Gun Enthusiasts Mobilize

anonemouse · April 24, 2007

.....so then, you categorically reject the notion of concealed carry by licensed individuals on campus,

Yes, I do. I feel a heck of a lot safer with only law officers carrying guns on campus than I do a lot of yahoos whose only qualifications to carry a concealed weapon is ownership. As many people that are out there with anger problems, giving them no limits on where they can carry their weapon is lunacy. So I'd rather have one nutjob firing at me on campus than have a thousand prospective nutjobs carrying lethal weapons, especially if I'm likely to get caught in the crossfire, and especially if they aren't required to pass a class on basic safety.

or a cadre of agents rather like the air-marshals in favor of another bureaucracy funded by the taxpayer? With all the efficiency observable in all our other bureaucracies?

Or how about this? We set laws and we actually enforce them, instead of having organizations like the NRA trying to block any and every form of legislation, even when it would make us safer? Not everyone should have the right to own an AK-47. People should be required to take safety courses in order to buy a gun and carry it. I'm sorry, but when just about any yahoo that isn't a felon can buy a gun, my safety (or yours) isn't exactly ensured.

anonemouse · April 24, 2007

or a cadre of agents rather like the air-marshals in favor of another bureaucracy funded by the taxpayer?

And by the way, even a cadre of "air marshals" won't make a damned bit of difference if these people aren't breaking any laws until they snap. Cho never broke any gun laws until he went on his rampage. You can't arrest people that aren't breaking the law. And what are you going to do? Plant "air marshals" in every single building and along every walkway on every single campus or in every single public building (because of the CNN shooting, etc.), period? By the time they would be able to do any good, people would already be dead. The only solution I see is prevention. And if that prevention comes by the limitation of my right to bear any type of gun I want to, so be it.

maudeispam · April 24, 2007

As someone who grew up eating wildgame out of necessity. My parents could not afford, beef or pork products. They still eat a lot of wild game. I am against anyone taking away "everyone's" guns. I don't think high powered AK 47's and similiar weapons are a necesssity, but there are people who own them and use them soley for target practice. But then we have the criminals, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon (whether it is a gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.) The guns don't kill, the idiots that use them do.

BJean · April 24, 2007

Jack, I agree that drug use CAN disrupt and erode the fabric of society - alcohol abuse to a certain degree has certainly proved that, and it is legal.

Obviously, drug cartels do have a history of enforcing means to their own ends thru violence and corruption. Wonder how powerful they would be if their drugs weren't illegal in the U.S., and if we had a proper means of manufacturing, distribution, taxing, and a set of rules governing the use of drugs?

Alcohol abuse didn't end with the abolition of prohibition, but lots of bad guys are no long enforcing a means to their own ends through violence and corruption in the U.S. as it relates to the illegal sale and distribution of alcohol here.

anonemouse · April 24, 2007

I share a bit of that anxiety also. However, in my state, the requirement to have a CCW includes 'safety classes'.

Same comment, same reality. There are such laws on the books for legal CCW.

Not in all states, there isn't. Take Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, etc., for example. You don't have to pass a safety exam to get a CCW.

anonemouse · April 24, 2007

Oh, and please explain how the ACLU is somehow good for supporting one of our constitutional rights, while the NRA is evil for supporting another one of our constitutional rights.

Because I don't think the right of every citizen to carry a handgun is spelled out in the constitution. The right to free speech is. Last time I checked, we don't need a militia anymore.

The reality of the history of gun grabbers has never been satisfied with 'just this one' or 'just that one'....they ALWAYS increase their list of evil guns...

"Evil guns", IMO, include any that have a primary purpose of killing. What good's an AK-47 except to kill? Who the hell needs a fully automatic pistol or rifle, other than possibly a cop? The only purpose for those guns is death.

DerickM · April 24, 2007

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

The constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, lets see what he has to say on the subject!

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

(italics added by myself)

DerickM · April 24, 2007

"Evil guns", IMO, include any that have a primary purpose of killing. What good's an AK-47 except to kill? Who the hell needs a fully automatic pistol or rifle, other than possibly a cop? The only purpose for those guns is death.

All guns are meant to kill:rolleyes: :tired

green · April 24, 2007

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
The constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, lets see what he has to say on the subject!

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

(italics added by myself)

Very good and appropriate in 1785! BUT WE ARE LIVING IN 2007! Times do change.:phanvan

BJean · April 25, 2007

The post you made Jack wasn't the Bill of Rights. It was the opinion of one man during the 1700s. His suggestion to bear arms at all times does not make a lot of sense today. There really is a difference between life in the United States then and life in the United States now. But I do believe we have the right to own firearms (afterall, you never know when Dubya is going to rally the troops and roust us out of our homes because we might be harboring terrorists.)

anonemouse · April 25, 2007

Don't get me wrong, I believe that people should be allowed to own guns. I just think that there should be strict regulations on it. What exactly would be the need for 10, 20, 100 guns, except in the case of rare gun collectors? One or two guns, I can see. Dozens? Come on.

I think every member of a gun-owning household should be required to take safety courses. I think safe storage should be mandatory (whether that is a gun safe or storing the gun with a trigger lock). I think assault weapons should be banned from private ownership. I think there should be a limit on the number of guns that a single person can own. I think all states should make parents responsible when their kids manage to get a hold of one of their guns and injures or kills someone. I think there should be national laws concerning guns, instead of leaving it up to the states.

DerickM · April 25, 2007

The post you made Jack wasn't the Bill of Rights. It was the opinion of one man during the 1700s. His suggestion to bear arms at all times does not make a lot of sense today. There really is a difference between life in the United States then and life in the United States now. But I do believe we have the right to own firearms (afterall, you never know when Dubya is going to rally the troops and roust us out of our homes because we might be harboring terrorists.)

BJean: The same argument can be made for outlawing freedom of speech, press, etc. As far as ONE man here are a few more snippets from our founding fathers:

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue."- Benjamin Franklin

And as far as "times are different" (not a quote but a paraphrase of yourself) What country was first to have complete gun control?

Your right! Nazi Germany!

Fact Time!!!

In 1938 Germany did establish gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1911, Turkey established for real gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents again, deprived of the means to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.

China has more practice than anyone does in disarming potential dissenters. Once upon a time they banned knives and swords. In 1935 they established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents, again deprived of the tools for self defense, were rounded up and killed.

Cambodia enshrined gun control in 1956. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

Guatemala locked in gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

Uganda got gun control in 1970. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

Laurend: What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Have you ever read the US Constitution? Please direct your attention to the following:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That, is the Tenth Amendment in case you were wondering. The federal government can't impose gun control (or any "law" really) upon states and a damn good thing too.

DerickM · April 25, 2007

(Edit: double post)

anonemouse · April 25, 2007

That, is the Tenth Amendment in case you were wondering. The federal government can't impose gun control (or any "law" really) upon states and a damn good thing too.

If the states won't impose restrictions, the national government should. That's one constitutional amendment that I would be behind 100%. Unfortunately, only gay marriage seems to be important when it comes to amendments this days. Like two men marrying each other is more dangerous to the common man than some illiterate yahoo with a gun stuck in the back of his pants. Oh, no! Can't leave marriage up to the states, but guns? Okey-dokey!

anonemouse · April 25, 2007

The headline "90 million gun owners got up this morning and did NOT assault their neighbors" doesn't sell many news rags. The headline "Mad dog slays innocents" does.

The fact is, with any law we make, we create it to stop anomolies. Most people don't act in a way that we need to outlaw. Do most people molest their kids? Nope. Do most people go out and dig up graves? No, they don't.