Posted on 10/10/2002 12:57:49 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
What you are asking for in armed civilians is the functional equivalent of doctors who will work as paramedics. It doesn't work that way. LE officers are highly trained...BUT NOT IN FIREARMS! The truth of the matter is guns don't require that much training, and if we hadn't had a hundred years of women whinning to "make them feel safe," firearms wouldn't be the dark secret they are today.
Further, no, you don't understand my position correctly; mostly because you have bought into the "vigilante" shiboleth of the left. The nut cases you are alluding to, that is, people who will mistakenly take their right to self protection as a licence to kill, are of the same mind, and exist in the same numbers as those who think income tax laws don't have any legal standing. Give people a little credit. There will always be "darwin award" candidates. Liberals are the ones that formulate policy to make sure no idiot ever has the opportunity screw up: not us.
How are you defining "regulated?" I sounds to me like you are defining it as a synonym of "registered."
As NRA members and 2nd Amendment Supporters together we should spend more time reminding ourselves and each other what it means to be a sovereign citizen in a Constitutional Republic.
Civilian patrols are one small component of the larger plan outlined by our Constitution.
To fulfill the standard of "Eternal Vigilance as the price of Liberty" all adults should be familiar with and proficient in the use of firearms; a significant portion of them should be armed under as many circumstances as possible and the standard of prosecution should only apply to those individuals who actually commit crimes.
Many of the ideas you outline in your posts on this thread violate at least two fundamental ideas - "innocent until proven guilty" and "prior restraint".
For example, the notion that adults who acquire firearms are automatically to be treated as though they will use them recklessly flies in the face of research that has demonstrated between 1-2 Million incidents a year in which ordinary people have used firearms in self defense without ever firing a shot or even making a comprehensive report to "authorities".
Further we are blessed with empirical evidence of the negative effects on Society when government recklessly disarms adults by the example of both England and Australia.
Since those societies have managed to criminalize instruments of self defense the rate of crime and sheer brutal thuggery have skyrocketed. It is now generally conceded London is far more dangerous for ordinary individuals than New York or for that matter many third world countries.
This increase in general mayhem can be directly traced to the date of overregulation in regard to the concepts of armed self defense.
I hope you will find more time to reflect on the connection between armed citizens and a safe living environment regardless of location-home, school, parks, malls, highways or any other public or private space.
Best regards,
I guess with any extreme, you can't be extreme enough to satisfy. My position with regard to firearms is far more conservative than most people, and far more pro-gun than is permitted in almost any state of the union. When I discuss my pro-gun stands with the guys at work -- they think I'm a raving neo-fascist -- which only goes to prove that you can't please everyone.
The term "extreme" is, of course, a subjective word used mainly by politicians to divert attention from positions which have the added disadvantage of perceived unpopularity in public discourse.
If your fellow employees resort to labeling or namecalling to silence your viewpoint in a discussion it is probably because you were winning the intellectual argument.
I would suggest you continue to lead by example and earn their genuine regard over time rather than seek to please them with your silence.
1) I do not support hand guns in the hands of convicted felons or certified psychopaths -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
It is impossible to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons or certified psychopaths.
By definition they do not accept restrictions society attempts to place upon them. To disarm valuable, productive citizens by regulation in a futile attempt to disarm criminals is a useless exercise and complete waste of time as well as patently dangerous. Criminals who can not acquire handguns legitimately will steal them (from military and police if necessary); if they cannot steal them they will manufacture them( with nothing more complicated than ordinary pipe if necessary);if they cannot make them they will develop other tools and techniques to accomplish their goals of mayhem. They are, after all, convicted felons and certified pyschopaths.
2) I do not support the idea of armed vigilantes -- operating outside the law, taking the law into their own hands -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
It depends on your definition of "armed" and "vigilante" Again, may I direct your attention to the number of instances when ordinary adults used weapons (annually)without firing a shot or engaging anyone except the goblin interested in mayhem.
There are as many examples of inappropriate weapons handling by certified authorities that do not receive wide public notice as there are sucessful instances of APPROPRIATE weapons handling by ordinary citizens which also do not receive wide public attention.
Further, as you are aware, the individual who accepts 2nd Amendment responsibilities develops, over time, a transformed world view which includes mental assets known as "tactical awareness", something which has been lost as we have transformed ourselves from a "nation of riflemen" into a nation of supplicant socialists.
A nation of riflemen will know how to react and deal with sniper attacks whether or not they happen to be armed during an assault. A nation of supplicant socialists will cluster helplessly together in a feel good group hug until the next attack.
Target practice is the only useful mental discipline or therapy to prevent societal breakdown from terrorism.
3) I support restrictions on the sale of military-style weapons to civilians -- weapons designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds -- is this position unreasonable?
Yes.
Military weapons in the hands of the general populace are the only bulwark sufficient to protect the general population in the event of a central government breakdown.
As a member of the NRA you surely understand military weapons are in fact NOT designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. They are designed to injure and maim enemy soldiers so the army to which they belong will be demoralized and bogged down with damage control.
The ordinary deer cartridge, on the other hand, is designed with soft point projectiles that expand upon impact to ensure "one shot, one kill" as frequently as possible for a humane and ethical harvest of wild game.These rounds are banned by the Geneva Convention for use in armed conflict.
Finally, I believe that the breakdown of American culture (i.e. the rise of multi-culturalism and PC) has contributed far more to rising violent crime statistics than restrictive gun laws. Ethnic and racial minorities and illegal immigrants are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in America -- this has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a "free pass" for criminals because they're a protected minority.
I would have to question this premise. Many of the unpunished violent criminals in our society come from all strata equally. There is no doubt the cultural environment of unaccountable behaviour creates many opportunities for thugs to prevail, but once again this should be an argument for more armed citizens not fewer. Nothing focuses a goblins attention more thoroughly than the knowledge that in this one instance at this particular time he/she will be held thoroughly and completely accountable for bad behaviour because this citizen refuses to be a victim.
It is the ultimate exercise of citizen sovereignty and it is exercised far more wisely and frequently than the muddlestream media would like to report.
Best regards,
Indeed. And those feminized accountants are sprinkled everywhere throughout law enforcement and the bureaucracy, particularly in the upper ranks and leadership.
To balance your view of the incompetence of armed vigilantes you may wish to consider this example from last year in California. Hundreds of shots were fired, many of them into occupied homes who had no knowledge of or association with the alleged felon. It was swept off the front page by 9-11.
The Santa Clarita Shootout-Waco, the Sequel
Best regards,
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.