Posted on 08/05/2012 2:26:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Following the Aurora shooting, the subject of gun control has returned to our national dialogue.
Earlier this week, I wrote about my plan for firearms safety. The article itself was quite popular in terms of readership, but not so much when it came to reader commentary.
What I proposed was quite simple; that a thirty day waiting period for firearm sales be mandated by the government.
During this time, law enforcement officials would conduct a series of comprehensive background checks on all purchasers. If nothing negative were to turn up, then an individual could retrieve his or her gun after it has been registered at the nearest police precinct.
While this policy does answer questions about quality control insofar as firearm owners are concerned, it does not even begin to address a much larger question.
Why should civilians own guns in the first place?(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
/johnny
The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.
Seems fitting that it ends with the Colonists demanding to be disarmed.
Now go pay your taxes, your government is broke. :)
All US Democratics should turn in their weapons NOW! (And that includes all of Zer0’s sons.)
It’s The Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs.
"I believe that the answer is a government mandate subjecting any individual wishing to buy a firearm to a thirty day waiting period before his or her weapon of choice can be taken home. During this time, local authorities could utilize federal, state, and — of course — their own resources to conduct an extremely thorough background check on the purchaser in question."
Joseph Cotto
If only decent people owned firearms, none of us would need them at all.
Sorry, Joe. Anyone who claims to “believe in the Second Amendment” out of one side of his mouth and call for government-mandated restrictions on everyone’s ability to obtain one out of the other is either a blatant hypocrite or too stupid to understand the meaning of the words “shall not be infringed.”
“Do we really need to own guns?”
Ask the Jews of 1930’s Germany.
Unless and until we are governed by angels, and those angels will show the utmost respect to the enumerated powers of government, then sadly, we will need guns.
Unless and until we can trust anyone who comes to our front door with our loved ones and our possessions, then sadly we will need guns.
The news is full of governments and man who ran amok. At least here in the US, people can choose to have the means to defend themselves. How does this author propose to ensure my family’s safety in the world where only the authorities and Mexican drug thugs have guns, and where the authorities can give themselves a pass when they misuse their guns and where they are arming the drug thugs?
Guns in the hands of citizens have far more benefit to the public at large than all the dimwit lefty writers in this country.
He says he believes in the second amendment for self defense and legal hunting but still ask why do we need to own guns. .
The poor man is confused and does not seem to have thought the whole issue out.
I hope someone comments on his blog and straightens him out. But it won’t be me.
It’s obvious that Mr. Cotto feels that gun owners & gun rights advocates “are simply not our kind of people.”
Elitist jerk!
Dear Joesph
Please explain how putting additional laws in place are going to stop those who use fire arms to commit worse crimes? The most stringent gun laws in the USA have not curbed gun violence in Chicago, the current murder capital of the world.
Moronic to think putting more restrictions on the law abiding will stop the law breakers. It is immoral and utterly irrational to demand the victims be pushed for the crimes of the aggressors.
Now that most of the MSM wants gun control/registration why dosen’t the NRA, GOA and gun owners ask for press control, ie reporters registration?
The first requirement should be a two week background check by the FBI of said reporters!
I really don’t think our Founding Fathers could have foreseen the amount of damage and mayhem these modern Assault Computers can cause! Thousands of words per minute are not needed in the hands of the emotionally disabled.
Uh, the Second Amendment mentions neither, you leftist asshole.
...shall not be infringed.
to the author of this article..
COME GET SOME...
yours truly,
Joe Fonebone
Hey Joe.......COME AND TAKE IT, MF’r!!
More to the point, just who determines “the right reasons”?
The founding fathers knew the right reasons were to deter a despotic government. I double damn guarantee this halfwit thinks that is the LAST reason to own a gun.
When I tell libbies that is why we have the second amendment they start foaming at the mouth.
Name one thing that is currently illegal to own that can’t be acquired by anyone willing to circumvent the law. The solutions these gun control morons always come up with to address mindless violence always seem to rely on placing restrictions on the people who are the least likely to cause the problem.
But seriously, let's read some real wisdom written in June 1994, from Mr. Sheldon Richman.For you lib-lurkers I'll break it down in very simple terms. Think of it like insurance. You have life insurance - never used if you're reading this. You have car insurance, homeowners/renters insurance. You probably have a smoke detector, a carbon monoxide detector, and a fire extinguisher in your home. Your car has 5mph bumpers, you wear your seatbelt, and your have airbags. You go to the doctor and dentist regularly for preventative checkups.
How often have you used any of these, really? We do a lot of things to avoid and/or reduce risk.
So when you want to know why some people like to be prepared to defend themselves, ask why you do all these things. Because you have to? Because you want to? Because the consequences of not taking these precautions are too severe? Same thing with owning a firearm and learning/training to defend yourself, your family, friends, neighbors, and innocent bystanders. On top of that it is just plain fun. Some people work at that perfect golf swing, or tennis lob, volleyball dig, bowling toss, baseball pitch/hit, slapshot, etc. Some people are looking for the perfect sight picture and trigger pull.
Or for more fun, turn the question around. Why doesn't every responsible adult have a firearm? If a crime happens to you or in front of you to someone else, are you going to stand meekly by and let the low-life scum get away with it? Are you going to try to stop it? Wouldn't you want bystanders to help you? Well, you want to wade into a situation bare-handed or with an advantage? (or if the criminal is armed, on even footing) What are you, sheep to be led/slaughtered, or Americans in control of your own destiny?
Amen to that. If some criminal/liberal/commie (but I repeat myself) gets to me, I hope I meet my maker winchester and in a crowd of would-be oppressors I brought with me.
Why bother? He's too busy keeping his job on his hands and knees.
Much more convenient than renting.
“..... is it too much to ask that only decent people own firearms.”
So, Mr. Cotto, who gets to decide who the “decent” people are? You and your minions? No, thanks. We make our own decisions out here in the heartland. But, thanks for the good laugh....
Here’s what I sent Joe:
Well Joe, here’s how this works. We already have gov’t background checks. 30 day waiting won’t help anything. As for registering guns, that’s what they did in New York, just before they outlawed them....guess how they knew who to ask if they’d turned in their weapons? In cities like Chicago, were guns are essentially outlawed, there’s still plenty of violent crime. Why are citizens obligated to be passive victims?
During the LA riots (circa 1992), citizens with SEMI-auto weapons protected entire neighborhoods from roving bands of thugs, looking for people to maim and rob.
And lastly, Joe, citizens need guns to protect against government TYRANNY!!
Not that we’ve seen any reason for concern that our leaders might bypass Congress and the Courts to impose unconstitutional executive orders, or anything like that....oh....wait.....
“Why should civilians own guns in the first place?”
Mr. Cotto, you are free to not own any guns of any sort at any time. However, you are also free to stay the hell out of my life, as well.
Had someone in the audience in Aurora been armed and at the ready, the carnage may well have been much less. Blame the actor, not the tool, you tool.
I'm guessing no. YOU don't.
Required reading for Joesph Cotto:
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
Did he even bother to READ the 2nd amendment?
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
security of a free state
Not duck hunting, but tyrant hunting.
Define “NEGATIVE”.
Funny, our founding fathers were smart enough to figure it out.
Very good. Thanks for posting.
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.