Skip to comments.
Allowing citizens to have weapons cuts crime
The Sun News ^
| Aug. 29, 2006
| Rick Daniel
Posted on 08/29/2006 8:30:46 AM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
1
posted on
08/29/2006 8:30:47 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
An armed society is a polite society.
Molon Labe!
2
posted on
08/29/2006 8:35:01 AM PDT
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: neverdem
Allowing citizens to have weapons cuts crimeI would make one change here:
Halting Improper Government Restrictions on the Right to Have Weapons cuts crime.
We gotta change the mindset that government allows us to carry weapons. That's half the battle.
3
posted on
08/29/2006 8:39:07 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(This tagline has been photoshopped)
To: neverdem
If South Carolina smalltown newspapers (and I include Myrtle Beach's the Sun News) are anything like ours, stories about gun ownership lowering crime will almost never get published.
These papers aren't elitist liberals like the Northeasterners, but they are a breed of all-government-is-good sheep that view DARE elementary school graduation as a headline story, because a) it happened at a public/government school, b) it involved police doing something other than law enforcement and c) it is worthless feelgoodism.
Gun ownership scares the people who are scared of guns strictly because of ignorance but it also dismays the newspapers because it lessens the need for the Nanny State and does nothing to expand government in all its guises.
4
posted on
08/29/2006 8:43:33 AM PDT
by
relictele
To: Jeff Head
|
An armed society is a polite society. Now I'm an advocate of the second amendment, but just exactly how does that square with Iraq where all citizens are armed? |
|
5
posted on
08/29/2006 8:45:59 AM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: HawaiianGecko
An Armed SANE society is a polite society.
6
posted on
08/29/2006 8:47:39 AM PDT
by
spikeytx86
(Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
To: HawaiianGecko
Now I'm an advocate of the second amendment, but just exactly how does that square with Iraq where all citizens are armed?
Perhaps Franklin meant the quote in the context of a civilized Western nation. Emphasis on the 'civilized' part.
7
posted on
08/29/2006 8:49:24 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
To: spikeytx86
|
An Armed SANE society is a polite society. LOL okay, but how does that square with America? :-) |
|
8
posted on
08/29/2006 8:50:40 AM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: HawaiianGecko
All citizens are not armed in Iraq.
9
posted on
08/29/2006 8:51:47 AM PDT
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: HawaiianGecko
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To: neverdem
"As a whole, street thugs and other criminal opportunists are cowards. They fear an armed populace." As do many legislators in this country. I wonder why that is? Surely they don't fit in the same category as cowardly street thugs and criminal opportunists, do they?
(An old man living in a cave once said, if a question is worded properly it contained the answer.) ;>
To: neverdem
Dang it. I want my bloodbath and I want it now!
To: Boston Blackie
|
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46. You're not telling me anything new. Gunsmiths in my family date to the early 19th century and many of us keep dealership licenses current. A couple of shooting ranges bear my family name and are owned by family. I'm a proponent of gun ownership. That said, how does your post above square with Iraq, or for that matter a gun infested barrio in East LA? The second amendment does not prohibit felons or certified lunatics from gun ownership. Therefore, it seems sensible that certain prohibitions or fine tuning may be a wise thing. |
|
13
posted on
08/29/2006 9:06:26 AM PDT
by
HawaiianGecko
(Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
To: Jeff Head
Yeah mainly the dead ones.
14
posted on
08/29/2006 9:14:24 AM PDT
by
spikeytx86
(Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
To: dirtboy
Halting Improper Government Restrictions on the Right to Have Weapons cuts crime. We gotta change the mindset that government allows us to carry weapons. That's half the battle.I was going to post objecting to the same thing, but I thing you did a better job.
15
posted on
08/29/2006 9:16:08 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: neverdem
I guess criminals don't like getting shot either. Who knew?
16
posted on
08/29/2006 9:17:18 AM PDT
by
monkfan
To: HawaiianGecko
Iraq is a work in progress. It is terrorism and the struggle for control at work there.
To: neverdem
Perhaps it should read 'Arming citizens in the US reduces US crime' as there are many countries in the world that have unarmed citizens and far lower crime levels than ours.
To: AdAstraPerArdua
Perhaps it should read 'Arming citizens in the US reduces US crime' as there are many countries in the world that have unarmed citizens and far lower crime levels than ours. There may be a cultural element to it, granted, but it's far from a US-only phenomenon. In many countries where the citizens' gun rights have been infringed, crime in that country rose and also became more blatant/aggressive than it had been in the same country when the governments rightly respected the citizens as their employers, rather than serfs.
19
posted on
08/29/2006 9:36:43 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: HawaiianGecko
Goood point. Here you probably getting into something I can't spell or pronounce. Political systems, religion and sheer tradition can coalesce into ? The framers often and prodigiously noted that their form of republican-democracy was illy suited towards a lawless group of citezenry, who had no morals (of any sort) outside their own self-interest.
It's akin to when politicians talk about a "stable Iraq"; let's be clear - Iraq *was* stable under Saddam, but that's another matter whether the rest of the world winks and nods about how it is, that this area was "stable". Here's where the conspiracy nutjobs go into gear. They would claim, I'm certain, that it is in the decadent, imperialist West that the goal is instability in the region, etc., etc., & the long arm of Castro is involved.
People really CAN be trusted with the reins of government, self-rule and determination. But it's got to be the real deal, not a fait accompli by hucksters.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson