On one day, in one American town 13 times as many people (27) were murdered by gun than were murdered by gun (2) in one entire year (2006) in Japan, a nation of 127,000,000 people. And yet we dither. The warning from the Right is that “they are coming for your guns.” This is partially true (we’re coming for some of them) except that “they” is actually “we,” and “you,” whether you know it or not, are actually part of that we because that we includes family, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens, which is not nearly as nebulous an entity as your favorite bogeyman “the government.” We the people are coming. And you, as a person who may have no respect for government, need to respect that.
We are told that we must come to you now politely and with respect to gain your support or at least your lack of resistance to the new set of laws and regulations that, hopefully, will soon apply to the guns you covet and worship. I for one am in no such mood. Accountability is a big word in your dialectic, and in your unyielding attitude toward gun ownership in America, and in your support of the NRA I am holding you accountable for enabling the gun-available environment that led to the mass slaughter of children in Connecticut, to name but one incident. You will resist this characterization because you are a sportsman or a hobbyist or a perceived self-defender who is merely exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. You are innocent. But you are not. What you’re guilty of is indifference, in the face of brutal statistics (31,000 gun deaths per year in America), to the mayhem inflicted on your communities, near and afar, by your stubborn affection for guns.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That is correct. That is why severe limitations on gun ownership and access to guns must be in effect in the United States. The reality of our imperfect and increasingly violence-tolerating culture (if you visited another world and witnessed children entertaining themselves with virtual games of shooting and death, would you view them as peace-loving or something else?), is something you can no longer ignore. That reality, not your connection to times past or to the glowing mythology of guns in America, demands an adaptation and a response to the killing power of modern guns.
This much I know. If I had a tradition, activity or even a need that involved guns, and I saw what guns at large had done to my country, I would gladly limit or compromise my access to guns for the greater good. Not to do so would be disgracefully un-American and insupportable, but most of all selfish. As good, responsible and deserving as you think you are, our society is peopled by many who are hostile, irresponsible, uncontrollable, ill-trained, and imbalanced. Efforts to control or monitor those members of society have and will always fall unacceptably short. That leaves guns as the controllable variable in the American equation of death by guns.
The fact of the matter is that this truly is NOT about guns, so you've gotten it half right. It is about our Rights. Why don't we switch things up for a change? Let’s all say we're going to restrict the 1st Amendment instead. We all know that crimes such as child pornography are horrible. And we know that it's only gotten worse in the last twenty years. AND we know that because we have greater access to the internet today, we can transfer information around the world in seconds. I propose we immediately cut everyone’s access ability by 90%. You would be required to show a valid NEED before being access online, or transfer files larger than two kilobytes. A valid certification from a medical professional would be required, and you could only transfer through a registered portal. While I know this wouldn’t stop transfers of ALL porn, if we can just save one child..... Yes, you saw what I did there.
More than 2/3rds of the security in this country is done by private firms now, and the police have become more rogue and unpredictable than ever. Just visit http://www.copblock.org to see the never ending horror story of police abuse. Maybe the citizens should have the guns, and the government shouldn't? Why not? Could it be much worse than what's going on now? I really don't think so because what's going on now is a never ending streaming of what seems like daily police horror stories of abuse. The police are becoming more militant and confrontational. It seems as if their role is not to keep the police but to agitate, arrest or raise revenue. It's time to think of alternatives, peaceful alternatives. http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Towns-to-pay-3-5M-in-deadly-cop-raid-4290145.php#ixzz2LZz2EK7G
Your proposal means ending the 1st Admendment,which I seriously think is in greater danger than the 2nd Admendment.
Who cares what poll says this, or what poll says that? Who cares what study says this, or what study says that? Who cares what the Democrats think or the Republicans? Who cares what Malloy thinks or Obama? Who cares what is popular today in the wake of gun hysteria or later when it cools off? 99% of the discussion on gun control avoids the most important issue, the moral issue. Every individual has a right to life, liberty, property and justice and to deny anyone, for any reason (as long as they don't violate your natural rights) no matter how sensational, is immoral. . If you believe in immorality, then you are probably fine with gun control and probably have a million and one ways to rationalize your immorality toward your neighbors right to live free, own property and have justice and you can read them all above. The U.S.A. has been different because it, by and large, stood for liberty, justice and the rule of law. To punish those who've hurt no one and threatened no one by limiting these rights, reducing these rights or taking them away is not justice, is not consistent with morality or the rule of law. What it is is convicting your innocent neighbors in advance of a crime you fear they could commit. It is punishing your friends a result of your paranoia. It's a sickness every bit as evil as Adam Lanza's and the only cure is rational thinking. Either you believe in justice and freedom or not.
Once again you've completely missed the point that CT Guy was trying to make. I suggest that you re-read his post, this time slower, and try again.
Mr Bond, do you really think it's childish to want to protect one's life, liberty and property or is it maybe an inalienable god-given natural right? I suggest you read up on John Lock, Natural Rights and the Social Contract Theory as these are the fundamental principles that our country was founded upon. The idea boils down to this, if government doesn't exist to protect our right to life, liberty and property, then why do we need it? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
And if you read what I wrote, I never said end it. Just some restrictions on internet traffic. You can still have your words. Nobody's coming for your words. Hypocrite.
Do you really think it's a good idea to depend solely on government to defend and protect you which is the question gun control really asks? If it is, why don't we depend solely on government to provide us other things that are equally important such as; food, clothing, shelter, dentistry, medical care, housing, baby care, elderly care and more? Why not? Because we all know government is not a very efficient or quality deliverer or provider of services and most Americans don't want to be dependent on government to live because it's degrading, inhuman and just a pretty stupid idea. I know that there are some exceptions to this rule, but most are run poorly at best like the USPS, the VA, Indian Reservations, the (waste at the ) Pentagon, public housing, etc. We don't ask government to solely provide us with these things? Because we are not a socialist-totalitarian dictatorship. If you believe in gun control, you really believe in a totalitarian dictatorship because the ultimate goal of gun control is the abolition of guns in the hands of citizens and the monopoly of guns, and absolute authority, in the hands of the state. This is the very definition of totalitarianism and is a recipe for unhappiness, poverty, suffering and worse. So realize that the support of gun control is the support of authoritarianism at least, and totalitarian dictatorship at worse.
It seems most mass shootings occur in suburban environments; shopping malls, colleges, schools and workplaces. It seems as if the issue of gun deaths didn't become important until 20 children in a very suburban, relatively affluent, white community suffered. It seems as if the issue isn't one of '...even if it only saves one life...' so much as it is '...even if it only saves one white life...' Afterall, where is the outrage for all the inner city , predominately black, youths that are killed every day, week, month, year? Newtown was indeed the tipping point for many, many who expressed little if any concern for inner city homicides. Not until it strikes home, in quiet white neighborhoods does it become important. It seems that inner city gun deaths are related to gang and drug issues while mass shootings are related to mental health issues and present gun control proposals do nothing at all to rectify either issue. Other than to *possibly* force the next mass shooter to choose another method of killing. The proposed state and federal gun control legislation aren't going to make inner cities or affluent suburbs any safer but it will make suburban voters feel better.
It's bound to come apart sooner or later.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millondissidents were rounded up and killed. In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies,homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest,were rounded up and killed. In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20- milliondissidents were rounded up and killed. In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million educated" people were rounded up and killed. In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves. In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were roundedup and killed. Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century...
Peter, maybe it is that you are too selfish and self-centered to see that all the things you listed in a holistic sense. Sure, some individuals lost their lives, but this sacrifice was for the good of the whole country. This is the idea behind the politics of people like Obama and it's called collectivism. Most Democrats, as well as Republicans believe in collectivism and it's the driving force behind the ever expanding role, scope and size of government and this is called statism. Collectivism is also, coincidentally, the driving force behind the rapid loss of our individual liberties, civil rights, privacy and economic freedom. Not that this is a bad thing though. You need to remember that the means is ALWAYS justified by the needs of collective. You say that this could be used to rationalize any horrible atrocity!? Well, yes, but again you are being selfish. Stop worrying about the individual. If you remember to keep your eye on the greater good of the collective AT ALL TIMES and you'll feel much better. Isn't collectivism fun!?
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334