[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
- From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:31:51 -0400
LH: It is interesting that you find some of our rights outdated. How
condescending of you. They likelihood that we may ever have a tyranny may
be low, but so what? Our founding fathers were worried about it. The world
still has tyrannies. Nothing in existence precludes having one here.
Thanks for your interest, but we'll just keep our Second Amendment until
human nature changes.
And you are making damned sure that it doesn't, not in 'merica anyway.
I'm not extending the Second Amendment to anything. I'm describing why the
Second Amendment exists, but it exists now because we are free men. It
exists because we the people have the power here in America – at least so
far.
Do you actually believe that?
Yes, I know you'd like us to give up our guns and become like Europeans,
I don't want you to give up your guns. I want you to give up your LOVE of
guns and seeming NECESSITY to use them for those things for which guns
aren't really necessary -- namely killing 'criminals' in private situations.
but it isn't our way – at least not the way of most of us – although
Leftist-pacifistic beliefs in big-government which controls people from
cradle to grave is making inroads here as it is in Europe.
I'm not even for 'gun-control' other than in the hands of the gun owners.
But when you have a society that can't control itself, as the citizens of
USA repeatedly display, well I think you can finish that sentence.
Do you really think the world is no so safe and peaceful that Americans
can give up their guns?
I'm not saying that America needs to disarm the whole country - i.e. the
military -- but for chrissake, the notion of 'needing' a gun in everday life
in Canada or Europe is ludicrous. I just fail to see why YOU need one there?
Well, okay, I see why you do, cause there a bunch of other maniac gun-toting
idiots ready to pop a cap in yo ass. We don't have that problem. Once again,
it's not a gun problem. But the prevalence and EASY acquisition of them
exacerbate the deplorable situation you have.
We don't need to justify why we have guns. We have them because we are
entitled to them.
My point in my previous post was that you DO justify them by saying "so we
can kill them who we believes need killin" but you justify that "RIGHT" by
saying "we have the right to bear arms blah blah blah". The argument for
that right has nothing to do with the reason you want and love to have guns
now.
I would rather ask why you don't have them?
I could legally obtain a gun if I wanted on. Millions of Canadians DO have
guns, but unlike in the US, a whole lot of them are actually for hunting and
for target practice. Since I think hunting - as a pasttime is tremendously
boring and unnecessarily dangerous (especially for the prey) I don't own a
long gun and I live in a subdivision nowhere near any target ranges, so I
don't own any for practice. But I think the reason I don't have a gun or
want a gun is precisely because I have shot many different guns and it's
frightening to me what they can do so simply. I also don't have a gun for
protection because, quite frankly, I feel perfectly safe in my Country and
never even think that someone else might be coming after me with a gun. It's
not because my government tells me I can't, because although there are
stricter laws governing the use and acquisition of guns, most guns, other
than things that are obviously for military used (ak-47 etc.) are legal to
own in Canada. But for some reason, we just don't as a nation have a boner
for a gun like you guys. Why don't you ask yourself why that is?
Doesn't your government trust you with them?
How condescending of YOU.
We on the other hand don't trust leaders that want to take this right away
from us – that may be why none of the front runners in the current
presidential race are proposing anything so ludicrous.
Notice you frothingly all the Leftist Pacifists have glommed onto
gun-control slogans and don't want to trace this train back to its
inception, the killing of 32 people by the Nutcase Cho in a state that
entitles anyone who qualifies to carry a concealed weapon EXCEPT IN VIRGINIA
TECH WHICH WAS DECLARED A GUN FREE ZONE! Would Cho have even attempted
his rampage had not Virginian Tech disarmed itself? Probably not.
I think the whole 'gun control' issue is irrelevant to the Cho case
insofar as it relates to people possessing guns. The fact is, he got guns
very quickly from easily accessible sources and then went bananas. You can't
"control" the bananas part, but you certainly CAN control the acquisition.
Even so, I don't think it's preventable without outlawing guns outright and
I don't think that's feasible. 17 1/2 years ago, Marc Lepine opened up and
killed a bunch of women at a polytechnic school in Quebec (he was also a
nutcase, the US has no monopoly on those) Weapons are to be had in all
societies if you want them badly enough; but... surely we can foster a
society where 'reaching for your gun' is not the first thing that enters
your head when you see someone else. That continues to be my only point.
paul
Other related posts:
