America's Fascination with Firearms

The World & I ^ | October 2003 | David B. Kope

[Flavius]

America's Fascination with Freedom...

Awesome...

[VRWCRick]

Gun owner: Citizen.
Non gun owner: Subject.

I'll be putting my NRA sticker on the car tonight. As for liberals, I wonder how many of them would put a sticker on their car that says "I don't own guns! I am a sitting duck!"

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

In Missouri the politicians and police chiefs state they are apprehensive about the concealed carry law.

Just think how frightened the car jackers and mugger perps must be?

Politicians, police and criminals as allies? But I guess the truth is still pertinent today of the old adage that, "politics makes for strange bedfellows."

[1066AD]

many of these citizens carry their guns more frequently since September 11. They know that in case of a terrorist attack on a shopping center, school, church, or synagogue,
Wasn't there a fairly recent case of a potential mass shooting at a college in Virginia (I think) that was quickly stopped by someone with CCW & weapon ? Seem to remember the latter part was not widely reported.

[neverdem]

I think you're referring to what's alluded to in the 7th paragraph of the following story by John Lott.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/6431396.htm

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[neverdem]

Change the previous comment to the following:

I think you're referring to what's described in the 7th paragraph of the following story by John Lott.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/6431396.htm

Mr. Lott wrote "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns". I haven't read either of those books, but I have read a good deal of his other articles and find them persuasive.

Unfortunately, he said he lost all the raw data for the latter book when his computer "crashed", this data reportedly the result of telephone calls, which many regard as a "dog ate my homework" excuse, and he is alleged to have written very favorable reviews for that book at Amazon.com under a pseudonym, IIRC.

[Atchafalaya]

Skin counters.

[Atchafalaya]

ie: California!

[IronJack]

Aside from the entrenched "old money" of the East Coast, there is no more stratified backwater of our society than in California. It is there that the caste system is most pronounced, although the only entrance requirement is money. Not coincidentally in a subculture so marked by ill-deserved social stratification, gun control laws are the most onerous. They are in a league with New York's and Massachusetts' -- the East Coast bastions of which I spoke earlier.

IronJack's First Law of Gun Control: Where elitism flourishes, gun control is strictest.

[ExSoldier]

"Especially if you plaster NRA, S&W and Ruger decals on your windows and doors."

Maybe...or maybe it just means they target you specifically and make sure to come when you're not home so they can get your guns. OR, if they know you're ready, they'll be sure to enter "HOT" because the surprise factor favors them.

I have gun stuff on my minivan because that makes a potential encounter on the road a much dicier proposition and it has worked for me on quite a few hairy situations while vacationing in rural and remote areas, but I leave the "Property Protected by Smith and Wesson" placards off my home! I usually back my car into the driveway so those car decals aren't so readily visible.

[slowry]

The federal and state constitutions have helped develop a "rights consciousness"

I understand what he means, but can't hurt to clarify that this sounds a bit like getting the cart before the horse. It's my understanding that the USSR also had a pleasant-sounding list of rights in their constitution. Let's not forget that our Bill of Rights was originally meant as a restriction on Congress.

I suggest as a better starting point for "rights consciousness":

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...."

Another point of view, from Federalist #84:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."