Liberal logic: Founding Fathers – anti-gun but pro-abortion?
Abortion; death of the most innocent. A total of 827,609 abortions were reported to CDC for 2007. In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S.
No current data is available. Or, bluntly – 3,325 every day of the year in 2008, meaning 139 innocent lives every hour. Or, 5.3 Newtown catastrophes every hour for an entire year, round the clock. Clearly sexual congress must be outlawed since it can lead to the death of an innocent child. Because it’s all about the children, isn’t it?
My head can’t wrap around the logic of the Left shouting for law-abiding, well mannered, adult American citizens – from whom the government derives its right to govern – to have their 2nd Amendment weapons forcibly taken from them when the same political crowd not only endures the staggering volume of termination of innocent life on a scale that would make Hitler cringe, but glories in it.
Tell you what. The Left gives up Roe v. Wade, renounces it and never again goes near the question of abortion and I will afterwards agree to a “national conversation” about the 2nd Amendment and what it really meant to the Framers. They go first. That will signal their sincerity. Absolute constitutional rejection and elimination of abortion.
~ Michael Geer, American Thinker, December 20
[Graphic via Abort73.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Oh my, we’ve got a live one here haven’t we.
Clearly sexual congress must be outlawed since it can lead to the death of an innocent child. – yeah, that’ll work.
The Left gives up Roe v. Wade, renounces it and never again goes near the question of abortion and I will afterwards agree to a “national conversation” about the 2nd Amendment and what it really meant to the Framers – how generous! The ‘left’ (I think his thinking is rather limited when it comes to left, right, guns and abortion) completely give away womens right to choose and he’ll have a nice chat about what the 2nd amendment means. Such equality! Gee, I wonder which way he votes.
It was interesting to note that almost every spit-flecked comment to his piece only talked about guns. Oh, and how much shootin’ up they’d like to do.
Glad you’re enjoying the daily quotes this week, reality. I notice you’ve been the first commenter on many of them. On holiday right now?
The whole article should be read with a very large note of sarcasm. I doubt any spit was really flecking. However, I think his point is interesting, as so many anti- 2nd Amendment politicians (Democrats) are also the party of abortion.
I don’t have holidays Kel. I think its simply that the daily quotes have been launched at a time when I’m in the ‘zone’ just lately. They didn’t used to appear at this time.
Seriously, I’m actually a little disappointed that this one was put up. It really is verging on the absurd. Other pieces have at least a modicum of rationality, usually.
I think the tone, content, spelling and grammar demonstrated in the comments do conjure up spit-flecking :-)
I don’t think that democrats or pro-choice politicians are ‘anti-2nd amendment’, I think thats a pretty big leap. None seem to be seeking the removal of all arms from all US citizens, just tactical and other weapons not envisaged when the 2nd amendment was written.
I thought the point made in the article regarding the Framers’ intent regarding the 2nd Amendment in comparison to the right to privacy somehow including abortion is an interesting one.
And the quotes of the day always go up between 1 am and 5 am EST. Three days this week it’s been 1 am. I know because I put them there. ;)
If there was a valid point it was rather lost amongst the ranty diatribe which did include ‘give me the world and I’ll have a think about what I may give you, sometime, perhaps’.
I’m not disputing when the quotes of the day go up Kel. It’s just that it only appears to have been very recently that they’ve appeared before I depart, and that hasn’t changed. So it must just be that they’re going up a smidgen earlier than before.
Now I’m off, bonne nuit.
Reality, I think the author was deliberately mimicking Obama’s usual style of negotiation — give me everything I want (taxes) and maybe we’ll discuss your proposal (spending cuts).
I’m not worried about the 2nd Amendment. Obama doesn’t care in the least about gun violence. The only thing he ever does after a massacre is exploit it for political gain. He did that after the Tucson shootings, using it to blame the right wing and kick off his presidential campaign. Same with the Newtown killings — he said the thought of those dead children should give the Republicans the “perspective” they needed to agree to his tax plan (I wasn’t quite clear on the connection, but maybe you could explain).
If there was a valid point it was rather lost amongst the ranty diatribe which did include ‘give me the world and I’ll have a think about what I may give you, sometime, perhaps’.
I don’t think it was lost at all. I just think people who want gun killings to stop but are all for killing innocent kids BEFORE they leave the womb would rather not see any point amongst the “ranty diatribe.”
Yeah. The concocted and imagined “right to choose” amongst the Constitutional right to privacy stands, but the blatantly spelled-out and concrete Constitutional right to keep and bear arms isn’t *actually* there. Riiiight.
The featured image of this story has been in my website’s sidebar for years. Of the meager amount of traffic my little (non-abortion-related) website gets, the most-clicked non-post link is that one. Obviously, there’s an intriguing point there, but reality prefers to live outside of his/her own name.
Andrew..I left a comment on your blog. The post about the ‘secret admirer’. “Scarlett” is me ;)
Thanks ScarPameletta. :-p
Upon what evidence, exactly, is our friend here from the American Nonthinker basing his claim that the “Left” is “shouting” for the seizure of all privately-owned firearms? Some Daily KOS article he found while googling? Looks like a big, fat strawman to me.
None seem to be seeking the removal of all arms from all US citizens, just tactical and other weapons not envisaged when the 2nd amendment was written.
You really don’t understand the Second Amendment at all, do you? Get you some learnin’s!
“…as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned.”
(bolding mine)
“My head can’t wrap around the logic of the Left shouting for law-abiding, well mannered, adultAmericancitizens – from whom the government derives its right to govern – to have their2nd Amendmentweapons forcibly taken from
them”
Probably hard to wrap around one’s mind when you state a position nobody is really making. State a correct position, and then you’ll have an easier time wrapping your mind around it.
And to think this came from a place that had “thinker” in the title!
Two points regarding this article.
It was ‘ranty’, simply preached to the choir and incapable of changing the mind of anyone who disagreed with it’s premise.
At the time when I read the comments thread there was nary an indication that any commenter gave a toss about abortion or the point of the article. They were simply “I’m gunna keep my grip on my weapon so’s the gubmint can’t take away my weapon’. I’m surprised some of them had the ability to write anything.
“They were simply “I’m gunna keep my grip on my weapon so’s the gubmint can’t take away my weapon’. I’m surprised some of them had the ability to write anything.”
Perhaps they shouldn’t be considered persons either, Reality.
Probably hard to wrap around one’s mind when you state a position nobody is really making.
WORD.
Ex-GOP, the Republican Party is disintegrating before our eyes. Unbelievable and sad.
I almost feel sad for the GOP right now – they are directionless, leaderless, and their way forward seems to be by appealing to less and less people. They’ve essentially botched any cards they held on the fiscal cliff deal and now, will lose big time politically if they don’t give Obama everything he wants in the final deal. And they have no idea what to do with one of their biggest donors (the NRA).
The party has gone wild – all the adults have left the room, and the kids are in control.
“…as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned.”
Yes, the founding fathers, many of whom were inventors, were geniuses and they undoubtedly foresaw the development of nuclear arms as well.
I WANT ONE.
Yes, the founding fathers, many of whom were inventors, were geniuses and they undoubtedly foresaw the development of nuclear arms as well.
I WANT ONE.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the Founders were geniuses. They did invent the USA, after all. But the thing I love about the article I linked is that the guy who wrote it has heard literally every argument all the anti-gun control-freaks could possibly make, and explains why all of them are bunk. In this specific case…
“Spare me the whole, ‘You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons’ reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable.”
But please, continue. I can do this all day long.
It says arms, as in things that were man portable.”
Atomic Demolition Munition (ADM)
Otherwise known as the “suitcase nuke.” Man portable.
I WANT ONE. :)
Alice -
So are you advocating that teachers have guns in their elementary school classrooms?
Also, the author simply throws England aside and says that since they enacted gun laws, violent crime has skyrocketed. They had 42 gun related deaths in 2008. Skyrocketed from what? Does that seem high?
Why do you feel that our gun death rates skyrocket over all other industrialized nations? Are we uniquely immoral? Are most other countries simply filled with better people than the US?
You believe there is a chance that birth control pills cause the death of a child, so they should be outlawed.
You believe there is a chance that IUDs cause the death of a child, so they should be outlawed.
But when guns do, without a smidgeon of scientific doubt, kill children, you freak out and say, “Hold up! Let’s not go overboard and ban guns!” even though no one is trying to ban guns in the first place, but rather a goal of reducing the number of guns that are available to people who have been or who are likely to become violent.
And you call pro-choicers illogical.
Ella Rae
I also love, in my great state of Wisconsin, that Scott Walker believes that we should have 70 year old poll workers checking IDs because we have had a few dozen voting fraud cases in the US – but when it comes to gunning down Americans by the thousands, suddenly, we shouldn’t rush to regulate. It is mind boggling.
There’s no rush to take away people’s guns. But I think we owe it to ourselves to ask what regulations should exist. Is it good that people can buy guns at trade shows without a background check? Should we have guns that can fire 100 rounds without reloading? Should sniper rifles be legal?
Crazy that to even question it, in the wake of over a dozen 6 and 7 year olds killed, is some crazy anti-American thing to do.
Clearly you haven’t heard that knife crime is staggeringly common in the UK and growing more so. Because, say it with me thinking people, people do not need guns to kill and will kill people anyway if they can’t get a gun to do it with. Disarming the population just removes the victims’ ability to fight back.
And why shouldn’t teachers be armed? Give me one reason that isn’t already responded to in that article.
“Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away.
“…
“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.
“The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.”
And let’s remember, Sandy Hook Elementary is a gun free zone, and the shooter stole the guns that he used, and that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And none of that stopped the shooter. All those kids died anyway. “Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.”
Alice –
Deaths via knives are more common in the UK than in the US. Guns are much more efficient at killing people – especially in large numbers, so it comes as no surprise that our homicide rates are 3 to 4 times as high as they are in the UK. Maybe you believe that our high murder rates are simply a negative effect of our “freedom”. I think that is sad.
Let’s talk about schools though – this interests me because my kids are in second and fourth grades. Where will these guns be kept? Will they be loaded already? What sort of security will be around these guns? What do you think is an acceptable number of accidental deaths in this world of armed classrooms?
The same congress people in DC that just voted to continue dismembering abortions of 20 week and older unborn human lives, despite an abundance of medical data proving these unborn infants are capable of pain – are the most vocal ranters on 2nd amendment gun rights, pointing fingers at lawful gun owners as if they were guilty of harming children.
That is hypocritical at best.
Did they argue the medical evidence? No. They argued it wasn’t fair to take away a right other women “enjoy.”
Considering infants have been sent to NICUs and survived at ages younger than we dismember others in the womb without benefit of anesthesia, I think its quite obvious who is guilty of harming children.
And before you retort with the well-worn it would harm women to prevent the death of these late term infants, be aware no women had ever required an abortion past twenty weeks to save her life.
Those of you comforting yourselves that pro-life people simply want to control women by taking their birth control need to educate yourselves on therapeutic abortions performed at Christs Hospital in Illinois where Obama was senator, partial birth abortions which Obama vehemently defended and promised to revive, and the fetal pain bill voted down in DC in July.
The democrat platform officially supports unlimited abortion, and that includes infants.
Alice –
Also, I agree, the gun free zone didn’t stop the shooter. But loose gun laws surely made it easier for the shooter.
Do you think the semi-automatic weapon he used should be accessible to the general public? With that many rounds in one magazine? Why?
Also, as a pro-lifer that pushes for images of aborted babies – do you support some front page photos of the crime scene? Do you think it would help the overall conversation in America if we showed some of these six and seven year old victims – not their smiling faces from their photos, but the crime scene pictures?
Also, I agree, the gun free zone didn’t stop the shooter. But loose gun laws surely made it easier for the shooter.
What loose gun laws? This happened in Connecticut, with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The shooter lived in New Jersey, with comparable strictness. He was too young to legally own a handgun in either state. Every gun he had, he obtained illegally. The laws in play here made no difference at all to anything. Zero.
Do you think the semi-automatic weapon he used should be accessible to the general public? With that many rounds in one magazine? Why?
“First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.
“The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.
“Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, ‘Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.’
“So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.
“Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.
“In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.”
“Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/
“I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.
“When I said ‘stop an attacker quickly’ somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said ‘Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!’ Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.”
Let’s talk about schools though – this interests me because my kids are in second and fourth grades. Where will these guns be kept? Will they be loaded already? What sort of security will be around these guns? What do you think is an acceptable number of accidental deaths in this world of armed classrooms?
Then let’s use our brains when we talk about it. How about keeping the guns on the person of the teacher who owns them at all times? As in, they never are laying in a desk, there’s never an acceptable time for a student to handle them, there’s never a point where they are not in the possession of the teacher carrying.
As far as accidental deaths, considering there are several places where teachers are allowed to carry in school already and we’re not hearing about any accidental deaths related to those teachers, I think, at this point, you’re making stuff up to bolster your argument where cold facts are thin on the ground.
And as to guns being so easy to kill with, so are baseball bats. In fact, according to the FBI, baseball bats are the weapon of choice in a plurality of violent crimes. Why are you not agitating to take those out of citizen’s hands? Where is the national outcry against the American pastime? If you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, the only thing you will do is make sure that the aggressors are the only ones who have them. To wit:
“There were four mass killing attempts [the week of Sandy Hook]. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.
“1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
“2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
“3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
“4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
“And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.”
Banning guns doesn’t work. Turning the USA into a “Gun Free Zone” will only ensure that the whole country is available for whichever psycho wants his picture in the paper this week. If banning something made it go away, the US would be meth, heroine, and cocaine free.
As to whether we should show pictures of the victims, I’m not opposed to it in principle, but I’m unclear what practical purpose you think it would serve? Graphic photos of abortion have a specific purpose. What are you looking to get from graphic photos of murder victims?
Alice –
Ultimately, every single argument you seem to be presenting, and that others are presenting, in support of guns, are that we need guns to protect ourselves from others with guns. In fact, you seem to be celebrating two states that only had a few deaths because we shot the guy first.
And in China – how many people died in that knife attack? Please answer that one.
We have too many guns, too powerful of guns, and not enough regulation. The numbers are clear – look at our homicide rates compared to other countries. Sure, we’re not keeping up with South Africa and Swaziland – but we tower over other industrialized countries that have some controls in place.
I refuse to think that the rest of the world is simply more moral than us – that these countries are filled with better people.
In regards to the argument on keeping guns on teachers at all times – that might be the stupidest argument I’ve seen in a long time, and I’m glad educators all over the country are rejecting it. I just volunteered at a school this week. Teachers are in close contact with students all day. The odds of having accidental shootings would be very high – it is simply a terrible idea.
On the pictures – I’ve simply seen a push now to release pictures – that maybe America needs an Emmett Till moment in regards to guns in society. I would assume you’d support that given your views on showing graphic photos.
Alice, thanks for the link to that article. Fascinating! I just learned a lot! Too bad Ex-GOP didn’t read it.
So…what’s that gun violence death rate in Switzerland again?
Ex-GOP ~ Your point about graphic images would only be fair if it were legal to kill kindergarteners.
And what if the armed teacher goes nuts and starts gunning down the children? Should I have my Kindergartner pack heat in case?
I told you, in principle, I don’t have any issue with pictures. If you want to put pictures in the paper, I’m not going to try and stop you. Good luck trying to get them released by the cops, but knock yourself out.
The odds of having accidental shootings would be very high – it is simply a terrible idea.
And again, there are teachers who carry in school in the US already. Why haven’t we heard about accidental shootings in relation to them? You know, since the odds are so incredibly high that we can be sure this absolutely will happen? ‘Cause I’m sure that, if the odds are that high, you’ve got a few news stories you’re just aching to lay on me. Link away. I’ll wait.
In fact, you seem to be celebrating two states that only had a few deaths because we shot the guy first.
The problem with this being what, exactly? And don’t give me that canard about “you’re pro-life, so you must be 100% pacifist in every possible scenario!” We both know that’s not true. These shooters created the situations that resulted in their deaths. And the deaths of others. Any harm that they (the shooters) incurred is their own fault. Self-defence and/or defence of an immediately endangered third-party is not murder.
Yes, I support the second amendment. As those two incidents prove, armed citizens save lives.
We have too many guns, too powerful of guns, and not enough regulation. The numbers are clear – look at our homicide rates compared to other countries. Sure, we’re not keeping up with South Africa and Swaziland – but we tower over other industrialized countries that have some controls in place.
And then, as xalisae pointed out, compare that to Switzerland, where–literally–every single household has a gun. The problem is not the guns, it’s the people. Maybe people in those other countries are just better than us, I don’t know. I do know that you wanting to take rights away from everybody who did not break the law in order to enact laws that will not stop the death is ridiculous, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Banning guns will not stop criminals from getting them. It will just make sure that the next time some psycho wants to kill people, nobody’s going to be able to stop him.
But that’ll be great. Doing something that won’t work is always the best plan.
Ex-GOP, with the disintegration of the Republican Party, meaningful gun control is just a matter of time.
It’s coming and there’s nothing the NRA will be able to do to stop it.
xalisae -
Are you saying you’d support moving to gun laws like Switzerland does – I think that would be a good first step. Control over ammunition – gun training through the military (military service actually) – limited conceal and carry.
xalisae- I didn’t take you for a higher gun regulation type person – very cool.
LifeJoy
Actually – it’s a CNN viewpoint article – nothing to do with legality, the case is made that the US needs an ‘Emmett Till’ moment – which of course was also an illegal murder, but woke people up to the issues of race in the US.
I don’t know how I feel about it – interesting take though.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/22/opinion/martin-newtown-carnage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Alice
How many states even allow teachers to carry now? I know Texas has a few locations, but you need further clearance – so it doesn’t sound like many people are carrying guns. Where else?
On your second point – all I’m saying is that all your arguments seem to be defeatist arguments – “Americans are uniquely immoral in the world, we can’t control guns, so we need to arm more people to kill bad guys before they kill us”. I’m just saying that I’ve never bought that argument. You say that in both cases lives were ‘saved’ (your assumption). More lives would have been saved if society worked harder and people who shouldn’t have guns didn’t have them in the first place.
And on Switzerland – if you’d like to look at Switzerland gun laws, that would be great. They are different than I think you think they are.
mp –
I agree 100% – the tragedy has shifted public perception in a hurry, and the Republican party at the federal level is the weakest I’ve seen it in a long time. So they’ve already got an image issue, which will further be hammered when the push past Jan 1st without a fiscal cliff deal – and then the GOP is going to lock arms with the NRA in regards to some gun control regulations that will surely come up.
Yeah – I agree that some good changes are coming.
Alice –
And since you skipped it…
In the incident in China, nobody died. Yes, there will be scars, but nobody lowered into the ground.
Ex-GOP says:
Alice
How many states even allow teachers to carry now? I know Texas has a few locations, but you need further clearance – so it doesn’t sound like many people are carrying guns. Where else?
Why don’t you just read the very informative article she linked to? Almost all of the questions you’ve asked in this thread would be answered there. And most of what Alice has posted in “” has been from the article.
More lives would have been saved if society worked harder and people who shouldn’t have guns didn’t have them in the first place.
So, once again, your solution is to penalize all the people who didn’t do anything wrong. And no, my argument is not that America is uniquely immoral. Quite frankly, I don’t care what conclusions you draw on the subject of the morality of our nation. My argument, quite unambiguously, is that immoral people are uniquely immoral and will not care what gun laws you enact. Sandy Hook is proof of this. Connecticut and New Jersey both have very strict gun laws and Sandy Hook happened anyway. “Gun control” doesn’t work. It doesn’t save lives, it doesn’t stop killers. Armed citizens do. Look up Nick Meli.
“Gun control” doesn’t work.
We don’t have “gun control” in this country, but we’re going to get it.
If you want to own a firearm, that’s fine, but you’re going to do so responsibly.
I’m not for higher regulation. I think you’re just not that familiar with all the loopholes that exist in the laws in Switzerland.
Alice, personal responsibility doesn’t mean anything to these people. They are not even interested in being able to protect themselves. They give all for the great state and submit their lives and security and even their sense of right and wrong to the rule of the state. It is scary but it is seriously where we are as a country. And if they can take a tragedy like the deaths of those children and twist it for their political agenda there is no stoop to low for them. But don’t expect them to bat an eye for the four thousand unborn children killed every day or for their mothers.
I think you’re just not that familiar with all the loopholes that exist in the laws in Switzerland.
Then, you’re undoubtedly familiar with the fact that members of the Swiss military are subject to no-notice inspection of the weapons maintained at home.
I can tell you that, when they are inspected at home, the weapon had best be there and be properly secured. If it isn’t, it means instant disciplinary action. No excuses, no exceptions.
mp, do you own a firearm?
How about you Ex-RINO, do you own a firearm?
mp, do you own a firearm?
I did once own one, but no longer. It was kept in a vault with a combination lock.
As an infantryman, I lived with weapons every hour of every day for almost five years of my life. Their maintenance and security is a burdensome responsibility.
Letter of Resignation Sent By Bush to Rifle Association
Here’s what the NRA is about:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
Ironic use of an example, since the New York Slimes considers President Bush to have been a “jack-booted thug”.
The N.R.A. (I did that to poke the N.Y.T.’s anal-retentive acronym policy in the eye) is neither here nor there for me. I feel no need to join a steak knife association.
“I did once own one, but no longer. It was kept in a vault with a combination lock.”
mp, People don’t need vaults with combination locks any more. They make little biometric boxes that you can keep your pistol in. The gunbox can be out in the open and it is completely safe. Only your fingerprint can remove the gun. Google search “gun box fingerprint’ to check out some of the models. They make them for rifles too.
ts,
I am scared of new technology. That device should be confiscated. It might be dangerous. I hear that you can load the new Henry Repeating Rifle on Sunday and shoot all week! That is dangerous.
@truthseeker: I know. It just infuriates me that people like mp and ex-RHINO freak out over guns and put into place stupid and dangerous legislation like “gun free zones” and then, when dangerous killers take advantage of the space where they are now guaranteed a lack of effective resistance, totally fail to connect their dumb policies to the tragedy those policies caused. They got their way with gun-free-zone legislation and this is the result. Congratulations. Very effective. Totally kept those kids safe.
All things aside, speaking practically, how many grade school teachers do you think WANT to carry a gun around with them? My mother is a teacher at a grade school, and I can’t think of a SINGLE staff member at that place that would want to be packing heat. Are we really going to start requiring people who want to spend their lives teaching children to know how to use a gun? I much prefer the idea of simply having an armed guard at schools.
Alice -
Let’s make this clear. You believe in some gun regulations, correct? You don’t believe they should be for sale at WalMart with no background check, same day cash policy. You don’t believe that anybody in society should have a gun. You don’t believe individuals should have flame throwers or machine guns or tanks. If you disagree with any of this, let me know.
I have many, many friends who hunt. I have no issue with them having guns.
What I do have an issue with is the mentality that we need assault weapons available to most members of society. What I do have an issue with is that we have gun shows that people can walk into and buy a gun with little to no scrutiny. What I do have an issue with is that the only way that the NRA can think our kids can be protected is by having teachers armed in classrooms.
Again, you seem to be arguing that Americans are unique in this world – that we are immoral to levels not seen anywhere else on earth. That we are hundreds of times more violent than those in Japan. Dozens of times more violent than those in France. That of all the industrialized countries, we are unique in our love of killing people.
I reject that notion.
I believe that our issue is that we are a freak out society that sells that the only way to be safe from each other is to kill each other – and the consequences for all this freedom is that we’ll have more innocent citizens killed than any other industrialized nation.
But be clear – you believe in gun control as well – you just have much more generous levels than I do. And your way is clearly working ‘great’ – look at the photos of the kids in CT – congrats – nice system that you embrace.
@truthseeker: I know. It just infuriates me that people like mp and ex-RHINO freak out over guns …
I “freak out” over guns?
Preposterous. A total mischaracterization of both me and my position.
mp, People don’t need vaults with combination locks any more.
I’m aware of the biometric technology but, as I said, I no longer own a firearm.
If I did own one, I would consider using it.
Guys… Take a break. Spend some time with your families. Celebrate Christmas. :-)
“Guys… Take a break. Spend some time with your families. Celebrate Christmas. ”
Smartest thing I’ve read all day.
What the 2nd amendment really means:
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/image-1201.jpeg
Oh, you two guys are no fun. There went my two cents down the drain.
Alice, A fundamental characteristic of liberals is that they choose to take no personal responsibility for anything they do including protecting themselves. Obamacare was another recent example of this phenomenon. Liberal individuals giving up the right to control their own health care decisions to the government in exchange for the government taking responsibility for providing them with health insurance.
Are we really going to start requiring people who want to spend their lives teaching children to know how to use a gun?
“Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple.”
Honestly, why is it that when you say, “Allow [group] to do [action]” someone always comes along and goes “You want to make [group] do [action]!!!” Allowing teachers to carry if they so choose is not the same thing as forcing teachers to carry whether they want to or not. Nor can I imagine any reason you would interpret it as such aside from blind cynicism.
As for Ex-RINO, the system that I embrace was in operation in Oregon at Clackamas Mall (shooter confronted by armed citizen, shooter suicided, minimal casualties) and in Texas (shooter confronted and shot by armed off-duty cop, minimal casualties). The one you are advocating was the one operating in Connecticut (shooter confronted by two unarmed teachers, both teachers dead, along with twenty-four others, twenty of them children). Yes, I do blame the gun control lobby for Sandy Hook. Every time an armed psycho wants to get his face on every news station in the world, the gun control lobby has given him the perfect chance to do it, because he knows exactly where to go where nobody can fight back.
Alice, my point was meant to be more along the lines that if you go for the concealed carry aspect, you’re still going to have most schools without any gun presence, especially in grade and junior high schools. Teachers may keep one in their home or the like, but have we really looked to see what teachers have to say about concealed carry? I’ve heard a lot of people talk about arming teachers, but I haven’t heard from many teachers that they’re comfortable with that. Not to mention, teachers are under a LOT of stress. Most are on some form of anti-depressant or anxiety-relieving medication (no joke- my mom started teaching and was amazed by the amount of people taking such meds- and is now on some herself). Mental health screenings for teachers might prohibit some of them from carrying in the first place, and again- how many WANT to carry? It’s a question of logistics, no?
Not really. Both my parents are teachers (at an international school, no less, so I’ve seen teachers under domestic and cross-cultural stressors), I have two aunts who are teachers (one university, one elementary-retired), and I attend a church that operates a private school (K-12), so I am friendly with a large number of teachers and support staff there. School and the logistics thereof is not a subject I’m unfamiliar with. But, out of all of that, I have yet to meet a huge pool of teachers so stressed out they are actively seeking to kill their students…but are only holding back because they can’t carry a gun. The mass school killing with the largest number of fatalities was a bombing incident, so if there are teachers stressed to the point of child murder, they aren’t going to be waiting around for a gun to help them on their way.
My point is, the logistics here aren’t as complicated as you’re making them out to be. If a particular teacher doesn’t want to carry, or is ineligible for mental health reasons, that’s fine. That is not a reason to prevent those who do want to and are eligible from doing so. Especially if armed teachers can save lives.
t*seeker -
10 years back, I would agree with you on the personal responsibility.
The GOP has changed though.
Heck, they’ve spent the last few years arguing that people shouldn’t have to have health insurance – that if they get hurt or sick, that everyone else should just pay for them. The individual mandate was championed as a personal responsibility plan by the Heritage foundation…but now, the GOP wants freeloading health care folks. I’m just saying, the personal responsibility thing, in my mind, doesn’t apply to the right anymore.
Alice –
The system I advocate for wouldn’t have these types of assault rifles in them.
Your goal is to have a world where we shoot the bad guys before too many good guys are killed.
I’d rather have no shots fired.
Now, the reality is that we won’t have a world with no gun violence – even countries with tight gun control have the occasional gun murder. I do think we have far too many murders and mass killings, and I think the thought that to combat that, we need more guns – I think that is a silly idea, and I’m glad to see that the NRA has really botched this so terribly that they are giving GOP politicians some cover to move to the middle on this issue.