Skip to comments.A good time to be armed
Posted on 05/07/2002 9:53:16 AM PDT by 45Auto
I am an unlikely supporter of the National Rifle Association and similar groups. I've not fired a gun in more than 40 years. I dislike hunting intensely and believe all firearms to be symbols of a violent society. But I am also a very practical human being.
I supported the Texas law that allowed concealed handguns. I believe strongly in the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment guaranteeing private ownership of guns. But I also hold that such gun ownership comes with responsibility and consequences for one's actions.
Since Sept. 11, my support of gun ownership has only intensified.
What if the pilots or others on those ill-fated planes had been armed? The thought of a gunfight on a high-altitude plane is frightening, but the mere appearance of armed pilots and passengers might have turned things around.
I have always believed that humans are inherently violent creatures. That gives no comfort to those who hope for human progress and enlightenment. But because of the violent nature of man, we must deter violence by armed means.
Police are armed. There are armed forces to deter aggressors and terrorists. In an extension of this argument, why not an armed citizenry as well?
One situation supports my idea of an armed citizenry.
About 10 years ago, a student told me a very frightening tale. She was driving alone on Interstate 30 late at night. A car with two men came up alongside hers. They began hurling insults at her, motioning her to pull over. She looked straight ahead, trying not to make any face-to-face contact. They continued their insults and tried to run her car off the highway. The mere description of it is frightening.
However, she always carried a gun with her, as she had night classes and also worked evenings as well. She pulled the gun from her purse and held it up so the two harassing men could plainly view it. The convincing way she held the gun and her determined look made the men drive off without any confrontation.
She was convinced that without the gun, the men would have forced her off the highway. By the way, she knew well how to use firearms.
Since then, the issue of terrorism has become front and center for us all.
Why not have everyone who is willing, trained and licensed to carry legal weapons be allowed to do so? I would feel more comfortable in public places if I knew that many people there might be carrying firearms and knew how to use them.
True, terrorists bent on suicide might not be deterred, but they might be stopped before their horror could be unleashed. This has happened frequently in Israel and others places plagued with terrorism. If terrorism were to be unleashed in this country, as some predict and fear, an armed and responsible citizenry would be a helpful addition to the fight.
Citizens have a right to defend their bodies, their property and their liberty. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." Responsible people have the right - perhaps even the obligation - of defending themselves, their families and their property from terrorism, foreign or domestic.
We do not live in a pleasant world. Those who are against firearms unjustly and unfairly believe that depriving people of legal firearms makes us safer. They are wrong!
Please know that gun use and ownership is commensurate with responsibility. If anyone using a firearm harms the innocent, that person should be held accountable, swiftly and surely. I have always believed in gun ownership, but the tragic events of Sept. 11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism have bolstered my long-held beliefs considerably.
Allan Saxe is a UT-Arlington associate professor.
See? Not all academics are liberal pinheads.
Ali was the Heavy Weight Champion of the World at that time. He didn't have to worry about becoming a hardtimers "old lady." That's why the hippies ran! What do you expect cowards to do?
We live in a great, and free country where even cowards can go on to be President,
rape women, lie under oath, have the wifes boyfriends murdered, and sell secrets to enemies.
Exactly. The one thing the loony lefty's don't want to admit to is the deterrent value of an armed citizenry. I have come to strongly agree with the idea of Peace Through Superior Firepower.
M1super 90 Bennelli 12
M4 Colt 556mm
Yup, works for me!
Glock Model 21, .45ACP,13 rounds in the handle, one in the tube.
No need to read any further; the author is a fool.
Kimber Pro CDP bump.
When Charles Whitman began his killing spree from that tower in Texas, it was armed citizens that kept him penned down until he could be delt with. At that time citizens were better armed than the local police and gave the police much needed aid in bringing the massacre to an end.
If one person had been armed in Luby's when that nut drove his pickup truck through the wall and began shooting, that tragedy would have ended very quickly with a minimum loss of life.
If pilots had been armed the Towers would still stand in NYC, the Pentagon would be damage free in DC and thousands of people would be going about their daily routines instead of laying in their graves, their families denied their presence and comfort.
If the government wants gun control, make crimes committed involving guns a term deserving life in prison. As for me I will not obey any law that infringes on the rights afforded me by the constitution. I am not the one that has stepped away from the law of the land, those that oppose the law, gun grabbers, and the politicans that support them have.
Oh, fear not! Mr. Saxe is still a liberal pinhead - he just happens to be right on this issue.
Shoot, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then!
And if he thinks "...a gunfight on a high-altitude plane is frightening..." how would he describe being on one as it flies into an office building?
He didn't bring up the "explosive decompression" myth, but I'll bet that what he was thinking.
I'll pass on the obvious comment about meat originating in styrofoam plastic-wrapped supermarket containers... Here we have a truly classic problem. The author thinks of firearms in terms of symbology - they are not "symbols," but objects. What an object symbolizes is entirely up to the individual's point of view, and many liberals think this a complete description of reality. It isn't. There isn't a more perfect example of hard, cold reality than a .45 pointed your direction. You can close your eyes and pretend it'll go away or think of it in terms of fuzzy bunnies or any other symbology you want to put onto it, and it remains a .45 pointed your direction. I think the author is beginning, but only beginning, to realize this.
"If God hadn't intended for man to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat."
A big bore AMEN to that!
In my (admittedly limited) experience, most, if not all out-of-the-box 1911A1 pistols need tuning to some degree. Had a local expert "smith" tune my Springfield Armory V-10 Ultra Compact while I watched. Amazing what a skilled man with a file and years of experience can accomplish.
Slightly off topic, but true tale. The CCW class I attended had a lady Sheriffs Deputy instructing. When she ask what weapons I planned to carry, I replied either Kel-Tec P32 or compact 1911A1. She replied "Kel-tec for your light days, 1911A1 for when you need extra protection, right?".LMAO!
Respectfully, I must disagree. I have had the occasion to use my firearm in defense of myself at my place of business. I did not shoot. I have served on juries in judgement of negligent shooting cases. I have seen the prosecution bring full legal and emotional weight to bear on that case against a 50+ woman. She lost.
I consider training necessary and its requirement not an infringement depending on the authority of the certifier. I think training should be with a persons state pistol assn. and they are the certifying authority. The data would be private and restricted to government access only by warrant.
My training was from my father and an uncle (a sheriff) as well as the NRA and the U.S. Army. The training gave me calm as I looked down the sight of my pistol at another pointing his at me. He turned and ran.
If we refuse to be trained we will eventually loose the right to be armed.
No flames coming your way from me. I own a Springfield Armory 1911 and just love it. But, if I was pressed to the wall, and had to choose one and only one handgun that I could keep, it would be my Glock 30.
No it doesn't. But do you doubt that with this right comes the duty to get training. I don't have any problem with the purchase of a firearm being a private matter, but if you're going to carry, concealed or otherwise, you need to be trained and counseled on what is going to happen to you if you shoot someone, even in self defense.
The problem with modern firearms ownership is the anonymity of the possessor. A hundred years ago the people of a town knew who the whacko's were and would boycott a general store that sold a pistol to the town nitwit.
No, with rights come duties, and it is in your interest and in the interest of the 2nd. Amendment, that those who exercise this right seek the knowledge about it.
Welll...sure, if you didn't buy a Stainless Covert when they were available! *grin*
I think it all comes down to the "first rule"- make sure you have a gun!
I love mine. I have to admit, there is probably a lot of shopkeepers that have survived numerous gunfights with a little junk .38.
The only time I don't carry is when I'm working on the car or in the yard.
The author is acting exactly like someone who was just robbed. He still considers the gun as a something to kill people and not as a tool to stop crime. He's also missing out on the heritage, the sport and the fun.
These little "maturity" problems do tend to hold down the practice sessions, so have been practicing weak hand quite a bit. I find that I can now hit a man-size target with a double tap at, say 5 feet! ;o)
What you are proposing has nothing to do with firing a weapon. You're not concerned with muzzle control or hitting your target. You're worried people will not understand you will be sued by any surviving member of this persons family or a bystander who witnessed the shooting. Do people need to know what will happen to you when you fire a weapon to defend your life or the life of another. Hell No! If your life or the life of another was in danger would that knowledge be of any use to you? No!
Nobody needs that type of training. We do need a law that says if someone is committing a violent felony and is killed in the process nobody can sue as a result of that action. We need a law that says if someone breaks youre your home and you kill them then you get a commendation from the Governor.
Now most semi-intelligent people are going to realize that they can currently be sued in this circumstance but in a life threatening situation what good will that information do them? Are they going to let themselves or others be killed because they may be sued? No!