Today's PhotoMeme by yours truly. Took Charen's quote and ran with it. Spread it far and wide.
Posted on 02/05/2013 5:56:38 AM PST by Kaslin
I stand out among my conservative friends in disliking guns. I favor reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment, such as bans on fully automatic weapons, background checks for purchases and forbidding the sale of guns to those with histories of mental illness or criminality.
Yet I cannot agree with liberals that more gun control will lead to fewer gun crimes.
President Obama's choice for defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, actually illuminated one of the weaknesses of the gun control case. Hagel had been closely associated with Global Zero (though he's since repudiated it), a movement dedicated to "the elimination of all nuclear weapons." Hagel isn't alone in endorsing this cause. President Obama supports the concept, as well.
Liberals like Hagel and Obama think nuclear weapons are a problem in themselves. Call it the instrumental view. It's the weapon, rather than the person wielding it, that presents the danger. But American possession of nuclear weapons didn't threaten world peace. On the contrary, our nuclear arsenal arguably kept the peace for the whole second half of the 20th century. On the other hand, a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands would be a profound threat to the world.
By the same instrumental logic, many ask how we can tacitly tolerate Israel's possession of nuclear weapons while declaring that Iran must not be permitted to obtain them. The answer is the same. No matter how awful the weapon, the relevant question is about the weapon's owner. Israel is a peace-seeking democracy whose nuclear weapons are clearly intended purely for defense. Iran is ruled by a terrorist gang that managed to gain control of a country.
To propose, as Hagel did, that the existing nuclear powers completely divest themselves of nuclear weapons wouldn't make the world safer. It would make it profoundly less safe because the U.S. would be powerless to prevent smaller powers that acquired nuclear weapons after we had destroyed our own from bullying the world -- or worse.
Wouldn't it be a better world if nuclear bombs had never been invented? That's hard to say. History isn't over. The U.S. military projected casualties from an invasion of the Japanese mainland between 500,000 and 1 million American dead and between 5 and 10 million Japanese dead. Dropping two atomic bombs, as terrible as that was, cost about 200,000 lives.
Similar arguments animate the gun control debate. The ready availability of guns, we're told, is responsible for America's extremely high rates of gun crime and for the horrific mass shootings we've experienced in recent years. Possibly, but there are other nations with high rates of gun ownership, such as Switzerland and Israel, that have low rates of gun crime. In our own recent history, we know that many high schools hosted rifle teams and many had ranges in their buildings. Yet school shootings were exceedingly rare and mass shootings unheard of.
We are told that studies have shown that gun ownership does not make home owners safer, but that, on the contrary, having a gun in the home makes it much more likely that the homeowner will be shot by a family member. This claim rests chiefly on a study by Arthur Kellerman that compared 420 homicide victims with others living in the same neighborhood. As Prof. Gary Kleck observed, the subjects of the study lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and Kellerman did not control for membership in gangs or participation in the drug trade. Additionally, only 4.7 percent of the homicide victims were killed by spouses, lovers, other relatives or roommates using the gun that was kept at home. The overwhelming majority of the deaths were the result of guns brought into the home from elsewhere.
It's doubtless true that more guns in homes are correlated with more gun accidents, gun suicides and gun homicides. It's hard to find gun deaths in homes without guns. But there are no swimming pool deaths in homes without pools either. There is also no doubt that Americans defend themselves and others with guns quite frequently. Data are difficult to come by for complex reasons including reporting errors, varying state laws and even lying by gun owners. But when the CATO Institute studied news reports of defensive gun uses over an eight-year period ending in 2011, they found more than 5,000 documented instances of gun owners preventing mayhem (murder, rape, robbery and assault) with guns. Interestingly, they found only 11 cases in which the criminal was able to disarm the gun owner, but 227 cases in which the criminal was disarmed.
We can no more make guns disappear than we can uninvent nuclear weapons. The key in both cases is whose finger is on the trigger.
First tell me who gets to define mental illness, then I'll answer that question. Do not tell me your definition of mental illness because it most certainly will not be you, providing the official definition.
If they are a danger then they should be in an institution not out on the street if they are not a danger then they should have no restriction, period. The 2nd amendment does not say shall not infringe except in case of. It is a God given right.
The same logic could and should be applied to felons.
The Second Amendment is in fact infringed by restricting firearms. Having said that, the factor that is missing is there is nothing wrong with requiring responsible security of those arms. It is for that reason that a private citizen could not responsibly possess a nuclear weapon. He could not afford the manpower necessary to have secure storage and he could not be financially responsible for the consequences of its use. These are both factors that only a sovereign government can address.
To cast this in a different light, the only reason that private citizens can own and operate a nuclear reactor is that government changes the liability laws to limit liability and to socialize any amount exceeding certain limits. Without this subsidy, no corporation would operate a nuclear power plant.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.
Today's PhotoMeme by yours truly. Took Charen's quote and ran with it. Spread it far and wide.
Absolutely correct but it is sad that it was not mentioned until 18 posts into the thread...FReepers have lost a step.
Yeah... she started out stupid, but did finish off with something quotable.
FReegards...
10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals
Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.
Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals
While I personally do not like guns, I respect the right of law abiding citizens to have and carry guns. Plus criminals are not law abiding citizens.
Use what we can; discard the rest.
Yes, We went almost 150 years before the feds started with gun control. It is all about control not guns.
If the ex-con is not on parole or work release and he has served his time then his sentence is over and he should be allowed his right to defend himself. Otherwise we are making different classes of citizens and that will be used by government to control us all. For many years the government followed the Constitution now that they choose to ignore it (since 1934 on guns) they keep take more and more from us.
I'm on the various newspapers' comments section lately, fighting these know-nothings. For the line above, I reply "Residences of meth heads and gang bangers usually have that problem."
I rarely get a response.
Agree to all...
Just don't carry water for the Socialist gun grabbers and think your conservative bone fides will stand up. They are using EVERY lame-assed excuse to further restrict our Rights.
And they are lame. For every perceived ill, it isn't the firearms that are at fault. In most cases, more law abiding people carrying arms would directly mitigate the ill in question rather than more restrictions.
Thanks Laz. Posted on Twitter @TXchilinobeans
So basically Mona is for gun control.
If so, then we might as well shrug our shoulders if something like Aurora, the Newtown shooting, etc happens again. Perhaps you think the victims shouldn't have been there.
You are making a straw argument, that we must accept either more Newtowns OR Charen's faith in government bureaucrats not to abuse their restrictive powers over private citizens. So to answer your question, flawed as it is, NO I am no okay with those with a history of mental illness having guns. BUT BUT BUT I am even LESS OKAY with giving the government the power to decide this.
Once we do that, we open the door to government officials deciding that being in the Tea Party, or posting on Free Republic, is showing anger and hate and therefore is a "mental illness." I guess I'm saying that you and Charen are guilty of the liberal mistake of thinking we can use law to make the world perfect. Ain't gonna happen. And your statement about the "victims shouldn't have been there" is just asinine.
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.