Great article: "Instead of outlawing guns, keep guns away from outlaws"

This is a discussion on Great article: "Instead of outlawing guns, keep guns away from outlaws" within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...ond-amendment/ The knee-jerk bleating reactions of the anti-gun left, biased media, four Supreme Court justices and selected state and municipal governments notwithstanding, who stands to ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Great article: "Instead of outlawing guns, keep guns away from outlaws"

  1. #1
    Member Array opalelement's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri
    Posts
    65

    Great article: "Instead of outlawing guns, keep guns away from outlaws"

    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...ond-amendment/

    The knee-jerk bleating reactions of the anti-gun left, biased media, four Supreme Court justices and selected state and municipal governments notwithstanding, who stands to gain most by draconian gun laws designed to restrict the law-abiding citizen's right to defend himself, his family and his property? If you answered "the career criminal," go to the head of the class the burglar, the home invader and every thug's greatest nightmare is a level playing field on which the home owner or private citizen is armed.

    The notion that outlawing private gun ownership will enhance the safety of our homes or person is utter nonsense. What criminal would obey such an edict? It is the law-abiding who are placed at greatest risk anyone believing the felon who is already armed in defiance of the law will surrender his weapon is naive to the point of lacking common sense. Murder, robbery, assault and rape are violations of established law all are committed continually by lawbreakers.

    Accordingly, albeit belatedly, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held the Second Amendment to mean exactly what it says, that inasmuch as self-defense is a fundamental right the right to keep and bear arms extends to the states as well as to the federal government. That finding was reinforced and broadened in the June 2010 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the majority ruled the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment incorporates that Second Amendment right for individual self-defense.

    Contrary to the dissenting opinions by the Supreme Court's minority, the aforementioned anti-gun lobby, media columnists, cartoonists and editorial opinions (the hysteria-generated June 28 Kansas City Star editorial as the absolute nadir), the majority acknowledged the constitutional right is not an absolute one. The court held, "The right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'"

    The court iterated that neither "Heller" nor "McDonald" overturns longstanding reasonable regulatory measures such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill possessing firearms, laws against carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions on concealed carry or transfer of handguns. The Kansas City Star's and other publications' characterizing the Supreme Court's interpretation as judicial activism and alleging that state and local governments will forfeit reasonable regulation of firearms is absurd.

    No one disputes that there exists among the population a considerable segment that, for a variety of reasons, fear or dislike guns. Some have experienced tragedies involving firearms, others who have little or no history with weapons are uneasy while a number of them are so adamantly anti-gun as to align with organizations calling for an absolute ban on the manufacture and sale of firearms.

    Opponents of basic gun rights assert that banning firearms in general and handguns in particular is the panacea to end all gun crimes, citing biased studies and statistics as evidence. In deaths involving children for example, they use Center for Disease Control data, which include those 19 and under, wilfully ignoring that 80 percent of these are homicides by criminals 15 to 19 years of age. In reality, the 1999 Center for Disease Control statistics for accidental deaths of children 10 years or age and under cited firearms as the cause in six cases while 93 drowned in bathtubs.

    The Bill of Rights, established as the first 10 amendments, guarantees individual rights to the people. Those people described in the Second Amendment are the same as those described in the First and Fourth Amendments and to whom those rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and 10th. May we safely assume that when the framers identified "the people," they included individuals such as you and me?

    We should be able to agree also that, while a firearm is inherently dangerous, the degree of danger is vested in the person responsible for its use. A legally procured handgun, rifle, shotgun or even a Taser in the hands of a responsible and law-abiding citizen is far less apt to cause death or injury than an automobile operated by that same individual. Conversely, the criminal's weapon is rarely obtained legally and is intended for an unlawful purpose, rather than self defense or recreation.

    The legitimate gun owner is described in the Second Amendment as one whose "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." On the other hand, the person who uses a firearm for murder, armed robbery, intimidation, drive-by shooting or is a convicted felon has forfeited that right. To deny the person described in the first sentence that right of defending himself or herself from the one in sentence two is criminal as well as a violation of the Constitution.

    Finally, as has been the case accompanying nearly every court decision expanding the rights of gun owners, the wailing pronouncements of impending doom by hyper-hysterical anti-gun activists have failed to come to pass. Neither the "Heller" decision nor more than 40 states (Missouri included) issue concealed carry permits has resulted in the streets running red from gun battles involving legally armed citizens.

    Banning guns will not deny them to criminals; however, adding 10 years to the sentence of one committing a crime while in possession of a firearm and 20 years for displaying said weapon is a powerful deterrent. If the anti-gun activists wish to make a difference, they will board the bandwagon for those more severe sentences for crimes with guns.
    I liked this article so much that I wrote the author and congratulated him on creating such a great read. I told him I would be sharing it with some friends, so here you all go.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,241
    Good read. Thanks for sharing.
    "Mind own business"
    "Always cut cards"

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array JoJoGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    2,816
    The article is good, points out the illogical approach to solving the gun crime problem. Similar to Prohibition in the 1930's where banning the substance was supposed to eliminate its usage, however, it created more problems than it solved.

    Instead of Draconian gun banning laws let's take a fresh approach and go with Draconian gun crime enforcement of existing laws and sentencing. Novel approach, eh? Well, it could work if we try it for a change.
    "A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"

    The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,003
    "The knee-jerk bleating reactions of the anti-gun left, biased media,"

    Stopped reading at that point. Want the anti's and people on the fence to listen? Tone down the rhetoric. As soon as any of them read the first line they are going to /facepalm and say "Wow, another gun waving right wing nut job".
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array surefire7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    526
    Wow,

    I am encouraged. Being from Missouri and going to MU, I had the distinct impression that Columbia was like Boulder, CO (the people's republic of Boulder) and VERY anti-gun. This is a great article! Thanks for sharing!
    "Good decisions come from experience;
    experience comes from bad decisions"

  7. #6
    Member Array DwnRangeKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    55
    +1 with what Rollo said. The rhetoric will instantly turn off some folks.
    Molon Labe

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    "The knee-jerk bleating reactions of the anti-gun left, biased media,"
    What else would you call them?

    I dont know why calling a spade a spade annoys some people, unless the truth hurts them.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    What else would you call them?

    I dont know why calling a spade a spade annoys some people, unless the truth hurts them.
    That's like saying to someone..."you're fat and you're ugly but don't be offended it's simply the truth."

    You'll gather more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  10. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    That's like saying to someone..."you're fat and you're ugly but don't be offended it's simply the truth."

    You'll gather more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.
    That is correct.

    but lets not forget...that its the actions of
    The knee-jerk bleating reactions of the anti-gun left, biased media,"
    that we must constantly strive to overcome.

    And since they have no face or feelings, they must be recognized for what they are. To ignore the truth is to embark on the path of defeat.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Black Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    1,236
    Instead of anti-gun judges we need anti-outlaw judges.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,252
    "And since they have no face or feelings, they must be recognized for what they are. To ignore the truth is to embark on the path of defeat."

    Yes We must throw the bums out ; )
    H/D
    A Native Floridian = RARE


    IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
    H/D

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That is correct.

    but lets not forget...that its the actions of that we must constantly strive to overcome.

    And since they have no face or feelings, they must be recognized for what they are. To ignore the truth is to embark on the path of defeat.

    Bottom line is this. We want articles like this to find their ways into the hands of anti's. That is who they are written for. They aren't written for us as that's just preaching to the choir. If a anti (or someone on the fence about the 2a) picks this article up they are IMMEDIATELY going to think "Right wing conspiracy nut job" when they read the first line. The article would have had EXACTLY the same effect had the writer not included the first line. Like it or not it's the reality. I'm a liberal. I support the 2a with all my heart. I'm about 2 ticks away from actually being able to call my self a conservative and even I though "Nut job" at the first line. What do you think the average anti or on the fence is going to think?
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Unfortunately it's been said too many times before. But I'm not sure how many are listening.

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    Good post Rollo..

    What do you think the average anti or on the fence is going to think?
    Actually, I dont think that the average anti thinks anything about it until they have a life changing event that forces them to re-evaluate.

    Those that sit on the fence? Well they arent really liberal and they arent really conservative and they are basically confused. Some can be educated and some cant.
    If they get offended at the first sentance and refuse to read the rest, then it doesent really matter what the content says. It those emotional filled decisions that keep them from making rational ones.

    You call yourself a liberal, yet you understand the need for self defense and appear to be pretty passionate about it. That right there tells me that you arent as liberal as you would like to think of yourself as. You may be a couple of steps away from being a conservative buts thats only because you may be still on the fence on some issues.

    I am of the opinion that articles that are written specifically for liberals will fail in making their point,most of the time, because they fail to use emotion which liberals understand, rather than the facts that they choose to ingore.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I am of the opinion that articles that are written specifically for liberals will fail in making their point,most of the time, because they fail to use emotion which liberals understand, rather than the facts that they choose to ingore.
    Then I have to ask. Whats the point of writing "Guns are great" articles geared for those of us that already think guns are great? I dis-agree that the average anti doesn't think anything about it until they have a life changing event. I thing we as a movement underestimate the average anti/liberal. I think that political bias makes us think they are to "liberal" or "stupid" to listen to a valid and well formulated argument. I guess what I am getting at is this. It wasn't a life changing event so to speak that pushed me towards a more conservative political view. It was growing up. It was observing the world around me and listening to well formulated arguments by people that actually knew what they were talking about. It was NOT listening to rhetoric. Rhetoric is what pushed me away. And honestly it's the rhetoric (and to some extent my own racial bias)that keeps me now from being able to vote conservative. I think that in general most (not all) people are willing to listen to a point of view that is outside of what the think is true IF and ONLY if it is presented in such a way that is grounded in reality and most importantly provable fact.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Cheaper alternative to "Blue Guns" or "Red Guns?"
    By SpringerXD in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 29th, 2013, 07:14 PM
  2. Article -- "Do Girls Need Guns?"
    By DaveH in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: September 19th, 2010, 07:09 PM
  3. "No Guns"- sign an insult...What if it said "No Jews"?
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 4th, 2009, 02:38 AM
  4. Steven Crowders "GUNS, GUNS, GUNS"
    By TerriLi in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 6th, 2009, 03:43 PM
  5. Good Article: "Guns, the devil and God"
    By JohnKelly in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 17th, 2007, 06:07 PM

Search tags for this page

a great article on taking guns away

,

outlawing guns for safety

,

reasons outlawing handguns is dangerous

Click on a term to search for related topics.