I might be against ccw's now...

[twoblink]

I _might_ not believe that ccw and the implimentation of it is a good thing anymore.. (in specific locations)

before someone goes and pulls the fire alarm, let me explain.

First, as a libertarian, self defense is always high on the list, as is privacy, and freedom.

But it seems to me, that one of the elements seldom discussed as far as talking about the anti's, is "mental preparedness". This is what I mean. I think the anti's are anti for a reason; they don't trust themselves with guns. They have a serious lack of self-control and think they would just get themselves into serious trouble if they had a gun on them. Like a person on a diet who would like to ban all cakes and twinkies, so they don't have to exercise self-control, the government will do it for them.

After talking to quite a bit of people here in taiwan, I'm convinced of this fact.. Some people just shouldn't own guns. Guns are not for everybody... I never use to have this line of thinking..

But I do believe that if everybody was handed a gun, and trained, there will still be people who threaten others with it and a lot of bullies who abuse guns. And unlike the current status quo, I think this number will be huge, just as the anti's predict..

The reason is, an anti, armed with a bucket of red paint, has shown that he/she has zero self-control.. They fear YOU having a gun because of projection; they feel everybody is as lacking in self-control as they are. And being without self-control, they need laws to pigpen them in... (as they can't do it themselves)

The problem seems to arise when there's a self-controlled pro gun person living amongst them.

So it seems like the only solution is to segregate... (which I think has already started to happen, at a more alarming rate and advance stage then most realize) Do you remember the Gore-Bush voting picture of the united states? The "Blue" was "Sheeple Country", and the Red was America. It seems then, that the best solution would be to study, on a per capita ~ crime rate system; which regions (blue or red) has more crime. I think the stats will show in fact, more guns less crime.

That said... I think what we must do is just get the "pro gunners" out of the blue spots, and have them go ahead and impliment anti gun laws, anti ccw laws, anti (insert every noun you can think of) and let them create the Brave New World 1984 they want to there...

As of today, I all but agree with them 100%; that if everybody had guns, there would me a lot more crimes; it would be those that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have guns committing the crimes..

Yuck, I agree with anti-gunnies on a few things now, I must take a bath now..

 

[Delmar]

Scrub good.
Firearm ownership is just like freedom of everything else-nobody is forcing you to. If you choose to own a firearm, YOU are responsible on how it is handled. It's not a question of requirement to own-it is a right which carries with it some serious responsibility. If a person doesn't think they can step up to that responsibility, it is up to that person to police themselves.
The arguement should be, does the government have the right to charge money for the right of personal defense? I say absolutely not.

 

[Cosmoline]

This segregation is already happening, though I don't think anyone's keeping track of it. Folks here in Alaska who are terrified of firarms simply don't last long. Even our liberal Democracts are pro-gun. Conversely, folks in California who get tired of sherrifs inspecting their firearms at the gun range get out of the state and move somewhere more gun-friendly.

In the mean time, very few courts have the courage to even interpret the Second Amendment. Fear and mistrust between the pro and anti gun states grow. The only comparable situation is, disturbingly, the runup to the Civil War.

 

[Sven]

A house divided...

I keep my guns locked up, and trust myself with them. My roomates don't know about them, and I really wouldn't trust them with them.

 

[dairycreek]

So many of the premises in your argument are shaky,

Anti's don't trust themselves with a gun! The problem arises when a self-controlled pro gun person is living amongst them. The solution seems to be to segregate ............... It seems to me that your logic is seriously flawed. Are you exhibiting a bit of the old Stockholm Syndrome? Possible?

 

[Waitone]

It has long been my opinion that some people should not have access to firearms PERIOD. Reasons fall into two categories:

1>They don't trust themselves and their own self-control. They should be denied access. Fortunately they typically self-deny.

2>People who objectively are not capable of using a firearm safely. I don't care about their rights. I care about their stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, inattention, and thoughtlessness.

Some people are just plain dangerous, be it a knife or a gun. Those people need to be identified and denied access to anything but crayons.

 

[4 eyed six shooter]

With the background checks in place, people who have convictions for violence can't get a CCW. From what I have seen, the people who get CCW's are usually pretty stable people. The incendents of people with CCW's abusing them is very low. Once again, restricting the ability for the many to carry because a few will abuse the right is not an excuse to outright ban the responsible people from having a CCW. Many more lives are saved by legally carried guns than are lost by people who use their firearms in a non legal manor. Lastly, you can't argue with the stats. Everyplace that has adopted CCW's has seen a decrease in the crime rate. Crooks are afraid of armed citizens.
Good shooting, John K

 

[Blackhawk]

People shouldn't do anything they're not trained and ready for. That includes carrying guns or having children....

 

[Don Gwinn]

Yes, it's already happening.

 

[Baba Louie]

I may not agree with what you say...

I believe it was Mr. J Neil Schulman who authored the tome Self Control NOT Gun Control

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/framedex.html

Kinda sums it up for me.

Those who won't have guns, won't.

Those who will, will.

Criminals as well as poor self control types (kinda redundant there doncha think?).

Not my place to say who can have or do what and who can't.

Long as "they" leave me be, life is good.

Just my take on the matter.

...but I'll defend your right to say it. (I CAN defend it because I CAN, if you get my drift... not that I'd want to interfere in your life should you choose to be helpless in a moment of ill-thought out righteousness)

Adios

 

[Kamicosmos]

My concern with this thread is this:

Who will determine who is responsible enough to have guns? You're suggesting segregation! 1939 Berlin ring any bells here?

Once people start getting an elitist attitude like this is when the problems start. And this attititude is on both sides of the issues, pro or anti.

The feeling in this thread is, they don't deserve the 2nd Amend, because I think they have unresolved issues about firearms.


That is just plain scary, maybe we should ask Big Brother to straighten this out for us....

This is the sort of thinking that they do...it's frightening to see it in this forum.

 

[10-Ring]

Yuck, I agree with anti-gunnies on a few things now, I must take a bath now..

You've gotta perform some form of pennance now too!

 

[twoblink]

dairycreek,

no.. seriously, it really is the pro gun amongst them that "causes" all the problem... If there are no guns around, then how can you tell the immates from the citizens? You can't. Not a weak arguement at all. Maybe they will realize it at that point that they have become subjects, but it's too late then..

The Jews had their guns removed first; then the "all knowing, all wize German government" moved in.

You have no idea how many anti's I've talked to have told me straight now, "Guns are so dangerous, why, I wouldn't even trust them in my own hands let alone the hands of a criminal!!"

Of course, the underlining statement there also means that if guns are made illegal, criminals won't get there hands on it

 

[Beav]

sounds more like a privilege


/me runs for cover

 

[pax]

Some people are dangerously unable to control their impulses. Such people will do harm to others if they get their hands on weapons of any type. If a society allows everyone to have access to guns, those dangerous people will get guns and will harm or kill some other people before they are stopped.

However.

If a society does not allow common people to have access to guns, tyranny and then genocide follow very quickly on the heels of disarmament. There is no stopping the bloodshed once it gets started, except by even more bloodshed. Either the genocide runs its course and wipes out entire people groups, or other nations step in and shed their own blood to stop the killing. History has shown this over and over and over again, to our great sorrow.

It is too bad that in a free society, some people will be murdered by other people. But it is a small price to pay to avoid having millions of people murdered by other people.

pax

Fire, water and government know nothing of mercy. -- Albanian Proverb

 

[Waitone]

My comments are pointed directly at the relationship between the idealism of a libertarianism (small L) philosophy and hard reality. While I daydream of a truly libertarian culture and hence its government, the hard reality of the situation stands there steadfast and inconvenient. Some people are flat out dangerous in a non-illegal sense. As a responsible governmental official committed to the principals of libertarianism (small L) how do you deal with stark and inconvenient reality?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

"mental preparedness".

The problem is the process of who gets to choose the criteria of "mental preparedness" and who gets to test for it. I'm sure Sarah Brady has a very different definition of the proper mental preparedness for CCW than one you come up with.

If you can justify a single restriction that decides who are and are not covered by the RKBA, you have just opened the door to every gun control restriction anyone can think of.

In dealing with the RKBA, it's All or Nothing. There can be no middle ground.

 

[Delmar]

I think the hard reality of a democratic republic is there are risks involved. The truth is that government can never save the people from themselves, and expects law abiding citizens to do the right thing. Those who don't, whether through ignorance or malice should be dealt with fairly, according to the crime. The enemy of a democratic republic is when you start choosing which people will have rights and who will not.
Not a direct quote, but something Lincoln alluded to that the constitution may fairly be read as all men are created equal, except negroes. Soon, it will read all men are created equal, except for negroes, catholics and foreigners. When it comes to this, I would prefer to immigrate to some place where they make no pretense of loving liberty, like Russia, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hipocricy.
Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone. If you want safety, you want a police state.

 

[pax]

Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone. If you want safety, you want a police state.

Delmar,

That's exactly wrong. Police states and states with a disarmed populace are always more dangerous to their inhabitants than free societies are. (See my previous post.)

I am not an idealist; I am a libertarian because I know in my bones that people are often evil and that allowing small groups of people to have the power of life and death over all the other people in a given region will always lead eventually to democide.

pax

Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth. -- Rudolph Rummel

 

[Delmar]

Then Pax, you completely mis understood me. Let me put it in simple terms: The people have to be allowed to choose whether or not to keep and bear arms as an individual choice, not you, not me, not Sarah Brady, and not the Government. Is that more clear to you?

 

[MitchSchaft]

Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone

.

That's exactly correct!
And the ccw system is a farse to begin with. People will carry guns if they're allowed to or not. You can't legislate common sense.

 

[CZ-75]

I don't follow your argument.

Those who shouldn't have guns can get them more easily than the average citizen.

Those that shouldn't carry a gun, will, regardless of the law.

 

[AR-10]

I have to disagree with most of your assumptions, twoblink.

People who are not opposed to gun control legislation hold their opinions for a miriad of reasons. True, there is a minority of true gun haters who do fit the discription you paint of people with little emotional self control. Liars assume everyone is lying. Morally bankrupt people persuade themselves that moral persons are merely prudish pretenders. We all like to feel we are "average" and project our self images onto those around us, expecting them to react as we would.

The deeper truth is that a lot of people are not aquainted with firearms. More to the point, they are not aware of how the rights of gun owners have been eroded over the last seventy year, and they are not bombarded daily with the latest news on every rumor of the next gun banning law to come down the pike.

Some people truly should not own firearms. Who are you or I to decide who may and who may not? If you ever got to know my mother intimately, you would learn such decisions are not so easily made. She scares the willy out of me, but she has been handling firearms longer than I have been alive and has had a carry permit for over a decade. She has not impacted society in a negative way by owning or carrying a firearm.

Experience has shown me that those who get a carry permit and actually exercise it end up being responsible, fairly well trained, law abiding citizens. That's the way it seems to work out in my county, at least. I know of a couple people who have permits that sort of make me shudder. Guess where their guns are. In a drawer somewhere. They don't have the conviction to lug them around all day, let alone go to the range and practice. As such, they don't seem to be a huge threat to the citizenry of my town. In the fifty years or so that folks have been packing in my county there is not one incident I know of that would give the Sheriff cause to regret issuing a permit.

If everyone in my state was handed a firearm and given carte blanche to carry, there would be a rocky year or two as the inept and irrational were slowly disarmed through lawless actions of their own doing. The rest of the population would then either carry responsibly or not carry by their own choosing.

There will always be some stupid people, and they will act accordingly. They are the minority. We should not be expected to organize society to fuction at their level of competence.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Twoblink,

It is tempting to say "stupid people shouldn't be allowed to ....."
Eventually, someone like Janet Reno gets to define stupid and you and I will be covered by the new, improved definition. The cure is far more dangerous than the problems it purports to fix.

 

[Safety First]

Very interesting thoughts on this thread.....

It would indeed be scary if we lost our second amendment rights...Because the criminal would not lose his ability to get a gun anyway he could and if he could'nt procure a gun,then he would use whatever weapon he could get his hands on to commit the crime. Lets face it, if someone has murder in their heart then they will commit the crime by any means they can, with any weapon the can obtain. The problem starts in the heart of the man, it has existed since Cain and Able. It has been with us since the beginning of time and will be among us until the end of time, that I am convinced of. I just hope and pray the government does not decide to take away our God-Given right to defend ourself by making it hard for the good folks to obtain weapons to defend themselves from the evil ones..Just a few random thoughts and my 2 cents worth...