(MS) A liberal makes it halfway down the road.....


PDA






Drizzt
October 8, 2005, 02:26 AM
Owning firearms should be a protected right

By Meghan Blalock

September 30, 2005

Make no bones about it: I am a liberal who believes that guns in themselves are not evil.

Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” in debates about gun control. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?

It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb.

In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, guns cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.

What is evil is a government that allows people to buy guns - semi-automatic and automatic ones at that - who should not even be allowed to touch one.

Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?

No.

People who should not be allowed to own guns:

• anybody who has committed a felony, ever. Exceptions could be made for people who have clearly “recovered” and wanted a weapon to protect their households.

• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.

• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.

• anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.

Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a gun for the purposes of self-protection and self-defense? Yes. In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL guns, criminals would probably still be able to get their hands on them (although it might be a bit more difficult). Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.

This right, however, should not extend into the realm of automatic weapons. The gun must have a child safety feature, and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her gun to whomever he or she chooses because you never know what kind of psychotic individual might then be the owner of the gun.

Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.

Should these automatic weapons be legal?

NO. No, no, no.

If anybody can make a good argument as to why such weapons should be legal, or what positive purpose they serve in our society (or what purpose at all), please e-mail me or write an editorial about it.

A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.

So, in conclusion, guns are not evil. The acts they commit – via a person pulling the trigger – can be evil, but they are not always. I think it is always wrong to kill another person, regardless of what they have done. But it is not wrong to injure one who is trying to injure you or your family. Automatic weapons are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.

Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.

http://www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/30/433d43f8638ad

I'd say there's still hope for her. She just needs someone to help her get past her fear of the 'scary' guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "(MS) A liberal makes it halfway down the road....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Buck Snort
October 8, 2005, 05:08 AM
If I'm a law abiding citizen then I should be allowed to own an automatic weapon if I want one. Pure and simple. It ain't the gun, its the person using it. If a Thompson sub-machine gun is what I want to use against the guy who busts down my door at 3:00 AM then that's what I should be allowed to use and no government beaurocrat should be telling me otherwise. Conservatives trust the people and liberals trust government, you post reflects that sentiment.

jfh
October 8, 2005, 06:29 AM
That isn't halfway down the road. The totalitarian liberal mindset is there in all its twenty-first century glory, and presented with faulty logic as well.

Mr.V.
October 8, 2005, 06:42 AM
Conservatives trust the people and liberals trust government

Believe me...we liberals sure don't trust this current government. Though I can't speak for other liberals, I sure can say I don't trust anyone :scrutiny: . But I still think there should be social security... :neener:

Gannet
October 8, 2005, 07:18 AM
This supposedly intelligent person (note how leftists LOVE to pat themselves on the back for their self-declared intelligence) apparently doesn't know that the effective combat difference between hand-held semi-automatic and automatic rifles is nil. If anything, someone who just holds the trigger down in full auto is considerably *less* likely to hit their target than someone doing controlled rapid fire. But don't confuse her with the facts.

When the 1st Amendment was written, there was no such thing as radio or TV or the Internet, so of course it doesn't apply to them. Sheesh. :banghead:

esheato
October 8, 2005, 07:35 AM
Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.

In regards to her article, thank God for that. ;)

Ed

Matthew748
October 8, 2005, 07:49 AM
What a bunch of drivel. This is what I call back-door gun control. She claims “normal” people should be allowed to own guns. Who defines normal? I own over 25 guns, this makes me abnormal in some peoples’ eyes. I have a bone to pick with each of her points.

Convicted felons. If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm why where they ever released? Is someone who did time doomed to a life as a second class citizen where politicians forever dictate what rights they deserve and what rights they are denied? It is a tough issue that is hard to resolve.

Anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness. Way to vague. Is this referring to a full fledged paranoid schizophrenic or someone who was treated for substance abuse or depression over a decade ago? People recover from what life throws at them all the time. There is no reason to beat them over the head because they had enough sense to get help when they needed it.

Anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
This one is just great. Get yourself landed on a secret list overseen by an anonymous government entity and you are denied constitutional rights.

No thank you. To paraphrase Lee Marvin from Death Hunt, “if you’re part of the future, I don’t want to be in it.”

Spot77
October 8, 2005, 08:18 AM
Well if she truly believes in what she wrote, she'll send written testimony to the Maryland General Assembly this year arguing against ANY new forms of gun control since Maryland already has every one of her bullet points.


And she obviously has NO CLUE about NFA and class III laws

GT
October 8, 2005, 09:00 AM
Hmmm.... an ignorant person, convinced of their own great intelligence, with a specious argument, coming to illogical and factually insupportable conclusions.

Who cares what she thinks, she's an idiot!


G

Old Fuff
October 8, 2005, 09:36 AM
Machine guns should be outlawed, and "prohibited persons" should be allowed to have firearms. To accomplish this we should pass the necessary laws and put "the government" in charge. After that no one (other then the government) will have machine guns, and the prohibited people won't either because of the laws ...

Such a neat package. But how will it be enforced if the "bad people" won't go along with the plan?

>> It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. <<

Comes as news to me ... Aren't they the ones that always want to ban this or that?

>> ... anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb. <<

On this we agree. She may go to the head of the line.

boofus
October 8, 2005, 10:22 AM
Oh I see she thinks her opinion trumps the 2nd and 5th amendments.

I'm government and I don't think you should have a gun so you won't!

Whatever happened "no person will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"? :barf:

Maybe the government should think she shouldn't have the right of free speech. :rolleyes:

zahc
October 8, 2005, 10:30 AM
There is absolutely no reason a person like that should have access to a high powered word processing program.

Mulliga
October 8, 2005, 10:32 AM
Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?

No.
:uhoh:

If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.
:uhoh:

beerslurpy
October 8, 2005, 12:41 PM
No, this is the new gun grabber stance you should expect to see a lot more of. He appears to have "moved towards our position" because political defeats have made them timid. Even AGS's "hunters and sportsmen" stance was revealed as being too obviously anti gun. Pieces like this are very positive developments because it means that WE are framing the debate, which ordinarily would mean automatic success unless we stop fighting.

Expect more pieces with the following elements:
-Statement that guns themselves are not evil and have legitimate uses
-Claiming that the real problem is X, which has some legislative solution Y
-Where Y is alreadly current law plus a bit that severely threatens lawful gun ownership

In this case, the bit that threatens gun ownership is the "no guns if you get put on the terrorist watch list" which is a secret list compiled as an administrative function, unchallengeable because of "national security." No evidence of a crime need be produced, nor any reason given for your name being on the list. if Ted Kennedy has difficulty getting off this list, what do you think our chances are?

MordecaiJones
October 8, 2005, 01:18 PM
I believe the 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our own governement, should the leaders decide that they want to go against the will of the people and "take over." For that to happen, at least some of the military must be willing to go with the take over. For this reason, at least some of the population should be armed with military grade weapons (read automatic) to have a chance to resist. This is the best argument I see for freedom to purchase any weapon you want and can afford.

I can see that there might be a desire to keep firearms out of certain people's hands (example - multiple murderers). As with all actions, there is always a down side. If you try to select people who should not have guns, the selection process can be abused, either way. It comes down to restricting freedom for safety. I personally prefer freedom instead of relying on others to protect me. I would consider a discussion on keeping firearms out of certain peoples hands, and then a law if the majority could agree. Note, I did not say the professional politicians we have for representation should vote on the law. Only by a direct vote by the people after discussion.

DelayedReaction
October 8, 2005, 01:26 PM
The article lost me when it said that people with a history of mental illness should be prevented from owning firearms. First of all, that's a breach of privacy. You can't just walk up and demand medical records.

Second, who defines mental illness? Depression? Post-traumatic stress disorder? How about someone who owns a lot of guns? Paranoia?

The fully automatic bit is just silly. I don't think fully automatic weapons should be as readily purchasable as a shotgun, but they definitely shouldn't be banned.

Pilgrim
October 8, 2005, 01:32 PM
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.

Should these automatic weapons be legal?
I'm sure things would have been a lot easier for the American Revolution had the average American had access to automatic weapons.

Pilgrim

JohnBT
October 8, 2005, 01:49 PM
"Owning firearms should be a protected right"

As opposed to an unprotected right?

They really aren't automatic you know, you have to load them, aim them and pull the trigger. :)

John

ZenMasterJG
October 8, 2005, 02:07 PM
There is absolutely no reason a person like that should have access to a high powered word processing program.

Microsoft Word v.50BMG?
:p

waterhouse
October 8, 2005, 02:40 PM
"Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose."

I pick my nose at least once a day and I know how easy it is. Try it sometime, and then try to buy a machine gun and let me know which one is easier.

Declaration Day
October 8, 2005, 03:05 PM
I think it is always wrong to kill another person, regardless of what they have done.

This statement tells me all I need to know about this woman.

Mr.V.
October 8, 2005, 05:14 PM
Declaration Day--

hehe...I happen to agree with her on that one though. It's much better to kill a person for what they are DOING. Once they get to "done", it's too late... :evil:

insurgent
October 8, 2005, 06:50 PM
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” in debates about gun control. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?

It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb.

In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, guns cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.



Hmmm...so who exactly is it who keeps pushing these lawsuits blaming the manufacturers of the "inanimate objects" as being the ones responsible for the actions taken by the owners of these "inanimate objects"??

ReadyontheRight
October 8, 2005, 07:48 PM
Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” in debates about gun control....A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.


Some Conservatives also like to present the cliche argument that you should at least know A LITTLE about the subject matter when arguing a point.

Delmar
October 8, 2005, 08:33 PM
Meghan didn't make it to the sidewalk, let alone half way down the road. Same old song-different window dressing.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 8, 2005, 08:50 PM
It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb. Most of the anti-gunners are liberals, and most liberals are anti-gunners (in my experience). And they DO believe the plain dumb nonsense that the gun itself is evil.

The author believes it too, she just won't admit it. You can tell because her proposed "solution" to the gun "problem" is to regulate guns. If she truly believed that a gun is merely a tool, then she wouldn't feel a need to get rid of them. She'd be more interested in getting rid of the evil people who would use any tool (gun or ortherwise) to harm the innocent.

In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Then why do so many libs feel deep down America is evil? "America" is about as inanimate as it gets, yet that doesn't stop plenty of libs from hating it...

Standing Wolf
October 8, 2005, 08:55 PM
I predict this piece of dreck will continue to make reappearances for months and years to come.

Navy joe
October 9, 2005, 04:03 AM
Well, I couldn't resist.



-----Original Message-----
From: Grimes, French C., AM1 (LHA-4)
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:10 PM
To: 'mblalock@thedmonline.com'
Subject: Owning firearms should be a protected right

Ms. Blalock,
In reference to your editorial, I commend you on somewhat stepping past the modern “liberal” gut reaction that firearms are evil. I agree with your conclusion that; “Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.” You state a very valid reason for gun ownership which also happens to be my personal litmus test for should we get rid of guns. I will happily melt my 30+ guns to scrap just as soon as no other person in the world has guns or the knowledge to make them. Since that whole knowledge genie won’t go back in the bottle, I’ll keep my guns. I suppose the alternative to banning the knowledge to make guns is to ban the means. So again, as soon as somebody tells me how to ban fire, basic ores found in the earth and proposes a rational scheme to register all basic hand and machine tools that can be used to make a gun, then I’ll get rid of my guns. The point of my somewhat hyperbole laden ranting is to illustrate that guns are not going away ever. Someone will always have one or the knowledge and means to produce more.

That someone might be the “criminal” you refer to. I take it that by reference to “criminal” you are talking about your run of the mill all American felon, demographically likely to be a young male involved with drugs. I prefer to expand the definition of criminal. In the 20th century over 20 million people were murdered by their own government (Stalin’s Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Sudan today, et. Al) or someone else’s government(Nazi Germany for one). I would call that pretty criminal.

In the light of those 20 million murdered people the meaning of our right to bear arms becomes clear. We do not need to “protect” our right as you say. The 2nd amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. What it does is to codify a natural right, the rights of self preservation and more importantly self determination. Those rights come forth from the same basic instincts that make any intelligent animal fight to its utmost ability to defend its life. We codify them in our Bill of Rights; if religious we call them God given rights. Regardless of name, those rights predate any form of government. The Bill of Rights spells out our right to keep and bear arms not to give us something, but to warn the functionaries of government to not try to restrict something greater than their government.

I will further expand on what the Second Amendment means. It is a form of doomsday clause written into our government. The self destruct button if you will. The second amendment is there to remove the government if it ceases to serve the people and ceases to honor the innate rights set forth in the Constitution. As stated in The Declaration of Independence we have that duty. From the Declaration:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—

The writers of the Constitution included the 2nd Amendment with an eye towards Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration. Other founding documents also support the idea that the framers built in the right to keep and bear arms as a check to totalitarian government. In conclusion of this line of thought, yes I own guns for competitive sport shooting, occasional hunting, self defense, and for just plain fun. None of those uses is what the 2nd Amendment is about. It is about removing my government if that terrible time ever comes. Every time a politician or editorialist states that they don’t want to ban guns used for sport, self defense, or hunting, they bring the terrible time closer.

To your points of who should not be allowed to own guns, all the categories of people you list except “terrorist watch lists” are already prohibited from gun ownership. It would be nice to prohibit watchlisters, but who puts the names on the list? Do I get on because I think the 2nd Amendment is about removing your government? Innocent until proven guilty applies to American citizens on a watch list. If they are not citizens, why be on a watch list? How about be on a plane getting deported? That of course would be another long column about our failed immigration policies. There is a school of thought that believes felons who have served their time should be fully vested with rights of citizenship. After all, if they are too dangerous to vote or have guns why are they walking free? Keep the dangerous ones in jail. Mental illness is a touchy one. Currently the Federal firearms purchase form 4473 asks if the buyer has been adjudicated mentally defective. Beyond that, do we look at everyone’s private medical record? Is a nervous breakdown grounds for no guns for life? How about a self referral to a mental health facility after a nasty divorce? Quite a slippery slope.

Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.

Should these automatic weapons be legal?

Yes, they should. When the founding fathers were scribbling our 1st amendment they had quill pens and candlelight. Can you justify your 60 word per minute computer and instant worldwide broadcast internet? Should the freedom of speech apply as long as we only talk about sports, traffic accidents, and cute furry animals? Or should it not be subject to restrictions of use, like the 2nd amendment should not be? Should you be able to write that your government is corrupt and needs to go without disappearing in the middle of the night?

The 2nd amendment was written without note to the type of arms because it was expected that a male citizen would have at home a militarily relevant firearm and have the skill to use it. Then it was a flintlock musket. Today it is a semi-automatic or selective fire magazine fed rifle. The purpose they serve is to provide a modern citizen with arms that are not obsolete if we ever have to face a foreign or domestic enemy. I will note that fully automatic firearms have been closely regulated since 1934. Those regulations tightened in 1968 and 1986 to the point where it is cost prohibitive for 99% of the populace to own a legal fully automatic weapon. I hope to see some of those laws go away, those guns that “spray bullets”, such as a belt fed light machine gun, are of great use in establishing a base of fire when engaged in small unit maneuver warfare of the type one could expect to encounter when facing an oppressive government. I will note that such use is a damn sight harder than picking your nose. Spraying bullets with a semi-auto is fun on a range, in life it is inaccurate and generally attracts the attention of someone who then uses slow aimed fire to terminate your foolishness.

So yes, I agree “A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people.” As unpleasant as that is, it becomes necessary when someone attacks your family, or attacks your way of life. All guns kill, single shot to belt fed automatic. Why we kill is important. Your idea of injuring an attacker will just land you in jail. Using a gun is using deadly force regardless of if the person dies. You don’t shoot them unless you had reason to kill them.

I would like to offer more points, but I have to go strap on a gun and defend my government’s ship for a few hours. As long as I freely keep my own guns at home, I know it is a government worth serving. I leave you with a thought that armed people are citizens, disarmed people subjects. Had the German Jews had guns they would have also had a choice about getting on the train. This is bore out by the example of the Warsaw Ghetto where several hundred Jews with minimal weapons tied up a lot of Nazis for several weeks. Sadly it was much too little, too very late. I never want to reach the point of too little or too late in this great country.

Here are a few resources I really enjoy. In the forum areas (of the second link) you will find many people with a wealth of opinions. Right now your editorial is being handled a little roughly in there, but I’m sure if you dropped in a presented an honest effort to learn why we care about gun rights you would be well received.

Regards,
-F. Grimes

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm
http://thehighroad.org/library/

Alex45ACP
October 9, 2005, 04:34 AM
Good letter, it would be cool if she registered.

Mr.V.
October 9, 2005, 04:34 AM
Insurgent--

you see firearms manufacturers still make guns that "could" be turned into automatic weapons and so can sue them since she doesn't think autos are okay :scrutiny:.

Give me a competent gunsmith, 50lbs of steel, and a year's time, and we could probably get a flintlock to repeat...

Commissar Gribb
October 9, 2005, 04:57 AM
Give me a competent gunsmith, 50lbs of steel, and a year's time, and we could probably get a flintlock to repeat...

give 4 ATF agents a box of paperclips, some rubber bands, simple hand tools and a 6-pack and they'll make it into a "machine gun" in an afternoon :banghead:

rangeruger
October 9, 2005, 05:54 AM
Quote:
If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that.

INJURE? INJURE?
That's a liberal idea isn't it?

benewton
October 9, 2005, 07:45 PM
"Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose."

Shotgun and "buck and ball" come to mind, for starters, followed by punt guns and other things made useless by my AR's.

Too, I'll note, with others, that auto fire isn't all that easy to do well.

javafiend
October 9, 2005, 07:57 PM
People who should not be allowed to own guns: anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.

Just because a name appears on some "terrorist watch list" does not mean that that person has ever been convicted or even accused of committing any crime. The FBI's "terrorist watch list" includes people whom the FBI simply wants to interview.

No one's right to fly, due process, or keep and bear arms should be abridged simply because some bureaucrat adds their name to a list.

Why is this hard for people like Meghan Blalock and Bill Maher to understand?

Smuggs
October 10, 2005, 02:29 AM
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Hmm If a well regulated militia is what is after would that not actualy require military weapons? I know it may be a bit inflamitory, but if people are intending to interpret the second amendment so that it says what they want should it not be done accurately? While there has been some disagreament about what the historical definition of "well regulated" I am unaware of any dispute about what the definition of milita.
Look at a country that have a more well defined roll of the milita. The Swiss are a nation of gun owners and most homes have a military issue assault rifle and handguns are common. Yet no one hears of rampant crime with these weapons. Should the need arise all able bodied people of our nation should be equiped to defend our homes our states and our country from any threat be it from within or without.

junyo
October 10, 2005, 06:49 AM
Glass half empty:
The author's opinions continue to be informed by false assumptions and faulty logic, thus leading to bad conclusions.

Glass half full:
The author accepts the fundamental precepts of the RKBA argument: that guns aren't not fundamentally evil, that it's unfair to unarm citizens when criminals will be armed, and that ownership is a right. That moves her far ahead of the game from the Barbara Boxers and ACLUs of the world that deny the clear language of the Constitution and claim that no individual right exists, and that your protection should be left to professionals.

Fine, she doesn't have all the details right, but do we really want to adopt an 'all or nothing', 'if we can't see exactly eye to eye then you're the enemy' stance? For the average liberal, for her to admit some of the points she's granting our cause is akin to a Christian denying Christ, she's giving up articles of faith in progressive circles. Yet we're so generous here, that we're willing to meet her with all the openmindedness of inferring evil motives and reveling in her ignorance. Only Navy joe has taken any constructive action; the rest of us seem content to sit in our little echo chamber patting ourselves on the back. So much for promoting the RKBA; if you don't know the optimum loading and recoil energy of a 640 NE cartridge - off the top of your head - then you're not worth conversing with.

Delmar
October 10, 2005, 11:52 AM
do we really want to adopt an 'all or nothing', 'if we can't see exactly eye to eye then you're the enemy' stance?

I am all done with compromising with Liberals and whomever else wishes to take my firearms, period. In my mind, Junyo, there is NO compromise when it comes to my personal liberty and safety.
The responsible gun owners of this country have been backing down and putting up with "reasonable gun control" until it makes me want to vomit!
Pease explain to me how the 20,000+ gun laws in this country has made so much as a dent in the problem they claim their pet laws will solve?

The author of the article tries to come off as "reasonable", but just does not pass the test. To me, the Bill of Rights is not a graded thing, such as A thru F. It is a pass/fail, and the author fails.

1. Her attitude is to "let" you own any firearm she feels comfortable around. How nice. Not to mention that she believes the only use for firearms is to kill people.

She obviously hates full auto weapons for some unknown reason-oh, wait a minute-she did say there was no use for them other than to kill. I am so taken back by such an authority.....not!
Comparing full auto fire to when the second amendment was passed is not real smart. The Kentucky long rifle was the assault weapon of the day, and the authors of the BOR had no issue with that.

If we outlawed everything which did not have a "legitimate purpose", we can start destroying certain books, TV, movies, computers, on and on.
Personally, I am not about to let some reporter begin to tell me that the only things I can possess is what she terms "legitimate".

2. We should have child safety locks-on people who misrepresent the facts!

3. Her statement that an automatic weapon has replaced the pen as being the mightiest instrument is completely absurd, and she should know better than to display her ignorance like that. Sadly, it is not a requirement for journalists to know what they write/speak of, yet they feel so compelled to deny others in areas they are completely ignorant of.

liberty911
October 10, 2005, 12:25 PM
Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.

Exactly. The same rational goes for automatice firearms.

TheEgg
October 10, 2005, 12:38 PM
In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL guns,

I stop reading when I run into evidence that the writer is border-line illiterate. Such people destroy their own credibility.

NCP24
October 10, 2005, 01:00 PM
give 4 ATF agents a box of paperclips, some rubber bands, simple hand tools and a 6-pack and they'll make it into a "machine gun" in an afternoonGood one.

No_Brakes23
October 10, 2005, 03:36 PM
Conservatives trust the people and liberals trust government That's funny. :rolleyes: Hope you don't really believe that.

If that is true, then all us liberals must back the President 100% in his efforts, right? I mean we trust the govt, and the prez is part of it...as for conservatives trusting the people, what about the "war on drugs"? Please.

I am glad that this woman at least recognizes the need for self-defense, but her comments about injury, taking a life, and automatic weapons, (Who wants to bet she is talking about EBRs, not actual sub-guns,) reflect that she is still misguided.

jeff-10
October 10, 2005, 06:49 PM
She seems like just another misguided liberal who is fascinated by her own intellect. One who believes the Bill of Rights is a living breathing moving document that should be interpreted to keep people safe not safe guard there rights.

junyo
October 10, 2005, 08:31 PM
I am all done with compromising with Liberals and whomever else wishes to take my firearms, period. In my mind, Junyo, there is NO compromise when it comes to my personal liberty and safety. It's not a question of compromise Delmar, it's a question of tactics. Divide and conqueor is a highly successful strategy. Driving a wedge into liberal ranks by saying, "now see, you're starting to get it" and rewarding her effort is likely to be more effective that saying "since you don't see all of my points you can F* off". There's the battle and there's the war, and to win any political war you need as many people as possible a) on your side, or b) willing to stay out of it. Tagging people as the enemy doesn't drive them to either camp and that has got to be the goal; always be persuading, refining arguments and tactics, driving as many sensible people as possible away from the true enemies, the power hungry and the tyrants. Ignorance doesn't make someone the enemy, only misinformed (...and yes the real enemy often using the misinformed as tools, but that still doesn't make them the enemy). And choosing the must effective way to inform them and make them receptive to that information isn't compromise, it's tactics.

bigun15
October 10, 2005, 08:58 PM
and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her gun to whomever he or she chooses

Because you know making it illegal will make the difference. She must be the reincarnation of Einstein.

If you enjoyed reading about "(MS) A liberal makes it halfway down the road....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!