I Believe In The Right To Own Firearms Despite Virginia Tech Tragedy


PDA






emilyk007
April 30, 2007, 05:54 PM
Read the owner of Rabbit Ridge Enterprises's (Ararat, Virginia) opinion on firearms:

http://www.orato.com/node/2253

Quote:
"If everyone owned and was trained to use a gun, we wouldn’t have any problems. A lot of the gun deaths are accidental because people don’t know what they're doing and aren't following proper safety procedures. Would Cho have gone into those classrooms if he’d felt someone else had a firearm?"

If you enjoyed reading about "I Believe In The Right To Own Firearms Despite Virginia Tech Tragedy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Soybomb
April 30, 2007, 06:04 PM
I don't even know where the myth of alot of accidental gun deaths came from. I have yet to even see that supported.

The comments page so far though shows the usual
I think the author is entitled to his opinion, and in the case of Civil Rights and Freedoms, i honestly think there is a huge disparity in priorities in the U.S. Between other civil rights that are overlooked; such as the freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation - aren't these of higher priority than to have the right to bear arms?

North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.

Constitutionally yes, i think if you're going to interpret the charter literally, bearing arms is a freedom, but with every freedom comes responsibility.

That responsibility comes from where? It comes from individuals who are well-adjusted, within families, within communities, schools and so forth - and let's face it, our profit-oriented society is often at odds with this.

Having more guns therefore cannot be a solution - if everyone was armed, we'd all live in fear. Conflicts such as a fender-bender, a property dispute can end up in gun-fire, instead of being resolved where they should be, between two people, or in a court of law.

I don't think people should be denied to have guns, they should however be denied using them, not from legislation, but from their recognition that a 'better world' depends on more than just a stand-off.

This reminds me of the Cold War, where the mutual destruction of each other, meant a stalemate between the USSR and the USA. This is not peace, a stand-off based on fear and violence, just doesn't make sense for anyone, it can have its short-term benefits, but in the long-run it can't work.

The Unknown User
April 30, 2007, 07:03 PM
If everyone owned and was trained to use a firearm, we'd have a lot of irresponsible people who know how to operate a firearm correctly shooting people under circumstances that would not afford said people the legal right to use their weapon.

Having the right to bear arms does not imply the necessity for everyone afforded said to exercise said right.

In exercising a right, you are proclaiming that you are responsible enough to exercise said right. If you own or carry a firearm, you had better be a responsible individual.

I also believe in the right to own or carry a firearm despite the crap some people would have you believe. But, some people approach the issue from such a black and white standpoint. If nobody owns any guns, then only the criminals would own them. But if everyone owns them, well then we have just as much of a problem. Do you honestly think that everyone and their mother carrying a deadly weapon is somehow a good thing? Out of all of the people you know, including friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances, how many of them would you feel comfortable with if you knew they carried? I'm willing to be not many. And don't lie, either. Some of the people I know are great people, but the idea of them having something they could kill other people with is quite distressing.

Some people are fit to own and carry a firearm. Some aren't. They shouldn't be allowed to. :(

I hope I'm not too far off topic, but I get quite heated whenever anyone attacks the right to bear arms, whether I agree with their statement or not. I realized that was a bit of a rant. I apologize. :P

KadicDeshi
April 30, 2007, 07:19 PM
Having the right to bear arms does not imply the necessity for everyone afforded said to exercise said right.

In exercising a right, you are proclaiming that you are responsible enough to exercise said right. If you own or carry a firearm, you had better be a responsible individual.

Do you honestly think that everyone and their mother carrying a deadly weapon is somehow a good thing? Out of all of the people you know, including friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances, how many of them would you feel comfortable with if you knew they carried? I'm willing to be not many. And don't lie, either.

Some people are fit to own and carry a firearm. Some aren't. They shouldn't be allowed to.


Wow. Okay, I'm gonna have to respond to this one.

There are certain people out there that I will agree with you about, that they should not carry firearms. However, this is simply my opinion, and usually one based on very little exposure to these people. And a single person's opinion is not a good benchmark for deciding who gets to exercise the right to self-defense.

And that's the rub. Who does decide who gets to have firearms?

Personnally, I'd much rather risk the people who are unstable / ignorant / downright stupid having guns than risk giving any person or small group of people the authority to deprive responsible adults of the right to self-defense based on what will likely be a "few" bad apples compared to the overall population of the US. That's the idea that gives me the chills any time I hear yet another call for "something to be done about gun violence."

Barrett

1911Tuner
April 30, 2007, 07:22 PM
Quote"

>Having the right to bear arms does not imply the necessity for everyone afforded said to exercise said right.<
**************

And who would you assign the authority to determine who gets to exercise a constitutional right and who doesn't? You? How would you go about separating those who deserve to exercise the right and who doesn't? What would the criteria be? Need based? This is America, and the Second Amendment doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear arms, "IF"...

It states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So...What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

We already have criminal background checks in place. We have to fill out the proper forms and truthfully answer the questions on those forms or face harsh penalties on a federal level.

Vern Humphrey
April 30, 2007, 07:28 PM
At Virginia Tech, 32 unarmed people were slaughtered -- in a state where open carry is legal, and where anyone over 21 with no criminal record can get a permit.

But guns are not allowed on the campus of Virginia Tech.

I guess Cho, the killer, didn't know that.:barf:

Aguila Blanca
April 30, 2007, 07:50 PM
I think the author is entitled to his opinion, and in the case of Civil Rights and Freedoms, i honestly think there is a huge disparity in priorities in the U.S. Between other civil rights that are overlooked; such as the freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation - aren't these of higher priority than to have the right to bear arms?
The author of this is confused. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee any "freedom of religion." It prohibites the government from establishing a state religion. That is ALL it says on that subject. "Freedom to protest" is part of freedom os speech, and that's actually pretty well protected (albeit with some notable deviations). "Freedom of sexual orientation"? Sorry, not in MY Constitution or Bill or Rights.

North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.
Nope. Now we need guns to protect against urban violence.

Constitutionally yes, i think if you're going to interpret the charter literally, bearing arms is a freedom, but with every freedom comes responsibility.
???? How else would/should I interpret it? And where does it say in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that I must exercise my rights "responsibly"? A right is a right. I am free to exercise them in any way I choose. It may be necessary to establish certain penalties for irresponsible exercise of same, but that's different from prohibiting the exercise outright. (The old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater comes to mind.)

XLMiguel
April 30, 2007, 08:03 PM
VT was a tradgedy, and had the state and the university not infringed on the rights of those on campus to the means to adequately protect and defend themselves, a lot of the carmage could have been prevented. (google Applalacin School of Law). The state cannot adequately protect the public from criminals and crazies, and there is no ultimate right or .gov guarantee of safety, life is not without its risks.

The thing that continues to annoy the Hell out of me is the way that both sides, but primarily the gun-grabbers, fail to recognize that the .gov doesn't give us the right to keep and bear arms - it is a God-given (or natural) right that is simply affirmed in the BoR.

While there may be some legitimate reasons for the .gov 'of the people, by the people, for the people' to 'manage' those rights, e.g. I don't want the drunk down the arroyo to have an RPG, but as long as I have the right to life, I have the right to defend that life with reasonable and contemporary tools.

Standing Wolf
April 30, 2007, 08:06 PM
Out of all of the people you know, including friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances, how many of them would you feel comfortable with if you knew they carried? I'm willing to be not many. And don't lie, either.

Everybody I know and work with knows I carry openly about half the time, concealed the rest.

I don't have time to waste on people of low principle.

The Unknown User
April 30, 2007, 08:29 PM
Kadic, and Tuner, thank you for pointing out the flaws in my statements. It helps to have constructive feedback without the personal attacks I'd probably receive anywhere else.

Your comments are quite valid, so let me respond to them. I'll use myself and the state I live in as a reference.

I live in MA, and when I go to apply for my LTC (AKA CCW, CCL, etc.), I have to fill in both my criminal history as well as my mental health history. So, there are two conditons I'm being checking for.

First, let's look at the criminal history condition. In this situation, I could have a criminal history because I stole a candy bar from a gas station. Or maybe I held up said gas station. Or maybe I shot the clerk. There are different degrees of severity in this condition. The more severe the condition, the more I should not be allowed to own or carry a firearm, for the obvious reason.

Now let's look at the mental health condition. Maybe I have GAD (generalized anxiety disorder). Or maybe I have PTSD (post-traumatic anxiety disorder). Or, in the worst case scenario, I have schizophrenia and I'm having delusions of persecution. Again, there are different degrees of severity.

In either condition, the most important thing is your state of mind, and your overall mindset and outlook. What are your true intentions in owning a firearm? Do you really need a firearm?

In this case, I honestly think a licensed psychologist should be appointed in each situation to review the applicant's history and determine whether or not the applicant is fit to own or carry.

But is this realistic? Probably not.

The problem is that a law enforcment individual has no training in the mental health field. That's a psychologist's job.

I'm honest enough to admit that I'm a psychology major myself, and the idea of sifting through one application after another trying to get into the applicant's head to figure out what they're thinking would be quite difficult. To even get a basic idea of what a person is like requires multiple appointments, something which isn't exactly feasible, nor efficient with regards to time and cost.

I agree with Kadic: I'd much rather have a few people walking around who, under ideal circumstances, shouldn't be carrying a firearm rather than have people who fully deserve to carry be denied their right to bear arms.

Are my ideas correct? No. It's an opinion. Are my ideas fail-proof? Nope. Do they need to be re-worked? Definitely.

The biggest reason I do not support anyone and everyone exercising their right to bear arms is because that isn't safe for everyone else in every case. Does that mean they should be excluded? Maybe yes. Maybe no. That's the controversy, isn't it?

TallPine
April 30, 2007, 09:09 PM
North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.
Well, if the author would get his butt out of the city, he would find that much of North America still is pretty wild. Right in my neighborhood for instance, we might see coyotes, wolves, bobcats, cougars, and black bears, not to mention pests like rattlesnakes, gophers, and porcupines.

But no we don't have much "frontier violence" yet practically everyone in the area has guns - now how could that be...? ;) :rolleyes:

Vern Humphrey
April 30, 2007, 09:18 PM
Quote:
North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.
If the author had been at Virginia Tech -- where thirty-two unarmed and helpless people died -- he would have seen how false that statement is.

BrianB
April 30, 2007, 09:27 PM
IMHO, LE could use as many TRAINED armed citizens as they could get. Just owning and carrying isn't enough...carrying and COMPETENT...now that's a huge deterrent.

Waitone
April 30, 2007, 09:48 PM
The problem we face is virtually everyone in the US is trained in the use of firearms, and it is all wrong. We see media in the form of TeeVee and movies see gun handling and safety in the wrongest possible light. We see reportage out of the media contain factual, demonstrable errors which are passed on unchallenged by editorial processes. We see "journalists" willingly accept information from ignorant sources on the subject of firearms simply because said journalists don't want to be seen by peers as having talked to knowledgeable sources such as might be found in the NRA. We just learned those of criminal intent are not constrained by law. Common sense to the taxpaying class but new news to the ruling class.

And then there is the profound and structural ignorance of the law about the proper use of firearms in self defense.

I'm beginning to sense the horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech may well be a slap in the face to both the public and our elected officials. We may have just learned gun free zones are not really a smart idea. LE can not be everywhere at all times and hence must used judgment in the allocation of resources. We just learned we simply can not eliminate risk, the best we can do is deal with the consequences of risk. And finally we may have learned sloppy reality gives us a morally superior outcome to ideological purity. Bottom line is the massacre at VT could have been stopped with one armed person. We will never know because the gun free zone was so effective for the law abiding.

thexrayboy
April 30, 2007, 09:55 PM
I don't even know where the myth of alot of accidental gun deaths came from. I have yet to even see that supported.


The legions of dead that are the supposedly the result of massive firearm use and misuse are the byproduct of the fertile minds of the anti gunners. And by "fertile mind" I mean full of ****. The handwringing footstomping apologists who would gut the basic principles this country was founded on merely to "feel better" have no thought processes. They feel, they emote, they want....and then they imagine up whatever alleged facts or information they need to support their nebulous positions. If the real facts do not match the agenda.... no problem. Ignore them, bury them and shout down anyone who would dare to actually attempt to use honest facts. Debate is not their style. They prefer to shout from a bully pulpit and call it rational discourse when actually all the blissninny's can produce when questioned is a bout of verbal diarheaa. You cannot argue, reason nor debate the antis. They are not capable of rational thought, only emotion and the fear driven response that emotions engender.

1911Tuner
April 30, 2007, 10:37 PM
Quote:

>North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.<
*********

I'll take the Wild West over crossing an inner city gang turf any day. My father's second cousin was one of the last of the old western badmen....U.S. Marshal John Gilley ...He made mention once about how much more dangerous times were "now"...not long before his death...than they were before the turn of the 19th century in places like Deadwood and Kansas City...and he died in 1962 at the ripe, old age of 97...murdered as he slept. I consider the 60s a Shangri-La compared to what we have today.

So I'll ask again. What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

When does it become okay to put a limit or restriction on American citizens because of what they might do at a later time? Do we castrate pre-teen boys because they might commit rape when they're 25?

I'm sorry. I don't understand this need based sheepdip that is being fostered on us. We don't need chocolate ice cream or cheesecake...and would probably be better off if we didn't eat those things...but I reserve the right to choose what I need without assistance, and I consider anyone who tries to disarm me, or plans to disarm me...or even wants to...as my mortal enemy.

A need-based allowance is the very seed corn of the Socialist/Communist doctrine. The state should see to state's affairs, and leave mine to me.

Old Fuff
April 30, 2007, 10:49 PM
North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.

When's the last time he visited the U.S./Mexican border county?:uhoh: :scrutiny:

ArfinGreebly
May 1, 2007, 12:31 AM
Or not.

My son once tried to justify a particularly idiotic philosophical/social point of view, saying, "hey, Dad, it's the nineties!"

I had to explain to him that right and wrong are not fashion statements and are not subject to changes in style.

Neither, as it happens, are the Constitution & Bill of Rights.

The "reasoning" goes something like this:
If we can get away with something for long enough, then it automatically becomes acceptable.
Look at all the things we get away with today that were unacceptable 50 years ago.
The more things we get away with, the more it becomes acceptable to get away with stuff.
Since "authority" can't stop us from getting away with everything, we will always get away with something, so we will always gain ground in getting away with stuff.
Now, since we can pretty much call our own shots, morally, we can just make up right and wrong as we go.
The rules are only valid if we feel like following them.
Therefore rules are all transient and we can override them at will.
If there's a rule we don't like, we can just ignore it.
In fact, we can just declare it null and void.
And that includes laws.
And that includes the Constitution.
So there, maaaaaaan. If you weren't so uptight you'd understand that.
Scary stuff. (Of course, the grim determination at the other end of those puppet strings is scarier still.)

So now "it's the nineties," or at least not the 1800s any more. So now, since everything is civilized, we don't need to worry about our own personal security, since someone else is doing that.

It's socialism, maaaaaaan, and if you weren't so uptight you'd understand that. Power to the peeeeepul. No, maaaaaaan, these aren't strings, we're just more enlightened. Wanna drag?

Besides, like, that whole "Bill of Needs" thing, that's like, you know, obsolete, maaaaaaan. Get with it, maaaaaaan. Tune in. Drop out. Peace. Equality for everyone.

Nobody needs a gun, maaaaaaan, all you need is love.

And while we're on that subject, I have this bridge . . .

What's that? This old thing? Nah, I keep it for sentimental reasons. I'd never actually shoot anyone with it. 'Cuz, like, all you need is love, right?

1911Tuner
May 1, 2007, 08:11 AM
Arfin...

http://www.wtv-zone.com/jnib/gifs/smilies/laugh.gif

Well said. Bravo!

ZeSpectre
May 1, 2007, 10:09 AM
North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.

When's the last time he visited the U.S./Mexican border county?

Or Washington DC!

If you enjoyed reading about "I Believe In The Right To Own Firearms Despite Virginia Tech Tragedy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!