Posted on 06/24/2002 8:54:55 AM PDT by pabianice
I spent the weekend at one of my best college friend's houses. She lives in a very expensive neighborhood in Connecticut, about an hour and a half from NYC, and is married to a highly educated, highly paid chemical engineer who designs and produces some of the world's most innovative and advanced industrial materials. He is extremely smart, highly motivated, exceptionally inventive, and when the topic of guns came up, as violent an opponent of the Second Amendment as I have met. Just the topic brings him to the brink of physical violence.
Let me try and summarize our "discussion" (remember, I was in my friend's house, and she and I are very close and think the world of one another, so the vehemence of my argument was muted in her behalf).
Here are my friend's husband's arguments (for simplcity, let's call him "Joe"):
He said no one should be allowed to own a gun. When I asked why, he said, 'because then I could get one.' When I asked why that would be a problem, Joe replied that if he had a gun, there are about a dozen people he knows he probably would already have shot because he is so angry with them.
I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. Joe then said that, under current law, even working in New York, because of his good record and high social status, he could probably get a license to carry a concealed weapon. And knowing that he would then probably use it on people he really hates, how could I support the right for anyone to carry a weapon?
I replied that his unwillingness or inability to carry a gun should in no way interfere with my right to carry. He shouted that because he kneew he would be dangerous with a gun, no one should be allowed to carry one. To so allow me to carry one, he, too, would have the same right and would probably then shoot someone who pissed him off. He was not joking, I realized. His brother, among others, has been so troublesome to him over the years that he said he would probably have shot him by now had he had the opportunity and means.
So there is the arguement from the mouth of a representative of the top of the Liberal hierarchy: I can't be trusted with a gun, so no one should have the right to have one.
We then moved on to terrorism and the right to protect yourself from Islamic lunatics and their allies on the Left. Same response. It is safer for no one in the U.S. to be armed than to allow ourselves to protect ourselves and families. Joe insisted that we are a greater danger to ourselves and families if we choose to carry a pistol than we are from Usama bin Laden (BTW, we are all Jewish, which made me even more incredulous as the argument progressed). He admitted that we need to somehow protect ourselves, but insisted that the right way is to station troops around the country to do so, although again, he had a real problem with actually giving the troops ammunition for their weapons, as our troops would be more likely to "repeat the Rodney King assault if they had the chance" rather than actually protect us from terrorists. In the same vein, he insisted that police are little more than an occupation army whose principal purpose is to brutalize minorities and keep them from ever succeeding.
In the interest of peace in my friend's home, I let the argument end rather than say what I really wanted to say to him. She is married to this guy and they argue all the time over politics, but that's their choice and I am in no position to suggest she find someone else.
So there it is. Some of our most intelligent, highly educated, highest paid, most productive members of society are so dead set against the right to self-defense that they will use every resource avaialble to them to see that we are left defenseless against crime and terrorism. That's the situation. The only solution I have, unfortunately, is to let them be victims of violence. For only that is likely to make them change their minds.
Your experience would seem to back up the article. I will try to find it for you.
Figures - circular logic.
This shows the lack of intelligence of the gun-grabbing left.
He is partly correct. He should not EVER be permitted to own a firearm, since he seriously needs mental health assistance quite immediately.
If he has expressed geniune desire to kill people, you should seriously consider warning authorities, since it does not take a gun to kill. There are many devices with which one may quickly and easily kill others.
The rest of us will continue to own firearms, to protect ourselves from people who harbor the uncontrolled rage this man exhibits.
You know there are places where people like Joe can get the professional help they so badly need.
I believe at that point I would have thought of a way to make it a short evening. He obviously has some "anger issues". In short, the guy's not stable mentally to make such a remark given the content of the discussion, which was obviously serious.
Usually logical rational thought is a prerequisite to being considered intelligent!
Wise.
He might have meat-cleavered you for disagreeing with him.
Additionally, after leaving the house, I would have contacted the state's mental-health authorities and described the man's self-proclaimed desires to kill people.
This person is very likely a menace to society.
This person is very likely a menace to society.
Excellent point.
If he shouted at you during this discussion as you described, and he claims if given the opportunity he would have shot a dozen people including his brother, then I agree, he should not have a gun. But he is the prime example for why people like you, me and his wife should be allowed to carry.
I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. Joe then said that, under current law, even working in New York, because of his good record and high social status, he could probably get a license to carry a concealed weapon.
So what, exactly, is stopping him now?
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.