The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 02-01-2013 - 5:08pm

Hi MM!

I wondered if you would become involved in a thread covering an issue near and dear to your heart.  You wrote: 

Self defense is natural right, not one granted US citizens by the government.  Furthermore, it is not the job of law enforcement, whether local, state, or national, to provide personal protection to anyone.  Their duty and responsibility is to the community as a whole, not any given individual.  We are all responsible for our own safety and security.  

Actually, that's not entirely true.  You probably rely heavily on consumer protections for safe products, clean water, disease-free food.  Much of that commerce is through  federal oversight and guidelines.  We live in a complex and interdependent society, which the strident insistence by some on lethal weapons and personal up-armoring, has been put into jeopardy. Guards in elementary schools?!  Playground police?!  And with all due respect, we do expect law enforcement to protect the community WHICH CONSISTS OF INDIVIDUALS.  Cracks me up, the way the NRA and its members want to focus on people.....except when they don't.  Guns don't kill people, "people kill people" (the actual truth--people with guns kill people).

As for self defense, I am curious as all get out.  What the heck are you people arming for?  The Mongol horde?  Zombie Apocalypse Now?  I read in another's post of a need in "flyover states" for assault weapons because emergency response times could be lengthy.  Where's the concern for having one's own firetruck? Undecided  As a general rule, those of us who live in "flyover" areas (either by state or rural locale) don't get threatened by ANYTHING which would require more than a shotgun (rabid critter, snake, chicken-coop-robbing coyote, etc) and probably not even that!  Why would anybody need an assault or automatic weapon? 

I have said before and will say again--if one feels so menaced as to believe that a high capacity automatic firearm is necessary, then that individual is either seriously paranoid; or the problem demands civic response, not a domestic arms race.  Concealed weapons in airports, restaurants, national parks, bars, and now CHURCHES  http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/religion-society/arkansas-state-senate-votes-allow-concealed-weapons-churches?!  WHY?!  Did you ever read Hobbes?  Leviathan?  If I remember correctly, we had this discussion years ago.   

As for your use of "well regulated", you do realize that it refers to the militia, not to the people nor to arms?  Yes, I know that the context of the Second was that of citizen soldiers, providing their own weapons, drilling together regularly for purposes of the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.  In spite of protestations to the contrary, it ISN'T obvious that individual self defense was paramount.  The writers of the Second had a profound distrust of standing armies (see also the Third Amendment).  If the RKBA contingent was serious about the Second, they'd probably rise up in arms (irony intended), against the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force.  Maybe the Coast Guard too.....I dunno.  Also, a well-regulated militia would have structure, presumably a chain of command, maybe rules of engagement.  Not this totally mindless insistence on each individual having "rights" to buy whatever, bear it wherever, and use it with far too little in the way of checks about intent, state of mind, and basic ability to handle a firearm safely.  Speaking of which....... 

Since our last discussion, my "law abiding", "good guy" neighbor had another meltdown of his already tenuous anger-management skills, and threatened contractors standing on the block wall between his property and mine with shooting if they set foot on his property--even accidentally.  Moreover, he was waving a weapon to show his serious intent.  That's a predictable outcome of the reckless dismantling of firearms restrictions and insistence on "personal rights" that the NRA and its ilk have actively fostered; to whit:  Paranoid mindset, simplistic characterizations, fascination with lethal firepower and total lack of concern for anything but the individual and his/her perception of threat.  More irony--I had to call the city police department because the contractors, quite naturally, felt threatened.  Thankfully, the contractors didn't take the NRA's profoundly stupid and reactive dogma to heart, and return with their own firearms.  There could have been a shootout in a residential area where homes are close to each other and the possibility of "collateral damage" is very real. 

I simply don't understand how this domestic arms race can possibly be justified or have any expectation of keeping the less heavily armed from being hurt or killed.  Remember Sandy Hook.  Nancy Lanza met all the criterion for NRA approved ownership of high capacity, rapid firing weaponry.  She misjudged her son's mental state (it is far too common to be unaware of mental instability or the possibility of snapping until the moment of crisis) and twenty children died.  What's the RKBA crowd's answer?  Have armed guards, arm the kids or train them to overwhelm an attacker.  Children who have just grown beyond the toddler stage.  What have we come to?  How can this possibly be seen as acceptable, reasonable, sound counsel in a nation which considers itself to be a beacon?   If this is how we're 'exceptional", then I am ashamed of our pathetic behavior and failure to consider the wellbeing of those who are our future. [A bit of very dark humor just occurred to me-- no need to worry about the debt they'll inherit--they'll be either dead.... or deadly].  

In regards to "Says diddly squat, the Second, about self defense.", the 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about a right to free speech on any sort of telecommunications or wireless device.  Does that mean that such a right doesn't exist just because it wasn't specifically enumerated?  Choose, MM.  If you wish to invoke modern technology and advances in portability and medium, then the right to keep and bear arms would be limited--hunting rifles, muskets, fowling pieces, dueling pistols, the occasional cannon perhaps, maybe a mortar or two (I'd really like to see an NRA member "bearing" one of those arms!).  What we're talking about is principles and the Second does NOT express a principle backing personal self defense.  Love, loath it, doesn't matter.  It ain't there. 

KInda funny.  There were shrieks and cries of "judicial activism" regarding the interpretation of "welfare" in the Constitution but virtually nothing from the same crowd regarding the introductory clause of the Second.  Conservative justices outright ignored it and manufactured the self-defense meme.  That's not "judicial activism"?!  Rights of speech are not limited by archaic modes of communication though most of us realize that there is a measure of restraint necessary to avoid dangerous situations.  "Sexting", perhaps?  The classic example is that of a false cry of "fire" in a crowded theater.  

I posted a link earlier in this thread.  You may have it.  If not, consider this:  As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.  I remember making the observation that gun toters at some of the Tea Party rallies seemed more interested in intimidating those who disagreed with them than making sure that they, very personally and individually, were safe.  

You say:  The founders considered personal defense as well as defense of family and property to be the inherent rights of mankind.  There was no more need to declare that they had the right to self-defense than there was to declare that they had the right to chew their food.  Surely we have the right to express our thoughts and beliefs openly.  An "inherent right", in your words.  Yet Congress is specifically banned from making laws which "abridge" freedoms of speech in the First Amendment.  You're not being consistent.  Possibly the writers of the Bill of Rights weren't consistent either. 

Regardless, I still do not believe that self-defense necessitates the ownership or use of high-powered firearms.  We don't live in the days of the wild, wild west though ironically enough, the arms race is pushing us closer to such an environment.  This isn't moving forward, it's lurching back.  Sad, very sad, and too often, tragic as well.  And it has ramifications which don't appear to have occurred to many, set as they are on their "rights", right now.   

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 7:46pm

Self defense is natural right, not one granted US citizens by the government.  Furthermore, it is not the job of law enforcement, whether local, state, or national, to provide personal protection to anyone.  Their duty and responsibility is to the community as a whole, not any given individual.  We are all responsible for our own safety and security.

As for your use of "well regulated", you do realize that it refers to the militia, not to the people nor to arms?

In regards to "Says diddly squat, the Second, about self defense.", the 1st Amendmentdoesn't say anything about a right to free speech on any sort of telecommunications or wireless device.  Does that mean that such a right doesn't exist just because it wasn't specifically enumerated? 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 7:38pm

Ah, more misrepresentation of the 2nd.  Lets look at the 2nd for a moment.... 

 

What in the 2nd is "well regulated"?  It's not firearms, it's not the people.  The militia is well regulated.

What right is enumerated in the 2nd?  It's not the right to have a militia, it's the right to keep and bear arms.

To whom is that right guaranteed?  Not the militia, but rather "the people".

Does the 2nd state that the people only enjoy the RKBA in militia service?  No, otherwise the right in question would have been guaranteed to the militia rather than the very deliberate use of the term the people.

The individual rights of the people are in fact paramount as without the arms of the people there can be no militia as noted in the 2nd, as it is the arms of the people which the militia will be called upon to use at need.   Without those arms the 2nd is meaningless.

The founders considered personal defense as well as defense of family and property to be the inherent rights of mankind.  There was no more need to declare that they had the right to self-defense than there was to declare that they had the right to chew their food.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 11:34am
Every man for himself...or at least every gun nut for himself. I will not respond to an emergency at one neighbor's house. The risk is too great.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 01-31-2013 - 12:23am

  Assault weapons as used by civilians are military look alike not actually the same thing.  Law enforcement happens AFTER a crime is committed

Why are assault weapons "good" in the flyover states?

.  In many areas of the country (non urban) it could take 45 min or more for help to arrive.  Now perhaps you live in an urban area where perhaps 10-30 minutes help may come.  The help will not get there in time to save you and yours.  That is up to you.  Now what do you want to use?  Some effective tool of something dreamed up in a hero fantasy. 

   Assault weapons are modular, one rifle can be easily converted to different calibers.  Varmint hunting do deer hunting with the same gun.  Because the stock adjusts for size different people can use the same gun safely and comfortably.  The pistol grip aid is accuracy  (and these are very accurate). 

  I disagree he is wrong. Hobbes could be talking about the financial sector(and was)

  The facts are always printed from one point of view.  But the truth is that people do use guns to defend themselves.  The modern rifles is far superior to it's ancestors. 

   A shootout makes plenty of sense when it is you trying to save your life or the lives of your loved ones.  No one who survived a criminal's attack says "I wish the criminal had won".

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

http://www.military.com/video/law-enforcement/police/65-year-old-woman-shoots-5-robbers/2125027516001/

http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/a-marines-thoughts-on-gun-control/2129824318001/

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 01-30-2013 - 11:51pm

  Do these "buy backs" check to see if the guns were stolen?  Used in a crime?  I doubt it.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-29-2013 - 10:21am

To Xxxs:

Why are assault weapons "good" in the flyover states?  This isn't the wild west anymore!  Shootouts of any kind, with any firearms, in urban areas, suburban areas, or rural areas, make no sense.  We have laws and law enforcement officers. If they're not doing their job,  the best answer is to work for reform, not go jungle and call for "better laws allowing self defense ".  God give me patience! 

Taking the "self defense" route is one step away from "might makes right".  We cannot have a civil or complex society when that path is chosen because the weakest, the oldest, and those lacking a will to kill won't last.  Might as well go back to the Dark Ages. You think that was so peachy, look at the way people lived!  Then read "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes, considered to be the father of political science. [more at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html:] Here's an excerpt: 

.....every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Apparently, gun-rights groups have also done their best to prevent the Centers for Disease Control from researching the impact of widespread firearms owning on the health of others.  Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, had even stronger words. “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA,” Rosenberg said.  http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-politics-affected-gun-violence-research/nTZnf/  That's damning, in my estimation, particularly since an overall adverse impact would substantially undermine the whole "self defense" schtick. 

As for the Second Amendment's militia, I will point out AGAIN that the adjective "well-regulated" is there in black and white.  Not so easily brushed away.  Says diddly squat, the Second, about self defense. 

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 01-28-2013 - 4:51pm

Militia was at he time of revolution was all men in a town.  They all had weapons sometime state of the art rifles.  What is necessary is to strenghten the rights to state of the art weaponery.  Urban Americans generally have little training and experience with firearms.   Nor has the Urban American had the safety been drilled into their heads since childhood.  Yes training is needed.  But it does mean that people can defend their loved ones, businesses, and homes. 

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 01-28-2013 - 4:42pm

It is the lack of the other side.  Assault weapons are good in the flyover states pistols are better in the urban landscape.  We need better laws allowing self defense.  statistics on people who used a gun to prevent or defend are hidden.  The anti-gun media has a long history starting with the late. Bill Paley.  The cities where gun violence in most likly to occur have the "toughest anti gun anti defend yourself laws. 

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-22-2013 - 7:04pm

To all:

iVillage still hasn't gotten its act together to make posting here a decent or easy experience.  I write this post using two devices because the composition window doesn't include the post to which I am responding.  Pretty pathetic, IMHO, considering the length of time they've had to work out bugs and get things right. 

That said, many have been illogical and emotional on the topic of firearms control. I cannot resist making some points.

First, the Second Amendment says diddly squat about personal self-defense.  This is its exact wording:  " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  People have argued (very often the same ones who complain about judicial activism) that there is a history of self-defense and the priority is implied.  Huh.  It's not in the Second.  One wonders:  Why not?  Over and over again, I see the NRA and their lackeys behave as if their individual rights were paramount.  They ignore the introductory clause with its clear indication of the context of both REGULATION (and not just "regulated" but "well-regulated"!) and STATE freedom.  

Secondly, if the preppers and the paranoid think that "big" government is their foe, what the heck good do they think a measly assault weapon would do against drones, bunker busters, etc?  We have standing armed forces with nuclear devices capable of inflicting widespread damage, and tactical weapons systems more than sufficient to take out any piddling little semi-automatic weapon.  Duh. 

Moreover, many of these same people are those who take any cut to our "defense" budget as though it were an act of treason--do they NOT understand?!  The nation's founders considered a standing army to be anathema because a tyrant could command that army to turn on a nation's citizens.  Our citizen soldiers were meant to bear their arms only in times of war, then disband.  James Madison said “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”. One wonders how many of the "gunrights" crowd regularly drill with a well-regulated militia.  Likely, very few!  By definition, they'd have to be National Guard members. 

 Third, the rhetoric about posting guards in schools and "good guys with guns" taking out "bad guys with guns" is so demonstrably short-sighted and illogical that only the unthinking and/or foolish would give those proposals more than a minute's consideration.  Sure, there have been school shootings.  There have also been shootings at malls, in theaters, in various work place settings.  Having a "need" for armed guards in all settings is appalling for a society that considers itself "civil".  As for the "good guy" characterization, God give me patience.  A cop just shot his wife and child. http://gantdaily.com/2013/01/22/nevada-cop-fatally-shoots-wife-son-and-then-himself-in-burning-home/   The quiet son of a minister killed his parents and three siblings not twenty miles from where I live.  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20130122_ap_authoritiesnmteenplannedmoreshootings.html  Who defines "good", based on what criterion, and how do you predict, before that "good guy" buys serious weaponry, whether or not she/he will go screaming yellow bonkers? 

But in their self absorption, the RKBA crowd takes exception to just about ANY common sensible limits.  Armed to the teeth with whatever, whenever, where ever they damn well please, seems to be the credo.  Airports and national parks?  Gotta have those firearms........  One is reminded of the definition of paranoia: 

par·a·noi·a  

/ˌparəˈnoiə/
Noun
  1. A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked...
  2. Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.

I'm left wondering how mentally healthy these people are in the first place! 

Sure, there are people out there who actually need a firearm.  Well trained law enforcement officers need them.  Hunters who feed their families with game have a reasonable case to make (though I've NEVER been able to stomach such an argument for the "sports" hunter who has a fancy-dancy blind, ATV, pickup and/or RV--it would be far less expensive to buy a side of beef or, pun intended, go whole hog).  There are ranchers and farmers who have to be wary of varmints (not the human kind). 

I read a piece in the NYT which expressed my greatest fear, beyond that of random violence.  It deserves a reading by responsible citizens.  An extract: 
Our gun culture promotes a fatal slide into extreme individualism. It fosters a society of atomistic individuals, isolated before power — and one another — and in the aftermath of shootings such as at Newtown, paralyzed with fear. That is not freedom, but quite its opposite.  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

Jabberwocka

Pages