News-Record.com

Here comes the theological debate again!

Since everyone seems to argue the extremes on this question, heres my question. Would there be more murders in the world if everybody in the world had a gun or nobody in the world had a gun?

Rufus,

It's early to be a Saturday morning but I do declare, me thinks the answer is redundant. :) Oh, I get it now, it's a rhetorical question.

"assuming that his fellow citizens are inherently untrustworthy."

Ah, there's the rub. The anti-gun crowd doesn't trust the individual. They prefer to leave self defense to the government. If they ever were successful in overturning the second amendment, I have little doubt their next target would be whatever the thugs used to commit the next crime. 8'' knives? 6'' knives? Wooden clubs over 2 feet in length and 3 inches in diameter?

The nannies will never be sated.

is using a gun in self-defense against anyone but white males a hate crime? just making sure...

Neo,

When wooden clubs over 2 feet in length and 3 inches in diameter are outlawed only outlaws will have wooden clubs over 2 feet in length and 3 inches in diameter!

If guns and gun culture weren't so prevalent in this country, there wouldn't be the type of mass shootings that we've seen over the last decade. That is a recent developement, but either way it's not worth much discussion because we are in fact a country full of firearms. Whether they are purchased legally or not, they are readily available for whoever wants them, good intentions or not. That being said, the reality is that there needs to be a balance of firepower between the criminals and law abiders. Any radical gun control at this point will only shift that power away from law abiders. We all know that criminals will have their guns regardless of laws. I, for one, choose to arm myself accordingly to the extent of the law. The act of arming myself or the actual use of my pistol is not what comforts me the most, however. It is the threat that I just might be armed and able to defend myself against the criminal that is most effective. Take that away through short sighted gun control, and I might not leave the house anymore. If criminals know ahead of time that we are less capable and more vulnerable, it's open season on law and order in our society.

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.

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.

Yes Sui, but what does it mean? What does militia mean, does that mean that I have the right to have nuclear arms? If I did my militia would certainly be considered well regulated?

Yvonne,

There are other ways to kill people but none quite so efficient for ordinary folks. A gun is just a tool for punching holes in things at some distance.

I do notice no one has pondered my question. The answer doesn't fit well with the "we'd all be safer if we all were armed to the teeth" philosophy.

roofer t,

if criminals (and the government) thought everyone was as defenseless as you wish them to be, there would be far more crime and oppression.

when big bother decides to swarm in, let's at least pop a couple of rounds before they nuke us out of the equity our sweat made possible.

as for criminals, let's put at bay their unconscionable notion that they deserve what the government takes by "legal" means...

let your m.o. be ammo.

The thing is I am not hearing the cry to "take away" anyone's firearm. Rather, I am hearing the need to better control who can legally obtain firearms.

Rufus, I believe you already know how I would answer the question posed! Also, good response to the 2nd Amendment!

Shalom

Bucky,

Did I ever say I wished everyone to be disarmed? I have no problem with sensible people having guns? I also do think that reasonable weapon laws are not unconstitutional and are a sensible responsibility of government. As I predicted many people couch the argument as an all or nothing affair ("if criminals (and the government) thought everyone was as defenseless as you wish them to be").

I only want to discuss this in a reasonable manner which for some reason is difficult.

I think most folks think that individuals shouldn't have atomic weapons. By agreeing to that we've established that whatever right we have to bear arms isn't absolute and can be limited by government. At that point we hopefully can discuss what those reasonable limits should be. Hopefully that makes my position clearer.

i'm bucky's wife.

he's out drinking and shooting at cars.

i'll tell him you're upset.

thanks...

Rufus, I think you see reasonable here now!

Shalom

Rufus,

The government is to be made for the people, by the people and of the people. The second amendments purpose is to allow checks and balances between the people and government to make sure the government does not become corrupt and lose what America was really founded on. Thomas Jefferson would say big businesses are more dangerous than standing armies.
A well regulated militia means to go about means as a professional human being. Direct and prompt with the vision, and peacefully for the sake of simplicity. We are not talking about gorilla tactics here, it is Taoism the art of inspiring people to share common ideas and expectations.
Nuclear arms, that would not fall under the amendments because it threatens the security of surrounding states not to mention our way of life. You have the right to defend yourself on your property.
If your militia had those kinds of weapons, no it would not be considered well regulated because it does not fall under the constitution. Factor in the part that we are in a period of slight nuclear tension and escalated "terrorism" threat.
These are all good questions, but it should be understood that when the constitution was wrote, the founding fathers did not think man would ever be able to split atoms and then watch what happens when they collide back together. So with the help of a little common sense it should be easy to understand what their vision was by bearing arms. Yes they did not specify in black and white you can have these guns: Musket, shotgun, M-16, butter knife, etc. Keeping it under a general condition of bearing arms. You never know some people may take "bearing arms" as just that, your bare arm.

Mrs. Bucky,

Put him to bed. He's done for. After reading his last post I don't think the cars have anything to worry about.

Tell him I've calmed down. He's going to have enough trouble with his head in the morning to than worry about my feelings.

Sui,

I've never heard a definitive explanation of the 2nd. If there was such a thing I don't think we would still be hashing it out over 200 years later. Yours is reasonable but the theory doesn't take into account the vast improvement in weapons. We have the NRAs dream society in Iraq which it was even in the Saddam era (so much for keeping the people safe from the government) and I can't say that it's made life any better for anyone over there.

Nite all.

"Most gun owners are responsible people'

SIRHAN SIRHAN
JOHN WILKES BOOTH
MARK DAVID CHAPMAN
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
JOHN HINCKLEY, JR.
...list is incomplete as it doesn't include all the gun criminals in Greensboro, High Point, Gibsonville, Oak Ridge, Summerfield, Reidsville, Coleridge, Liberty, .........