So the Norwegian massacre in "Norway, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world" somehow proves false the "Guns don't kill people, people do." Personally I think it proves that gun control can assure a politically motivated armed thug helpless victims.
I agree with criminologist Marvin Wolfgang's assessment of most murders: the motivation of the actor plus opportunity is more important in the outcome of a murder than the presence or absence of any particular means. The worst murderer in recent history in my hometown killed a woman at a boarding house with a knife and later killed a couple in their home with a baseball bat (those were three of eight murders in 2004-2006). Guns don't kill people, murderers do. The guns that make some murders easier also make self-defense easier, particularly when women are attacked by men, the elderly are attacked by "yutes" or the lone is attacked by the many.
We didn’t have loaded guns in the house, actually, and that’s where I think my experience starts to differ from a conservative gun owner’s experience.
Well, gee, my father grew up on farm, was a WWII Vet, bronze star, purple heart, VFW member, squirrel hunter, kept an H&R revolver for protection in his Radio-TV shop for years, yet the only time we had loaded guns in the house was when we went to the mountain to hunt or target practice. So does that make us liberal, or conservative, or non-spectrum Karl Hess realists?
There’s a whole phrase there that conservatives love to ignore – “For the purposes of a well armed militia.”
Oh, my "conservative pea brain" is on the verge of exploding!
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
The sentence, the part of the amendment with a noun and verb, is:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
As pointed out in Heller '08, the scholarship of the past 30 years has determined that the introductory phrase ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," NOT "For the purposes of a well armed militia") is
an example of why the government has a vested interest in preserving the right of the people (you can raise a volunteer force from a people familiar with arms in times of emergency), but it is not a limit or exclusion.
The arrogance of self-proclaimed "liberals" in mis-quoting the 2A and sneering at "conservative pea brains" is precious.
I, however, would be the first person to turn in my two guns if ever there was a ban enacted.
Yeah, and some people would turn in the neighborhood "Anne Frank" if the state ordered a "Final Solution".
Exactly how can a person be opposed to a more thorough screening when buying a gun? If you’re not a nutjob, there shouldn’t be a problem.
I grew up aware of gun control in the 1950s and 1960s and aware of some of the neighborhood nutjobs and street criminals. The "application for permission to purchase a handgun" that had to be signed Yea or Nay by the county sheriff or city chief of police to buy a gun at a sporting goods store did not phase them: they got guns they way they got booze in our county that was "dry" until 1968: bootleggers who didn't need no stinkin' permits.
The "reasonable regulations" in NYC, Chicago, D.C. and other "liberal" strongholds amount to defacto prohibition.
EN:...I’m diagnosed bipolar from age thirteen....
That explains a lot.
