Guns...For the Children

Sierra Times ^ | Lewis J. Goldberg

[Zon]

Thanks for the link. I've used a similar rationale but could certainly benefit by another writer's thoughts on the common sense logic of the issue.

[Destructor]

I take it you're an ex-con?

[wardaddy]

Yep...arson...lol

Methinks you dig the flame bro. Your homepage looks like you've been beaten on by some of FR's resident nutcases...

Good Luck and remember the moth!

[HiTech RedNeck]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." The preceding quote is from Robert A. Heinlein's 1942 book, Beyond This Horizon in which Heinlein has a brief moment of common sense [or plagiarism, since the same thought is expressed, regarding the manners of the American South, in Alexis DeTocqueville's 1835 book Democracy in America.]

Sounding forth this philosophy is, however, not necessarily conducive to gaining support for permissive arms policies. If there is a serious risk that a cross word to the next person in the supermarket line will get you shot, and therefore you keep mum, anyone with sense would call that terror, not politeness. We tolerate mutual terror when there is nothing better we can do, such as in the balance of global nuclear arms. But as a vision for an individual society it has a certain dis-appeal.

I would hope that rather the realization that one can exercise deadly force with ease would have a sobering effect. When people feel powerless, anger builds.

[El Gato]

In a nutshell, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to actually use those arms. But the exercise of one's rights assumes that no one else is denied their rights as a result of your actions. Thus while you have the right to defende "hearth and home" from criminals, you haven't the right to blow up your neighbor's home in the process

It's criminals in the government that the second amendment was really aimed at. In those days individuals could own cannon, and ships aremed with such cannon. They were the ultimate weapon of the day. Otherwise the power given by the Constitution to Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal would make little sense.

Yes, you cannot blow up your neighbors house, but you can't shoot it full of holes either. If you would ban the means to do former, then logically you could ban the means to do the latter. Realistically, how many could afford a private nuke. As for those that could and wanted to, would a mere "law" stop them?

[El Gato]

However, I don't agree with the ideas of letting convicted Felons, and children have firearms. Convicted Felons have a high rate of repeat offenses

True, but does the law against it stop any that want a firearm from having one? Besides even convicted felons are subject to the predation of other criminals, whether they have gone straight or not. It is immoral to remove such protections as they have in prison, while denying them the means to protect themselves.

[TYVets]

The US is not referred to in this statement, but it fits.

If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.

[El Gato]

There's also another argument that uses the fact that "arms" (rifles, pistols, etc) was defined separately from ordinance (cannons, etc) in colonial times, and extending that logic to today, large ordinance type weapons would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

Do we not call treaties to reduce capital weapons, be they nuclear or merely big boats with really big guns, "Arms Control Treaties", and have we not done so for over a century? Do we not have an "Arms Control and Disarmament Agency", that does not concern itself merely, or even pricipally with small individual weapons? "Small Arms" or "individual weapons" can be distinguished from the other types of arms or armaments, such as cannon, mortars, attack aircraft etc. but the line is often somewhat indistinct.

[Pyro7480]

BUMP for later reading...

[mamelukesabre]

How bout guns for really old people? For father's day, my 89 year old grandfather got a red ryder bb gun. He loved it. We were taking turns shooting pop cans all afternoon.

[Eagle Eye]

I don't FEEL that you should have any rights. I feel like you should serve the rest of us.

Go ahead and flame me, but that's the way I feel.

If a man cannot be trusted with a gun, why let him out of prison? If a man has paid his debt to society, then restore his rights. Criminals will get arms no matter what, if they so desire. Probably quicker and more cheaply than you or me. I don't care who has a gun as much as I care about the way they use it.

As a teen, I often carried in my car and thought nothing about it. Of course, I grew up with a small range in the basement and practiced unsupervised. And, other than military duties, I've never even pulled a gun on anyone.

But you have your FEELINGS and I have my reasons. BTW, your home page makes it look as if you have a very thin skin and get your feeling hurt quite a bit. Odd thing for someone who invites flames.

[Eagle Eye]

Excellent post.

"Shall not be infringed" MEANS shall not be infringed, not just some infringements here and there.

[wardaddy]

Our founders were pretty explicit about the second amendment. It's all that defends us from predators, outside agressors and tyranny here inside our own gates. Felons who have completed their time should not have that basic right infringed in my view. Most of the felons I've known....pot smugglers mostly....are EXACTLY the kind of folks I want around me WTSHTF.

Destructor may surround himself with the local law abiding sterling citizens should he prefer. I like my company ruff when things get dicey. Down here in the South...we have lots of rough sorts....we like it that way.

[Snow Bunny]

Thanks for the ping. Good article !!!

[Redcloak]

Yes, you cannot blow up your neighbors house, but you can't shoot it full of holes either. If you would ban the means to do former, then logically you could ban the means to do the latter.

The difference lies in the ability to avoid doing damage to your neighbor's home. With a firearm, it is quite possible to avoid doing damage to innocents. Even with an artillery piece it is possible to aim for the target and miss what you don't want to hit. A nuke is virtually impossible to employ without doing colateral damage. It cannot be used without infringing on another's rights. Thus any such indescriminant weapon is not protected by one's right to keep and bear arms. The same would be true of chemical weapons or biological weapons.

[TC Rider]

For the Children?

How about a nice Henry Arms Golden Boy .22?

..and if your family is on a budget, the mini-bolt .22 is nice for $169.00

[wardaddy]

Puff the Magic Dragon, a tried and true children's favorite!

Sorry I couldn't resist....besides the Dakota has always occupied a soft spot in my heart.

Regards

[Twodees]

Was that a pic of "Puff"? It isn't showing on my browser. Thanks for the ping. I like Lew Goldberg's articles. Have you seen his new site "The Patriotist"?

[wardaddy]

It was this pic of Puff from Nam:

Maybe it will stay up this time....it's a Geocities jpg link that may time out or just break.

I was just joking about favorite guns for "children"...as in Puff "who lived by the sea"

Failed humour regards to ya 2Ds...

[wardaddy]

I give up....linking pics from my own webhosting page versus just linking a photo address would appear to be a bit more viable but alas I'm at the crib and can't access my host page from here...sorry....I've wasted enough of JR's bandwidth. It was a nice pic....like a rainbow arc from a C-47.

Is it as hot in VA today as it was in Nashville...97 and sticky...yuck?