So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since you
already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun
You act as if guns and/or alcohol are recent innovations and that only now
citizens are getting access to guns. The exact opposite is true and
societies now have less guns on a per capita basis than in the past. Yet
somehow, the population in years past wasn't decimating itself in drunken
shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to what
is a very small problem?
Some of that gang-related stuff. Again, guns are hardly a new
innovation -- perhaps it's time to use some of that energy being used to
restrict peoples' freedom by restricting a tool and start to work on what
is causing the behavior and attitude instead. What is so laugh-in-your
face funny (again, but for the serious consequences) is the notion by gun
ban advocates that somehow guns have just appeared on the scene and are now
causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all
citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about. Kids
used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons: gun club, show and
tell, and to hunt on the way home after school. There weren't wild
rampages then, so guns aren't the problem, why do you think banning them
now would be the solution?
The whole idea that by banning an inanimate object along with the
accompanying unintended consequences and side effects will somehow solve
the problems you describe above would be laughable if it weren't so darn
serious for the peasants (what disarmed citizens become) who are subjected
to such regulations. The gun control part is just part of the total
package -- just look to England. After disarming the citizens, the next
step was the idea that "a few farthings worth of x is not worth someone
losing their life over" and now you have the case where defending oneself
in one's own home leads to jail time for the person doing so. People still
die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now
there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning
knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't
make this stuff up].
All deaths are tragic, society seems to be onto this notion that somehow
the world can be made completely safe through the application of various
laws and restrictions. The problem is that those laws and restrictions have
other various serious consequences and side effects. Where I grew up, and
where I live now, law enforcement is a minimum of 30 minutes (most likely
45 minutes) away -- you are proposing disarming people like myself and
putting us at the mercy of those who are already breaking the law. Mighty
compassionate of you.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles
need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been
controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as
fists are a dangerous weapon.
OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms.
Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post
revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.
You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at
http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm . Interesting stuff.
...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if
they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14
back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times
have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence
In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about
resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just
participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a
result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its
And before you say something stupid about tanks, consider that the
crews have to get out of them sometime and the crews have families and
both the crews and their families live in the same country in which
the insurrection is taking place.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:22:42 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was
going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by
now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!
What are the odds? :-)
Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago? Please
tell me how they make sense in today's society? Like or not, the government
of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years
ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be
significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in
mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive
government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.
How? In /exactly/ the same way they made sense all that long time ago.
It's not important that you do or don't understand, and may be helpful
for you to know that at this point it may be more of a cultural than
Beware of showing the same arrogance of which you earlier accused
Your assumption in your second sentence is false.
I think your vision is at fault - or, at the very least, incomplete.
Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have
them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the
rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these
rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
They make as much sense now as they ever have.
Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that
was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.
And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something
that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't
hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing
In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them
as walking around tools available to the general public.
Not Doug, but funny thing about health insurance vs. our Bill of rights.
The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to
enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance
requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be
confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to
Yep, like keeping the peasants in line, eh? Either by the armed
government or armed criminal thugs, pretty much the same result.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Really? You could use the same flawed logic to not pay income tax. Everybody
who has, pays their share. Without taxes, you wouldn't have your
infrastructure or your society for that matter. All you'd have is the
complete anarchy of everybody out for themselves and none of the great
accomplishments that your country has done as a group.
The difference between you and me is that I value the importance of health
above most everything else. You value what you can get and keep, by
firepower if necessary. You value individual rights and accomplishments
while casually tossing aside the great things that can be done as a group
and a country. That makes you greedy, selfish and all consuming.
Unless you're been dealing with a serious, long term health problem for a
large portion of your life, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of
understanding. And don't for one second suggest that just because someone
close to you has experienced what I'm talking about, you understand. There
is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.