the possession of firearms in America is about as useful as passing a law to ban the wind.
Anyone who grew up in this country knows full well there's a major segment of society that simply will not comply with any anti-gun legislation, regardless of circumstances. Sadly, most of these are people I'd least like to see armed. C'est la vie. :-)
The same principle applies to all sorts of controversial practices: drugs, pornography, gambling, prostitution, Amish rake dueling, etc. Show me a political "third rail" issue, and I'll show you millions of people who will find a way to do what they damn well please, regardless of what the government says...and pay handsomely to do so. Enter the modern-day Capones, Lucianos and Lanskys (though the ethnicities will have branched out considerably).
Here's a wacky concept: instead of making laws that everyone knows are impossible to enforce (thereby lining pockets of the aforementioned bad guys), what say we legalize all that stuff (except the rake-fighting, of course...we must have SOME standards) and tax the ever-loving hell out of it? You want to stop Americans from doing something? Hit them where it counts: the wallet.
My guess? People will find a way to pay for what they desire. Look at the price of cigarettes: anyone think Philip Morris is seriously in the red, even with all we know and all they've been forced to shell out in recent years?
Here's the best part: we might actually be able to afford as yet unheard of stuff like repairing our crumbling infrastructure, educating our kids without mortgaging our futures, providing affordable health care for everyone, shoring up Social Security, investing in clean, renewable energy, significantly increasing our foreign ground intelligence services (I don't know about y'all, but I think it'd be fun to combat actual threats to American security for a couple of years...just to see what would happen)...and last, but not least, start paying off the biggest debt in the history of our planet before the Chinese decide to call in the note.
All this, and our federal income taxes wouldn't have to go up one thin dime.
Umm...I may have forgotten to activate the sarcasm font...not to mention straying off the topic a little. Sorry.
I haven't had the chance to post in a while. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 28, 2008 3:02:33 GMT -5
Rachael,
Well said. Very little I disagree with there, aside from personal opinion, but I think we both agree on the 2nd amendment and pretty much what it means. I too, don't believe that a regular citizen needs or really has a right to a rocket launcher or a fully automatic machine gun. (I do believe that it is okay for states to make, say, automatic weapons potentially available for private ownership, if there is a large licensing fee, registration and a requirement that said weapon be produced for visual inspection (or accounted for) yearly.
I believe in licensing people for handgun ownership (at a modest, reasonable fee (under say $100 dollars) and really recommend a gun use and safety course. Tho' I don't know that I could or would want to make it mandatory. Perhaps a yearly fee on the license to maintain licensing, with that being waived (or markedly reduced) if you provide proof of certified training. I do believe that a person should be issued a permit to own a type of firearm and it should not apply to only one weapon. If I already own several handguns, if I already have passed my background check, if I am already licensed, what is the purpose of a lengthy waiting period? I can see a day or such to try to help reduce crimes of passion, perhaps, but it should be minimal.
Rob,
You know I respect your thoughts and I think I agree with you on maybe 2/3 of what you have to say.
You did, however, in my opinion make one error in your solution: Tax 'em to death, jsut like cigarettes. There's a difference here. Cigarettes are not a granted right to all American citizens like guns are, if hte Justices decide in the manner of which they are suspected to lean.
To tax beyond a reasonable amount for something that the Constitution guarrantees you the right to is wrong. What is a reasonable amount? I don't know. In the past, poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional because debt should not prohibit someone from exercising their right to vote. Under that precedent alone, any tax that is "described" as being prohibitive (as you described the reasoning for it) of a "right" should be found unconstitutional.
I definitely agree with you about the path of prohibition: it fails. People want guns. Some people believe they need them to lead their lives, for protection, etc. Systems fail: a policeman is far from around jsut when you need him to protect you. A very valid argument are rural folk, who leading good upstanding moral lives farming, ranching, etc... or simply choose to live their lives not in a big city have to be able to defend themselves. A phone call to 911 isn't going to do you a lot of good when the call won't be answered for half an hour or an hour. And you had better believe the person attacking them will be armed, most likely illegally. There are too many guns out there that prohibition and taking away arms from the public will reduce the amount in the hands of criiminals.
I grew up in a family that owns guns. For lots of reasons: hunting, home protection, self protection and even as family heirlooms. I have a large extended family. All of us learned to shoot at a young age, always under adult supervision. (I believe I was about 10 when I first fired a .22 rifle, pistol and shotgun.) Teaching about hte damage a gun can do, how to be as safe as you can with it as possible and learning to simply properly shoot it was what was done. Target shooting was a fun but at the same time serious entertainment. No one horsed around with a gun or ever made light of the extremely powerful and deadly tools they can be.
My point is, in this entire extended family of mine, numbering easily into the hundreds now, not a single one of htem has ever had an accident that resulted in injury or death. Not one in my entire life or in my recollection of our history. People have died or been maimed in accidents with machinery, in car accidents and as pedestrians. But not one by a gun. Are we better educators than some? Possibly. Are we unique; hardly. Are we lucky? Of course. Accidents happen under even the best of care and prevention. But all sorts of accidents take lives and people shake their heads and say what a shame. And then move on. Because life is a risk and you have to take them to live. For many, they believe gun ownership a necessity to a truly free society. The fact that there are some negative reprocussions from that is the price one has to pay for freedom. Some disagree with us that feel that way. And, if they do, then they need to follow the rules to change things more to their liking. I (believe) I have the right to own a usable gun under the Constitution and the only way you will take that right from me is to amend it. To attempt that is your perogative. But seeing as how a recent poll says 4/10 folks own firearms and many that don't still believe you should have the right to, you are gonna have a hard time selling it.
Vlad
|
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 28, 2008 16:11:38 GMT -5
I hate guns. I hate them with a fiery passion that I do not have the words to express. Could this be because my one and only exposure to them involved having one pointed at my belly and then at my back, when I got robbed at gunpoint? Uh . . . I'm thinking yes.
But then, as others have been saying, the nature of our exposure to guns makes a difference.
So I detest them. I despise them. I loathe them; they make me ill. If I could forever rid the world of all of them tomorrow with the power of my brain, I would do it without thinking twice.
However, I cannot do these things, and I am not Queen of the Universe, and the constitution says what it says.
So, I'm for sensible restrictions like "no Uzis" and such. But nothing that would begin to plainly infringe on the constitutional right. Of course, there are gray areas here, and we can only "do our best" with those.
Would a reasonable and reasoned respect for 2nd amendment, and the consequences of that, ever be enough to make me consider leaving the USA? Not even for a millisecond, not even for a microsecond, not even for a nanosecond.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Mar 28, 2008 17:03:01 GMT -5
As much as I hate the violence in society from guns, and as much as I lack any inclination to ever go hunting, I can see why the 2nd amendment exists.
Without guns to start the resistance, our Colonial founders would have been at the mercy of the British army. Protesting peacefully and sending delegations to London did nothing to stop what was considered unfair
taxation and regulations. Without guns in the hands of the citizenry, the American Revolution would have been done for long before a Continental Army could have been formed.
Watching, Jericho, is reinforcement why this right, at least in theory, needs to be around forever. And yes, Jericho was fiction, radical fiction, according to our ingrained belief in the inherent goodness of democratically elected governments to protect our welfare and freedoms, but is it so impossible? Germans probably never thought that Hitler and the Nazis could take such control of their country.
Lot of arguments, both ways.
leftylady
|
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 28, 2008 18:19:19 GMT -5
As much as I hate the violence in society from guns, and as much as I lack any inclination to ever go hunting, I can see why the 2nd amendment exists. Without guns to start the resistance, our Colonial founders would have been at the mercy of the British army. Protesting peacefully and sending delegations to London did nothing to stop what was considered unfair taxation and regulations. Without guns in the hands of the citizenry, the American Revolution would have been done for long before a Continental Army could have been formed. Watching, Jericho, is reinforcement why this right, at least in theory, needs to be around forever. And yes, Jericho was fiction, radical fiction, according to our ingrained belief in the inherent goodness of democratically elected governments to protect our welfare and freedoms, but is it so impossible? Germans probably never thought that Hitler and the Nazis could take such control of their country. Lot of arguments, both ways. leftylady My thinking is somewhere along those lines, but I've been too busy and tired to actually write my thoughts out myself. Thanks, leftylady. |
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 29, 2008 15:11:17 GMT -5
As much as I hate the violence in society from guns, and as much as I lack any inclination to ever go hunting, I can see why the 2nd amendment exists. Without guns to start the resistance, our Colonial founders would have been at the mercy of the British army. Protesting peacefully and sending delegations to London did nothing to stop what was considered unfair taxation and regulations. Without guns in the hands of the citizenry, the American Revolution would have been done for long before a Continental Army could have been formed. Watching, Jericho, is reinforcement why this right, at least in theory, needs to be around forever. And yes, Jericho was fiction, radical fiction, according to our ingrained belief in the inherent goodness of democratically elected governments to protect our welfare and freedoms, but is it so impossible? Germans probably never thought that Hitler and the Nazis could take such control of their country. Lot of arguments, both ways. leftylady Thank you for saying the above! I reduced it down to a simple ambiguous "systems fail." I didn't want to say it in my opine on the matter for fear of sounding like some radical militia type-o-guy. I'm not! But I do believe in being ... I don't know, prepared? I think the US would be a better place if every person learned how to operate at least a rifle and a shotgun and learned the basics of hunting and cleaning game. Vlad |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 29, 2008 16:02:07 GMT -5
As much as I hate the violence in society from guns, and as much as I lack any inclination to ever go hunting, I can see why the 2nd amendment exists. Without guns to start the resistance, our Colonial founders would have been at the mercy of the British army. Protesting peacefully and sending delegations to London did nothing to stop what was considered unfair taxation and regulations. Without guns in the hands of the citizenry, the American Revolution would have been done for long before a Continental Army could have been formed. Watching, Jericho, is reinforcement why this right, at least in theory, needs to be around forever. And yes, Jericho was fiction, radical fiction, according to our ingrained belief in the inherent goodness of democratically elected governments to protect our welfare and freedoms, but is it so impossible? Germans probably never thought that Hitler and the Nazis could take such control of their country. Lot of arguments, both ways. leftylady Thank you for saying the above! I reduced it down to a simple ambiguous "systems fail." I didn't want to say it in my opine on the matter for fear of sounding like some radical militia type-o-guy. I'm not! But I do believe in being ... I don't know, prepared? I think the US would be a better place if every person learned how to operate at least a rifle and a shotgun and learned the basics of hunting and cleaning game. Vlad I could not disagree more with the part in red. I am guessing you are getting at the idea that people should know how to take care of themselves without the help of modern technology - that everyone should know how to " live in the wild" if they needed to. I can buy that. But that doesn't require guns. We're talking wild hypothesis here, of course - since no way it will ever be the case that "every person in the United States will learn to use a rifle, etc." But when it comes to wild hypothesis, I think "The world would be a better place with zero guns," is a much, much better one |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Mar 29, 2008 16:16:39 GMT -5
Rachael, Rob, You know I respect your thoughts and I think I agree with you on maybe 2/3 of what you have to say. You did, however, in my opinion make one error in your solution: Tax 'em to death, jsut like cigarettes. There's a difference here. Cigarettes are not a granted right to all American citizens like guns are, if hte Justices decide in the manner of which they are suspected to lean. Vlad My apologies for my initial response. I came off in a considerably more shrill manner than I usually care to employ. This current election has me pretty frustrated, which leads to the occasional irrational outburst on my part. No question yours is a reasonable argument. Cigarettes are not the best analogy to use in this particular case. On the other hand, I have grave doubts that the framers intended for the Second Amendment to be interpreted as broadly as it has by the more radical members of the gun lobby. I think a legitimate argument can be made in favor of handgun possession as a means of self-protection, especially in a society that is literally awash with firearms. I don't think, however, they should be as easily obtainable as they are now in certain states. I understand how easy it will always be for the criminal element to have guns in any case, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with relaxing legal standards. Two wrongs would not make it right. Finally, while the Bill Of Rights is clearly a foundation of the American way of life in that particular time period, they are, after all, amendments to the Constitution. The document was designed by the framers to be changed when change was warranted. They couldn't have envisioned modern American society, but they definitely understood that things WOULD evolve. Having said all that, the point I made in my original post remains: regardless of legislation, guns aren't going anywhere. It would be much more realistic to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment somehow...but don't ask me what the ideal answer is. I'm just a guy who doesn't see the logic in a deer hunter owning armor-piercing bullets. In short, a happy medium of some kind must be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 29, 2008 18:05:05 GMT -5
Thank you for saying the above! I reduced it down to a simple ambiguous "systems fail." I didn't want to say it in my opine on the matter for fear of sounding like some radical militia type-o-guy. I'm not! But I do believe in being ... I don't know, prepared? I think the US would be a better place if every person learned how to operate at least a rifle and a shotgun and learned the basics of hunting and cleaning game. Vlad I could not disagree more with the part in red.
I am guessing you are getting at the idea that people should know how to take care of themselves without the help of modern technology - that everyone should know how to " live in the wild" if they needed to. I can buy that.But that doesn't require guns. We're talking wild hypothesis here, of course - since no way it will ever be the case that "every person in the United States will learn to use a rifle, etc." But when it comes to wild hypothesis, I think "The world would be a better place with zero guns," is a much, much better one Actually, no, that is only a part of it. The other part is to get a person used to firing a gun and seeing up close and personal what it will do to a living breathing creature. To know full well what will happen when the person pulls the trigger and to see if they are capable of doing so. And no, I don't think the world would be a better place without guns. People kill other people. It's the history of man. Been going on for a hundred thousand years in my opinion, or if you believe in other things, since Cain murdered Able. Personal Experience One:You mentioned earlier in this thread about being held-up at gunpoint (I believe). When I was 20, I was held-up in a donut shop in a nearby town at 4 am. Three guys, they all had knives. They got 20 bucks form the register and a box full of donuts and terrified the little counter girl. She and I were the only two in the building. I had gotten to the town early to judge a speech meet. They were complete imbeciles and didn't even ask me for my wallet which had 10 times the cash they got from the register. The two guys that escorted her around were nervous as heck and I was really scared for her life. Mine too, I guess, but the guy that was watching me didn't seem so twitchy, you know? Anyway, they left after a very long 4-5 minutes. I called the police while the girl sat sobbing at a table. I waited with her until the cops got there, gave them my report and then left. My point in this example: Even without a gun, a person will do bad things and exert their will. If I had been carrying a gun, I would have had choices: I might have brandished it and encouraged the knife-wielders to leave. If I had seriously thought they were going to hurt the girl, I might have shot them. Or, I could have made the choice to not make it's presence known and let things occur as they did. By being unarmed, I had no real choices.
Personal Experience 2:In my very wild youth ;D , at around 20-21, I had the occasion to return to a woman's studio apartment late one night after I had met her in a bar. An hour or two later, there was a knock at the door. She roused herself from the bed and went to answer it. There was a commotion and it turned out to be her very recently jilted boyfriend. He was drunk and he had a little snub-nose revolver. He more or less pushed himself inside.. not really violently, but he wasnt really invited. At this point she ran into the bathroom and locked herself in and I was left in my underwear with a drunk, gun-wielding, pissed off guy. I had no idea she had a boy-friend. I was, in this case, a (relatively) innocent by-stander. Anyway, I had the great pleasure of talking this guy down, all the while with her alternating between sobbing in the bathroom and calling the guy incendiary names through the door. In my underwear. I started talking to him, consoling him. Agreeing with him. Anything to get him to calm down. Finally I convinced him that she wasn't worth it and he gave me the gun. Which I promptly unloaded. Finally, I got him out the door, gave him back his gun sans bullets, and he hugged me, crying and told me what a great guy I was. My point here is that I have faced a gun, one that I was at least concerned about being used on me and I "still" believe in gun ownership. I was as possibly frightened for my life right then as anytime I ever have for an extended period. But no more so than if I had been the gal in the donut shop with the two twitchy knife-wielders. Banning guns does not, in my belief, negate violent and deadly crime. You are jsut as dead if a guy cracks your head open with a bat, stabs you in the gut with a knife, or mows you down with his car intentionally. Allowing a person a gun to protect himself in situations where it's possible, does, in my opinion, negate some of that crime. Vlad |
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 29, 2008 18:13:24 GMT -5
Rachael, Rob, You know I respect your thoughts and I think I agree with you on maybe 2/3 of what you have to say. You did, however, in my opinion make one error in your solution: Tax 'em to death, jsut like cigarettes. There's a difference here. Cigarettes are not a granted right to all American citizens like guns are, if hte Justices decide in the manner of which they are suspected to lean. Vlad My apologies for my initial response. I came off in a considerably more shrill manner than I usually care to employ. This current election has me pretty frustrated, which leads to the occasional irrational outburst on my part. No question yours is a reasonable argument. Cigarettes are not the best analogy to use in this particular case. On the other hand, I have grave doubts that the framers intended for the Second Amendment to be interpreted as broadly as it has by the more radical members of the gun lobby. I think a legitimate argument can be made in favor of handgun possession as a means of self-protection, especially in a society that is literally awash with firearms. I don't think, however, they should be as easily obtainable as they are now in certain states. I understand how easy it will always be for the criminal element to have guns in any case, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with relaxing legal standards. Two wrongs would not make it right. Finally, while the Bill Of Rights is clearly a foundation of the American way of life in that particular time period, they are, after all, amendments to the Constitution. The document was designed by the framers to be changed when change was warranted. They couldn't have envisioned modern American society, but they definitely understood that things WOULD evolve. Having said all that, the point I made in my original post remains: regardless of legislation, guns aren't going anywhere. It would be much more realistic to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment somehow...but don't ask me what the ideal answer is. I'm just a guy who doesn't see the logic in a deer hunter owning armor-piercing bullets. In short, a happy medium of some kind must be possible. I think you and I are agreeable. We look at things a little differently when it comes to our own personal choices, but we are agreeable. The only nitpicking I would have is, that, while the Bill of Rights were, indeed, the first ten Amendments, they were immediately attached to the Constitution by the same guys that framed it. They immediately said "Hey, you know, these things need to be in here as well; let's vote on it." They weren;t so much "changing" the Constitution they wrote, but clarifying it. Making it specific. Later amendments vary in their reason for existence, from adding to the powers of the Constitution to "defining it." And, I agree, the Constitution can and should be amended when a sufficient number of people believe it should be. I never disagree with the process, but I might quite possibly disagree with the reasoning or necessity for the change. Vlad |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 29, 2008 20:04:29 GMT -5
I could not disagree more with the part in red.
I am guessing you are getting at the idea that people should know how to take care of themselves without the help of modern technology - that everyone should know how to " live in the wild" if they needed to. I can buy that.But that doesn't require guns. We're talking wild hypothesis here, of course - since no way it will ever be the case that "every person in the United States will learn to use a rifle, etc." But when it comes to wild hypothesis, I think "The world would be a better place with zero guns," is a much, much better one Actually, no, that is only a part of it. The other part is to get a person used to firing a gun and seeing up close and personal what it will do to a living breathing creature. To know full well what will happen when the person pulls the trigger and to see if they are capable of doing so. And no, I don't think the world would be a better place without guns. People kill other people. It's the history of man. Been going on for a hundred thousand years in my opinion, or if you believe in other things, since Cain murdered Able. Personal Experience One:You mentioned earlier in this thread about being held-up at gunpoint (I believe). When I was 20, I was held-up in a donut shop in a nearby town at 4 am. Three guys, they all had knives. They got 20 bucks form the register and a box full of donuts and terrified the little counter girl. She and I were the only two in the building. I had gotten to the town early to judge a speech meet. They were complete imbeciles and didn't even ask me for my wallet which had 10 times the cash they got from the register. The two guys that escorted her around were nervous as heck and I was really scared for her life. Mine too, I guess, but the guy that was watching me didn't seem so twitchy, you know? Anyway, they left after a very long 4-5 minutes. I called the police while the girl sat sobbing at a table. I waited with her until the cops got there, gave them my report and then left. My point in this example: Even without a gun, a person will do bad things and exert their will. If I had been carrying a gun, I would have had choices: I might have brandished it and encouraged the knife-wielders to leave. If I had seriously thought they were going to hurt the girl, I might have shot them. Or, I could have made the choice to not make it's presence known and let things occur as they did. By being unarmed, I had no real choices.
Personal Experience 2:In my very wild youth ;D , at around 20-21, I had the occasion to return to a woman's studio apartment late one night after I had met her in a bar. An hour or two later, there was a knock at the door. She roused herself from the bed and went to answer it. There was a commotion and it turned out to be her very recently jilted boyfriend. He was drunk and he had a little snub-nose revolver. He more or less pushed himself inside.. not really violently, but he wasnt really invited. At this point she ran into the bathroom and locked herself in and I was left in my underwear with a drunk, gun-wielding, pissed off guy. I had no idea she had a boy-friend. I was, in this case, a (relatively) innocent by-stander. Anyway, I had the great pleasure of talking this guy down, all the while with her alternating between sobbing in the bathroom and calling the guy incendiary names through the door. In my underwear. I started talking to him, consoling him. Agreeing with him. Anything to get him to calm down. Finally I convinced him that she wasn't worth it and he gave me the gun. Which I promptly unloaded. Finally, I got him out the door, gave him back his gun sans bullets, and he hugged me, crying and told me what a great guy I was. My point here is that I have faced a gun, one that I was at least concerned about being used on me and I "still" believe in gun ownership. I was as possibly frightened for my life right then as anytime I ever have for an extended period. But no more so than if I had been the gal in the donut shop with the two twitchy knife-wielders. Banning guns does not, in my belief, negate violent and deadly crime. You are jsut as dead if a guy cracks your head open with a bat, stabs you in the gut with a knife, or mows you down with his car intentionally. Allowing a person a gun to protect himself in situations where it's possible, does, in my opinion, negate some of that crime. Vlad Yeah, I get that different people have different experiences, and I get that different people react differently to similar experiences. For example, to me, this all reinforces my feeling that the world would be a better place with ZERO guns. |
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 29, 2008 22:17:41 GMT -5
Interesting conversation. Coming so soon on after the NIU shooting on Valentine's Day, it is especially appropriate. Soon after that horrible day, the gun opponents were out in force. Of course they stressed that if guns had not been readily available, the young man would have not had the opportunity to purchase them so readily and then use them. Bad people or desperate people will find a way to wreak havoc no matter what laws are on the books. Many of the kids at NIU stood behind the 2nd amendment and said that if Illinois had a law that allowed concealed weapons, that they could have protected themselves. I don't like guns. Our family never had them. My sister married into a family of hunters, and they all are responsible people as far as the guns are concerned. In a perfect world, there would be no guns or need for them. I don't like the idea of giving up the right to bear arms. Like Leftylady, the show, Jericho, although a fantasy, showed us plausible reasons why we shouldn't let ourselves be without means of defense if our government happens to be taken over by corrupt and evil men. It could happen...we shouldn't kid ourselves. How many rights are we willing to give up for the pipedream of being 'safe'? So, one vote for the right to bear arms from the Independent, sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, voter from Illinois.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Apr 1, 2008 17:42:33 GMT -5
Interesting train of conversation since my last post to this thread.
Karen, I couldn't agree more when you say:
"Bad people or desperate people will find a way to wreak havoc no matter what laws are on the books."
Rude behavior, lack of self-restraint and the ability to MacGyver any handy implement into a tool of destruction is all too prevalent in today's society.
"In a perfect world, there would be no guns or need for them."
That would include any weapon, defensive as well as offensive, be it guns, rocket launchers, missiles or bombs. But that world is as much "in theory" as the theoretical threat to our cities and homes from a corrupt government or military-industrial takeover, such as fictional "Jericho".
"How many rights are we willing to give up for the pipedream of being 'safe'?"
Is there any safety in slowly but inevitably becoming a less free and less democratic society?
And, Vlad, no, I don't advocate citizens running around with guns. This is not the Wild West. People in the streets taking on criminals? That's what police and law enforcement organizations are for. With the prevalence in some urban centers of the aforementioned rude behavior, lack of self-restraint and the too ready availability of guns, the newspapers are full of stories of street confrontations or drunken family gatherings leading to ugly and deadly results. You are just as likely to get yourself hurt by escalating the confrontation with your own gun. Talking down the drunken boyfriend was a wise and commendable choice.(Vlad, the Peacemaker!)
I'm talking about the need for guns very much in theory. And for me that theory goes hand in hand with:
knowing how to use properly
knowing when to use (which in my mind is mostly never)
having the maturity and wisdom to understand the first two
In conclusion, we may never, here in the safety of our everyday world, have to worry about a Kosovo, a Darfur or Nazi invasion, a Jennings & Rall / Ravenwood - controlled existence, (or a Cylon attack ;D), but the ability to defend our communities, to form a militia against the loss of societal self determination when our government can't protect us or is the aggressor, is what the 2nd amendment is all about.
leftylady, who is liking this Open Topic Forum
|
|
