Musing on Gun Rights
June 28, 2010 12:23 pm Current Events, Politics, Self Defense, firearms, shootingSo we know there’s plenty of hand-wringing happening with the gun banners today. We’ve even got Paul Helmke claiming victory with this decision. Not really sure how he gets there, but whatever floats your boat. It’s a win for the pro-freedom crowd.
But I want to ask another question of the gun-banners.
Do you really believe that psychopaths and sociopaths bent on violence could exist peacefully in society if only we took away all the guns? Would the lack of an effective tool change the intent or motivation?
I’ve been known to hammer in nails using a wrench when a hammer isn’t available. Sure a hammer would be a better tool for the job, but I can improvise to get the job done. It doesn’t change my desire to hang a picture. I just have to be a little more creative.
I think most people would agree that the last thing we need are more creative murderers. Surely that isn’t the intent.
Is the gun-banner’s idea of utopia a world with with rampant bludgeoning deaths? Because death by blunt force trauma is preferable to rapid onset lead poisoning. Or will they then demonize baseball bats and anything else that could be used as a bludgeon?
And so then we would live in a world where drownings made front page news. All water would then have to be contained in tamper proof containers in small enough quantities so as not to be used to bludgeon. No more buckets or swimming pools.
And yet why is the rate of strangulation rising at such an alarming rate? Will mittens then be required?
This is the problem with the idea of demonizing a thing. Things have no inherent goodness or malice; they just are. It is the action of the person wielding the thing that deserves judgment. Crimes are actions committed by people. The object employed is neither good nor evil. Working against actions is obvious.
Murder is bad. This is an issue where Paul Helmke and I do not disagree. Murder is an action. I believe the best thing to do about murder is to equip people to defend themselves against murderers. Paul Helke believes removing one object from their arsenal is going to have a profound effect on their desires. It defies logic.
The gun banners have a warped view of the human race. They simultaneously believe that an inanimate object will turn a law abiding citizen into a crazed maniac and that the crazed maniac could peacefully exist in a society without the same inanimate object. Personally I do not believe that a person bent on violence will not be changed by a lack of tools. Likewise, a normally peaceful person will not be changed by the presence of said tool.
*edited to fix typo. Too many ‘nots’.
June 28th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Somewhat off main topic –
As with Heller this is reported as 5-4 for incorporation, because the majority opinion was signed by 5.
Not so fast. Thomas actually wrote a concurrence but thinks “Privileges and Immunities” is better support for that position than the majority stressing “Due Process” clause.
Justice Scalia’s opinion is actually a concurrence as well – he attacks Stevens’ opinion.
Stevens probably repeats his Heller asininity agreeing that it is an individual right and should be incorporated and Chicago’s law[s] should be reviewed, BUT even a universal right can legitimately be written out of existence.
June 28th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
About Scalia’s Opinion
June 28th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
I couldn’t agree more.
I hope you guys in the US are never foolish enough to give up the right to bear arms as we so idiotically did here in Australia.
June 28th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
[...] are four quotes quotes I want to use here. The first is from Jennifer: The gun banners have a warped view of the human race. They simultaneously believe that an [...]
June 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
All I can say is that it takes a lot of self delusion for Helmke to see this as a victory for the anti-gun crowd.
But hey, the left runs on delusions and rainbows so he’s true to form.
June 30th, 2010 at 7:40 am
You are on the point when you put up the wrench example above.
What you have hinted on is to change the mindsets of people living in our society at large.
I mean do we really care who lives next door or what are they going through right now?
The question is not merely of collective responsibility but of our internal and external management.
Many instances of people shooting innocents as they were teased,bothered by some people before.Is this the way to address such situations?
We live on our fuse points ready to blow everything up if we have the reason for doing this and this is our problem.
Do we really belong to the civilized world?
June 30th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Bustor,
I don’t know if you are agreeing or disagreeing because your comments lack clarity and congruity.
As a matter of fact, I do know most of my neighbors, care for them, and do keep up with what is going on in their lives. Similarly, I don’t think that you have the right to speak for all of us “living on our fuse points ready to blow up.” This is a childish way to act, and many of us exercise self-restraint as adults. In fact, I would challenge you to provide one documented case of someone without any criminal record, legally arming themselves, and then using that power as retaliation for the schoolyard bullying that you describe above. It is the rare example of those that are not capable of self-restraint that compels the more responsible of us to arm ourselves.
Since I do exercise self-restraint, I suppose I owe it to our society to be one of the armed in that case. If carrying a gun would tempt you personally to shoot someone because they call you names or for whatever petty reason, I would recommend you as an individual avoid guns altogether. I have no such problems, and there are many more like me.
No, we do not live in a civilized world – we live in a fallen and corrupt world. This is exactly why we should arm ourselves – accountability. If you were tempted to mug me, but suspected that I was trained and armed to put you down, you would think longer and harder about it before making the mistake. When the creeps and villains in our society know that they may suffer deadly consequences for their ill actions, they are less likely to strike. This is why an armed society is a polite society – not because if you mouth off you might get lead in your face, but because arming the good people keeps the bad people in check. The reason the laws are so specific on when it is and is not appropriate for us to use our guns is to hold the gun owner accountable as well. We aren’t out there combing the streets, looking for people to shoot, because we are committed to doing what is right and legal.
Due to concealed carry, and thus the legitimate fears of the less-savory element in our society, people like me are making the streets safer for people like you, whether you choose to exercise your right to arm yourself or not. This is because the bad guy can’t pick out which one of us is armed, and it could be either one for all he knows. So, if you feel that you would not be responsible arming yourself, do what you feel is right. But please, don’t accuse the rest of us of horrible things that we aren’t doing.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Some of the anti-types I’ve known just don’t like guns and want them to go away; like they think “If we ban them then I won’t have to worry about such things.” The fact that crooks will still get and use them doesn’t seem to matter to that.
Others, it seems to be “If we pass this law then things will change and the criminals- if there still are any- won’t use them anymore! And since nobody will be allowed to have them there won’t be any shootings and whatever!”
Add to that the gun bigots(”You people should not be allowed to own such, only the minions of government should have them issued!”), it seems to cover most of them.