Perfect Union banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Come and Get'em

I spent my Mother's Day down in DC, participating in the Second Amendment Sister's pro-2nd Amendment Rally. It was a truly inspirational event. While there, I realized that the gun debate is a hopelessly polarized issue.

Our pro-gun side has the facts and the stats on our side. Even Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran (author of "A Fairwell to Arms") admits that privately owned guns are used to save over 120,000 lives each year, far more than the 35 to 50,000 killed. Other studies place defensive use of guns at 2.5 million uses each year. No matter which statistic you use, guns do more good than harm. Accidental gun deaths are way down. Crime is down. States with "liberal" concealed carry laws have seen dramatic drops in crime. When was the last time you heard of a tourist being assaulted in Florida? This doesn't seem to matter to the anti-gun crowd. They don't understand guns, and they don't want to. The Million Mom March organizers refuse to join the NRA in educating children in gun safety. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program doesn't promote gun ownership, it just tells kids not to touch a gun they find, and to get an adult. Common sense, right? Not to the Million Moms.

We have common sense on our side. A criminal, by definition, won't obey the laws. Even MD AG Joseph Curran admits this. Additionally, under the 5th Amendment a criminal is exempt from licensing and registration (self-incrimination). Common sense would tell us that a criminal would remain armed, while the victim is being disarmed by gun control. Common sense tells us that the police need guns to deal with criminals. Why don't civilians? Which would you rather have when facing a rapist or murderer, a cell phone or a gun? The dirty little secret is that police have no legal obligation to protect you. Who will?

We have the Constitution on our side. Most serious Constitutional Scholars have come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment relates to the people, not the National Guard. Our Founding Fathers feared a tyrannical government, and felt the 2nd was the Amendment that guaranteed all the rest. Read the Federalist Papers to get further insight into their rational, or listen to them directly:

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
Somehow, all this doesn't seem to matter. Gun owners are demonized using the same methods that Adolph Hitler used to demonize the Jews:

Identification - we have the government and health care identifying gun owners as a public threat

Ostracizing - there is a campaign to make gun owner pariahs, even to the point of keeping your children from visiting a home with a gun

Confiscation - this has already started with New York, DC, California. The MMM is calling for the elimination of handguns.

Gun owners have become the New Jews of America. We are believed to be dangerous, uncaring monsters that pose a public health risk. Genocide was has always been preceded by Gun Control.

Many of us are sick of arguing. Despite having the facts, the stats, the Constitution, and common sense on our side, we continue to lose our rights. The anti-gun crowd accuses us of failing to compromise. What is compromise? I was raised to believe a compromise is where both sides give a little. The anti-gun crowd believes compromise is where they demand everything, and get some of it each time. What have we EVER received in these compromises? Our rights continue to be eroded, one piece at a time. We have never received any concessions in return. We would like a National Concealed Carry. Where is the compromise?

Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will never be needed until they try to take it away." If they want our guns, let them come and take them. The British tried over 200 years ago at Lexington and Concord, and you know where that got them. It's not about guns, it's about Liberty! Freedom!

COME AND GET'EM!

PaulB
NRA, GOA, LEAA, MDCL, C.A.N.
Fight 4 Your Rights Homepage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
"Rights" and "compromises" cannot coexist. If you compromise on a right it is no longer a right but a privilege.

Our local paper is always asking for "reasonable compromise" on gun control. You can guess who they want to do the compromising. My question to them just last night in the form of a letter to the editor was if they would be willing to compromise on their 1st Amendment right to free speech without prior restraint. Would they be willing to submit their news stories to the government before publication for approval. That way the government could make sure they don't damage national security, unfairly bias a local populace against a criminal defendant. Would they be willing to have all news people take a test on writing skills and objectivity before being allowed to report the news )of course a photo ID would be rquired). It'll be interesting to see if it gets published.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
They always love to point out that the 1st Amendment has restrictions - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Well, yes you can - if the theater is on fire.

You are responsible for the use and outcome of your rights. Just like you can't yell fire in a theater if there isn't one, you can't start shooting people in a theater if they aren't a threat to your life.

I find the arguement silly, and it just reinforces our position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The famous restriction re yelling fire in a crowded theater is not germain to the argument simply because there is no "prior restraint" allowed, under the 1st Amendment, to yelling fire (whether or not there is a fire), just as there is no prior restraint involved in keeping and bearing arms, under the 2nd. Until a weapon is used illegally, i.e. robbery, murder, etc. one should be allowed to keep & bear per the 2nd - no harm, no foul.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I was there to Fight4yourrights. Great time. I wish more of those things would happen. I also agree with your analysis on we gun owners being treated like Jews in Europe during 1940.
Do you remember when the same folks were chanting the beauty of "doing your own thing" in the 70's? These guys were attempting to pry our society away from the values that supported our gun rights and now they are trying to shove down our throats the values that will take away our rights. Socialism..
Don't let it happen!

------------------
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
My own 7 year old niece threatened to tell a police officer I was carrying a gun because my dear, idiotic sister-in-law has her convinced that guns are bad and will jump up and kill her of their own accord.
BTW, I was carrying a gun and have the carry permit that Kentucky says I have to have to legally do it.
It is infuriating to have your own kin shy away from you because you responsibly engage in a lawful activity.
By the time I was her age, I had already fired handguns, shotguns, rifles (including the .30-06 that gave me my tagline), and even a wonderful little M-3 grease gun. I knew how to put bullets where I wanted them and what they would do when they got there. I also understood well when my father said "Boy, you can't undo dead, so you better be damn sure you're right."
What happened to teaching children about the responsible use of firearms? I have taught many children the shooting sports. I have found firearms are a fantastic way to teach caution, hand eye coordination, responsibility, and restraint. It is also a good way to avoid accidential shootings by curious, untrained children (unlike any security measures which children are bright enough to thrwart).
 

·
hostilenativelibertarian.
Joined
·
7,825 Posts
;) Cutter-That has to be the best Quote I have heard recently;from your father,"Boy,you can't undo dead,so you better damn sure be right".
That should be in a western movie!!!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
We had our disagreements, but he had a way of making his point. That advice has served me only too well in a couple of bad situations that could have been a lot worse.
 

·
Moderator and Super Member
Joined
·
7,547 Posts
The so-called "reasonable compromise" level was exceeded before WW2. What is usually left unsaid is what is reasonable and who gets to define it. We all know who gets that honor though. The term has been overused, abused, and is cliche' enough to be an embarrassment to those who use it.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top