Reevaluating America's Gun Control Laws

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 6/18/2007 | Joe Holmes

[tang0r]

Any gun owner will tell you that the cardinal rule to gun ownership is gun safety. While regulations are necessary to prevent crazies from getting their hands on guns, law-abiding citizens with no prior history of aggression or psychological problems should have free gun ownership. With laws the way they are in many states, a person cannot carry weapon in their car or on their person and must provide proof of gunlock ownership. In essence, states like California restrict gun access in any situation where you could conceivably need a gun.

Many gun control advocates point to discrepancies between US and other developed countries’ murder rates and claim that gun ownership is the answer. This is a gross oversimplification. Anybody who has a serious desire to murder will do it. Life is fragile; indeed, anybody with a murderous heart could kill someone with a butter knife. It is easy to point to guns as the problem; however, the murder rates reflect deeper social problems than gun ownership.

[wastedyears]

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says we can only have pistols. Heck, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says anything about limiting gun ownership.

[tcostell]

It's a point that's been conceded countless times on FR.

Personally I think if we're going to persuade others, we're going to need to do better than that. Last weekend I had a liberal tell me that he concedes that we as Americans have the right to remove our government by force if we so choose, and THAT was the main reason he can't endorse gun control. I think there is room there to expand the discussion.

[EdReform]

Bang

[JamesP81]

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says we can only have pistols. Heck, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says anything about limiting gun ownership.

There's nothing in the Constitution that limits arms ownership in general. That means it's just as illegitimate for the government to ban the possession of melee weapons, for example, such as knives and swords as it is for them to ban possession of firearms.

[wastedyears]

A Liberal told you that? Was he high or drunk?

[kAcknor]

I agree with many of the writers points, but his style is disjointed and rambling, and he missed basic facts. He states that 35 states allow concealed carry, then immediately uses California as one that requires a local official to sign of on a 'Good reason' to have one. It's actually 48 states that allow it, but 9 have such a requirement.

He also attempts to sound 'reasonable' to anti's by tossing is gratuitous support for full auto, criminal and psychological bans. He writes an entire editorial about the evils of gun restriction and in the end, he admits that it's fine to do it, but he simply disagrees with how much.

Sigh... Maybe I'm being too critical. I'll take the help where and when it comes...

[tcostell]

Actually he's the smartest liberal I know.

The private sector has a few of them. They are fairly fresh from the indoctrination centers of higher (re)education so they think of themselves as enlightened and liberal, but they've been out in the world long enough to develop some reasoning skills.

When they begin to recognize some of the most obvious fallacies in the leftist/statist philosophy, they still describe themselves as liberal. Since they still have many friends in graduate school or whatever, they don't want to seem as unsophisticated as a conservative, but they're too smart to escape the logic that has crept into their lives because of the better feedback mechanisms of industry.

[tcostell]

I'll take the help where and when it comes...

A sure sign of someone who is really interested in enhancing gun rights.

[tcostell]

Personally I think THIS is the answer to winning the gun rights debate:

This is a photo from Oleg Volk who does some of the more inspiring work you've seen around on gun rights. And in this one, I think he's hit on an important issue. The fact of the matter is, no one thinks they should take away the gun of someone like me. I'm a rich, middle aged investment banker from a prosperous suburb. No one really minds if I want to have a gun. But lots and lots of people mind that an inner city black man might want to have a gun and that's wrong on many levels.

The vast majority of the black community in America is law abiding citizens who are denied their right of self defense by virtue of where they live. We should be taking steps to bring them into the fight. Their rights are being trampled and we should not let them be left behind.

[TLI]

I had a liberal tell me that he concedes that we as Americans have the right to remove our government by force if we so choose, and THAT was the main reason he can't endorse gun control.

And he managed to get that out with a straight face?

WOW. Never underestimate the power of the dark side. Apparently Jedi mind tricks work well there.

[Ohioan]

What needs to be understood is first that people have an absolutely basic right to defend their families, lives and property--and that does not mean giving the criminal or preditory foreigner, choice of weapons.

Secondly, the greater extent to which law abiding Americans are responsible, that is exercise personal responsibility, in every area of public concern, the better off we all are. (See Responsibility Factor.)

William Flax

[Sender]

Yeah, but if you carry a carbine around the mall, people tend to run screaming for the exits.

[wastedyears]

What if I carry it with the muzzle down? Down is a safe direction.

[Sender]

Sounds reasonable to me, everyone would be safer for you having it. But you know how it is.

[School of Rational Thought]

The only reason for a large car is to run over alot of people at once!

[wastedyears]

Not my fault they only think guns are used in movies.