[vannrox]

IDIOT.

[Commander8]

Here is my case for gun control.
1. Never fire your gun out of anger.
2. Always check if your gun is loaded, even if you know for sure it isn't.
3. Never aim your gun unless you absolutely intend to destroy your target.
4. When firing your weapon try to be aware of who or what is to the left of the target, to the right of the target, above the target, below the target, in front of the target and behind the target.
By controlling your gun in this manner, you and neighbors will be safe.

[cruxofthematter]

This man doesn't sound like an idiot to me. His essay seems like a solid overview of the liberal position, right or wrong. Calling him an idiot advances no one's agenda, except perhaps that of liberals who might want to make Ann Coulter's "Slander" argument about Conservatives.

[Bedford Forrest]

Check Jason's home page - He is not only an idiot, he is also a full industrial-strength narcissist. You have to wonder who bankrolls such characters as they flit like moths from one academic lotus ranch to the next. Pretty clear that he left Colorado for his health.

[RogueIsland]

Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs.

Tell it to the Japanese, Jason.

[sirshackleton]

Hey, there is a case for gun control, but a very weak one. Much weaker than the case against it. As simple as that reasoning sounds, I've been able to befuddle quite a few confiscation nuts with that line of thinking alone.

[RogueIsland]

If this many women, from a cross-section of society, support gun control, perhaps women do not perceive a need to own a gun, and male lawmakers and critics have no right to claim otherwise.

Typical liberal thinking (or lack thereof): It's not the reality of the world around you that counts, it's your perception. Until, that is, that reality hits you upside your unarmed head.

[L_Von_Mises]

American Medical Women's Ass'n, General Federation of Women's Clubs, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, League of Women Voters of the United States, Nat'l Council of Jewish Women, Nat'l Council of Negro Women, Nat'l Organization for Women, Women's Nat'l Democratic Club, Women Strike for Peace, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Women's Int'l League for Peace and Freedom, YWCA of the U.S.A.

If this many women, from a cross-section of society, support gun control, perhaps women do not perceive a need to own a gun, and male lawmakers and critics have no right to claim otherwise.

I did not have the time to go over every "point" made by this individual but if this is what he sees as a representative cross section, he is beyond delusional.

I suspect that the rest of his "facts" were equally well researched.

[RogueIsland]

bang, for those who have strong stomachs.

[elbucko]

Jason Gottlieb, the author of this gun control diatribe, is the son or grandson of a Red Diaper Baby. He's never held a gun, shot a gun, or otherwise thought about guns, except when he thought it would make a professor pleased or maybe get him laid. He's a Trotsky nerd and does not merit is opinion being spread.

If we're lucky, he will get a serious STD while studying at Duke Law School.

[Hugin]

Actually I find his arguments more honest than most anti-gunners (which isn't saying much). What he mainly does is omit facts that contradict his argument. For example, unlike most he does not try to say that the Miller decision denied the Second Ammendment is an individual right. He is correct in saying "The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons." He does leave out the important part though, that Miller only allowed the government to ban those classes of weapons that have no military use, in that case a sawed-off shotgun. So according to Miller, the government has no right to ban a full-auto M16, but could ban a muzzleloading musket. He also points out several lower courts have ruled against the 2nd as an individual right, but does not mention the Emmerson case where they have ruled it is. Eventually SCOTUS is going to have to weigh in to unify the precedents or we will have a situation where the 2nd means one thing in part of the country, and something else in the rest.

[BikerTrash]

A Case for Keeping My Guns

Because I damn well feel like it.

[Drew68]

I present my own plans for gun control that I would consider a valid compromise.

Gun-grabbers always talk of compromise. A compromise in when both sides agree to make concessions. Compromise, by definition, has never occured in the ever-increasing legislation aimed at controlling firearms since the only group who has had to make concessions have been gun owners.

From the 1968 Gun Control Act to the 1989 Assault Weapons Ban to the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill which extended the definition of banned assault weapons and gave us the Brady Bill, gun-owners have agreed to "compromise" slowly selling out their personal integrity while showing the gun-grabbers that they can effectively be bullied into submission. What have they received in return?

Now gun-owners are being asked, once again, to "compromise" on .50 caliber rifles, so-called "smart" guns, mandatory trigger locks and storage requirements and more comprehensive registration schemes after repeatedly being told by the gun-grabbers that they would be left alone if they "compromised" (read: capitulated) on the last and what was at the time deemed the final piece of gun-control legislation.

Well, gun-owners are growing sick and tired of these one-side-gives-all "compromises" which they now correctly view as "incrementalism" --what they had warned about in the first place. It is up to them to put their foot down and say "you've taken enough, we will give you no more."

[Smile-n-Win]

Jason (Last Name Unknown)

Is he afraid of gun owners to disclose his name? ;-)

[Ohioan]

One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has over 270,000,000 citizens at last count. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.

The idea that the sheer numbers involved is an impediment to the modern demagogue is nonsensical. With modern mass communications, there is no limit to the potential size of the mobs that could be stirred. And with the changes in American demographics, including the flood of immigrants, legal and illegal, from South of the border; millions and millions of people with no tie to the heritage of limited Government based upon individual responsibility and a level of freedom not ordinarily seen in other lands; we are far more vulnerable to tyranny than ever before in our history. The Second Amendment--and the fundamental common sense principle behind it, which is the inherent right of the individual to protect himself and what is his--is more necessary today, than ever before in our history. (See The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms.)

Some of the writers' comments on gun related deaths are easily answered. A stronger argument could be made for banning private ownership of motor vehicles. But what stands out, whether he is talking about accidents, suicides or homocides, is his lack of respect for the unalienable rights of the individual. This whole, long and contrived verbal argument against freedom, almost shouts out his contempt for true individualism.

If the goal is to protect people from themselves, then why not ban sugar--I won't say ban tobacco, because those bent upon stamping out the last vestiges of American Indian culture have almost done that already. But why not ban Television, electrical appliances in general, swimming pools, etc.. None of those accepted attributes of modern living have so elementally essential a role as that which goes to the right to defend oneself and what is one's own.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[elbucko]

3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree."

This sounds good in theory. In practice it is abused. California voters passed an initiative for compulsory jail time or increased time if a gun was present in a crime. The prosecutors toss this away in plea bargains. If a "perp" will cop to a lesser plea, the gun charge will be thrown out, even though the voters of CA mandated an additional 5 years for the use of a gun.

[SpinyNorman]

Nary a mention of the skyrocketing crime problem in Great Britain since the abolition of private gun ownership. Australia is having a bit of a problem as well.

"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?"

I believe the plural of knife is knives.

But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.

43 times what? Stats lie, be specific.

Another difficulty in his figures is population motion. For example, he claims that Florida's violent crime rate dropped dramatically after the passing of CCW laws, but he does not take into account the enormous migration of the elderly and retirees into that state during his examination period. Such an influx of elderly citizens (not usually violent criminals!) would certainly push the crime rate down, as the population of law abiding citizens rose dramatically.

Actually, there is a case for crime increasing due to the vulnerability of these aged migrants. Also, don't forget what targets tourists in rental cars were until the rental agencies stopped identifying their cars. Why? Because tourists were guaranteed to be defenseless and flush with vacation money. Easy pickings.

Lastly, what about the number of near robberies, assaults and burglaries that are stopped by a potential target brandishing a weapon, and never reported to the police (because it would be more hassle than it would be worth)?

There's lots more, but I don't have time. Jason tries hard, but fails to make his case in a number of ways. Maybe next time.

[coloradan]

To anyone interested in a detailed rebuttal of this article, please read this post that I wrote about a year ago. It's pretty long, but it addresses nearly all the lies in it.

[kjenerette]

"Mans' Rights, his Liberty and the ideal of individual self government means nothing without a warranty backed by the moral citizen that is both armed and willing to fight." - Katherine Jenerette

I am always amazed how 'blind' some 'thinking people' are. I have to wonder if the blindness is a result of pure stupidity or deliberate intent. As a Historian and a College Professor of History and Critical Thinking I teach my classes the best way to approach and view an issue is to gather as much information that is possible from primary sources and place it along a historical timeline before any attempt is made to objectively evaluate the issue. At best, this allows one to see trends or patterns, at worst the evaluation is limited by the amount of relative information.

I would challenge anyone to use this technique on the issue of Guns and the People using the following historical components:

#1) The historical facts about tyrants/kings/dictators.
#2) The historical facts about participatory self government by citizens of any nation or society.
#3) The major historical facts about weapons development (complexity of use versus simplicity) and social distribution.
#4) The historical facts of access to knowledge and literacy by the citizens.

Even a cursory examination of this information along a timeline will make it clear that participatory self government is a small 'blip' that took nearly 4000 years of civilization to happen! The real question is why did it take so long? Did the rulers of history rule over a bunch of wimps? or Has benevolence replaced tyranny in the minds of the powerful? or Did other things occur: What led the common man from Subject-Slave status to be transformed into the Citizen-Statesman of today's America?

At the expense of sounding simplistic, I am convinced that the powerful never surrender power willingly and that a clear and honest look at the history of mankind can illustrate the freedom is only possible with the coincidence of three events:

#1) A literate and moral population with open access to knowledge.
#2) Average ordinary citizens armed with weapons requiring a minimum of training to be lethal.
#3) People possessing a willingness to kill tyrants, or die in the process in order to secure basic liberty, rights and equality.

Given the listed conditions - most tyrants/dictators/kings become rational and begin to negotiate; or they are put to bed with a shovel in short order.

History is a great teacher. Man and his vices have changed little since his creation and anyone who suggests that freedom can be peacefully guaranteed by a piece of paper or a document alone is ignorant of the history of man.

Mans' Rights, his Liberty and the ideal of individual self government means nothing without a warranty backed by the moral citizen that is both armed and willing to fight.

The same people who scream the loudest about the right of Free Speech and the sanctity of the 1st Amendment would try to convince us that the 2nd Amendment is less than what it says and open to interpretations. I can't accept their argument the the Founding Fathers had Rights Right in the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights and were Wrong about Rights in the second paragraph of the same document.

History has shown, time after time, that the rights of man may not be purchased cheaply. Any society whose people throw their rights and freedom on the benevolence of other men have always ended up slaves, servants, or dead.

A free republic can only be free as long as the weakest citizen is as strong as the most powerful citizen.

---

I have included a piece written last year by my other-half, on the same subject. If some of the ideas are similar to mine it's because, after so many years of marriage, we often seem to share the same brain...

SUBJECT: BIBLES and GUNPOWDER and a New World

excerpts from Van Jenerette's
ten foundations for America's future

---

GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE		The Constitution provides the legitimate foundations of this country as a nation that is of the people and by the people.
		We, the people, are the caretakers of the Constitution of the United States. Our charge is to pass on to future generations of Americans the rights and privileges that have been passed to us for over two centuries. It is a trust. The notion that Supreme Court Justices, government officials or elite scholars are the only Americans who may offer worthwhile opinions on constitutional issues is far too narrow. At most, their years of study and review offer a snapshot view when put into perspective along side the centuries the document has existed. The Constitution, and interpretations of it, belong as much to the proprietor of a small business, the homemaker, the college freshman, the taxi driver, and the newly naturalized immigrant as it does to any American. We must guard this document and the Bill of Rights with vigilance. I wish that those people who argue against the right to bear arms could have seen what I have seen in my life about this world we live in - they might gain an appreciation or how fragile this Republic by the People really is. And, they might have a better appreciation for the entire Bill of Rights and REAL HISTORY vs. the POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - the first can liberate you; the latter will enslave you. Both my wife and I have served in our military in combat zones in Korea and Desert Storm and we do not take this country with its freedoms and its dangers lightly. Today, she is a professor of History and I teach college Political Science. There is no greater cause for either of us than to hand down to our children the right of individual self government. The notion that the founding fathers in designing the Bill of Rights were correct in the importance of freedom of the press yet incorrect when it came to the necessity of armed citizens in the space of two paragraphs reflects ignorance or duplicity at best. Our constitution should not be trifled with. Our forefathers knew well that guns are designed to kill. This is still very true. They didn't mention hunters, or sportsmen, or home protection - they were well aware that guns were intended to equalize people - the wealthy or the poor - the powerful and the weak. Pity the person who actually believes that the powerful would negotiate the domain of governments, commerce, individual rights and liberties out of some sense of benevolence or righteousness. Even a foolish person who examines the line of time for 'civilization' will be presented with the cold clear fact that participatory power sharing between the rulers and the ruled did not occur until two events and one singular condition existed: Bibles - Gunpowder - and a New World separated from the old by geographical circumstance. This concept of individual self government where the people are 'endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights' equal and unquestionable did not spring forth when it did without reason. To assume that the people in all of the ages of this earth who lived prior to 1776 submitted to royalty or tyrants because of satisfaction or cowardice is intellectually naive. This new nation came into being because the means coincided with the concepts of the Enlightenment. Even the most powerful king, chief, or dictator understands the usefulness of negotiation when confronted with an armed citizenry that makes two things clear; #1) citizens are willing to kill to secure certain rights and #2) that they, the citizens, are willing to die in the process. If this nation is to remain free for future generations, the rights of the people to arm themselves is much more than merely a right to be exercised. It is a necessity to freedom that the means of securing all the rights of individual man and self government be obvious and openly apparent to all who govern. I would suggest that ayone who argues against the right to bear arms ought to review early American history. If they do, they will find that their right to speak their mind freely owes much to the right to bear arms and the threat of death to tyrants provided only by a 'culture of guns' in the hands of ordinary people who are free. If a person truly loves liberty and freedom, the only thing that should be feared more than ordinary citizens who have the freedom to arm themselves is an armed government who is the only one who possesses arms. - Van Jenerette thoughts... "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass." "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." - Thomas Jefferson "Firearms stand next to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." - George Washington "The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." - Daniel Webster

Our Republic...If we can keep it...

�

[robertpaulsen]

"If the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety."

Illegally using a gun could interfere with public safety, but I cannot fathom how the "right to own a gun" or even owning a gun interferes with public safety.

Since I have the right to own a gun, and I own a gun, I will interfere with the safety of any public that attempts to put my life, or the lives of others, in jeopardy.

[William Terrell]

Another poor soul that has a phobia about shapes, L shapes and long triagular shapes in this case. I suggest counselling. Perhaps in time he can be released as a functioning member of society, without danger to himself and others.