Posted on 07/24/2004 7:01:58 AM PDT by Mulder
As horrifying as it is to contemplate, the next gunfight may not be at the O-K Corral; it might be in our own community. Shock and dismay are the emotions most often expressed at recent events either seen or read about in Reston of people walking our streets and dining in our restaurants with pistols on their hips. And it is perfectly legal.
In many of my columns I have talked about a rightward tilt of the Virginia General Assembly. In no area is that tilt to ultra-conservatism more evident than with gun control. The minimal laws that existed in the past at the state level have been stripped away, and local government has been denied the ability to pass gun control measures.
No one that I am aware of has ever proposed registration or limitation on ownership of guns in Virginia. The laws that have been repealed have been reasonable and would have in no way restricted gun ownership for hobbyists, collectors or hunters.
On July 31-Aug. 1, “The Nation's Gun Show” will be held at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly. The promoters expect 1,000 tables where guns will be sold. A promotional piece explains why the show is being held in Virginia: “This show has been in the planning stages for several years. However, very restrictive laws regulating the purchase of handguns prevented us going to this great area. This year, legislation was passed in Virginia's General Assembly that repealed all waiting periods and permit requirements in Virginia. (Virginia now has total pre-emption.)”
Apparently members of the Civil Defense League have decided to demonstrate their right by displaying their guns openly. Police have responded to calls about their presence but are powerless to do anything. How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
There is no way to tell. Hopefully, the police will continue to respond to calls about gun-toting citizens, and hopefully they will not arrive too late. The fanatical gun lover will tell you that is exactly why everyone should carry a gun—to defend himself. They may think it is too bad that the people who get shot are often innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the area of gunfire.
None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech. And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport.
The U.S. Congress has let the ban on assault weapons expire. The pro-gun lobby will continue to push the limits. Reasonable people must make their views known as well. Let your outrage be heard by your congressional, state and local representatives. When reasonable voices are the strongest heard, we will return to reasonable gun control. That is what I continue to support. Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.
Sounds good to me.
Do the names Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstien, and Chuck Schumer ring a bell with you, disingenuous jackass?
The laws that have been repealed have been reasonable and would have in no way restricted gun ownership for hobbyists, collectors or hunters.
Unfortunately for this tyrant's opinion, and fortunately for patriots and other lovers of liberty and freedom, hobbyists, collectors, or hunters aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Maybe Del should read that part of the Bill of Rights.
Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.
Hope you have a good supply of asbestos underwear.
We all have our priorities, I guess.
The only reason an armed "psychotic" can become a "mass murderer" is because the politicians and sissies have advocated unarming everyone else and there was no armed citizen to stop the actions of the "psychotic...mass murderer" at the outset of the murderer's actions.
"None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater"
The laws concerning the act of speech, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, do not prohibit a person from shouting the word "fire."
The laws just say you better be correct and accurate when you shout such a word or otherwise you will be held responsible for the "damage" you can or do cause.
That is not in anyway prohibiting speech and thus cannot be used as justification for diminishing, denying, or disparaging "absolute" rights, guaranteed by the Constitution.
I hunt, I collect, but most importantly, I protect. I protect myself, I protect my family, I protect my neighborhood. Besides the one girlie man down the street this is true for every man in my neighborhood. Our neighborhood is crime free.
In the past, traveling on business to places like NYC, LA, & SF I have explained to liberals that there are more guns in my neighborhood than there are people. You should see the look on their faces when I say that. They think I live in a ghetto or something. But then I tell them there is no crime. They don't get it.
The idea of being man enough to protect oneself has never entered their mind. They would rather abdicate their responsibility and freedom of self defense to the government because they are afraid. With any right or freedom comes responsibility and a price. Freedom is not free. It's price comes in the payment of blood. A smart man will make sure it is not his own blood. A girlie man will give up his freedom and still pay the price.
But wait, gun cintrol is important ... it all begins with deep breaths and a steady hand.
Allow? ALLOW???
Why are such idiots 'allowed' to ascend in politics in this country? I thought there was a minimum requirement that they demonstrate they have given the founding documents at least a cursory glance and that they understand what powers were given to the government by the people. Perhaps some kind-hearted FReeper with more patience than myself will send this loyalist a pocket constitution.
"Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech."
So what. I'm not threatened as long as it's not pointed at me.
The minimal laws that existed in the past at the state level have been stripped away, and local government has been denied the ability to pass gun control measures.
Is it illegal to discharge a firearm without lawful cause(defense, target shooting, hunting, etc)? It is? Good. That's all that's really needed.
No one that I am aware of has ever proposed registration or limitation on ownership of guns in Virginia.
Jim Moran has. Next.
The laws that have been repealed have been reasonable and would have in no way restricted gun ownership for hobbyists, collectors or hunters.
The 2nd Amendment is not about a hobby, collecting, or hunting.
This year, legislation was passed in Virginia's General Assembly that repealed all waiting periods and permit requirements in Virginia. (Virginia now has total pre-emption.)”
What's wrong with preemption? Even Michigan has it. They still got to go through all the fed background checks, as well as state ones.
How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
We're innocent till proven guilty in this country, Ken.
They may think it is too bad that the people who get shot are often innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the area of gunfire.
WHEN? Tell me when, Ken. Put up or shut up.
None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech.
I'm allowed to yell fire if there is a fire.
And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or collecting.
Reasonable people must make their views known as well.
We have.
Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.
If I move to Virginia, I know who I won't vote for.
You would prefer a simple massacre, in which a bad guy shoots without having to take return fire? Laws or no, there will still be bad guys, but the laws only prevent good citizens from firing back; gunfights aren't always bad things.
Shock and dismay are the emotions most often expressed at recent events either seen or read about in Reston of people walking our streets and dining in our restaurants with pistols on their hips. And it is perfectly legal.
The same could be said of white racists after blacks started living among them during the early period of desegregation. It doesn't mean the people's emotional sensibilities should be protected under law. Eventually, people get used to the idea that others have civil rights, and that civil rights are good things.
In many of my columns I have talked about a rightward tilt of the Virginia General Assembly. In no area is that tilt to ultra-conservatism more evident than with gun control. The minimal laws that existed in the past at the state level have been stripped away, and local government has been denied the ability to pass gun control measures.
This sounds like a good thing! Gun control disarms the peaceful, while having no effect on criminals, who by their very name ("criminals") do not obey laws such as gun control laws.
No one that I am aware of has ever proposed registration or limitation on ownership of guns in Virginia.
Then you are sadly unaware of people, many people, who have proposed all of these things for the entire country, which includes Virginia. For example, Bill Clinton and Albert Gore have proposed both of these things nationally. There are others. Are you really this uninformed?
The laws that have been repealed have been reasonable and would have in no way restricted gun ownership for hobbyists, collectors or hunters.
Laws that infringe on civil rights are unreasonable, and by the way you left out an important reason for gun ownership: self defense. If a legislator like you tells a citizen he should not be able to defend his own life from criminal attack, the message can only be taken two ways: either you wish him dead, or you declare that his life is of no value. Both are despicable positions coming from anyone, but especially so coming from an elected representative in a country founded on the concept of individual rights.
On July 31-Aug. 1, “The Nation's Gun Show” will be held at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly. The promoters expect 1,000 tables where guns will be sold. A promotional piece explains why the show is being held in Virginia: “This show has been in the planning stages for several years. However, very restrictive laws regulating the purchase of handguns prevented us going to this great area. This year, legislation was passed in Virginia's General Assembly that repealed all waiting periods and permit requirements in Virginia. (Virginia now has total pre-emption.)”
Apparently members of the Civil Defense League have decided to demonstrate their right by displaying their guns openly.
You appear to intend to inflame with this statement, but I ask you, why should someone exercising their rights openly in one manner be any different from another, say, expressing his right to freedom of speech by writing a hateful and inflammatory editorial in a community newspaper?
Police have responded to calls about their presence but are powerless to do anything.
Again I remind you that after the laws were changed, police were powerless to act on complaints that blacks were sitting in the front of the bus, too, even though this made some bigots very unhappy.
How do you know if the person sitting at the next table at a restaurant, entering your place of business or walking on your street with a gun is an emotionally stable, law-abiding citizen or is a psychotic who is about to be the next mass murderer?
That's a very good question. You don't. But one thing you DO know is that if there are laws against law-abiding citizens carrying guns, the only people doing so will be criminals, including psychotic mass murderers. One thing I do know is that if that person should happen to be psychotic, I would greatly prefer that I and a dozen other people around me are carrying as well, so when the killing spree begins, I can do something about it and others can as well. Please recall the death toll at a Texas Luby's cafeteria many years ago, and the fact that one of the customers left her gun in her car to comply with a law that people like you call "reasonable." Both her parents were killed, and she had opportunities to kill the murderer except that she was disarmed by law. You apparently prefer this?
There is no way to tell. Hopefully, the police will continue to respond to calls about gun-toting citizens, and hopefully they will not arrive too late.
Too late for what? Before the massacre? If so, it wasn't a citizen but a psychotic murderer. Please do try to keep these types separate.
The fanatical gun lover will tell you that is exactly why everyone should carry a gun—to defend himself. They may think it is too bad that the people who get shot are often innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the area of gunfire.
Newsflash: Armed citizens kill fewer innocents than police do. Check your facts, you apparently want police response and don't want armed citizens, so you apparently desire the outcome of innocents being killed.
None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech.
Yet, our tongues are not cut out from our mouths, nor are our mouths taped shut when we enter the theater - we are free to speak, we are not prevented by law from being able to speak before the fact. Shouting fire (when there isn't any) is a criminal misuse of speech, just as murder and armed robbery are criminal misuses of the right to bear arms. There are already laws against these acts, but apparently that doesn't do it for you; you would seek prior restraint on the right to bear arms, which is akin to taping people's mouths shut before allowing them to enter. In which case, they can't yell "Fire!" even if there is one, allowing many lives to be saved by the warning.
And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport.
You cannot cite any example of any law that protects the public because there isn't any. Crime goes up when gun control increases. Apparently you desire this.
The U.S. Congress has let the ban on assault weapons expire.
Good for them! Soon, it will no longer be a federal felony to have a 1/2 ounce piece of metal on a new firearm, called a "flash suppressor."
The pro-gun lobby will continue to push the limits. Reasonable people must make their views known as well.
Tell me, what is reasonable about seeking laws that increase crime rates? What is reasonable about wanting police to respond to crimes, but not armed citizens, when police kill more innocents mistakenly misidentified as criminal than armed citizens do? What is reasonable about making comparisons of criminal misuse with prior restraint? What is reasonable about criminalizing 1/2 ounce pieces of metal?
Let your outrage be heard by your congressional, state and local representatives. When reasonable voices are the strongest heard, we will return to reasonable gun control. That is what I continue to support. Let me know your views at kenplum@aol.com.
I will.
Welcome to Free Republic!
An armed society is a polite society. Here in Penna, we have concealed carry, and I do, every day. CCW since 1989.
I AM SOO SCARED!!!!
BEHOLD! The mind of the defenseless
Yes. The right to life (self-defense) transcends all laws, rules, regulations, both written and un-written. Even a man strapped in an electric chair has a right to struggle, though to no avail. How much moreso does an innocent have the right to struggle against death? Those who make it impossible for innocents to defend themselves are deserving of 'special consideration.'
If guns and knives were not invented, we'd still have the right to carry 'Louisville Sluggers' or at least the 'jawbone of an ass'...democrat.
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.