my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.
john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc. i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist. and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.
the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government. the second amendment reads:
"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."
it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before. those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote. or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.
there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted. seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after. it is of course what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer." um, i don't think so.
trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer. however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.
registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same: my right has been infringed. one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said
“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”
and that's the crux of things, as i see it. the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer. that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them. that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one. and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us. yeah, sure.
it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:
"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."
about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above. unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study. what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime. world net daily wrote a great article on it and there are several links in there to follow through, as well. to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.
kind of telling isn't it?
read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing. otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.
i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff said.
and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:
"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."
anyone have anything to add?