Comments on: Give Us Back Our Bullets

By: gernot

gernot — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:31:58 +0000

Only a politician with a background in the law would have trouble understanding the phrase” shall not be infringed”. It is time to ignore the unconstitutional usurpation of our rights by the lunitic fringe leftists. I live in a right to carry county, and don’t normally carry a gun. I don’t have to, because the criminals know everyone in the county might be armed. It’s safer for them to go to Seattle and rob the liberals.

By: Philistine

Philistine — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:25:36 +0000

PRM:
I saw that video and instantly wished it were a video game where the goal is to shoot all the people with sticks and none of the innocents. Those people are animals and that scene was straight out of Rwanda. God bless that poor child who got caught in it and paid with his life. For all you gun haters- what’s gonna keep you from that mob? Your politeness? Jackasses all of you. The thin blue line is non-existant for those poor folks… stick wielding maniacs- coming to a nice safe suburb near you, stay tuned!!

By: PRM

PRM — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:32:15 +0000

Excellent article. It’s interesting that the gun ban in Chicago did not prevent a group of thugs from picking up pieces of rail road ties and beating a young man to death. The senseless and continuing focus on gun control to control violence has to stop and the libiots need to leave my second amendment rights alone.

By: Jack in Silver Spring

Jack in Silver Spring — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:21:42 +0000

Corrections: In my comments to Sam @37: Where I said, ‘their still is’ it should have been ‘there still is’
In my comments to Francis @35, I said: ‘I would say concealed carry’ I should have said: ‘I would say the benefits of concealed carry’

By: Hayes

Hayes — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:08:10 +0000

It doesn’t matter which mayors started this mess, it needs to end. There’s no excuse for denying the people the means they need to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:52:48 +0000

isnt Marion ********* Barry one of the authors of antigun legislation in DC?

By: Jack in Silver Spring

Jack in Silver Spring — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:39:02 +0000

Sam @23 – Robert @20 is probably right in absolute numbers, and you are right in the preferred homicides per 100,000. What you omit to mention is that the low homicide rate in New York City comes at the cost of almost being an armed camp, with nearly 500 uniformerd police per 100,000.
Sam @37 – People are generally not polite because their still a fair amount of savage in us all. English homicide records that go back into the middle ages, before there were guns and physical brawn counted for a lot more, indicates homicide rates that were very high by modern standards. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, which essentially banned guns around 1996, there has been a stupendous increase in the violent crime rate(albeit a smaller increase in the homicide rate). You simply cannot get around the fact that when you take away guns from the law abiding, you leave guns in the hands of non-law abiding and you put the law abiding at great risk. That is, unless you are willing to live in the armed camp that is New York City.
Sam @51 How about the Tenth Amendment? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Furthermore, the US Constitution mentions nothing about abortion and there is there nothing in the enumerated rights Congress in Section 8 of Article II giving the Congress the right to legislate on the manner or in Section 3 of Article III giving the Supreme Court the right to adjudicate on the matter. Abortion would seem to be a state right that the US Supreme Court has unconstitutionally legislated away.
Anton @40 Spot on.
Francis @ 35 I agree with sentiment, but saying “If even one person dies …” is not the right way to look at things. It is a really cost/benefit analysis. Do the costs of gun control outweigh the benefits? Looking around a cities where gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is difficult, you will find astounding homicide rates (think Detroit, Baltimore and Washington DC). The exception of course in New York City, but at the cost of being an armed camp. In general, I would say concealed carry and extensive private ownership of guns far and away outweigh the costs of gun control.

By: ruralcounsel

ruralcounsel — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:27:30 +0000

#37 Sam
“If you are only polite because you think anyone you are gratuitously obnoxious to will shoot you because of it, then you are polite solely and exclusively out of fear.”

Seems like a lot of psychological projection going on here, since you had to create so many strawman arguments (well, really just more declarative statements than arguments) to try and make your point.

I suspect that most compliance with law and regulation is based primarily on fear of getting caught and punished. So our entire “civilization” functions because of state power through fear.

The point is rather that in an unarmed society, the bullies and loudmouths think they can act that way without consequences. Too many supposed adults never really grew out of their schoolyard intimidation tactics. When any other adult has the potential to resist that bullying, or defend themselves when the bully gets angry at being confronted, it creates incentives for better self-control by those inclined to be bullying. That makes for a more civil society.

Is it any less valuable because they control their behavior out of fear? I think not. I don’t think there is any way a society will operate on pure altruism. Our society currently runs on fear, but it is more fear by citizens of their government, fear by citizens of criminals, fear by citizens of society’s bullys. I’d prefer a society where those associations are flipped around.

So in the long run, your concern about motivation is truly pointless.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:53:56 +0000

#65 Steve
“I have a well-thumbed copy on the book shelf right next to me as I type this. Strangely, there is nothing in my copy about the judges ability to tell us what our rights are and are not.”

If your copy does not contain #78, with its very clear endorsement of judicial review, I suggest you find an authetic copy immediately. It will also help disabuse you of the notion that the 2nd Amendment is intended to endorse violent change in the government, as opposed to the prescribed peaceful change via election and amendment.

#66 M. Report
Again, civility exists or does not exist irrelevant of external conditions.
Either you have a basic respect for the rights and feelings of your neighbor and fellow citizens or you do not. If you are only capable of controlling your baser instincts out of fear then the flaw is within you, not within your neighbor.

I am also quite familiar with both Heinlein and Piper.
Before you jump to cite Lone Star Planet, remember Little Fuzzy – you can find a precedent for anything within colonial law. Disarming the populace perhaps?

If you insist on getting Hobbesian with the “nasty, brutish, and short” bit, then why not go the whole way?
Remember, Heinlein sneered at democracy and republics just as much as he sneered at dictatorship. And we know what he said about people who will not defend the state they live in (even while disdaining conscription, which has been part of the traditions of the people of this country since before its establishment).

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:40:16 +0000

Sam, #37, you misunderstand the meaning of the saying “An armed society is a polite society.” You apparently believe that an armed society is centered on power through fear, and composed of “obnoxious bullies.” Yes, there are bullies and obnoxious people in America, including some who are armed. So what? When did it become unlawful to be obnoxious? Threaten someone – especially with a firearm – and you have quite possibly committed a felony. However, being obnoxious is not a crime, nor is a little fear – I prefer the term “respect” – a bad thing in relations between people. Do you realize we are living in a jungle, and that the line between civilization and chaos, between restraint and anarchy, is very thin? In the old west, the Colt revolver was called the “great equalizer,” because it could be loaded and fired by anyone.
The same is true today: the physically weak, the elderly, all of those who once were preyed upon by criminals with impunity, were elevated into parity with their attackers by the firearm. Consider the following thought experiment: If you knew your 80-year old mother ws about to be assaulted and then gang-raped in her home by home invaders, or even murdered, which would you rather she have – (a) a loaded firearm and the training to use it, or (b) nothing but her wits? I know how I’d choose. There is no guarantee she will survive if she is armed, but there it is near-certainty she will not if she is unarmed.

“Polite,” then, does not mean in the sense of Miss Manners, but of having a healthy respect for one another, backed up by force if necessary.