"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."
The Right to Defend Ourselves by * illumin8d1
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 22, 2007
What is the difference between a "Muslim fanatic" who straps on an explosive laden vest and detonates himself in a crowded market and the All-American kid who walks into a mall or school and starts shooting people before killing himself? Are they not both equally hell-bent on taking out as many innocents as possibly along with themselves? Do they not both intend to send a message to the world that they are the oppressed?
Consider this...the suicide - homicide - bomber is much harder to stop once in progress. If he makes it to his destination undetected, in an instant his deed is done. However, a mall or school shooter's actions take time to carry out for maximum efficacy.
Enter the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Is it not possible, if the right to keep and bear arms is allowed to its fullest intentions, that legally armed citizens might mitigate the damage done by a shooter? Shouldn't that reason alone be worth enforcing our rights; if just one life is spared?
Imagine a Columbine, Virginia Tech, or an Omaha mall, where armed and empowered citizens have the choice to fight for their lives instead of running or cowering. Imagine friends and relatives who still grieve, that may not have to. Imagine a country where We The People decide our fates.
See No Evil
http://illuminated1.blogspot.com/
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of * illumin8d1 only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
* illumin8d1 is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-22 17:32:12
I was in the NRA as a kid for five years and earned marksmanship awards till I got bored.
 I own a 22 rifle I keep loaded and around for "protection".
I believe in some forms of "gun control" the way I believe in speed limits.
In other words, I believe you have a right to drive fast enough, just not too fast. Same with guns. If you want to walk around society with a hidden gun, I think, as a society, we should check you out some.
 The trouble always comes into "how much", and there is where the trouble all settles.
The more people who regularly carry guns around you have, the more people you will find are killed by guns. The problem with assuming an armed society can better protect itself is that it assumes that all of society is sane. As you have observed by yet another shooting, 1% of a society that is always armed will increase the regularity of deaths by firearms considerably. Arming a society increases the odds of an insane person having a loaded gun in their hands.
The reason this is a contentious argument and has been (like abortion) for so long, is because of the dilemmas it faces either way you go.
I'd like to start out by commending you for the simple, straightforward, and diplomatic way in which you present this article.
But would we need guns at all if the prospective shooter didn't actually have a gun in the first place? If guns had been banned, the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. The perpetrators would not have had access to guns.
You are dreaming. I am sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and not going back in. Even if we could, I don't think we should...how does a 75-year old woman in a wheelchair defend herself from a mugger?
Seriously, I see your point. Just as seriously, if criminals want weapons they will find them, and the human right to self-defense is ineffective if you cannot deal properly with a threat. I wish there was another answer.
Take a good look at the UK crime situation, especially the availability of guns to criminals. The average Brit cannot carry a pocket knife...but they have spiraling gun crime and the highest violent crime per capita of ANY "developed" country by a significant margin. Violent crime is in some cases approaching numerical parity with the US.
Disarming good guys simply has not worked on a scale of more than 100 people EVER. The world is too complex. That you haven't experienced violent crime yourself does not mean you are immune from it. You can decide to run, hope or be part of your own rescue.
I have been on the sharp end and know the limits of police protection. I will not submit to criminals or tyrants. Either take my rights away at their risk. You can choose your own path, just don't preclude my choice. It is a free country, y'know.
Good point. But I still think it's dangerous to let everyone carry guns. It's a slippery slope; should we be allowed to carry around machine guns? Should we be allowed to carry guns on commercial airlines?
It's a free country, but that doesn't mean we should be able to extend that freedom to dangerous acts.
However, if you can provide legitimate statistics that show that a sufficient number of potential victims save lives using guns, my view might change.
The truth about freedom is that it comes at a cost. I am sure there are plenty of countrys that have zero tolerance for there citizens owning weapons.. But then again there is almost no difference between those countrys and Prison half the time.
And we all know how effective the Prison system is in preventing criminals from commiting crimes(assault and murder within the prison).
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
