scare pop-pop-whatever.
Posted on 08/04/2007 10:30:58 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why? There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?
Are home alarms really effective?
How about dogs?
But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?
I think the answer is yes.
And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.
I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.
Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?
And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.
I don't say it would have.
I say it might have.
Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.
Moreover, the three victims here were women.
What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?
It's worth thinking about.
Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.
And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.
A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.
Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)
And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.
A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.
An "answer" does not exist.
But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.
All possible remedies should be on the table:
-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.
-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.
-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.
-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.
-- More and better home alarm systems.
-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.
-- Dobermans.
All of these approaches have merit.
So does self-defense.
None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.
No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.
But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.
Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.
--------
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.
scare pop-pop-whatever.
You might want to read up on the history of the Russian gulags and work camps. A light bulb or two might click on.
Thank you UncleGunner.
Nice Redhawk. Sweet revolver.
Repeatedly, when making any arguments at all in gun related threads, I have met up with people who are so utterly irrational and knee-jerk that even if they just don’t recognize what I am saying as typical, they attack me as being a liberal, or anti-2nd amendment.
Even when what I am saying is profoundly pro-2nd amendment.
While it may give a satisfactory emotional release, such bizarre behavior does nothing to promote the cause of gun rights and liberties. For that you have to think, not just assume that everyone not reciting words you are used to is the enemy.
My comments began with what I thought was an utterly uncontroversial point, that everyone would benefit if gun manufacturers included an inexpensive and elaborate DVD about their products, full of information about gun safety, maintenance, and lots of other useful information.
This was responded to by a comment to the effect that gun knowledge is useless without training “young people” to kill people they see as a threat.
Uh, no. That’s a different subject entirely, and the lack of it has nothing to do with gun safety and maintenance. That is not to say that it is bad, just different.
To which the next comment said that “most Americans” would be “dumbfounded” by the idea of using guns to defend their liberties, other than self-defense.
Which really had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I responded by saying that I didn’t think “most Americans” would be unwilling to defend their liberties, but thankfully in our society it is seldom that we need to use guns to do so. Most people are so unafraid that they don’t even bother to carry guns.
I think this really started the whole kookiness.
Eaker decided go off at that point. While I was arguing on behalf of the social contract in a polite society, to him that seemed to say that I wanted to take his guns away, with the “cold, dead fingers” remark and the Ben Franklin quote.
Squantos jumped in at that point with something strange.
Along with another snipe by Eaker.
At this point I was getting frustrated. Eaker sounded like a complete kook, ready to dispense gun justice in any or no particular direction, for little cause. And thus my remark, since he seemed to equate getting his way with liberty.
As I said, everyone must surrender a *little* liberty, just to get along. As a husband can argue with his wife or children without drawing guns. That is surrendering a little liberty to get along.
It has nothing to do with the government or gun control.
And neither do manufacturer DVDs promoting proper use and safety.
Well, the bottom line is that in future, if I have a comment about guns, anything about guns, I will refrain from posting it to Freep. As while I post on endless other topics, I guess some subjects are just too programmed for discussion.
I will leave you all to your mutual doctrine society.
bttt
They do that, but in a more accessible printed form. It's called the owner's manual. If you lose yours, or buy a gun secondhand, gun manufacturers will send you one, free! You don't even need to own a computer to learn gun safety tips, and proper care and operation of your gun!
Thank you for posting this (#63). To think that state's rights may impose on our Constitution when in conflict with one or more of it's provisions (limitations on government) does not, a conservative make. It reminds me of one in search of paper to stoke a fire and, finding none, reaches for this 'parchment' (with many signatures) and proceeds to light it and toss it into the stove.
The notion that states could undo protections galvanized in the union to which they voluntarily subscribed is anything but conservative. I'll gladly join you in shoving this fact in the faces of those who continue to perpetuate this fraud.
I like the people who rip on you for thinking you were serious when your name is “humblegunner”. Good stuff, it’s concerning how many people can’t get sarcasm over the interwebs.
The Contract was signed when the constitution was signed. All other 'contracts' are null and void.
That poses a real dilemma for the government. Who are they gonna get to disarm us? They know we've got the guns, and therein lies their dilemma. It will never happen without a lot of dead people and it more than likely will be some of the government folks who ordered it.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
And the answer? It should be more revered. It keeps all the others in force. Without the 2nd, It would become very easy for some to ignore the Constitution alltogether.
Thanks. It's a 45, took me a bit of time to find it in that caliber.
Me too, especially I end up on the wrong end of it!! That's why I have several and I constantly practise, practise and more practise.
I dunno. Ask actor Ving Rhames? His two Mastiffs just ate his own gardener a few days ago. That's the good thing about guns, they don't kill anybody you don't specifiy by your own actions in pulling the trigger.
Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans.
I have three, one that was a .44 that has been re-chambered into a 5-shot .475 Linebaugh, a .41 MAG and a .357. The .357 and .41 are pretty uncommon, they exist, but folks who have them don't want to part with them.
The most fundamental right of every living creature is the right to self-preservation. No government can take this right away, even if it imposes laws that forbid it. If it does, the laws are invalid.
Refuse to be a victim of vicious predators and well-meaning but misled politicians. Protect yourself with deadly force if necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.