OPINION & EDITORIAL
Right to bear arms nearly unbearable
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jesse Solomon:
Related Stories:
- VA Tech shootings provide perspective (April 30, 2007)
- Virginia Tech shootings remind us of bond among all humans (April 18, 2007)
- Cultural differences run deep (February 4, 2004)
- Second Amendment safeguards freedom (April 25, 2007)
- A day of mourning (April 17, 2007)
by Jesse Solomon
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
As the nation witnessed the horrors of the Virginia Tech tragedy last April, I watched this awful event unfold from a somewhat removed standpoint. I was studying abroad in Barcelona, and having lived in Europe for several months at that point, I had become accustomed to elements of life and society that contrasted with that of the United States specifically regarding the notion of gun violence.
When I first arrived for orientation in January, my program director devoted 45 minutes advising students to stay constantly vigilant of our surroundings. Pickpocketing, she warned, was very common in the city, with tourists as the usual targets. While she did say that violent muggings and rapes occur, your average criminal would most likely be sporting a trendy mullet and fashionable European-cut jeans.
Fortunately, I was not the victim of any crimes while in Europe, however, I cannot say the same for some of my peers. In one instance, a man approached my roommate outside our building in a quite friendly manner: "Mi amigo, I love America" — then boom! — my roommate was pushed back, and his phone was quickly seized.
In another instance, a female friend of mine was the victim of an attempted purse snatching. The villain, who could have been no older than 17, and my friend, being the tough cookie she is, wrestled for the bag for about 30 seconds, until the perpetrator gave up and ran away without the purse.
In this land of gypsies, trendy thieves and sleazy Spanish men, one could easily be put on edge. Moreover, you are thousands of miles away from home in a completely foreign city with little knowledge of the language. However, while these acts of violence will startle someone and force them to cancel their credit cards, one vicious factor does not come into play: guns.
According to a 1998 study by the International Journal of Epidemiology, there was an average of 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people in the United States. Compare that with 4.31 in France; 2.90 in Belgium; 2.44 in Italy; 1.57 in Germany, and Spain, with a mere 0.90.
Of course we all know the issue of gun violence is deeply rooted in U.S. history and culture, but I feel there is something inherently wrong when citizens can be made to fear for their lives because a mentally challenged individual has better access to weaponry than legitimate therapy. The panic of last week regarding. Jesse Miller, and the armed robbery at Regent and Park streets, only reiterates this absurdity. While I commend the university and police for informing students via e-mail and locking down potentially dangerous areas, it baffles me that U.S. students must accept these alarms as part of daily life.
The founding fathers created the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" in the 18th century, when it took five minutes to load one musket ball, which would rarely even shoot straight. They couldn't have fathomed that automatic weapons spewing 80 rounds a minute could be purchased. Observing the Virginia Tech catastrophe from overseas allowed me to realize the number of guns in America is far from rational when the general public can be put in jeopardy at the drop of a hat. In comparison, the anxiety I may have felt while walking a shady European alley was very real at the time, yet miniscule when faced with the fear of one of my peers coming to class with a loaded gun. While guns obviously won't disappear in this country anytime in the near future, just think: Does the Second Amendment genuinely protect citizens in the modern age, or does it foster a means of destruction for those who seek its protection?
Jesse Solomon (jesolomon@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 5:19am):
Read my article from last semester if you want the other side of the argument:
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/04/24/gun_control_unfair_t.php
Gun control unfair to law-abiding citizens
by Guest Columnist
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
At the end of the day, more gun control becomes a method of social control, not an anti-crime policy. If we look at crime stats, they support both pro-gun and anti-gun positions, and thus neither of them. Pro-gun states -- Vermont, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Utah -- and other countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Israel, have relatively low violent crime and crime overall. Anti-gun states like Wisconsin and Hawaii, as well as the countries of Japan and Ireland, also have relatively low violent crime and crime overall. The same goes for high violent crime and crime overall.
If more gun control doesn't mitigate crime, then what does it do? Look no further than any authoritarian state or society in history. Look no further than our own Southern backyard under the Jim Crow laws -- laws that in many states still had a significant presence only 50 years ago. What was one of the first things these laws did to Southern blacks? They took their guns away. In a society where even the authorities were complacent with lynching and other hate crimes, whom else could a law-abiding citizen turn to for defense against a frequently racist government and society than himself? As in many other instances of the past, gun control was used to oppress people, to remove checks and balances on despicable government policies and, in short, to do what it implies: control.
To say the United States will never have circumstances in the future where citizens will have to fend for themselves against an oppressive government or society, or in a situation of utter chaos, seems rather arrogant and presupposing. Additionally, the challenge that tens of millions of gun owners pose to an authoritarian government remains a powerful political liability for any overtly authoritarian regime, especially if we take into account that many members of the U.S. military and the U.S. State Guard bear arms. It remains doubtful that the U.S. Armed Forces would gladly turn against their own comrades in arms.
So anti-gun supporters, keep in mind that further disarming a populace also means further controlling a populace, with no apparent benefit to fighting crime. Nor does it even prevent last week's horrible events if existing federal gun control laws had been adequately enforced. After all, Virginia Tech murderer Cho Seung-Hui purchased both his handguns illegally.
His purchases occurred after state Special Justice Paul M. Barnett ruled in December 2005 that Seung-Hui presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." This ruling should have barred Seung-Hui from purchasing any gun as per the requirements of the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act since it "adjudicated [him] mentally defective" long before he purchased his handgun murder weapons and after mandatory federal background checks administered in February and March 2007. Tragically, due to ambiguities and unfunded mandates in Virginia state law, this ruling never entered the federal background check database, the same database that would have stopped Seung-Hui from making his gun purchases had it contained the above information. The lesson here: If any smart gun laws come out of this tragedy at the federal or state level, they should serve to better enforce existing federal gun control laws, not to punish tens of millions of responsible and law-abiding gun owners by unnecessarily adding more controls.
If you don't believe me when I say many gun owners follow the law, just look at the numbers. According to a survey administered by the Harvard School of Public Health, there were 57 million adult gun owners in 2004. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 338,587 instances of firearms related crime in 2004. Do the math and we'll find that, in 2004, at most 0.59 percent of gun owners committed a crime with their firearms. Additionally, we'll find that at least 99.41 percent of gun owners in 2004 were law-abiding citizens. Run the same analysis on every year for the past 20 and you'll get roughly the same results. In any given year, a super-super-majority of gun owners used their firearms in a responsible and lawful manner.
So why should we unnecessarily control so many people to prevent crimes they will never commit? If doing so will not prevent crime, then why do it? Control for the sake of control remains the only reason why.
David Lapidus (lapidus@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in economics, math and history and a member of the Associated Students of Madison Student Services Finance Committee.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 7:52am):
agreed. Im sure gun nuts will disagree going to the more guns = less violence well, which is bone dry by now
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 8:04am):
The Second Amendment also starts out with a caveat: "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."
A well regulated militia -- that would be the police and the military, not every private citizen who wants a private armory.
I still think private citizens should be allowed to have guns, but with reasonable restrictions. A waiting period and criminal background check are both reasonable. A ban on certain weapons is reasonable; no private citizen could possibly have a legitimate need for a weapon that can fire an entire clip in mere seconds. A ban on civilians carrying weapons on college campuses is reasonable. And so on.
Mike Pruden (October 3, 2007 @ 8:56am):
They also had pistols back in the late 18th century, as well. What do you think people dueled with? Aaron Burr did not stab Hamilton with a saber; he shot him with a pistol.
and consider the fact that, while guns were obviously banned on the Virginia Tech campus, the guy still came on came on with guns blazing (pun intended).
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 9:24am):
Tip to Americans in Europe: Don't wear sneakers, it's a dead give away.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 10:11am):
your reasoning is severly flawed. for one, your time elements with muskets were wrong. a trained soldier could fire three rounds a minute, an generally be accurate to 100 yards with a good eye. secondly, these european countries you speak of also have extremely strict an oppressive regulations that would violate our second ammendment, and thirdly, while even if the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned today automatic weapons, they also couldn't have fathomed the internet and today mass media being applied to the first amendment rights. should we, like so many european countries, legislate language, make certain speech a crime, and so overturn our first amendment as well. if we can destroy and legislate the second amendment out of existence, then why not the first as well. their is a price to freedom, each one has a price, the fact you came back from eurpoe means you must want to accept that price
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 10:28am):
do you have a giant magnet to suspend over the united stated? or do you just want bad guys to have guns...
gun free zones don't work...virginia tech was a gun free zone.
if one person had had a gun in those classrooms, it might have ended much sooner.
furthermore, i'd rather look at the repercussions of the feminization of our society and the disintegration and disapproval of manliness which was evidenced by the students being unable to recognize evil and imminent death...which is why the holocaust victim had to stand up for everyone. he was from another time.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 11:46am):
You forgot to compare America's murder rate to that of Jamaica. Jamaica essentially outlaws private ownership of guns, but their murder rate is three times that of America's. (True, Jamaica is not industrialized, but neither are those Americans doing most of the murders.) Russia _is_ industrialized, with a ban on handguns, yet their murder rate is much higher than ours; always has been.
The thing is, I don't have to worry about a mass murderer like the one at VaTech as long as I have a gun in _my_ pocket. And these incidents are so rare -- the common robberies you spoke of in Spain are a much more likely threat.
Even if there were a reason to believe that gun control laws would ever be significantly more effective than our heroin- and cocaine-control laws, I personally feel that making it harder for Crips, Bloods and Latin Kings to murder one another is less important than making it harder for muggers to rob me.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 12:04pm):
They should allow us to have hand grenades too. Grenades don't kill people, people kill people.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 12:09pm):
"Does the Second Amendment genuinely protect citizens in the modern age, or does it foster a means of destruction for those who seek its protection?"
The former, as the reason for the amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, not from each other.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 12:39pm):
great article! I second what mr Solomon says
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 1:09pm):
Does this article have a point? Guns are bad? Oh please, and will someone please point out that an automatic weapon only firing 80 rounds per minute is the SLOWEST rate of firing for an auto I have ever heard of. Goodness. It is clear that if someone who was competent to carry a firearm was able to carry on the VT campus that day, then that punk would have been taken care of before he ended up slaughtering 30 kids.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 1:17pm):
Anyone who is using this forum to try and justify the concept of "if everyone had a gun, the world would be safe", should strongly consider taking advantage of loose gun control, and kill themselves.
Harry Schell (October 3, 2007 @ 1:57pm):
Ignored is the overall per capita rate of violent crime, of which gun crime is a subset. The world leader here, by far, has the most draconian handgun restrictions in Europe. The average citizen cannot carry a pocket knife. Those who kill in self-defense are usually tried and jailed for murder. Guns are freely available to criminals and gun crime is increasing rapidly. And they are on their own little ISLAND. Welcome to the UK.
Two decades of concealed carry laws in the US have demonstrated that violent crime of all stripes is reduced. The fact that the target is inconvenient or perhaps outright dangerous makes criminals think twice, and go places they are more comfortable.
As to the 2nd Amendment, you need to read the Parker v. DC decision as a primer. 2A is not about guns, but the inalienable human right to an effective self-defense. The words "arms", "keep" and "bear" descend from law and philosophy on the right of self-defense which predate both the USA and the broad use of firearms.
The militia provision was inserted to account for the lack of a standing army, and the potential requirement for citizens to band together to defeat a threat greater than an individual could. The comparison to police or the US national guard is completely off-base and unsupported in the literature. This is why many liberal scholars have concluded 2A most definitely is an individual right that will transcend the obsoletion of firearms.
Even animals defend themselves with force. You want to tell me a 115 pound woman should fist fight a 200 pound rapist? I think not. At the time of 2A, as now, a firearm in the hands of a skilled user was the best means to enforce this right. I suspect this is why some are confused that 2A is about "gun rights". Do your homework, and learn. It isn't.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 2:28pm):
Most people who are anti gun don't even know the difference between semi auto, auto, single, or double action weapons. All they know is gun=bad. The founders of the constitution gave people the right to own guns as a protection against tyranny. At the time, muskets were the most deadly weapon a person could carry. They did not take guns lightly. It was not as if they were thinking "well, muskets are OK, but when the M16 is invented, let's keep that illegal." I am sure that the founders would have allowed us to have handguns and full auto.
Just last month a pizza dilivery man in Milwauke, who was robbed 4 times, used a gun to defend himself. The thing the anti-constitution nuts don't understand is that merely declaring guns to be illegal does not reduce crime. We tried that with alcohol, did that work? Crack cocaine is illegal, has it vanished from our streets?
Legal gun owners are no maniacs. Cho in V. Tech was not legally supposed to have his gun. The campus was "gun free," did that policy work? If you allowed students to get a permit and carry a gun responsibly, then there would be someone to stop the lunatics.
When that guy was tazered at the Kerry rally, what was the liberal response? Ban tazers! The freedom hating gun banners don't realize that guns don't turn people into murderers. If someone is going to commit murder, he'll get an illegal gun.
In 1976 Washington DC banned handguns. Since the ban, the crime rate has never been as low as pre 1976. Last year they confiscated 2000 handguns from criminals. Obviously the handgun ban didn't work. There has never been an instance of a gun ban lowering crime. Look at states with concealed carry laws like Utah and Texas. Have those states turned into blood baths, compared to Commiefornia?
I defy any gun hater to explain to me, without several minutes of google or wikipedia search, the differences between an AR15 and an M16, the years and scope of the National Firearms Acts, and the Brady Bill. If you don't even know the facts, don't make judgements.
God bless America, God bless the 2nd Amendment, and join the NRA!
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 2:40pm):
Yeah, knowing that my classmates had guns in their backpacks doesn't really make me feel safer.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 3:36pm):
did you actually have a point or were you just trying to counter the well-written oped from last week by the cr chair. at least she had a message to get across; you were just whining.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 3:37pm):
But the classmate that wants to go on a shooting spree is going to ignore the gun law anyway. Declaring a region "gun free" does as much good as declaring it "drug free." Either put police at every corner, at every door, and search everyone, or let us defend ourselves.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 4:16pm):
This article is just overly an simplistic "guns = bad" rant. The first comment here pretty much explains everything I was thinking while reading this. Banning guns doesn't keep them out of the hands of criminals. If someone is intent on using a gun to commit a crime, I'm sure they won't be reserved in breaking a law to obtain the gun in the first place. People in gun-free zones are just sitting ducks for criminals, and a disarmed populace is a sitting duck for tyranny. The founders weren't idiots, you know...
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 4:44pm):
You said "because a mentally challenged individual has better access to weaponry than legitimate therapy." You dont think he could have bought therapy with his money. I am sure free therapy was available through the college. I dont buy your premise.
You also said "18th century, when it took five minutes to load one musket ball, which would rarely even shoot straight." Then surely the first ammendment must only apply to quill pens and Gutenburg presses. The founding fathers could have not imagined radio, tv, or the internet. The obviously meant the the average citizen to be able to have the normal weapons used by the military, which we do not have the ability to own today. There is a process by which a private individual can own an automatic weapon (as long as the weapon was made before 1986). This system has been in place since the 1930s. During that time only one murder has been commited with a legaly owned automatic weapon.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 4:50pm):
You said "A well regulated militia -- that would be the police and the military, not every private citizen who wants a private armory.
"
Here is the actual law defining the militia, United States Code, section 10
United States Code (USC)
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 5:09pm):
if all of my guns are taken away, what the hell am i going to do when my apartment is attacked by flesh-eating zombies?!?
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 7:26pm):
It is well known that zombies feed on brains, and it is well accepted that alcohol kills brain cells. Therefore, the question remains: who is PACE's mysterious zombie overlord?!
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 8:17pm):
Are you really that naive to think taking guns away from the law-abiding people will provide you with some measure of security? You are out of your mind. What makes you think that the 80+ million gun owners in America would go easy if some politician back east passed some law telling us we had to turn in our guns? You want my guns? Come get them. FYI, you get the bullets first. Suck my glock you pole smoking homo!!!
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 10:43pm):
5:09pm--
There's no law banning chainsaws.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 11:19pm):
<i>"The founding fathers created the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" in the 18th century, when it took five minutes to load one musket ball, which would rarely even shoot straight. They couldn't have fathomed that automatic weapons spewing 80 rounds a minute could be purchased."<i>
First, it does not take 5 minutes to load a flintlock; the minutemen were called that because they could fire 3 aimed shot in one minute. These guns were fairly accurate, and became more so with the introduction of rifling.
And automatic weapons fire at rates much higher than 80 rounds per minute -- hand have been strictly controlled since 1934.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 2:34am):
Racist and apathetic politicians in CA, NY, NJ and DC
As I am sure you all know the first "gun control" laws were written to keep Blacks from owning firearms.
Today look at "gun control" in Wash DC, LA, NYC, Camden and Newark...what's changed?
In every case you have selective (racist) "may issue" vs. "shall issue" for legal concealed carry.
"May issue" is an instrument of Old South oppression and unequal application of the law.
In NJ,NY, CA and DC the reality is "may issue" is reserved for politicians and their cronies.
Are we to believe that the law abiding Black or Latino citizen who goes thru the necessary background check and training required for "shall issue" concealed carry is less qualified than a White citizen?
We are all equal aren't we?
The over-policing of communities is not the answer; they rarely prevent crime. They are law enforcement, not crime prevention. They usually show up after the fact.
The reality of the police is that all too often in their quest to "get the bad guy's", they regularly violate citizens civil rights/liberties.
I have been searched without cause, at least 2 dozen times in NYC during the Giuliani reign of terror.
Shall issue is currently law in 40 states, crime is down in every one of those states (published data from FBI stats found in books: "More guns less crime" and "Black man with a gun")
With hundreds of millions of guns in America, the choice is clear: I will take a few accidental shootings over the mass murder of un-armed students, teachers and innocent citizens by crazies and outlaws every day of the week.
In fact any legislator working on "banning guns" in light of the facts is grossly irresponsible, again there are hundreds of millions of guns in America.
Case in point arrogant, racist and/or apathetic Mike Bloomberg (who has an armed security detail) by denying NYC residents their civil rights/liberties to self defense; an un-armed man was gunned down recently in Brooklyn. In Newark NJ where Governor Jon Corzine (also with an armed security detail, who doesn't follow the "law" himself, proof is speeding and no seatbelt accident) 3 good young un-armed people were gunned down. In both cases they might all be alive today, if they were not denied their civil rights/liberties to self defense.
NY, NJ, CA, DC need "shall issue" concealed carry and "reciprocity" (like drivers licenses). vs. the current "may issue" which is reserved for politicians and their cronies.
In summary;
"May issue" concealed carry is an instrument of Old South oppression.
"May issue" concealed carry is unequal application of the law.
"May issue" concealed carry is what is currently law in NJ, NY, CA and DC.
Trust a family member, a neighbor but never trust a "gun (people) control" politician.
Examples of countries with strict gun control laws; Burma, North Korea, IRAQ (under Saddam), NAZI Germany.
Self defense is a civil liberty.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 6:32am):
"The founding fathers created the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" in the 18th century,"
Do you see the irony of writing this on a computer and posting it on the WWW?
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 8:05am):
Hey.
I'm like a college senior or something.
And I've like been to Europe. So I'm like worldly-wise and more sensitive and aware than like you ever will be.
So I like know better than anyone else, especially any red-state gun nuts.
Like, so there......
Barry Bright (October 4, 2007 @ 8:12am):
http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm
No offensive language? But "Liberal" lowlifes are allowed to lie to me all the time and expect me to pretend it's not happening. My marxist professors in college expected me to pretend they weren't spewing garbage. The mainstream newsmedia expects us all to be silent under the burden of their lies. I call that offensive. If I stood and cursed them for the next 10,000 years I could not match what they have already done.
When guns are outlawed, "Liberal" season must begin.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 8:29am):
There are three types of people in this world: the Sheep, the Wolves, and the Sheepdogs.
The Sheep are the average honest citizens that trust in government to provide their safety.
The Wolves are few - the predators who attempt to live off the flesh of the sheep.
We who carry concealed are the Sheepdogs, willing to take responsibilty for our own safety and that of our families, friends, and other sheep in our vicinity.
Don't be a sheep. Get armed. Learn to use your weapon. Take personal responsibility for the sheep you know. Wolves seldom strike when the sheepdogs are present.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 9:22am):
Let's divide the country into two halves:
Half "A" - Everyone MUST have a gun.
Half "B" - NO ONE may have a gun.
Question 1: Where would you want to live?
Question 2: If you were a criminal, where would you want to live?
Question 3: Did you reconsider your answer to Question 1?
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 9:54am):
"ditto", anon 10/3.
two suggestions poly sci infant. Walk over to the English dept and ask them to explain what an "independent" clause is, then re read the Second Amendment.
Realize that when the founders guaranteed citizens the right to keep and bear arms they didn't need to "envision" semi automatic weapons. What they were authorizing was that Americans could have state of the art "assault weapons" exactly like military issue. Today, that would be the M 16, which Americans are not allowed to own.
Then go over to the history dept. and have them explain to you that "well regulated" in 1776 meant a militia that was supervised, organized and drilled. It didn't mean a militia that was oppressed by petty burocracy.
PS: Most criminals are repeat offenders. Did you know that it is already illegal for someone with a criminal record to posess a firearm? Illegal to leave thier home with it? Illegal to conceal it? and lastly illegal to point it at, or even brandish it? None of those laws stopped crime...because criminals by their nature, do not obey the law. You can pass any law you want and they will still have firearms and commit crimes. Legal private ownership of firearms is almost totally illegal in Britain and Russia, yet they have a bigger gun crime problem than ever.
Lastly, it's not a "gun crime" problem, it is a "criminal activity" problem.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 10:33am):
(OK insults removed to appease "approval person")
Jessie Solomon is not realistic at all.
Funny how she compares our death rate to trendy 1st world Euro countries like France Belgium Germany.
Didn't mention our real "multicultural" counterparts like Brazil, South Africa, which have death rates comparable to our own.
(like 100 times higher...)
No mention made either of "gun free" Burma.
Yeah gun control works in Burma baby, just turn on the TV, thousands of good little gun control sheep dying like they should when government decides they need dying, right Jesse?
Gun Control works. Burma proves it.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 10:55am):
Welcome back to the United States. Hopefully you will enroll in a class that studies the Constitution soon, and will be taught the fallacy of your own arguments.
Being that you are at UW, though, I somehow doubt that will happen...
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 11:18am):
HEY MY COMMMENT MADE IT!
I answer someone else questions below-
Half "A" - Everyone MUST have a gun.
(Switzerland -almost- matches this description exactly. Safest country in the world for 200 years)
Half "B" - NO ONE may have a gun.
(Burma -matches this description exactly. How many disarmed sheep did the Burmese military kill today in that gun control paradise?)
Question 1: Where would you want to live?
Me- Swiss
Question 2: If you were a criminal, where would you want to live?
If I was a bloodthirsty murderer I would want to be in the Burmese Army or maybe a member of the FBI "hostage rescue squad"
Baltimore, Wash DC, Detroit, NYC, other good "gun free helpless victim zone" criminal empowerment areas.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 12:12pm):
If we were to go with Solomon's proposition that what the Constitution means is frozen in time when it was drafted, then one could make the argument (and win according to Solomon) that the 1st Amendment applies *only* to printed newspapers and books and that it does not cover magazines, radio, TV, Internet, etc. as those were not invented in the 1700s and the signers of the Constitution could not have foreseen their invention.
Anonymous (October 13, 2007 @ 12:51pm):
I'd love to carry one of my handguns with me where ever I go. My trunk, (legally stored) doesnt count. Just wait to one day you were in a sitiuation and you wish there was at least one, trained, armed individual that could of saved you or your family.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
