Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on April 27, 2013 at 4:22am

Judith, you recognize a few realities that many people don't but the oppression began earlier than you say.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others at the 1787 Federal Convention provided for oppression by America's wealthy. You can read their words in Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. His three volumes can be found in many large public libraries and the last time I did a search Amazon had them in paperback.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Humphrey on April 27, 2013 at 6:03am

I agree that owning personal firearms will do little to prevent a heavily armed government from becoming a dictatorship and suppressing freedoms.

We here in the US are already under a multitude of laws and regulations defining what we can or can't do.  While many of these regulations are necessary, there are those which are not.  In my opinion the Patriot Act (what a name)  is a law designed to take away any rights the government deems necessary.  Congress passed it in the hysteria which swept the country following 9/11.  It is a law of unintended (maybe not) consequences.  It makes habeas corpus a joke..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brett Arthur on February 2, 2012 at 9:20am

I believe there was a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the subject that said something along the lines of "the second amendment won't be necessary until the government tries to take it." Or at least that's what it essentially implied. There's a reason loose gun laws lower crime rates. I'm all for class licenses and such, but registration and bannings are a joke.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 2, 2012 at 3:18pm

There's a reason loose gun laws lower crime rates.

Do they?  I haven't really looked at any studies in a long time, but the last time I did, they mostly seemed to be conflicting.  It seems difficult to actually measure this, but my general impression was that there isn't really a distinct correlation.  If you have any salient studies or articles supporting your statement, I'd be interested in reading them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rodney Harper on February 2, 2012 at 9:57am

What about the right to arm bears?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Willoughby on February 2, 2012 at 8:16pm

Yes, I think that should happen. Please make that happen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sophie on February 2, 2012 at 9:57am

I do not own a gun because a travel so much. But once my traveling dies down, I do plan to purchase two handguns. One near my bed and one in my kitchen area because I am in my kitchen most of the time. 

These are points that I agree with.

Why have we let our government legislate us into becoming potential victims? Criminals have guns while law-abiding citizens are left helpless. 

Two:

Any gun control that restricts law-abiding citizens is ridiculous - we're not the people who commit crimes.

Finally, police cannot protect citizens, and even if they could, they do not have an obligation to do so. One must accept responsibility for one's own security.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by xi on February 2, 2012 at 3:30pm

all agreed. and someone who trains "peace officers" in the states...the ones in my area wont be called. they cant hit the broad side of a barn and will just accidentally shoot my wife, dog, turtle, fish tank.... then sprinkle some crack on all of us and say they stopped a drug deal

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 2, 2012 at 3:41pm

The frame up would probably work pretty well too: turtles are notorious for dealing the crack rock.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on February 2, 2012 at 3:46pm

Sounds like the problem, in your area, isn't a question of gun-control or -ownership but an issue with a) a poorly motivated/corrupt police force OR b) a big case of anti-police confirmation bias.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by xi on February 2, 2012 at 3:55pm

neither. i was sarcastically referring to the 20 years of training military and police in firearms. as well as pointing out sophie's last comment about what police officers in the U.S. are obligated to do, to "protect and serve" is not one of them. thats a post riot marketing slogan.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on February 2, 2012 at 5:31pm

The poor marksmanship of many people who are required to be professionally armed goes to poor motivation, I think, but I get what you're saying.

As I asked Sophie, though - if the police do not have an obligation to protect the citizenry, what ARE they obligated to do?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 30
• Next ›
• Page