Posted on 09/05/2009 4:35:18 PM PDT by smokingfrog
In contrast to a conversation that goes nowhere, last week, Doug Pennington of the Brady Campaign threw down on Megan McArdle. Obviously they took Megan’s comments seriously enough to respond to them. But Doug, in his response, ditches much of the usual Brady nonsense and actually talks about some real issues:
Contrary to McArdle’s framework, the issue here isn’t whether firearms have a magical, mesmerizing power to make good people do bad things. The issue is whether fallible human beings carrying the best tool for killing people to a heated protest increases the possibility of a lethally violent outcome – something of particular concern at a Presidential venue. Other issues include whether adding guns to Presidential events – outside of trained law enforcement – makes the Secret Service’s job unnecessarily harder, and whether being confronted with a gun-carrying protester can be intimidating and stifle debate.
I’m with Megan that I’ll defer to the Secret Service on how best to protect the President, but I actually share Doug’s concern that the open display of guns could be seen by others as threatening, and may discourage people from speaking out, but I’m also concerned that people are assaulting those who disagree with them, even going so far as biting fingers off their opponents. Yes, it is emotionally charged. Which is why ordinary, well adjusted individuals might not be unreasonable in wanting tools to protect themselves in such situations.
I’ve always gotten the impression that Brady folks believe that violent criminals are just ordinary people who just snap. But murders, particularly assassins, tend to be more than just your average “fallible human beings”. Most scientific research into the minds of violent criminals shows them to be quite different from ordinary people. But Doug continues:
(Excerpt) Read more at snowflakesinhell.com ...
The right to speak out is explicitly defended in the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly defended in the Second.
Which of those would you attempt to take from another citizen?
Real philosophical arguments coming out of the Brady Campaign rather than emotionally charged nonsense and drivel? Let’s hope this isn’t a trend. We might actually have to start making arguments back instead of just mockery.I think the author here sees a lot more "philosophical argument" coming from the Brady Bunch than is actually there but that's ok. I'm willing to accept his argument (at least for the moment) and say: fine.
The Brady Bunch wants a "philosophical argument" on gun rights. Great!
Bring it on!
I think we're more than ready on our side.
I suspect that the framers of the constitution know a lot more about philosopy than I ever will. There are many reasons why they believed in the right to keep and bear arms. I will defer to their good judgment and not worry too much about philosophical arguments. If you don’t want people to have that right, then change the constitution or move to France.
...Good on yer, for this article. Debate, is the first step. I could agree, if you come to a public debate armed, that’s your right. But, for the sake of others that may be intimidated by that, check with law enforcement that you bare arms...
...The only reason to have firearms is to protect ourselves from government, or situations that law enforcement can not respond to intervene when criminals threaten our lives, liberty, property...
...Upppp, sorry, left out hunting, and target practice, and such other activities...
I don't understand this statement. What, other than having the government mind your business is onerous about transferring through a FFL? I agree with him, though about NICS. I've shown before, on other threads, how a background check system could be built without any branch of the government having a record of your name for even an instant. As you know, the only information you can be comfortable the government will not abuse is information they don't physically have. If it could be done that way, I would be willing to see background checks mandated.
Among other things, in many areas, it's hard or impossible to find an FFL that will do the paperwork for a third-party transfer without charging $50 or more.
As for background checks, if one could ensure that they would never infringe the rights of anyone whose freedoms had not legitimately been removed by due process, they might not pose a problem, but they have already been used by design to do precisely that.
If allowing a store clerk to sell someone a gun would cause the person to pose an unacceptable danger to society, that person would pose an unacceptable danger to society regardless of whether the clerk allowed the sale or not.
Inch by inch, strp by step,,then one day they ‘’hand em in ‘’ you got 24 hours then the guys with machine guns show up.
Other people reaching erroneous conclusions based on their feelings is NOT the responsibility of a gun owner -- or of anyone else, for that matter.
Unless the Brady guy is trying to say that gun owners have some sort of telepathic power to order others' thinking, his "argument" is a non-starter.
Yes, that government minding my business is a big deal. The fact that you don't get it is also a big deal. The feds have no right to be involved in firearms transfers.
Read my comment again. If you still don’t get it, do so again. If you still don’t get it after that, I’ll ask Jim for a translator.
A very good read is more guns less crime by john r. lott jr.
“Other issues include whether adding guns to Presidential
events – outside of trained law enforcement – makes the
Secret Service’s job unnecessarily harder,”
A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.
- Orson Welles
That is why most government areas do not allow weapons.
No weapons, no truth.
You’re right.
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.