[lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:06:15 +0000
I have argued that gun laws are not only counter productive, that is, don't
produce the environment that anti-gun pacifists think it will, but are harmful
to society. What I have offered here is that laws do exist that would
theoretically, if they were adhered to, have kept the subject nutcase from
accomplishing his paranoid mission. Anti-gun laws don't work. Law abiding
people tend to give up their guns, but the criminals, wackos and Chos keep
theirs which is a paranoid situation in itself. What sort of society wants to
render itself defenseless. Yeah, Europe and Canada, I know, but does anyone in
the U.S. really want to emulate Europe and Canada? . . . Okay, a lot of those
Blue State wackos. However, there are enough people in the U.S. who believe in
the constitution and the Bill of Rights so that you are not in the foreseeable
future going to get guns removed from our society. You don't have the sort of
docile, peasant, proletariat here in the U.S. that would let you take away that
particular right.
But it is allllllllllllll moot, because you've got all the laws you could ask
for for controlling Cho. Virginia thought that its law met Federal Standards
but agrees it doesn't quite. Also, there is a bill that is going to create a
data base that is going to speed up notification.
But you don't really care around that, do you. You want your farcical,
non-possible, pacifistic state where no one has a weapons and no one wants to
use one.
I see you are honing the word "violence" to meet your specifications, but there
was no honing in Obama's speech that I can see: "Violence" open ended and
without limitation. It can mean anything anyone likes. You have added
something to the speech that isn't in it; why violence in response to violence
means one little specific thing and isn't to be taken as a generality. In
poetry you must take responsibility for all your ambiguities. Isn't that true
of politicians as well -- assuming your honing is correct.
You now say we have the right to self-defense? Really? Weren't you one of
those who didn't like the little old lady on her walker threatening the
predators who came to rob her and do who knows what else? By the way, aren't
you for higher minimum wages and more benefits to the needy? Why then do you
think it is okay for predators to rob the old and infirm? Allow the old
people to keep what they worked so hard to get and maybe they won't need so
many of your handouts. Some old person totters out with a gun to protect his
or her property which may have enormous sentimental value, or it may be
something he or she needs to survive, but if a gun is used for this defense
then the predators are forgotten, and the anti-gunners froth at the mouth to
lock up those old folks who haven't had quite all of the feistiness knocked out
of them yet. Let them spend their last few years in jail and see how they like
that!
I see you don't like police killings in Memphis? Do you think that is going to
go down once you gather up all the guns from normal citizens and melt them into
scrap metal?
You say, "That's precisely the problem with gun control in this country,
Lawrence. There are more loopholes than restrictions, more acknowledgement in
the breech than in compliance. I can buy any kind of gun I want without any
background check from a private individual, or I can steal it. I can buy any
gun I want without any background check from any gun show. I can buy any gun I
want without background checks from most pawn shops in Memphis. Gun control
laws are a joke and everyone who wants a gun knows it. There's no gun control
in the US." Illogical, illogical, illogical. Is California in the U.S.? If
it is, then your statement about gun control in the U.S. is false -- except for
the stealing part. You can steal a gun in California if you are a criminal and
know how to do that, but Gun Control laws are aimed at the ordinary citizen,
the one who wants to be law abiding. He may give up his gun for him if you
threaten him with some sort of violence (physical, verbal, or economic); which
gets you what, exactly?
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Apr-23-2007 3:52 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
LH:
>>Note that Obama places resisting violence on the same level as violence.
>><<
That's certainly not my interpretation. Obama quoting Kennedy:
'"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily -
whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by
one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or
in response to violence -...."
It's life taken UNNECESSARILY whether in an attack of violence or in
response to that attack that Kennedy condemns. My guess is that he was
referring to the killing by police of blacks who rioted after King's
assassination. I can tell you there were many police killings in Memphis
that were wanton police violence.
>>Is the violence a policeman uses to apprehend a criminal wrong?<<
It depends on the circumstances, obviously.
>>Is the violence a mother uses to fend off a wild animal attacking her baby
>>wrong?<<
Who among us doesn't believe that human life is of a higher order than
"animal" life?
>>And if someone in that fatal "gun free zone" of Virginian Tech had exerted
>>violence and stopped Cho, would that have been wrong?<<
It would depend on the circumstances, obviously. But as a general
principle, who among us would argue that we don't have the right to
self-defense?
>>As has been explained, Federal Laws are in place that would have prevented
>>Cho from acquiring a weapon -- had the law been complied with.<<
That's precisely the problem with gun control in this country, Lawrence.
There are more loopholes than restrictions, more acknowledgement in the
breech than in compliance. I can buy any kind of gun I want without any
background check from a private individual, or I can steal it. I can buy
any gun I want without any background check from any gun show. I can buy
any gun I want without background checks from most pawn shops in Memphis.
Gun control laws are a joke and everyone who wants a gun knows it. There's
no gun control in the US.
>>A rule was in place declaring Virginia Tech a "Gun Free Zone."<<
Oh, my, and that didn't stop a sociopath? Well, let's throw out all the
laws then.
>>It is illogical to use Cho as a springboard for new anti-gun legislation
>>when existing legislation would have prevented Cho from getting the guns
>>he purchased had it been complied with.<<
Well, I personally would outlaw all guns, period, melt them down, forbid
their manufacture. But that's still a bit down the road. More anti-gun
legislation might indeed be senseless unless there's the federal and state
governments get serious about enforcement. They never have been.
>>Obama says, "we do accept violence, in various forms, all the time in our
>>society. We glorify it, we encourage it, we ignore it, and it is
>>heartbreaking and it has to stop." What does this mean? He hasn't defined
>>what sort of violence he is talking about.<<
Certainly, he did. Read the transcript.
>>There are certain sorts of violence which are commendable. He doesn't
>>distinguish between using violence to resist an attacker and the violence
>>of the attacker.<<
Yes, I used to have these kinds of fantasies when I was about 12 or 13 -- I
would fend off a gang of thugs and everyone thought I was so heroic. But
I've put away the things of a child.
>>And who is this "we" that glorifies, encourages, ignores (to glorify and
>>encourage while at the same time ignoring violence seems rather difficult)
>>violence,
You and me and baby makes 3.
>>and what sort of violence is being encouraged, glorified and ignored? <<
It really, really might help if you would read the damn transcript.
>>When we watch movies, do "we" still root for the good guy to be victorious
>>over the bad guy, even if he has to use violence to do it? I hope so.<<
I hope we've grown more sophisticated than to believe that the world can be
divided into good guys and bad guys. I mean, really, where would you place
George Bush on such a spectrum? Depends, doesn't it? On what specifically
he's to be judged on.
>>He apparently doesn't like the idea of resisting the bad guy. His
>>solution for making the bad guy give up his violence? He says,"it is
>>heartbreaking and it has to stop." Gosh, Obama. I don't think that's
>>going to work.<<
Gosh, Lawrence, I don't think you've thought very deeply about this.
>>Making laws against "We" to prevent "Cho" is illogical.<<
Making and enforcing laws that prevent mentally unbalanced people from
acquiring guns is not illogical. It might be something you disagree with,
but it's not illogical. Your argument doesn't even qualify as an argument
to be judged logical or not.
>>Also, piously declaring "it has to stop" is an impossibility. How do you
>>get madness to stop? How do you get psychoses to stop? He doesn't
>>propose more money for mental health studies. Why not? Wouldn't that
>>make, or at least try to make "it stop"?<<
The madness Obama is talking about is the cultural madness, not the specific
madness of men like Cho. You can get social madness to stop, but it's a
long term process and it starts when you recognize that there's a problem --
a social sickness.
>>And then he includes some more of his party platform under the rubric
>>'violence': The violence of Capitalism that starts & stops & moves about
>>businesses violently disrupts lives. Also, it violently doesn't have a
>>high enough minimum wage. Good grief!<<
Obviously you don't even recognize the problem yet. But I still have faith
in you, Lawrence.
>>If he were to declare that he opposes the violent defense of our nation,
>>he would give his opponent, whoever he or she might be, the most lopsided
>>win in a presidential election ever.<<
I've never know anyone so enthralled with violence, Lawrence. Do the
authorities know about this? Better hide your guns.
Mike Geary
Memphis
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
