Too Many Guns in the U.S. -- or Too Few?

realclearpolitics.com ^ | 27 July, 2012 | Carl M. Cannon

[marktwain]

People can want to own guns and keep others from owning them. This is the basic mindset of tyranny and slavery.

People can want to own guns and keep liberty for all. This is the basic mindset of freedom.

People can want that there be no guns at all. This is the basic minset of irrationality.

[blu]

I vote for too few. Where’s my Shield???

[ronnie raygun]

Most of these calculated cowards do not want to die. They know the scummedia is thier friend and will give them what they need notariety. If he knew there were armed civilians in this theater would he have continued. Here is where we would find out whether he was sane or insane. The politicians will not protect you and law enforcement arrives to late it is up to the people to protect themselves

[98ZJ USMC]

Neither. The problem is with an increasingly irresponsible population with Federal and State governments that have gotten between the parent and the child.

Unintended consequences, of a sort.

[Renegade]

If you know how many firearms you have , you don’t have enough ! Every legal qualified U.S. citizen should be required to own at least one handgun and one rifle and be educated on how to use it .

[blu]

Well, OK, I qualify. No idea how many we lost in the tragic boat accident. But I still want one more (this is how it starts, right??? Hubby said it would)..for easier CC. Yeah, that’s the reason..a more fashion-friendly gun!

[freedomfiter2]

Too many in the hands of every little government agency and too few in the hands of law abiding citizens.

[BuffaloJack]

> Every legal qualified U.S. citizen should be required to own at least one handgun and one rifle and be educated on how to use it.

Why should I be “required” to own a handgun?
I’ve got a bunch of rifles and shotguns but I’ve never really like handguns. I had to qualify with 2 different models of handguns when I was in the service, but I preferred the rifle in combat.

[NRA1995]

I think the problem is too few guns and way too many gun-free zone signs. All those signs do is tell a killer, “Great place for a mass murder; go for it!”

[BitWielder1]

A good man or woman with a gun is the antidote to a bad man with a gun.
I can't control the bad mans access to guns.
Therefore I vote for more good men and women with guns.

[mongo141]

“I vote for too few. Where’s my Shield???”

______

I agree, My daughters got the whole safety/marksmanship course as soon as they were old enough to keep the muzzle out of the dirt.

[Spktyr]

Good news! They make rifles for women to accessorize with now! No more of that black stuff that's hard to match with an outfit!

:P

[Phlyer]

Too many in the hands of every little government agency . .

One law for us serfs, one law for our masters.

I can understand the requirement for police officers to have a weapon with them at all times. They are never really off duty, and if they see a crime (in their jurisdiction) they are expected to intervene.

But other than local LEOs, no one should be allowed to carry a weapon except when under direct orders that make that weapon a key part of the mission. It should be the same as for the military. Their weapons are kept in an armory unless their mission orders require them to have it in their direct possession.

If all the government 'agents' who are given a government license to carry were restricted as ordinary citizens are restricted, I'll be there would be a lot fewer restrictions on ordinary citizens. That would also apply to private security guards for celebrities or government-paid security for politicians. If self-defence is not a valid justification for a citizen to be armed, then it's not a valid justification for a politician to be guarded.

And if an IRS, or Post Office, or whatever agent wanted access to effective self defense in his/her normal life, then get a CHL like the rest of us, and be subject to "gun free" zones like the rest of us.

[IronJack]

It’s not the number of guns. It’s the number of responsible users. I say there are far too few.

[Caipirabob]

Too Many Guns in the U.S. -- or Too Few?

How about "This is the private, personal business of each and every single American citizen and the leftist Nazis can go suck on the business end of the first gun they run across".

FedGuv can start at our Southern border here in AZ.

[jrestrepo]

We are adding one on Monday...gift for the wifey!

[chainsaw]

It should be law that all households keep at least one gun in the home for protection, and insurrection when the government intrudes on their freedoms.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***One law for us serfs, one law for our masters.***

I have an interesting article somewhere about the French in the 14th & 15th centuries.

During the wars between the English and France, the English bowmen (free men) cut down the French on the battlefield.

The French made some serfs into bowmen but found a problem. Once the serfs became armed they considered themselves free men and were not willing to give up their weapons and become serfs again.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The author tried desperately to be “balanced” and “fair” when the issue is not a subjective on of “creamy” or “crunchy”, but of “Freedom” or “Hitler”.

“Hitler also has several valid arguments” just does not wash. A “reasoned” argument in favor of tyranny (especially when that argument has been definitively shown to be wrong), is not reasonable.

Fairness be damned. Hitler is just wrong. Unequivocally wrong. And so is gun control, all at once or through the use of gradualism and deception.

The primary confusion is that, “endowed by the Creator” is not the same as “granted by government”. Endowed rights are neither given nor can they be taken away by government, except illegitimately. A government that tries to do so is almost by definition a tyranny.

No matter the rationalizations they fabricate to justify it.

[Renegade]

Fits easier under your pillow.