10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Ridgerunner]

Wonder how many citizens of Boston wished they had a gun when the Tsnarnaev brothers were cavorting about the neighborhoods.

Again, guns are not only used to shoot bad guys. When one lives in a rural area, as I do, the likelihood of needing one for self-protection against humans is far less than needing to protect oneself and/or one’s family from animals.

I realize the Constitution was not written with that in mind according to the scholars, but it’s a very big concern if one lives in a place where there are things like feral hogs, mountain lions, bears, feral dogs, coyotes and canine hybrids. Maybe in some parts of the world, nobody needs to be concerned about such things, but in much of the U.S. one sure does.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Wonder how many citizens of Boston wished they had a gun when the Tsnarnaev brothers were cavorting about the neighborhoods.

Again, guns are not only used to shoot bad guys. When one lives in a rural area, as I do, the likelihood of needing one for self-protection against humans is far less than needing to protect oneself and/or one’s family from animals.

I realize the Constitution was not written with that in mind according to the scholars, but it’s a very big concern if one lives in a place where there are things like feral hogs, mountain lions, bears, feral dogs, coyotes and canine hybrids. Maybe in some parts of the world, nobody needs to be concerned about such things, but in much of the U.S. one sure does.

I have no gripes against gun ownership where one needs protection from wild animals. Such people are usually much more disciplined when it comes to firearms. My concern, again, is allowing people with an inclination towards anger, rage, hatred and severe mental illnesses. Owing a gun should be a privilege, and not a right. There’s a big difference between urban and rural areas. The mentality that I need a gun to protect myself from violent criminals is a relatively unrealistic fear that places these gun owners at a much higher probability of the gun being in suicide, accidental death and homicide.

LOVE!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Adding to this issue, the Universal Declaration of Human Right, Article 3 -

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Now the American **public authorities **(which the founders were) said that in serving this right, Americans have the civil right to bear arms in self defense. This, self defense, is the universal principle which you claim affords private guns ‘God-given’. However, you limit this right only to American citizens in America. Tourists and other internationals entering your country are not afforded this God-given right to self defense because they are not American citizens. Does that mean that this God-given human right only considers American citizens human? Are internationals in the States rendered inhuman because they aren’t American? If the right to self defense is universal and justifies bearing a weapon… how do you justify prohibiting it travellers inside your borders? Do you believe that internationals have some other qualities or protections that make them equally safe to armed Americans inside American society. Chris Lane would disagree, but how is that God-given right morally denied to internationals facing the same threats as residents?

I’m sorry that we seem so unfriendly to foreign visitors these days. Blame cretins who decided to take out their rage against the world by coming to the USA and killing Americans.

One of the most notorious of these incidents happened on the Long Island Rail Road in New York State in 1993. A Jamaican lunatic named Colin Fergunson killed six people and wounded nineteen others, claiming that it was justified by “Black rage” against his White and Asian victims. In the aftermath …as usual…Congress passed laws restricting firearms possession by foreign tourists, travelers.

However…

An alien legally in the U.S. may acquire firearms if he has a State of residence. An alien has a State of residence only if he is residing in that State and has resided in a State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the purchase.

Non-immigrant aliens (which includes tourists) in the USA are generally prohibited from possessing firearms.

There are certain exceptions to this prohibition. The easiest way for a non-immigrant alien to legally possess firearms in the USA is to obtain a hunting license from any state. It effectively serves as your alien firearms possession license.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good morning…All:

Since one of our intellectual forum members is treating this thread as** “an evolutionary intelligence test”**… and actually giving out passing and failing grades…I think it is about time we brought this subject to a higher logical and intellectual level.

Guns are weapons, designed to kill. I think we all agree on that. Even Brendan would admit that his trap or skeet gun would stop an intruder better than a tossed clay target.

We know that laws and regulations really don’t work well. With thousands of laws, regulations and restrictions…people still kill people…with guns.

So, to make the World a better place we should eliminate weapons. Guns in particular. (?)

I agree that if guns did not exist there would be fewer deaths. People would still kill other people…just not with guns. The trouble is…guns exist. They are there…The intelligentsia know this and fights for more restrictions. They also know that does not work either. They do not like guns.They fear them and because they consider themselves above the masses they don’t want anyone to have them.

Now logic would say…since Hispanic and Black gang members are responsible for most of the gun violence in this country…then Hispanic and Black people should not be permitted to possess firearms. The Intelligentsia (through the ACLU) would be the first to claim that to be a violation or some people’s rights. Actually restricting ANYONE’S freedom is a violation of rights.

Lets move on to the Intelligentsia idea of Utopia…Suppose a national ban of firearms went into effect and all guns in the U.S. were surrendered to authorities to be destroyed.
What-a-Wonderful-World…

Thinking reasonably…would anyone then expect Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to feel SOOOO secure that they would gladly work unarmed now that guns were banned??? NO WAY!!!

Of course all Armies, world wide, would have to disarm to make it really work. And remember…“He who beats his sword into a plowshare…will plow for he who did not.”

I will go so far as to say that the day after the Intelligentsia Utopia is reached and all guns are destroyed…some nut will find a one and shoot someone with it.

The reality is that laws restrictions and bans simply will not work. To solve the problem of violence…look to the human element.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m sorry that we seem so unfriendly to foreign visitors these days. Blame cretins who decided to take out their rage against the world by coming to the USA and killing Americans.

One of the most notorious of these incidents happened on the Long Island Rail Road in New York State in 1993. A Jamaican lunatic named Colin Fergunson killed six people and wounded nineteen others, claiming that it was justified by “Black rage” against his White and Asian victims. In the aftermath …as usual…Congress passed laws restricting firearms possession by foreign tourists, travelers.

However…

An alien legally in the U.S. may acquire firearms if he has a State of residence. An alien has a State of residence only if he is residing in that State and has resided in a State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the purchase.

Non-immigrant aliens (which includes tourists) in the USA are generally prohibited from possessing firearms.

There are certain exceptions to this prohibition. The easiest way for a non-immigrant alien to legally possess firearms in the USA is to obtain a hunting license from any state. It effectively serves as your alien firearms possession license.

You have to understand that the point I’m trying to make is not that foreigners should all be armed when they arrive… but how the policy, ‘guns for private defense’… makes the playing field so unequal and unfair for a massive number of human beings. It comes from a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. (Jesus Himself constantly demonstrated the utter ideal for the private citizen in ‘turning the other cheek’.) Most people in the world know that your likelyhood of being shot and injured or killed visiting US is way higher than other developed countries, but that doesn’t mean we automatically think the solution is *more *guns. More guns is a relatively rare government response to increasing gun crime in the developed world.

The other aspect that is distorting the ability to see the future of this policy, is the idea that the right to bear arms for private citizens, is a ‘God given’ right. We have a universal human right to ‘security of person’ and we are permitted by natural and divine law to legitimately defend ourselves, but there is no natural or divine right to carry and defend yourself with a gun. While that might serve in some circumstances as a civil or political right ie. anarchy or war…universal human rights are necessarily concerned with not only the rights of the individual person but how those rights impact on the community at large. The Public authorities by nature and God are charged with making the environment safe for all citizens and minimise the capacity for harm. In this, creating and enforcing laws, their authority comes from God, but the laws themselves are not ‘god-given’. I demonstrated that earlier in the discussion with the example of the Church permitting voters to vote for a ‘lesser of two evils’ candidate in elections. That goes a way to show that while the authority to make the laws comes from God, the actual laws themselves are not invested with any divine merit to make them eternally binding among men.

The CCC as I posted earlier, permits ‘legitimate authorities’ to resort to arms in the job of defending the common good, but this does not include a private individual who’s main concern is personal defense. A policy of privately armed citizens can only be a civil or political law. It cannot have divine merit and be eternally binding.

 

[LongingSoul]

Good morning…All:

Since one of our intellectual forum members is treating this thread as** “an evolutionary intelligence test”**… and actually giving out passing and failing grades…I think it is about time we brought this subject to a higher logical and intellectual level.

Guns are weapons, designed to kill. I think we all agree on that. Even Brendan would admit that his trap or skeet gun would stop an intruder better than a tossed clay target.

We know that laws and regulations really don’t work well. With thousands of laws, regulations and restrictions…people still kill people…with guns.

So, to make the World a better place we should eliminate weapons. Guns in particular. (?)

I agree that if guns did not exist there would be fewer deaths. People would still kill other people…just not with guns. The trouble is…guns exist. They are there…The intelligentsia know this and fights for more restrictions. They also know that does not work either. They do not like guns.They fear them and because they consider themselves above the masses they don’t want anyone to have them.

Now logic would say…since Hispanic and Black gang members are responsible for most of the gun violence in this country…then Hispanic and Black people should not be permitted to possess firearms. The Intelligentsia (through the ACLU) would be the first to claim that to be a violation or some people’s rights. Actually restricting ANYONE’S freedom is a violation of rights.

Lets move on to the Intelligentsia idea of Utopia…Suppose a national ban of firearms went into effect and all guns in the U.S. were surrendered to authorities to be destroyed.
What-a-Wonderful-World…

Thinking reasonably…would anyone then expect Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to feel SOOOO secure that they would gladly work unarmed now that guns were banned??? NO WAY!!!

Of course all Armies, world wide, would have to disarm to make it really work. And remember…“He who beats his sword into a plowshare…will plow for he who did not.”

I will go so far as to say that the day after the Intelligentsia Utopia is reached and all guns are destroyed…some nut will find a one and shoot someone with it.

The reality is that laws restrictions and bans simply will not work. To solve the problem of violence…look to the human element.

The Catechism offers the Church’s perspective on defense weapons here…

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So we can be quite comfortable entrusting the legitimate public authorities with this capacity in defending the ‘common good’ and the country.

The Church also defines for us the boundaries of a blameless self defense …

“Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.””

One of the statistics to question would be how many killed people in the US were actually armed when they were killed? Are people arming themselves defensively to just match criminals, as in anticipating a shootout situation… or are they arming themselves to get an upper hand situation? Personally I would never arm myself simply to be on an equal playing field… I would want to feel that I had the upper hand if confronted. But is this really considered ‘blameless defense’ in the spirit of Aquinas? Of course it is natural for a person to want to have the upper hand, but public authorities are also aware of the consequence of ‘one upmanship’ thinking on the future common good. In Australian policy, this played a major part in halting and reducing the number of private guns that are in the community. It has eliminated this idea of ‘one upmanship’ which is especially tempting for young lads who by nature are naturally prepared biologically for defending and war.

There are far more things to consider when the public authorities make laws, than an individuals personal perspective. It has to weigh lots of perspectives and take into account the history of humans and weapons, in deciding what government policies best serve the common good of all.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The answer to your questions is “None of your business.” You are condescending to people in your replies, and there is no point in discussing issues with someone who feels they know everything, and cannot discuss issues without being condescending. God bless you.

Good Evening Deus Tecum: I think it is my business and the business of the rest humanity, because the issue at hand is the continued proliferation of lethal weapons whose purposes by their very nature are artifacts from a more primitive time in our development. Dealing with the issues caused by a tenacious culture of violence is attenuating the ability of our species to address the greater issues that confront the higher aspirations we should be aiming for at this stage in our history.

My simple and honest question to those who insist on keeping this diversion on the human agenda is to explain what compelling reason you have to wander freely among the rest of us while dragging a dangerous remnant of our lower misadventures with you, and subsequently putting us all at risk? I have heard the argument of self defense, constitutional arguments and the like. None have been convincing in my estimation, and the resounding and overriding apex of the argument remains that the only world in which people can be killed by guns is a world where people have guns. To that end, the fewer guns there are the better. To an effectual extent, we create the world we live in and many of the conditions in it, and we’re the ones who make the decisions on how it moves forward. This is why I am happy to tell you that I think it’s everyone’s business.

Thank You,
Gary

 

[shockerfan]

… the resounding and overriding apex of the argument remains that the only world in which people can be killed by guns is a world where people have guns. To that end, the fewer guns there are the better.

Gary, how about a compromise? Lets engage in a honest discussion about law abiding citizens disarming after you see to it that all criminals in the US have been disarmed first. After that has been verified, and there is no risk of guns entering the US illegally, and the federal government disarms their federal agencies, then folks like me will have that conversation.

Shockerfan

 

[Ridgerunner]

Gary, how about a compromise? Lets engage in a honest discussion about law abiding citizens disarming after you see to it that all criminals in the US have been disarmed first. After that has been verified, and there is no risk of guns entering the US illegally, and the federal government disarms their federal agencies, then folks like me will have that conversation.

Shockerfan

If criminals can bring tons and tons of illicit drugs into this country, which they manifestly do, there is no possibility whatever that they will fail to bring in whatever firearms they wish to have.

And if every stoner and dealer in the country can buy drugs without much chance of ever being caught doing it, what is the compelling reason to believe those who want guns for nefarious purposes will be unable to obtain them?

Seems to me the only people left who will be unable to obtain guns, if strict anti-gun laws are passed, are law-abiding citizens.

One would hate to think that’s the point of it, but maybe it is.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You have to understand that the point I’m trying to make is not that foreigners should all be armed when they arrive… but how the policy, ‘guns for private defense’… makes the playing field so unequal and unfair for a massive number of human beings. It comes from a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. (Jesus Himself constantly demonstrated the utter ideal for the private citizen in ‘turning the other cheek’.) Most people in the world know that your likelyhood of being shot and injured or killed visiting US is way higher than other developed countries, but that doesn’t mean we automatically think the solution is *more *guns. More guns is a relatively rare government response to increasing gun crime in the developed world.

More guns would be a silly response of any government that did not trust its citizens and had tyranny as a goal.

But the United States government is not promoting more guns…

Our government can’t take credit for the increase in gun ownership that seems to have caused a decrease in our homicide rates.

Perhaps Australia, Canada and Great Britain should take a closer look at their draconian laws that only seem to effect law abiding subjects.

In 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. That was the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.

Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

It would seem logical, that if a government was really interested in reducing violent crime it would allow its citizens to simply protect themselves.

The other aspect that is distorting the ability to see the future of this policy, is the idea that the right to bear arms for private citizens, is a ‘God given’ right. We have a universal human right to ‘security of person’ and we are permitted by natural and divine law to legitimately defend ourselves, but there is no natural or divine right to carry and defend yourself with a gun.

What “tool” would you suggest? A club? Perhaps a spear? Maybe a sling…like David used?

A rational person has every right to defend himself with a weapon equivalent to overcome his assailant. A rational person will avoid a confrontation. A rational person would retreat from an unarmed attacker. But if a life threatening situation called for the use of force…the rational person is justified in using whatever is necessary.

 

[LongingSoul]

More guns would be a silly response of any government that did not trust its citizens and had tyranny as a goal.

But the United States government is not promoting more guns…

Our government can’t take credit for the increase in gun ownership that seems to have caused a decrease in our homicide rates.

Perhaps Australia, Canada and Great Britain should take a closer look at their draconian laws that only seem to effect law abiding subjects.

In 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. That was the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.

Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

It would seem logical, that if a government was really interested in reducing violent crime it would allow its citizens to simply protect themselves.

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics”.- Mark Twain

Statistics, I’ve seen them all. Every lobby has their own way of manipulating figures to suit their cause so they are relatively pointless apart from the Bureau of Statistics overall figures of deaths and their causes. Those show that death by weapon violence has decreased since the gun laws were introduced 1996 in relation to population.

What “tool” would you suggest? A club? Perhaps a spear? Maybe a sling…like David used?

A rational person has every right to defend himself with a weapon equivalent to overcome his assailant. A rational person will avoid a confrontation. A rational person would retreat from an unarmed attacker. But if a life threatening situation called for the use of force…the rational person is justified in using whatever is necessary.

The point is what mentality should we approach this problem using. A warlike one… arm yourself with lethal weapons in case of attack? Or a peace focused one… arm the police and security personel who follow strict ethical standards and are professionally accountable to the common good of all, for their decisions. To talk about government policy and laws, we have to think like a government should be thinking… not reacting from one particular persons perspective on their own security. That’s not how public authorities are meant to think. They have to be fair to all indiscriminately.

 

[YADA]

I find it ironic that our government wants to decrease law abiding gun ownership in this country while - at the same time - it arms the citizens of other countries and works to overthrow oppressive governments …

And how do governments become oppressive … they control the citizenry … they prevent the people from being able to stand up to the government …

Our nation is great because the government governs with our consent …

Once it does not need our consent … power seekers will seek more and more power

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The Catechism offers the Church’s perspective on defense weapons here…

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So we can be quite comfortable entrusting the legitimate public authorities with this capacity in defending the ‘common good’ and the country.

Americans are not comfortable with that at all. Rugged Individuals, remember.

It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.

So while the “legitimate public authorities” are out there “defending the ‘common good’”… who can I trust to protect me and my family??

The Church also defines for us the boundaries of a blameless self defense …

“Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.””

See my reply in the previous post.

One of the statistics to question would be how many killed people in the US were actually armed when they were killed? Are people arming themselves defensively to just match criminals, as in anticipating a shootout situation… or are they arming themselves to get an upper hand situation? Personally I would never arm myself simply to be on an equal playing field… I would want to feel that I had the upper hand if confronted. But is this really considered ‘blameless defense’ in the spirit of Aquinas? Of course it is natural for a person to want to have the upper hand, but public authorities are also aware of the consequence of ‘one upmanship’ thinking on the future common good. In Australian policy, this played a major part in halting and reducing the number of private guns that are in the community. It has eliminated this idea of ‘one upmanship’ which is especially tempting for young lads who by nature are naturally prepared biologically for defending and war.

Australia HAS greatly reduced number of private guns that are in the community.

But how is that working out for you?

The Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent)

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

There are far more things to consider when the public authorities make laws, than an individuals personal perspective. It has to weigh lots of perspectives and take into account the history of humans and weapons, in deciding what government policies best serve the common good of all.

One of my favorite films is Master and Commander. Captain Jack Aubrey (Russel Crowe) is arguing with the ship’s doctor about discipline aboard the ship. Capt. Aubrey makes the statement: “Men must be governed. Often not wisely, I will grant you, but they must be governed nonetheless.” He is not talking exclusively about his crew…but about all MEN.

That line sums up the difference between the cultures of the British Empire (and Europe) and America. We had a jolly Revolution because we didn’t particularly like being “governed”. While the common good is important we hold the individual above it.

Governed people do nothing unless their government permits it. We do what we want, unless it is illegal or until a law is passed against it…and we decide who makes the laws.

Our government is constrained by what it can and cannot do according to our Constitution.
At this moment Americans still have the right to keep and bear arms. Not many governments around this world would feel very secure if their citizens had that right. I wonder why.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gary, how about a compromise? Lets engage in a honest discussion about law abiding citizens disarming after you see to it that all criminals in the US have been disarmed first. After that has been verified, and there is no risk of guns entering the US illegally, and the federal government disarms their federal agencies, then folks like me will have that conversation.

Shockerfan

Good Evening Shockerfan: The only compromise in that arrangement is the compromise of our convictions and our dignity, which are lost when we let the least among us set the standards of our behavior or to dictate the manner in which human affairs will be conducted. And that’s what we’re doing when we say that we will carry weapons so long as criminals carry them, or that we’ll lay them down when criminals do. Life holds no quarter for indolence born of cowardice, and leaving things as they are in regards to this issue is precisely that.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The point is what mentality should we approach this problem using. A warlike one… arm yourself with lethal weapons in case of attack? Or a peace focused one… arm the police and security personel who follow strict ethical standards and are professionally accountable to the common good of all, for their decisions. To talk about government policy and laws, we have to think like a government should be thinking… not reacting from one particular persons perspective on their own security. That’s not how public authorities are meant to think. They have to be fair to all indiscriminately.

I agree.

Thanks
Gary

 

[NextElement]

A government with all the power never fails to abuse that power and ultimately do terrible things to it’s people. Why should I trust a man made institution to protect myself and my family 24/7? The power of the citizens (which one could argue comes from being armed) keeps the government in check… “People shouldn’t fear the government, the government should fear the people”. It’s the harsh reality of living in this world.

• A Catholic who owns an AR-15

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

NextElementA government with all the power never fails to abuse that power and ultimately do terrible things to it’s people. Why should I trust a man made institution to protect myself and my family 24/7? The power of the citizens (which one could argue comes from being armed) keeps the government in check… “People shouldn’t fear the government, the government should fear the people”. It’s the harsh reality of living in this world.

• A Catholic who owns an AR-15

Good morning NextElement: Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, so therefore I would offer that in this case what you fear is simply people. That is a personal matter for you to come to terms with. It is not the problem of people who have assimilated into a civilized society. I maintain that the people to fear are the people who fear people. They’re the ones who carry weapons. So the question is why do you fear people, and why should I let your fear put me at risk because you think you need an AR-15?

Now, in regards to the government. The United States government is an institution like any other large organization - everyone employed there from top to bottom works in their own silo. No one there has an overreaching plan outside of their own silo. They take the metro to the Pentagon subway station or to Farragut West or Smithsonian metro stops, clock their 8 hours, check their pension plans, engage in office politics and compete with people in their own silos, just like any other work place. No one has a master plan. No one knows much about what happens in the other silo. No one knows what’s happening at a broad level and everyone is concerned simply with their own careers. The left had has no idea what the right hand is doing. Yet gun fanatics think there is some plan going on in the government to subjugate the populace. What do you think the government wants from you that you’ll have to defend with your weapon? Your car? Your pants? Your shirts and your shoes? Your dog? Your truck? The carpet in your house? Your furniture? What do you have that is of any interest to anyone, especially the government? I bet that like the rest of us, you’re just not that interesting. So why do you think that people, or the government of the people are out to get you? In what fierce battles have you engaged in with your AR-15 to date in defense of your property and your family? I bet there haven’t been any. I bet there won’t be. I bet the only person who might hurt you with a firearm is you. That’s what I bet. In spite of that, you’re worried about a bunch of people sitting in cubicles all day surfing the internet for sales at Lowes and Home Depot, or talking about their kids’ soccer game. That’s pretty much what the government is.

Thank You,
Gary

 

[Boatswain2PA]

It seems that people fall into three broad gun control categories.

There are a very few extreme right wing people who want armed teachers, mandatory gun training in school, and a requirement for every home to have firearms. Nothing will change these people’s minds.

There are lot of left wing extremists who think firearms have no purpose in civilized society and push for every possible new gun regulation with the ultimate goal of removing firearms from society. I believe Robert Sock falls into this category. NOTHING will ever change their mind. Not quotes from the catechism that clearly state that catholics have the right of self defense, nor well-done studies that CLEARLY show that gun control does nothing to decrease violence (see this study done by Harvard law school: law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf).

Like all extremists, the people in both of these categories are so caught up in their severe emotional response to the issue that logic simply cannot break through their “feelings” on the subject. For example, Robert’s original post here…the “gun control myths” are not really based on facts, neither does the author really “shoot down” these myths with any real factual arguments, but with more emotional diatribe.

The majority of people fall into the middle ground. We want some common sense restrictions on who can own weapons, what kind of weapons can be owned, and where the weapons can be carried. However we also want some strong assurances that the extreme left-winger’s are not going to succeed in taking away our rights.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It seems that people fall into three broad gun control categories.

There are a very few extreme right wing people who want armed teachers, mandatory gun training in school, and a requirement for every home to have firearms. Nothing will change these people’s minds.

There are lot of left wing extremists who think firearms have no purpose in civilized society and push for every possible new gun regulation with the ultimate goal of removing firearms from society. I believe Robert Sock falls into this category. NOTHING will ever change their mind. Not quotes from the catechism that clearly state that catholics have the right of self defense, nor well-done studies that CLEARLY show that gun control does nothing to decrease violence (see this study done by Harvard law school: law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf).

Like all extremists, the people in both of these categories are so caught up in their severe emotional response to the issue that logic simply cannot break through their “feelings” on the subject. For example, Robert’s original post here…the “gun control myths” are not really based on facts, neither does the author really “shoot down” these myths with any real factual arguments, but with more emotional diatribe.

The majority of people fall into the middle ground. We want some common sense restrictions on who can own weapons, what kind of weapons can be owned, and where the weapons can be carried. However we also want some strong assurances that the extreme left-winger’s are not going to succeed in taking away our rights.

I’m not necessarily against gun ownership, but I think being “responsible” goes well beyond taking gun classes. It takes a certain individual who is highly disciplined and lacks anger, hatred, rage and severe mental illness. This does not only apply to the gun owner, but his household and personal environment as well, as family members or a friend may gain access to the gun and use it to kill themselves or some other family member. The high incidence of murder, suicides and accidental killings within the domestic settings is alarming, indeed. Gun ownership should not be a right so that any wacko can own one, but a privilege.

And I’m neither liberal or conservative.

LOVE!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Now, in regards to the government. The United States government is an institution like any other large organization - everyone employed there from top to bottom works in their own silo. No one there has an overreaching plan outside of their own silo. They take the metro to the Pentagon subway station or to Farragut West or Smithsonian metro stops, clock their 8 hours, check their pension plans, engage in office politics and compete with people in their own silos, just like any other work place. No one has a master plan.

Ummm…have you ever heard of Lois Lerner? There CERTAINLY are government bureaucrats whose work extends beyond their own single little silo. Recently revealed E-mails even show that Lerner worked with the DOJ to bring CRIMINAL charges against some people as retribution for their political beliefs. Of course, this is the same DOJ who shipped guns to Mexican cartels, yet refuses to prosecute clear-cut voter intimidation charges against people of color in Philadelphia.

The picture you paint of the solitary government bureaucrat toiling away in their own little cubicle is woefully inaccurate.

Yet gun fanatics think there is some plan going on in the government to subjugate the populace. What do you think the government wants from you that you’ll have to defend with your weapon? Your car? Your pants? Your shirts and your shoes? Your dog? Your truck? The carpet in your house? Your furniture?

Gary - none of those things matter if you do not have your freedom. Subjugation is insidious. “First they came for the socialists, but I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

In what fierce battles have you engaged in with your AR-15 to date in defense of your property and your family? I bet there haven’t been any. I bet there won’t be.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the government is always a little scared OF the people, not the other way around. This little bit of fear is healthy, as it PREVENTS the government from attempting to subjugate it’s people. It’s kind of like how our nuclear arsenal’s prevented the US and USSR from engaging in open warfare.

Bottom line Gary - you owe your freedom to guys with guns. Those of us who carried guns while wearing the uniform of our nation protects your freedom from OTHER nation’s governments. And those of us who own guns while NOT wearing the uniform of our nation protects your freedom from OUR government.

Of course, you are so well protected by these scary men that you are allowed to sleep well at night, not even knowing that men are willing to lay down their lives to protect you and your family.