* My comments *

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?

There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.

----------------------------------------------

That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?

Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?

* Gee, do you THINK so ? - I do. *

Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.

* ...the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them. *

Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?

I think the answer is yes.

And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.

I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.

Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?

* What do we think ? *

--------------------------------------------------

Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.

And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.

A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."

They are.

And they are right.

* Yeah. Nothings changed. They're still right. *

Journal Inquirer - Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right

I think the police are supportive of gun control because they believe it might cut down on SOME gun crime. Certainly not all, but since they are very often targets they have a personal interest in seeing guns eliminated.

That's not a fair comparison. They have an actual gun culture, where they fire them for most any reason at all. Weddings, for example. There was a story, some years ago about a bunch of Iraqis who were blown up by our aircraft while a wedding was going on. We thought they were shooting at US but they were just firing into the air in celebration.
We don't do much of that kind of thing here.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

What it really comes down to is what would you rather have, a population of unarmed law abiding citizens along with a population of armed criminals, or a population of armed law abiding citizens able to protect themselves from armed criminals.

The 2nd amendment protects non-gun owners as well because criminals do not know which house holds own guns and which do not.

And I think he pretty much covered this thread.

There are a lot of people who do that regardless of any NRA influence. My old next-door neighbor used to fire off his shotgun into the air every 4th of July and New Years. A lot of people fire guns like others use fireworks. Just not nearly as many as in a country like Iraq.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

I am a firm believer in the right to own firearms. Since early childhood I have owned and used guns for hunting and for backup while traveling in some exceptionally remote wilderness areas. I also carried a weapon during the time I was involved in law enforcement as a park ranger. That said, I do not encourage people to rely on firearms for personal or home security. All-too-often, it is personally own weapons that result in the injury or death of the owners. There is also a tendency for someone who is armed to be more confrontational and less likely to avoid a potentially dangerous situation. Fortunately, I never had to fire a weapon at another person, although I know others who have. Handling a gun is like handling an explosive; you have to be trained in how to do it safely and effectively.

barbarian - a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person. Definitely up with the times.(source) Violent deaths in the United States were 6.1 per 100,000 in a big city and 3.5 per 100,000 in other areas in 2005 (data from the FBI). The best guess I can give for Great Britain in the same year is 1.4 per 100,000 (lost the link; not finding it again b/c it's PDF anyway).

Henry, what it really comes down to is that if your position is upheld, more people will die.

__________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world." -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

I think it comes down to this. If you want to advocate eliminating all guns, PROVE to me that the criminals will also be totally disarmed before we discuss it.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

The majority of criminal guns are gotten illegally, not through gun stores. Most either buy stolen guns from criminal sources, or get their relatives to buy the guns for them. Both acts are already illegal.

Every policeman I've spoken with on the issue has been anti-gun control. They basically think (rightfully so) that criminals will get guns regardless, and that gun control only serves to disarm good people, who they want armed.

AK-47s aren't the problem in Iraq. IEDs are.

__________________
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

It's impossible to keep contraband items out of the hands of criminals. Why even try? It's much better to harshly punish the illegal use of guns (which is what the U.S. has been doing for the last 15 yrs or so, successfully) than to ban guns. Why interfere with the liberty of millions of Americans for the action of criminals?




NRA folks are about the most safety conscious folks you'll ever meet. Nice try, but the statement isn't based on reality. Believe it or not, one of the NRA's main focuses is gun safety. NRA-certified instructors teach most gun safety courses in America. I know I've taken one.

__________________
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love