A very poor defense. A bunch of elitist urban snobbery that sneers at us rural "white voters", denies the right to self-defense, and selectively chooses which writings of the founders to analyze. Even managed to throw some accusations of racism in.
There are legitimate arguments to be made about "reasonable" gun control, but this piece was pure garbage.
"That leads to only one logical conclusion: Repeal the Second Amendment and start over from presumption that you do not need a gun unless you are going off to war or going off to train for war."
You know, the lines at Disney World are way too long. Nobody can enjoy their time there, since it's all spent in lines. This leads to only one logical conclusion: Burn down Disney World and build a new park that doesn't have long lines.
I'll readily admit that I'm a gun control advocate - but I'm a gun control advocate, not a gun ban advocate. Nor am I an idiot; even if we first accept the unproven premise that it's nigh-impossible to create good gun control laws, how difficult do you think it would be to repeal and replace the second amendment in its entirety? Especially since that wouldn't actually affect existing gun laws (notice that even after the repeal of Prohibition, you still can't buy beer in West Virginia on a Sunday morning. Individual laws are not vanished by repealing a related amendment).
The article is clearly written with the conclusion already in mind, and never pay heed to any facts that get in the way. The authors are clearly biased; their references to hunting show that well enough. One wonders how they intend to get "overwhelming public support" while insulting anybody who doesn't think the same way as them. The only conclusion I can draw from this article is that we really need to have logic and rhetoric classes in public schools, in order to prevent articles like this from being written.
The best way to remove guns from our society (an admirable goal) is not through laws, but by education. As a US Army veteran who qualified "Expert" in the M-16 rifle, the M-50 machine gun, hand grenades, and landmines (!), I believe I know just a bit about weaponry. I do not own a firearm of any sort, and have taught everyone in my extended family to not wish to own one. I participate in gun elimination programs in Baltimore, which have resulted in the removal of thousands of hand guns from the streets of that city (which definitely has a problem with way too many gun related murders). The goal is to get every resident of the city to voluntarily surrender their guns, and we've come a long way towards achieving that.
Yes, but in this case it is not education, but rather the spreading of an opinion.
I personally know a woman who is alive because she had a gun, and a man who escaped serious injury at least due to his gun. This applies to countless others as well. So long as we live in a world with human predators, I will always support the basic right of self-defense.
Gun education that teaches the safe handling of guns.
That does seem like something that should appeal to both sides: on the one hand, it's a way to A) prevent people misusing firearms because they don't know how to use them, B) ensure people know how to keep guns safe, and C) prevent somebody from buying a firearm on a whim; and on the other hand, if we were to place an organisation like the NRA or something similar in charge of the actual training, it A) prevents the government from controlling the process to prevent anybody from getting a gun (which, looking it up, appears to be the number one reason people don't like the idea) and B) means profit for said organisation, which ought to be a powerful incentive to accept such a regulation.
As a person who disapproves 100% with the idea of private gun ownership (although I do not believe that laws are the best way to get rid of them), I totally agree that as many people as possible ought to get gun safety training. I myself received hundreds (maybe even thousands?) of hours of weapons training while in the Army, and am also a graduate of the NRA firearms safety class. (I took that course way back when I was in the Hitler Youth.. um, I mean the Boy Scouts.)
The interesting thing about all that (very useful) training, is that the more I know about guns, the less I like them.
Many, many years ago, during my seminary days when I was working at a church in California over one summer, I was assigned to stay at various parishioner's houses. I cam home late at night from the chess club, and went into what I thought was the house I was staying at. Still unfamiliar with the area, I accidentally tried to use the key on the next door neighbor's house. He asked who I was, and I said who I was, but he showed up at the door with a gun. He said he would have shot me if I hadn't been wearing Bermuda shorts that night. He figured no one robs a house in Bermuda shorts. Since that time I have never been a fan of the second amendment, and of gun ownership. But I agree, repealing it is a bit much.
However, I would be very much in favor of "tweaking" it a bit, to make the language clearer and to emphasize original intent. How about this?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the various state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
After all, that is what the founders meant by "the people". And it should not frighten the NRA one bit to do this, because the proposed clarification says nothing about "taking peoples' guns away".
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the various state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And per original intent, the militia is every able bodied white man within a certain age range, so we probably wouldn't want to adhere to original intent too closely in that regard. Only white men can use weapons? Tee hee. The militia members in many (all?) cases also kept their guns in their homes.
It is very clear that the founders greatly valued people having their own weapons. If that was to include automatic membership in a militia for training and discipline, so be it. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
Hmm.. Now I routinely wear neon yellow or other such bright colors at night. Not because I do not want to be mistaken for a burglar, but so that cars can see me. But perhaps I have unwittingly also protected myself from trigger happy gun nuts?
16 comments:
A very poor defense. A bunch of elitist urban snobbery that sneers at us rural "white voters", denies the right to self-defense, and selectively chooses which writings of the founders to analyze. Even managed to throw some accusations of racism in.
There are legitimate arguments to be made about "reasonable" gun control, but this piece was pure garbage.
On a different note.
The article actually argues that the decision should be left up to the American people rather than stacking the courts with biased judges.
Brings a tear to my eye.
"That leads to only one logical conclusion: Repeal the Second Amendment and start over from presumption that you do not need a gun unless you are going off to war or going off to train for war."
You know, the lines at Disney World are way too long. Nobody can enjoy their time there, since it's all spent in lines. This leads to only one logical conclusion: Burn down Disney World and build a new park that doesn't have long lines.
I'll readily admit that I'm a gun control advocate - but I'm a gun control advocate, not a gun ban advocate. Nor am I an idiot; even if we first accept the unproven premise that it's nigh-impossible to create good gun control laws, how difficult do you think it would be to repeal and replace the second amendment in its entirety? Especially since that wouldn't actually affect existing gun laws (notice that even after the repeal of Prohibition, you still can't buy beer in West Virginia on a Sunday morning. Individual laws are not vanished by repealing a related amendment).
The article is clearly written with the conclusion already in mind, and never pay heed to any facts that get in the way. The authors are clearly biased; their references to hunting show that well enough. One wonders how they intend to get "overwhelming public support" while insulting anybody who doesn't think the same way as them. The only conclusion I can draw from this article is that we really need to have logic and rhetoric classes in public schools, in order to prevent articles like this from being written.
The best way to remove guns from our society (an admirable goal) is not through laws, but by education. As a US Army veteran who qualified "Expert" in the M-16 rifle, the M-50 machine gun, hand grenades, and landmines (!), I believe I know just a bit about weaponry. I do not own a firearm of any sort, and have taught everyone in my extended family to not wish to own one. I participate in gun elimination programs in Baltimore, which have resulted in the removal of thousands of hand guns from the streets of that city (which definitely has a problem with way too many gun related murders). The goal is to get every resident of the city to voluntarily surrender their guns, and we've come a long way towards achieving that.
Education is the key. It almost always is.
Education is the key. It almost always is.
Yes, but in this case it is not education, but rather the spreading of an opinion.
I personally know a woman who is alive because she had a gun, and a man who escaped serious injury at least due to his gun. This applies to countless others as well. So long as we live in a world with human predators, I will always support the basic right of self-defense.
Maybe there can be a compromise.
Gun education that teaches the safe handling of guns.
Maybe there can be a compromise.
Gun education that teaches the safe handling of guns.
That does seem like something that should appeal to both sides: on the one hand, it's a way to A) prevent people misusing firearms because they don't know how to use them, B) ensure people know how to keep guns safe, and C) prevent somebody from buying a firearm on a whim; and on the other hand, if we were to place an organisation like the NRA or something similar in charge of the actual training, it A) prevents the government from controlling the process to prevent anybody from getting a gun (which, looking it up, appears to be the number one reason people don't like the idea) and B) means profit for said organisation, which ought to be a powerful incentive to accept such a regulation.
As a person who disapproves 100% with the idea of private gun ownership (although I do not believe that laws are the best way to get rid of them), I totally agree that as many people as possible ought to get gun safety training. I myself received hundreds (maybe even thousands?) of hours of weapons training while in the Army, and am also a graduate of the NRA firearms safety class. (I took that course way back when I was in the Hitler Youth.. um, I mean the Boy Scouts.)
The interesting thing about all that (very useful) training, is that the more I know about guns, the less I like them.
Many, many years ago, during my seminary days when I was working at a church in California over one summer, I was assigned to stay at various parishioner's houses. I cam home late at night from the chess club, and went into what I thought was the house I was staying at. Still unfamiliar with the area, I accidentally tried to use the key on the next door neighbor's house. He asked who I was, and I said who I was, but he showed up at the door with a gun. He said he would have shot me if I hadn't been wearing Bermuda shorts that night. He figured no one robs a house in Bermuda shorts. Since that time I have never been a fan of the second amendment, and of gun ownership. But I agree, repealing it is a bit much.
"repealing it is a bit much"
However, I would be very much in favor of "tweaking" it a bit, to make the language clearer and to emphasize original intent. How about this?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the various state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
After all, that is what the founders meant by "the people". And it should not frighten the NRA one bit to do this, because the proposed clarification says nothing about "taking peoples' guns away".
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the various state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And per original intent, the militia is every able bodied white man within a certain age range, so we probably wouldn't want to adhere to original intent too closely in that regard. Only white men can use weapons? Tee hee. The militia members in many (all?) cases also kept their guns in their homes.
It is very clear that the founders greatly valued people having their own weapons. If that was to include automatic membership in a militia for training and discipline, so be it. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
He said he would have shot me if I hadn't been wearing Bermuda shorts that night. He figured no one robs a house in Bermuda shorts.
There's a lesson in this somewhere. Wear ugly shorts?
Hmm.. Now I routinely wear neon yellow or other such bright colors at night. Not because I do not want to be mistaken for a burglar, but so that cars can see me. But perhaps I have unwittingly also protected myself from trigger happy gun nuts?
Naw. Seems like you're actually a better target!
I once saw a tee-shirt that said "Nuke'm till they glow, Shoot'em in the dark".
I lived near an Airforce base then.
And I once saw a t-shirt on an airbase that said simply, "USA 2, Japan 0"
Post a Comment