* My comments *

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?

There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.

----------------------------------------------

That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?

Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?

* Gee, do you THINK so ? - I do. *

Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.

* ...the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them. *

Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?

I think the answer is yes.

And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.

I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.

Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?

* What do we think ? *

--------------------------------------------------

Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.

And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.

A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."

They are.

And they are right.

* Yeah. Nothings changed. They're still right. *

Journal Inquirer - Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

On the Issue of the Second Amendment, I Believe it is the Right Of every citizen to own firearms. i own 13 guns and i enjoy going and shooting them at the range. and they are also for protection. But the key that everybody in the united states is the simple fact it is our RIGHT! to own firearms. just like every other amendment to the constitution. this one is no different. our forefathers gave us this right so we could defend ourselfs and protect ourselfes in case the government ever became too powerful. now i'm not a nut but it is our right. and people will just have to deal with that.

God Bless
Jason

Nothing has changed. The only difference now is that you hear about it more.
Just how reasonable would it be to assume there would be a high success rate if this option were taken?

“In the armed robberies 16.4% of the unarmed victims confronted by armed offenders were injured similar to the 18% who were injured in hijackings. It would appear that a high level of injury occurred in those instances where there was an armed victim confronted by armed offenders. However, due to the few cases, this is difficult to verify.”

The fate of an armed victim
An unarmed victim is more likely to have possessions stolen than an armed victim. It was found that in these robberies, an unarmed victim (65.6%) had more chance of having possessions stolen that an armed victim (34.1%) when confronted by one or more offenders with one or more firearms. It was found that even the armed victims when confronted by one or more offenders with no weapons had possessions stolen (12.5%).

In a robbery, an unarmed victim (17%) has lower chances of being injured that an armed victim (34.1%) when confronted by one or more offenders with one or more firearms. Under these circumstances, slightly more firearm injury is experienced by the armed victim (2.4%) than by the unarmed victim (1.8%).


Summing up the sample
The possession of a firearm by a victim does not always favourably influence the outcome of a robbery for the victim. There are circumstances under which this may assist the victim in not having their possessions stolen, although this may be at the expense of an injury. An unarmed victim has a greater chance of having his or her possessions stolen during a robbery, while an armed victim has a greater chance of being injured, when confronted by one or more armed offenders.

The deterrence value of a firearm during a robbery cannot be determined against other types of deterrent actions such as screaming, using a mace spray, running, turning on a light or utilising a siren, etc. Further research on the value of comparative alternative deterrent mechanisms is needed.

The mere possession of a firearm is not necessarily a deterrent to a crime. Once a crime occurs and if the victim is armed, the chances of successful defence may slightly improve, but the chances of receiving bodily injury greatly increase.

Clare Hansmann
Institute for Security Studies

In the line of fire: The impact of firearms on the outcome of a robbery - Nedbank ISS Crime Index Vol 4 No 1, 2000


Hardly conclusive but neither are individual anecdotes or blustery rhetoric.


About what?

Prohibitions have never worked and have usually exacerbated the problem, adding the elements of organized crime to the mix. Take the drug war, as a popular example used to disparage prohibitions. A ban on firearms would be no different. We should have learned after Prohibition, but there are too many control freaks that think they know better than anyone else.

__________________

If firearms are so bad and corrupting, why is it mandatory that Peace Officers carry them? Are they not subject to the mind control that weapons exert?

__________________

No they aren't Spad - you should know that. They've received magical training from the all-powerful and benevolent Government. This magical training also makes them more valuable than the average citizen and therefore justifies them carrying weapons so they can defend themselves when needed.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

I question how anyone can think that more gun control is a good idea. Seriously there is no good argument to support that position.

Statistics tell me guns are needed in the United States.
Crime is highest here including homocides. You need to protect yourself from that.
When you consider safety of other countries, where guns are banned and crime is low, it is difficult to say that having guns means safer countries.
In essence, only criminals own guns in those countries.

__________________

I've often been intrigued by this thought and you've touched on it somewhat in your post above, so am writing here not in direct comment to your post, but more generally to everyone as I'm interested in people's thoughts. Jason touched on the desire to own firearms as a means of protection should the government ever become too powerful; however what I'm intrigued by is that gun-rights are traditionally associated with the Republican Party, yet it is this party that during the last few years has actively limited many of the rights of the citizens. I'm just wondering whether hardened pro-gun rights members still support the GOP, or are more inclined to support another party such as the Libertarians?

Thats actually an easy question to answer. Your assumption that the GOP has "actively limited many of the rights of the citizens" is flawed.

Glad I could help...

Have you read the USA Patriot Act?

Yes, and I still haven't lost a single right.

Have you heard of the endless string of Nanny State laws enacted by the democrats? Motorcyclists required to wear helmets, no smoking in bars, no smoking in public places, seatbelt laws, 10 day waiting period on guns, banning of certain types of fat in food, banning the use of IPOD at intersections (just read about that one in NY).

These are the types of laws that impact the rights of the individual citizen, and they are almost universally invented on the LEFT side of the aisle.

My magical training says that the lefties are a bunch of control freaks that want to say what everyone can and cannot do, except for themselves, that can do anything. IE: The Hollyweird left that says we have to conserve while they jet around on private planes. But they'll wash their hair less frequently. Is this for real? Does anyone buy this shit?

__________________

I already had Libertarian leanings when the NRA endorsed for election what turned out to be our most corrupt governor in my lifetime, despite the fact that there was a non-corrupt, pro-gun Libertarian running. Among the first things the R did was propose anti-gun legislation. That soured me no both the NRA and GOP.

No it's not. The various proclamations that the freedom sky is falling are well off the mark, but the GOP Is still infringing on our rights even if it is at a slower pace than the Democrats.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian