Want to type a public response to an email?


PDA






Oleg Volk
July 6, 2003, 05:40 PM
This came in the mail today:

hello. i hope you don't mind the long email i am sending, but i've spent
enough time on your site to respect you enough to send my personal thoughts.
i come from a background that i think may be different than yours, so
please, up front i will say that my only intention is to learn more and
better communication. if anything i say you find disrepectful, please know
it's unintentional, and please let me know what it is so cannot make the
same mistake. hopefully, it won't come to that. thank you for your time:

i come from a community where we've been treating gun owners as fools and
gun ownership as foolish. that the people who are into guns are wacks,
stupid, uneducated, with no morals. but a lot of the anti-gun control sites
- like this one http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html - are in no way
made by idiots. or fools. these are people who know how to get their
message across. clearly. persuasively. addictively.

gun rights advocates have many well-articulated points, so regardless of
whether or not we would agree with them, just calling them ignorant red neck
hicks makes you look like you're not capable of carrying out the same
persuasive arguments for the cause you posit to be supporting. it's
ignorant to consider them ignorant.

there's a strong possibility that michael moore, in bowling for columbine,
was right when he asked "why, when all other factors are equal, does the us
have such a higher gun-crime rate than other places?"

while he does give portraits of many "fanatic" gun owners - plenty of whom
were completely ridiculed in the movie as being out of their mind - and
although he takes this negative slant on them, he does make it obvious that
those people are much more "paranoid" than they are "out to get people" -
these people apparently get guns "because other people have them who are bad
people"

who are these bad people? or maybe, like michael moore points out, it's
the amount of fear that exists in the us media. the immense amount of fear.
maybe fear speeds up the progress of exploiters. the exploiters break a
rule, the paranoids wonder "what other rules can these exploiters break" and
then make list of 50 rules that can be broken, explicitly describing how
they can be broken. then twenty exploiters get a hold of that list of 50
rules, and break all of them. "thanks folks. thanks for the help" does
naming something destroy it? i thought, in fact, it's the exact opposite.
a name equals birth.

this is long way of getting to the point, that maybe gun-control advocates
should think about what it is they really want. is it control of guns? or
is it control of the thing that causes gun abuse? maybe they're the same
thing? maybe they're completely separate? without the answers to this
question, there's is something that can be said for sure: we don't know the
answer.

and our goal is not the elimination of guns. it shouldn't be. so we should
not look at gun owners as enemies. because only as enemies can they be
murderers and cult fanatics. what's the divide? what's truly legitimate in
their arguments? where are the delusions, or assumptions, or
subjectifications? if they cannot see them, and we're trying to enlighten
them, shouldn't we be able to see the difference between illusion and truth
first? how can we teach what we, in fact, really do not know?

or maybe another question is, what do we - (those who feel that there is
_something_ not quite right with the state of guns) - believe in that
actually is valid? we can't all be idiots who know nothing, can we? maybe
the solution lies somewhere undiscovered, that can only come about with
better understanding and ciphening out of both sides' arguments.

let's forget about total gun control. and let's forget about "what are our
rights." instead let's share a common vision. let's agree in some kind of
common goal: less gun murders. less gun-related deaths/injuries due to
accident.

if neither the gun control advocated nor the gun right advocates are the
people committing the crimes, then what is the point of us arguing with each
other? i would appreciate any response, thank you for your time.

--------------
I'll point the author to this thread. Already sent some comments back.

If you enjoyed reading about "Want to type a public response to an email?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sd
July 6, 2003, 06:25 PM
if neither the gun control advocated nor the gun right advocates are the people committing the crimes, then what is the point of us arguing with each other?

We argue because we know the gun control advocates cannot do anything about the people committing the crimes, so the only persons effected by their bans and restrictions are the law abiding citizens.

Case in point is the 1994 "Semi-automatic Assault Weapon" ban. Gun control advocates defined and then banned a complete category of firearms based solely on the cosmetic appearance of the firearms.

These firearms were not machineguns. They fired one bullet every time the trigger was pulled, just like the old 6-shooters of the cowboy era. They were not the weapon of choice of drug dealers and other criminals as is proven by data from BATF and the Department of Justice statistic reports. They shoot exactly the same bullet that other "sporting" firearms use, so they cannot be considered more "dangerous".

An example of this is the AR-15 rifle. This is the civilian version of the Colt M16 that is used by the military. This rifle only "looks" like the M16. It is not fully automatic.

The gun control advocates decided that the fact this rifle has a detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor and a pistol grip, it is more dangerous than other firearms of the same caliber.

To show how really stupid and useless this ban is, by simply removing the bayonet lug and flash suppressor, the rifle is no longer considered a semi-automatic assault weapon. If the pistol grip stock is removed and a conventional stock is used, then it is legal to put the flash suppressor back on the rifle.

As a result, this law forced law abiding civilians to go through all kinds of hurdles to ensure that their firearms did not have enough "evil features" to make it illegal and get them arrested. The criminal, by definition, didn't care about the ban and wasn't effected by it.

It also tied up a significant amount of law enforcement resources to enforce. Resources that could better be used in other other areas.

Gun right advocates understand how truly stupid and useless these laws are and that is why they will always argue with those that seek more restrictions and bans.

Byron Quick
July 6, 2003, 06:48 PM
We wonder what the real agenda of the anti-gun bigots actually is.

If it is to control gun murder and accidental gun deaths then why do exactly none of the myriad laws accomplish this is any way? On the other hand, why do all of the gun control laws penalize law abiding gun owners?

After all, gun control advocates are not stupid people (even though they develop campaigns that manipulate the stupidity of others.)

The consistenly ignore reality...such as physics. Consider the attempts to ban bullets that will penetrate bullet resistant vests. Turns out that that is virtually all rifle hunting bullets. Now the question is: 1) was the purpose to protect people such as the police who wear bullet resistant vests or 2) was the true ulterior purpose to ban hunting with rifles?

This is a persistent pattern throughout proposed legislation.

Consider the 1986 law which outlawed the manufacture of new machineguns for the public. Surely this would reduce murders and accidental deaths, correct? One problem: only one murder had ever been committed with a registered machinegun...by a policeman. About 125,000 machineguns had been registered between 1934 and 1986. During the period between the passage of this law and its going into effect...over 150,000 machineguns were registered. Unintended consequences of this law was that without it the level of 275,000 registered machineguns would have been reaching in 2082. Now the gun control people begin to froth at the mouth at the mere mention of repealing this law. Why? The weapons are out there already in private hands. And murders are still not being committed with them. So the reason is not to prevent murder, mayhem, and accidental death...what is the reason?

Rednecks. You need to check out the demographics of the NRA membership as well as the price of firearms, ammo, and accessories. The NRA membership is more highly educated than any non-professional association in the US. Also, few true rednecks are members. Take me, for example, I own about 35 firearms. About in the middle on this board. That's about a $35,000 replacement value. Consider the $1500 gun safe, $3000 in reloading equipment, $2000 in ammunition. How many rednecks do you know that have $50,000 to put into a hobby?

Oleg Volk
July 6, 2003, 06:54 PM
And it isn't a hobby, it is a way of life.

sm
July 6, 2003, 06:59 PM
Putting firearms aside for a moment.

In history people "depended and trusted" a government to take care of them. Gov't by its nature seems to want to control. Many a people were controlled by their own gov't or taken as prisoners by another gov't (enemy). The citizens thus were turned into subjects.

Back to firearms.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that bit of history. I interpret the Second Amendment as "a check against the gov't". It is thus not about gun control, IT IS about GOV'T controlling the citizens. Second Amendent allows the other freedoms we enjoy to be protected. Keeps things in check.

The sad thing is through the years the people have lost this sense of being "self reliant" and have bought into being "dependent" on gov't. A very dangerous thing. Not in terms of past history, very recent history.

Pro Second Amendment persons seek to preserve freedoms. The reality is the only people whom really benefit from citizens not being armed are crimimals and gov't.

It is easier to rob, rape and murder an unarmed citizen.

It is easier to turn citizens into subjects, if they are denied a means to protect themselves. It is easier to eradicate other freedoms if the one Amendment that keeps the others strong is taken away.

The Second Amendment is the Keystone in the Archway of Freedom.

Standing Wolf
July 6, 2003, 10:41 PM
"why, when all other factors are equal, does the us have such a higher gun-crime rate than other places?"

1.) I'm sure we don't, and 2.) we do precious little to inconvenience criminals in the United States.

campergeek
July 6, 2003, 11:38 PM
The problem with the original message is that it's based on some incorrect assumptions. First, many leading gun control advocates (Dianne Feinstein, for example) most certainly do have as their stated ultimate objective an outright ban of all firearms. Second, it uses a quote from Michael Moore - whose "Bowling for Columbine" is a proven propaganda vehicle based on misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies.

On the first point, Gun control advocates in positions of power tend to look toward sound-good/feel-good measures in the name of "gun safety" to further the goals of gun restriction - each moving closer to an outright ban. Examples of these are already listed by other posters. One such example happening right in front of our faces is the 1993 "assault weapons" ban, which even a 1997 Clinton administration report admitted had no statistically significant impact on crime. Despite this fact, Feinstein is promoting not only extending, but expanding the ban. The logic, maybe, being that if some didn't work well, maybe more will work better.

On the second point, it is a frustration to those who support gun rights that many in the "gun control" crowd get information on firearms from unreliable and biased sources such as Michael Moore. I'm a firm believer that a person is generally intelligent, but that people as a group often act stupidly. When many, without doing their own research, start quoting Michael Moore, for example, others who would normally think critically tend instead to take the information at face value. Without applying critical thinking, it is easy for a herd mentality to set in and people accept and even support new, draconian, control laws without really analyzing what problem they are supposed to resolve versus what their actual impact will be.

Until gun-control advocates truly do address the problem (the criminal) without demonizing the tool, those who still value their 2nd amendment rights will continue to be in opposition to the gun control crowd.

BTW, for more on "Bowling for Columbine", please see: The Truth About Bowling for Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

Zundfolge
July 6, 2003, 11:53 PM
"why, when all other factors are equal, does the us have such a higher gun-crime rate than other places?"

It seems to me that when you look back at America's history, you see that when there was no gun control there was little gun crime. Our gun crime rates only increase today in areas where gun control is tighter. Somewhere I read an article that stated that if you took all the tight guncontroled urban centers out of the equation that the US has the lowest gun crime rate in the world (I'll have to find that article ... I seem to remember it being Dave Kopel, but I'm not sure)

When you look at other countries that are experimenting with gun control, you find that their gun crime (and non gun crime) rates are exploding!


It may also be the case that the US gun crime rates are NOT higher then places like England and Australia, however our gun homicide rates are (as are our non gun homicide rates).

hops
July 7, 2003, 01:07 AM
"let's forget about what are our right's"?

Sir: I will never ever forget about my inalienable human god given right's while I am alive. You, Sir, seem to have forgotten that the Bill of Rights is all about our rights. The 2nd ammendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Hence, there is nothing to negotiate. Education in proper firearm useage will go along way in achieiving our common goal in accidental injuries. Crime; There is no easy answer. Even socialist utopias have significant levels of crime. As for politicians? As long as we still have guns, they will still know fear. Of course their goal is to eliminate their fear - so they take our guns. Criminals will then go after the easy prey, us, and they get to live in their Polical utopia.

The people who want to abolish firearms ownership know excatly what they want; total control over their electorate. Remember the serfs? They were kept unarmed for a reason.

JohnKSa
July 7, 2003, 01:52 AM
Antis are afraid of guns and of people with guns.

They therefore assume (incorrectly) that everyone else is too.

Until they realize that their assumption is incorrect they will not understand the truth.

It's futile to build huge castles of logic based on foundations of false assumptions.

Antis blame inanimate objects for problems.
Gun owners blame people for the problems they create.

Antis seek to regulate things in an attempt to prevent problems.
Gun owners seek fair enforcement of just laws to prevent criminals from repeat offending.

Antis can't discriminate between self-defense and violence.
Gun owners understand that violence is irresponsible and self-defense is a responsibility of citizens.

Antis start with the assumption that they are better (smarter, more enlightened) than gun owners because their educators have told them this is true. Therefore, they seek to help gun owners because they believe that gun owners are misguided and need to see the error of their ways.

When two people start that far apart, it's hard to find a common ground to begin a debate. That's why it comes to namecalling and vitriol so quickly...

Norton
July 7, 2003, 08:07 AM
instead let's share a common vision. let's agree in some kind of
common goal: less gun murders. less gun-related deaths/injuries due to
accident.


To start off, it's my understanding that, in fact, accidental deaths from firearms have decreased both in number and percentage in spite of the fact that the rate of firearm ownership has actually increased over the last 20-30 years. So, we've already accomplished this goal. True that it is a horrific thing to have any deaths from firearm accidents/negligence, but it is also equally tagic when there is a death/injury from: automobiles, hand tools, ladders, spoiled food, household chemicals, etc.

In other words, the goal of zero firearm deaths is an unattainable one. However, it is an equally important goal. We must strive for that very goal through education, active instruction in the handling of firearms and high standards in workmanship from firearm manufacturers (notice that I did NOT say "through the use of gizmos like smart grips, magazine well locks, etc)

Your other "common goal", less gun murders, has even less to do with the actual firearms than that of lessening accidental deaths.

There are people in the world who are predators. They may prey on people with firearms, for sure. But it may also be a tire iron, bat, knife or their fists. The bottom line is that it is not the weapon of choice that is the problem..it is the mind set that controls that weapon that is the problem.

We need to look at the mentality that some members of society have that makes them feel entitled to hurt, rob, intimidate others. I stand by my example from Annapolis, MD as noted here some time ago: 7 year old walks into video store and threatens to hold them up....says "I will shoot you". Store workers recognize it's toy gun, call cops. Cops locate mother...mother goes to video store and threatens them for calling cops on kid.

What's wrong with this picture? It's the feeling of entitlement that pervades some segments of our society. "I don't have the stuff I want....it's somebody else's fault that I don't have those things.....therefore I will go and get those things by whatever means necessary." (as an aside, Annapolis's solution was to put up legislation to ban toy guns).

In short, the rate of gun crime is not the problem, merely a symptom. If ti weren't guns, it would be slingshot, blow gun, or flamethrowers. Deal with the individuals who commit crimes.....not their choice of tools.

Stepping off of soap box

Monte Harrison
July 7, 2003, 10:07 AM
"why, when all other factors are equal, does the us have such a higher gun-crime rate than other places?"Because all the other factors AREN'T equal. A saying I read once about statistics reads: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is provocative, what they conceal is vital." When you take the total number of firearms crimes in the US and divide by the number representing 100% of the population, yes, you get a stunningly high crime rate. But when you look a little closer at the numbers, you notice that a disproportionately high number, over 40%, of those crimes occur among members of a demographic group that only represents about 6% of the US population. If you factor out crimes committed by (usually among) this 6% of the population, you find that our crime rate is no worse than any other Western nation, even with the hundreds of millions of guns we have. So if a nation with hundreds of millions of guns is in truth no more violent than nations where the civilian population has been disarmed, then you have to conclude that the weapons aren't the problem. Crime isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem.

Byron Quick
July 7, 2003, 10:12 AM
And it isn't a hobby, it is a way of life.

Agreed. I was speaking from the viewpoint of our opponents in that sentence.

I was thinking of another point last night.

An individual tends to believe that others are similar to him or her. Apparently, based on their assertions, most gun control advocates would not be trustworthy gunowners. They fear road rage shootouts, random acts of homicidal rage, etc. if handguns are carried in our society. They continue to assert this in state after state which is considering the issue of concealed carry. They continue to assert these fears even though the evidence, to date, of the concealed carry states directly contradicts these fears. Why? They know what would happen if they carried a handgun, that's why. And they refuse to face the fact that it is they who are lacking in self control. It is more comfortable for them to continue to believe that the lack is in their opponents and they, of course, are superior human beings.

Still another issue is one of worldview,let's forget about total gun control. and let's forget about "what are our rights.

I will never forget my rights. Anyone, anywhere, and at any time who violates my rights is my enemy. The Second Amendment states shall not be infringed as its conclusion. Sir, I have been photographed, fingerprinted multiple times, investigated over and over, and it's still not enough for some people. Well, let me make something crystal clear, it is enough and more than enough for me. I have had just about all I am willing to stand. But I am supposed to "engage in dialogue," and "compromise." Compromising has raised the cost of a $750 surplus light machinegun to over $20,000 as just one of examples of how compromise has nailed us to the wall.

Be reasonable. Accept one gun a month. And waiting periods. Yeah, I get a chance to buy a man's collection at a wonderful price. Can't do it. One gun a month. And what's so unreasonable about a two week waiting period? Well, what's so valuable about it? I already own 35 firearms. But what if I owned none and my life was under an immediate clear and present danger...tonight? And I wind up dead. Just how has this two week waiting period helped anyone?

We've responded to your questions.

Respond to one of mine. If the goal of gun control advocates is to reduce gun murders and accidental gun deaths...why does every single proposal they have ever come up with penalize law abiding gun owners and done absolutely nothing to control murderers?

Cal4D4
July 7, 2003, 11:36 AM
Having the Second Amendment acknowledge a right to self defense from criminals and despots shows what a clear understanding of human nature our founding fathers had. Free men with guns pose little threat to society. A defenseless society can not survive as citizens, only as subjects. Subject to every whim of oppressive government, every whim of gang thuggery. Politicians and police can not change the realities of human existence. There will always be predators amongst us, both in our legislatures and in our general population. If you do not take personal responsibility to protect yourself, who are you going to turn to? In L.A. County, California over 40% of all homicides are gang related. In contrast, somewhere around 0% of gun crime can be attributed to civilians whose right to go armed amongst us has been acknowledged by the governing. We can not afford more police in an effort to make life risk free. We can not afford to criminalize a law abiding segment of the population just to make a few "feel" safer.

Duncan Idaho
July 7, 2003, 12:38 PM
Want to type a public response to an email? I'll bite.

Learn to use the shift key. :rolleyes:

Penforhire
July 7, 2003, 01:48 PM
One impenetrable barrier between "anti's" and gun owners is the fundamental need for anti's to ban ALL guns. Most honest anti's I meet eventually admit this 'secret' desire. They don't state this primary purpose because they know people might see the extreme position of a total ban.

So the approach that works for anti's is incremental restriction, a tightening of a noose. And we gun-owners have to kick and scream at seemingly rational restrictions. As was stated above by others, I also own enough firearms to lay waste to my neighborhood. What is the point of making me wait to buy another? You might ask why I need another but the answer is firearms are (or can be) recreation, collecting, and a skills challenge, all in addition to self defense.

In the end, only law-abiding citizens are harmed by gun restrictions. Criminals will always use illegal weapons (look at the growing problem in the UK).

BB93YJ
July 7, 2003, 02:20 PM
I believe too that the basis for punishment for criminal actions was, in the past, meted out for acts already committed.

I do not believe the founders of this country planned for laws to be used to control what a citizen 'might do', which is the case today. What I might do with my firearms is not the business of the government to try and anticipate, then legislate a solution for. Murder is already illegal, as are crimes such as rape, robbery, burglary, arson, etc. Nothing new with those laws. However, what I as a private citizen do with my guns is not the business of any government agency to regulate. How many I own is not the government's business. Whether they have a bayonet lug or 30 round magazines is not their business either. Why should I be restricted from buying them? I have never hurt anyone with any of them. If needed to protect my family, or myself, or to protect someone else being attacked, then I would hurt someone with them, but not before.

I think most Gun Rights advocates are keenly aware of history, and knowing the lessons taught by history, we are very aware of the danger posed by the anti-gun set, and their many 'reasonable' incremental steps to disarm citizens. If their agenda of total disarmament of the citizenry were to succeed, we will no longer be free citizens, we will be subjects, at the mercy of those in power, you know....the ones with all the guns.

Edited to add: On the History Channel, and for years before that,on other documentaries, I have seen the film clips of Jewish men being marched into pits dug in the earth, with German soldiers, (representatives of their government), standing at the top of the pits. As soon as the Jewish men, have stumbled into the pit and lined up, the soldiers shoot them in the back of the head and the men fall. Then, more men are run into the pit and the scene is repeated. You say, "But this is America, it can never happen here!", very similiar statement to what some of those German Jews in the pits had said a couple or so years earlier.

cordex
July 7, 2003, 02:31 PM
let's share a common vision. let's agree in some kind of
common goal: less gun murders. less gun-related deaths/injuries due to
accident.
I'd be happy to establish a common goal, but I need to clear a few things up first.
I don't believe a murder committed with a firearm is more tragic than a murder committed with a knife. Do you? If not, then let us work for less murders with any weapon, rather than just less murders with a specific weapon. After all, if they aren't killing with guns, but they're killing with bombs and arson and blunt objects and poison and cars ... has anyone truly benefitted?
But how will we work to prevent general murders? What could we possibly do?
"Common sense" gun laws? Banning "assault weapons" and "rapid-fire machine guns" and "sawed off shotguns" and "saturday night specials" and "pocket rockets" and "sniper rifles" and whatever else it the evil of the month? That approach hasn't worked in 69 years of modern American gun control, why should we think it'd start after we ban the next big thing?

Take a look at felonious recidivism and the rate at which murders are committed by repeat offenders and get back to me.

Drjones
July 7, 2003, 02:35 PM
let's forget about total gun control. and let's forget about "what are our rights." instead let's share a common vision. let's agree in some kind of
common goal: less gun murders. less gun-related deaths/injuries due to
accident.

The lefties have already "forgotten about our rights" and that's precisely what has gotten us where we are today.

Any talk whatsoever of "forgetting about rights" in the name of some "common vision" is thinly veiled leftist (communist) crap, no less.

Whoever wrote this email is simply delusional if they do not believe that pretty much every last gun owner (we are people too, believe it or not) wants to live in a world free of murder and crime.

The difference is that we realize and accept that it ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will. Anyone who believes otherwise is a naive idiot, plain and simple. I'll tell you that to your face if you want.

By far the most fundamental difference between the two sides is this:

The gun-control advocates believe that the way to reduce crime is to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning the most effective means of self-defense; the firearm. They believe that law-abiding citizens magically turn into murderous maniacs upon handling firearms.

Criminals by definition do not obey the law. They do not obey traffic laws, laws against murder, rape, robbery, nor any other law. They sure as heck aren't going to bother to comply with gun control laws. Again, anyone who disagrees is a naive fool plain and simple.

Pro-gun folk believe that the best way to prevent crime is for as many law-abiding citizens as possible to keep and bear arms, knowing that an armed individual is the best deterrant to crime. This has been proven many times over in many places around the world.

Drjones
July 7, 2003, 02:38 PM
I also VERY strongly question the intelligence of anyone who gives michael moore even a fraction of a hint of credibility and takes him seriously in any way.

GSB
July 7, 2003, 04:04 PM
I just can't get past the inability of the author to start a sentence with a capital letter, or to capitalize the pronoun "I". Most of us who've been out of school for a long time tend to lapse into some bad habits and do not always use perfect grammar, capitalization and punctuation even when attempting to make a formal written argument, but come on people, starting a sentence with capital letter isn't rocket science.

themic
July 7, 2003, 04:24 PM
so we should not look at gun owners as enemies.

i've always thought no true dialog could ever truly begin wth a gun control advocate until this was realized.

just as we should not look at the average citizen who is somewhat pro gun control as our vile enemy, as we often do. even on this thread.

an "extreme" position does not require an "extreme" stance. in fact, it is often hurt by it. as such, gun control has been a rather frozen debate for a long time, surpassed in stagnancy perhaps only by abortion.

the author realized the fundamental differences here, and i encourage him to realize that just like people, guns are not his enemies either. ("our enemies" maybe? we're all in the same country.)

in return, i acknowledge that it is usually not bad intentions when someone wants to control and regulate guns. i deal with this alot, as i live near dc. people tend to want general control over things, but not necessarily to control my things or their things, just other people's things.

it's all about control, and the differences are not so extreme despite it's sometimes outlandish presentations:

for a gun control advocate, it's about control of society so that he/she can feel safer and morally good. for a gun rights supporter, it's about control of one's personal domain, so that he/she can feel safer and morally good.

Gordon Fink
July 7, 2003, 05:39 PM
First of all, there is no such thing as “gun rights.” Weapons don’t have rights. People do. Historically, the right to keep and bear arms was a “noble” prerogative used to maintain control by the ruling elite over the much more numerous “commoners.” Disarmed by law, these “common” subjects could scarcely resist the murder, rape, theft, and other depredations committed by their “betters.”

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized this historical injustice, and wrote a guarantee into that document that all people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was perhaps the most startling, unprecedented, and progressive measure in the Constitution. It like the other articles in the Bill of Rights has been under assault ever since.

Today, there are three types of people who support gun control. Their reasons and goals can be very different, however.

Members of the first and largest group support gun-control measures because they wish to reduce crime and violence. This group favors things like background checks, waiting periods, and gun registration. While opposed to outright gun bans, this group usually doesn’t realize how legislation it supports feeds into the goals of the second group.

Made up of idealists, the second group seeks to eliminate guns altogether. Its members see guns only as tools of violence, and to them, violence is never justified or necessary. They are wise enough, though, to know that most people don’t support outright gun bans, so they follow an incremental strategy, often proposing or supporting the same types of legislation favored by the first group. One gun-control measure at a time, they hope to eventually rid the world of those “evil” firearms, not seriously considering that this would leave us at the mercy of the third group.

The third group is the smallest but most dangerous of the gun-control supporters. These are the people who seek to enslave us all. They may do so in order to enforce high-minded social ideals (such as “communism”) or simply to expand their own wealth and power. It is this group that would use the armed might of government to enforce its will over disarmed subjects.

On principle, therefore, some of us oppose any form of gun control. Even if faced with rampant criminal violence with guns, we would oppose controls that ultimately, however well-intentioned they may seem, threaten human freedom. However, this principled stand is held only by a few.

Many more gun owners share the same utilitarian views held by gun controllers. They support measure that would reduce crime. Interestingly enough, though, the evidence suggests that relaxing gun controls actually has more utility than tightening them. Gun accidents are remarkably few. (Swimming pools are far more dangerous, for example.) More violent crimes are prevented with a gun than murders are committed with one.

So let me now share my own personal ideal. I would like to see a world where nothing is accomplished through coercion. Everyone might own and carry a firearm, but guns would only ever be needed for target practice. Crime, both common and political, would be dissuaded by a well-armed, well-trained citizenry. We would all be free to do as we pleased, so long as we didn’t harm anyone else in the process.… The truth would never be so pretty, but freedom is always preferable to tyranny and slavery.

We defend our sovereignty only through the exercise of it.

~G. Fink

simon
July 7, 2003, 06:10 PM
I just can't get past the inability of the author to start a sentence with a capital letter, or to capitalize the pronoun "I". Most of us who've been out of school for a long time tend to lapse into some bad habits and do not always use perfect grammar, capitalization and punctuation even when attempting to make a formal written argument, but come on people, starting a sentence with capital letter isn't rocket science.

Funny, I was just remembering something I saw on TV a couple of weeks ago.It was regarding the FBI agents who pose as little girls on chat rooms trying to set guys up for child porn and the like.They are trained to type the very way mentioned above,ie:not typing "I",never starting a sentence with a capitol letter.
Maybe this message was from one of these guys who got "reassigned" and was trolling your site Oleg.
Just a thought....

themic
July 7, 2003, 06:51 PM
sheesh i don't capitalize either, maybe i'm an fbi agent :eek: :rolleyes: get some better tinfoil man :neener:

appropriate grammar and structure is pertinent to intelligent conversation because it aids in the communication process, i agree. but in this case ya might be reaching too hard.

Hkmp5sd
July 7, 2003, 07:36 PM
When trying to educate a non-gun person about firearms and get them on our side, it's generally not a good idea to harp on their typing, spelling or grammar. The goal of this board is to promote the positive side of firearms, not teaching the English language.

simon
July 7, 2003, 08:13 PM
Except that the original message was posted to another message board, and brought here by our venerable leader to be discussed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Want to type a public response to an email?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!