I heard this guy on NPR at lunchtime. Interesting argument. As he put it, a mother legally can carry a handgun for protection all day long, but when she comes to campus for a night class, she can’t. After Virginia Tech, you have to wonder what would have happened there if students had been armed.
Va. Tech Killings Underscore Guns-on-Campus Campaign
Some college students are pushing for their schools to allow them to carry guns on campus.
They say they should have the right to protect themselves in the event of a shooting like the one that left 33 people dead at Virginia Tech.
Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University senior, has organized a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
The group hopes to convince legislators to overturn a Virginia law that allows universities to prohibit students, faculty and staff members with gun permits from carrying their weapons on campus.
Dysart says that the students at Tech should have had a chance to defend themselves.
Virginia law allows schools to decide whether to allow students with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns on campus.
One state school, Blue Ridge Community College, does allow it. Schools cannot prohibit non-students or other outsiders from carrying weapons onto campuses if they have legal permits.
#182
No. Without the authority for citizens to carry firearms, the people still retain the “right” to abolish that government even though they lose the power to effect that change. Everyone always thinks that their government could never possibly become corrupt. That is certainly what the Germans thought in 1933, as did the Italians of the same period, the Iraqis in the late 1970s, Cambodians, Iranians, North Koreans…
from 171
> Over time America moved from a well regulated Militia to a well
> regulated Army. However the right to bear arms has not been
> modified reflecting this move from a Militia to a Army. Here is the
> root of the problem
This is a common misconception.
If you read the fifth amendment, you will see that Land and Naval Forces are explicitly defined as separate from the militia.
[…] arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia […]
There are also many, many references to differentiate between the State and the People.
The militia is NOT the army. It is you and me, with a gun, ready to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, if called to do so. In the meantime, we all have the right to carry that weapon.
#183 You make a good point that the people always retain the right to abolish governments however they may lack the power to effect it.
Hitler, Mussolini, Communists and Mao had power over the population but how they wrested that power from the people is interesting – the people were happy to willingly give it to them!
The others gained their power over the people from fear so here is the suggestion that if the general populace was armed they could oppose those who threaten them.
Not true, as there there would need to be a coherent force to unify the population to oppose the government and that means either a civil war or you have a Iraq.
Either of these models fit America – there is no real reason for an armed populace to stand ready to overthrow the government if need be. Why is that? If the American people are not willing to exercise the power they already hold over the government through legal means today why would they do so some time in the future through a revolution? Hitler is the example for that.
Americans do have the power of the vote – but don’t exercise it as it is too much trouble to do so – things aren’t really that bad, it will get better, life continues as it has for generations and so on.
If comes a time were there is a real need to exercise ultimate power – it will be too far gone and too late to have any effect E.G. Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Remember Hitler became a dictator legally – aside from the threats from the SD (Brown Shirts) Germans thought life is better, Germany is prospering.
Although the Nazi government forbade its citizens from listening to overseas radio there were no restrictions placed on travel in or out of Nazi Germany (the Reichmark had no official exchange rate so this tended to limit those who wished to travel.)
In fact Hitler welcomed people from other countries to visit Nazi Germany to see the ‘great’ things he has done. The Berlin Olympics, The Hindenburg as a show piece for travel to and from Germany and so on. (The irony is that America even praised Hitler for all the good he has done for Germany – a model for other countries – well up until 1939 at least)
So arming the American people is not the solution to the problem as the problem has yet to be defined as to why the population requires arming in the first place. Solve that one first and everything else falls into place – but that is the tough one.
Is it self defence? Protection from attacks, gangs, disturbed people with a gun on campus? The quick and easy answer is yes – but nothing is solved in reality.
Find out why there is rust instead of only painting over it.
Well I always liked – No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig – it’s still a pig! (Yes, I know that is why God invented beer!)
Cheers
#186, fine, of course the first ammendment will now only apply to quill pens and Guttenburg presses. The founding fathers could not have immagined the power of radio, the internet, or telephones.
187–If thats what it takes, fine with me.==err, actually, no!
Why make the linkage? Most people are against guns, most people are against restrictions in free speech regardless of modalities.
Yes, a good case for majority rule. What do you gun nuts have against majority rule and strict interpretation of the Constitution if thats what it takes to get around your juvenile fascinations?
In fact, heres a bonus==turn in a gun and get a free pacifier filled with Budwieser, AND the latest version of DOOM so you wont feel deprived.
#184 “The militia is NOT the army. It is you and me, with a gun, ready to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, if called to do so. In the meantime, we all have the right to carry that weapon.”
You miss the point. The world was a different place +200 years ago. To claim that we all should be armed in case of an enemy does manage to get through the US Armed forces to American soil the home guard will take care of them? Shoot everyone who looks like a terrorist? Really??
Again look to Nazi Germany – it was the armed home guard that fought off the Russian army in Berlin – fat of a lot of good it did them. 😉
One might be tempted to use Nazi Germany as a reason for an American home guard, citizens who are armed as they were armed so it worked for them. Aside from the evils of Nazism lets look objectivity at Germany at that period of time.
Before the Nazi’s, Germany was a crime ridden country, anarchy, the threat of revolution, defected in war, high unemployment, poverty, no future or direction. How did the Nazi’s get the populace over to their side and to win the praise of other countries as a model for themselves in recovering after the depression?
Direction from a strong leader, the German people now had hope, they were working towards something, the country had a focus, people had work – jobs, life was good (well not if you were Jewish or Gay), a dream of greater Germany was happening all around for all to see – shame it was for something so evil and twisted.
How this happened has merit.
If a country and a populace has lost their direction and hope for a better future anarchy follows. Rome? What is America’s direction, its focus, what is their dream for themselves and their children? It seems that the American dream been outsourced to China and soon to be India – and damn, that is not fair!
Understand that these are the root causes for what is happening in America today. The American people are tired of America being the world police, tired of losing their jobs, tired of being manipulated by the government in which trust was lost, tired of being told that they have to look to the bigger picture, tired of the criminals treated as the victims, tired of big businesses robbing their life savings, tired of losing the neighbourhood values that their parents had with their bank, work, shops – tired of not having a direction to follow and tired of not having someone to lead.
Get that direction of America back on line, leading the people towards a better secure future for themselves and their children, get back that American know-how, get back what it really meant to be a proud American, and by standing tall these other problems will solve themselves. We have to work on it as no one can do it for us.
Cheers
189–Ihhz–a bit wordy, but I like what you say. We are close in our perceptions. I surprised myself above when I wrote that gun use was justified only in a failed society. Thanks for your historical perspecitive adding weight to that view.
So, when society is sick==do you try a cure, or just heap on more illness?
Bobbo – I need your economy of words!
“So, when society is sick==do you try a cure, or just heap on more illness?”
Well said!
Cheers
TIHZ_HO –
I used to read Boxum News all the time. What happened to them?
Who are the Falun Gong?
How many people did Mao murder, collecting the guns and the knives traditionally converted to swords?
Didn’t the government just prohibit publishing bad news?
What’s this about a (something) Bao, the punishing of ten families for the crimes of one member of one family?
You want me to go on? Like how the Embassies control the Chinese students here in the US?
>>Lets revoke the 2nd Amendment and treat guns like any other
>>csimilar object like dynamite or blasting caps or chicken
>>fertilizer?==ie, strictly regulated.
Gosh, bobbo. Do you live in a state where guns are NOT regulated? Could you identify it? Every state that I have lived in (and I’ve lived in a number) required a background check, a waiting period, and usually restricted the number of guns you could buy.
>>Most people are against guns
Oh…really? Do you have any data to back this up? Or is this just another content-free ex cathedra pronouncement from the King of Pizza Crust?
Polls (e.g. http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm) show that the true state of affairs is anything BUT what you say.
I suppose most people are “against guns” in the sense that most people think it would be nice if all implements of violence magically disappeared, along with the urge to commit violence. Along with world hunger, injustice, intolerance, disease, and every other sling and arrow that afflicts our mortal coil.
In the real world, though, “most people” recognize that trying to legislate away our problems by banning gun ownership by law-abiding folks is a losing proposition.
192–Phillep==name one society EVER wherein the government did not do whatever it wanted to do because its people were armed?
193–MM. I assume you are correct that polls can be found all over the place–probably more related to how the question is asked than the “true views” of the polled.
So, I”ll go with common sense.
192, Phillep
That is very unfair. TIHZ does not speak for the Chinese Government. He is not the one to take to task for that. If you need to understand something like Boxum News or the Falun Gong, Wikipedia is a good place to look.
BTW, so when are you joining the Army? I understand they have some skivvies just waiting for a chicken hawk like you. I’ll even bet there is some sand flea in Iraq with your blood type on his sucker.
>>So, I’’ll go with common sense.
I know, bobbo. Hard data can be a bitch. And when it’s contrary to your preconceived notions, you just ignore it, rather than present any evidence to the contrary.
If you read the poll link I posted, you can see exactly “how they ask the question”, and they ask it in many different ways. However, the answer is always the same: “Most people” don’t agree that making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to own guns will ameliorate the problem of violent crime against innocent victims.
Your version of “common sense” must differ from mine (and from that of most people); it seems so self-evident as not even worthy of discussion that an innocent victim who can defend him- or herself is safer than one who is defenseless. But hey….de gustibus no disputandem est. If you’d like to be offered up like a lamb to the slaughter, move to a town where ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens is illegal.
196–Well MM==you are right, I didn’t go to your site because in my experience, what I said holds. And it holds in your site too. Unless you see the entire poll–all the questions and how they were asked, the results can be very manufactured.
Still, I think your site is pretty good. Many polls, atleast we assume the exact question asked is presented?
My review of the site shows that indeed “most” people are for reduced guns. Most polls show that result. The few that go the other way do so by only a few points.
Common sense though says to remove poisons from the air and water we drink, to vaccinate the kiddies, to place speed limits on our roads, and to limit the availability of guns.
MM—what value do you see in keeping guns legal that justify the taking of so many lives each year?
#195 Mr Fusion – Thanks! I am happy to explain to Phillep some things 😉
#192: “How many people did Mao murder, collecting the guns and the knives traditionally converted to swords?”
Estimates in China are about 20 million. Deng Xiaoping Mao’s successor made a national announcement on TV, Radio and Print that said in essence “We were wrong, Mao was wrong for the persecution, imprisonment and murder of educated people, the cultural revolution was wrong.
The Chinese government paid what was a lot of money in those days to those so affected by these actions and Deng said in essence “The money will not bring back those who suffered – China needs to look forward to a new future”
With that Deng Xiaoping moved China away from a Communist state to a Capitalist one – and so that now allows Chinese people to own their homes, have businesses and other freedoms unheard of only 20 years ago. It takes time and it is China’s policy to develop and take its place in the world instead of being apart from it.
“Didn’t the government just prohibit publishing bad news?”
Not from what I can see here in China – I got confused about the China Airline crash which isn’t Mainland China’s airline – its Taiwanese China Airline. We get a lot of ‘bad news’ about China on CCTV, and online – My wife is Chinese and everyday I hear “Wow look at this…and it is something gruesome like a country side factory with what are essentially slave labourers.
This is common in China and there is editing of “safe news” like when Beijing wants to improve the traffic problems only the good results get reported – at least for the first day! LOL I think this might be something taken out of context or the Chinese government wants foreign media to be fair in its reporting vs tabloid style. Be assured if what you say is happening I will post a comment about it.
“What’s this about a (something) Bao, the punishing of ten families for the crimes of one member of one family?”
Not today – think Mao. However if someone is executed the family is given the bill for the bullet – that still goes on. One must understand Chinese culture – a person can bring shame onto the family as the family ought to have taken more care in the raising of their child.
“You want me to go on? Like how the Embassies control the Chinese students here in the US?”
Sure – There has been many Chinese students who jump ship and become an illegal immigrant in many countries. China DOES NOT put any travel restrictions on its people but other countries do make it hard for Chinese to even get a tourist visa – they must be part of a group. Getting a Student Visa is one way that Chinese are able to get their own visa – and shit happens!
My wife is Chinese, and we reside in Shanghai China, I have been in China many years (first time in 1992) and for 11 months in 2005 we lived in MN. The Chinese embassy / government couldn’t care less what she is doing in America.
The point is, you have the popular impression of what China is and then there is what it really is. I don;t know how many times I have been told by Chinese who are travelling to the States they are really afraid that as soon as they leave the airport they will be shot!! Another funny one is (and I was there to see it) one Chinese person asked this black man what it was like to be a slave!!
My wife and I were in Germany at a trade show and a couple from Iran came to our booth. My wife (you would have to know her) ended up asking how it felt to live in a dangerous country like Iran? I couldn’t fit under the table!! They laughed and were happy to talk to us about what it is really like in Iran – nothing like we hear in the news. It looks like we might do business with them and my wife will have a trip there soon. (I won’t go even though they said that there is no problems – I don’t want to deal with Homeland security if I have an Iranian stamp in my passport).
My wife asked if she must wear a head thing as she calls it and they said it would show respect if she did and advised not to wear mini skirts and low cut tops. The Iranian woman we were talking to was dressed very fashionably and she said to my wife – dress like me. So WTF? I do want to see for myself!! BTW Their English was PERFECT!
Bottom line is, Chinese have their own image of America just like Americans have theirs about China – somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Cheers
BTW If after next month I am not seen commenting any more I have been kidnapped in Iran! KIDDING!!! 😀
>>I didn’t go to your site because in my experience, what I said holds.
Gee, that’s very open-minded of you, Pizza King. Why allow yourself to be confused by the facts??
>>Unless you see the entire poll–all the questions and how
>>they were asked, the results can be very manufactured.
Uh, bobbo? I hate to break this to you, but you DO see the entire poll. But again, why get confused by the fact? Just like others on this site, “you are right and I am wrong”.
>>My review of the site shows that indeed “most” people
>>are for reduced guns.
Please refer specifically to the result that shows “most” people favor taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. I don’t want to get into the whole Pot/ Kettle thing here, but of course “most” people want guns taken away from criminals. That’s not the bone of contention here.
>>Common sense says …. to limit the availability of guns.
Again, bobbo, please let me know where you live that the availability of guns is not limited? I realize that criminals can get them illegally quite easily, but are you such a simpleton as to imagine that making guns illegal for law-abiding citizens to get would have any effect on what criminals do, which is ALREADY illegal?
>>what value do you see in keeping guns legal that justify
>>the taking of so many lives each year?
We’re not talking about “making guns illegal”, bobbo, and you well know that. Stop with the straw men. We’re talking about allowing law-abiding citizens to continue exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
In the alternative, if you are aware of some method for removing all guns from the face of the earth, let me know. I’ll vote for it.
>>The few that go the other way do so by only a few points.
Yes, if you ask the question in a format like “would you like to see fewer guns on the street”, most people (myself included) would probably answer “yes”.
However, if you as the question that is the real meat of this matter “Do you think law-abiding citizens should be rendered helpless, and only criminals should be the ones able to get guns?”, guess which way the cookie crumbles? And not just “by only a few points”, either.
“…Zahra Kazemi, a photojournalist with dual Canadian-Iranian citizenship. Kazemi died in 2003 from a blow to the head while in custody in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.”
I don’t think I’d do business with this regime.
#199 MM “We’re talking about allowing law-abiding citizens to continue exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Constitutional rights are not set in stone.
Bobbo made the comment I also echoed “So, when society is sick==do you try a cure, or just heap on more illness?”
This whole gun…thing…it is indicative of a greater ill. Treat the disease.
Prohibition, has anyone used that as an argument for guns? We could get to maybe 300 posts on that – or more! (Here it comes! LOL)
Cheers
199–MM==>>what value do you see in keeping guns legal that justify
>>the taking of so many lives each year?
#201 Yeah I know!! I heard it all already! I do want to get the inside track though as I figure like everything else the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thanks though for your caution! 😀
BTW Europe does do a lot of trade with Iran – that’s how we met these people at a major trade show in Germany. Iranian companies also exhibit in many trade shows as well.
Cheers
>>Constitutional rights are not set in stone.
Heh. Ain’t THAT the truth!?!! We’ve certainly discovered that in the last 7 years of Little King Dumbya’s reign.
>>Bobbo made the comment I also echoed “So, when society
>>is sick==do you try a cure, or just heap on more illness?”
You mean like “if a country is invading yours, do you defend yourself?”, or “if you’re faced with an epidemic of infectious disease, do you vaccinate using a version of the pathogenic organism?”
I reiterate my original contention: If there were some way to remove all guns from the face of the earth, I’d vote for the proposition. I’m no fan of guns (although I have owned a number in my day, I am currently unarmed and defenseless). But allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms has the same kind of beneficial effect that mass vaccinations against the flu do; even if you don’t get one yourself, you’re still less likely to catch the flu because of the protection afforded to others around you.
And as to “Prohibition”, prohibition of guns works about as well as prohibition of Demon Rum, or the War On Drugs. That in itself is a compelling argument against the silly notion.
#185
> Not true, as there there would need
> to be a coherent force to unify the
> population to oppose the government
> and that means either a civil war or you have a Iraq.
Yep. That means civil war or guerrilla war. Keep in mind that the difference between Civil War and Revolution is who wins.
Regarding voting, you are making the mistake of assuming that because people turn out in low numbers to the polls that they would not change in a heartbeat if it came to Civil War. It is one of the reasons that the Japanese thought they could take the Pacific. They figured that if they wiped out a majority of the US fleet at Pearl, that Americans, thinking they had no shot at winning, would not care and just let them have it.
Regarding Hitler, one of the first things Hitler did was to disarm the populace. Many at the time felt that this was a good idea because we were in a happier, shinier world now where people did not resort to violence (sound familiar?). Had the populace still be armed, it is still possible that Germany would have conquered quite a bit of Europe but it is equally possible that people would have resisted and that resistance would have been substantially more costly to the German Army. Armies don’t like engaging in guerrilla wars especially against their own people.
#186
> Thinking guns protect against a wayward
> government is pure lunacy and a flight of fantasy.
Is there any better proof against this sentiment than Iraq? Having an armed populace makes a *HUGE* difference even if they armed with only handguns.
By the way, it is not clear that crafters of the Second Amendment meant to prevent people from having things like cannons. The only reason people did not buy them is because of cost. Further, the modern day equivalent to 18th century weapons are rifles, shotguns and handguns.
You want to get rid of guns? Then let’s start with the military. After all, they are only needed for “bears and injuns” right?
205–MM==>>what value do you see in keeping guns legal that justify
>>the taking of so many lives each year?
You get close to it but a simple declarative sentence might explain more?
#188
If you think that a majority of the country want to ban guns, then pass an Amendment that trumps the Second Amendment. That means you will need 38 State legislatures to agree. Won’t happen. Not only will it not happen, it will fail spectacularly.
>>You get close to it but a simple declarative sentence
>>might explain more?
Bobbo, it’s 5pm somewhere. Go have a beer. If there was a point to that post, I missed it.
As to why I think “guns should be kept legal”, use your common sense (assuming you have some). I don’t want to sound like the NRA here, but “if owning guns is a crime, only criminals will own guns”.
Can you debunk that, or will you just continue that nonsense of making believe you’re Plato with his dialogues?
#206 – Good points – and spot on about the Japanese and Germany.
The German home guard when it came time to stand up was nothing but old men and kids given what ever arms were still around to fight off the Russians. That did a lot of good!
It is really something to think about how close Hitler came to pulling it off – at least for a while.
Cheers
#204 TIHZ_HO
She was a middle-aged Canadian lady and she’d dead.
That’s true and there’s nothing more straightforward than that, so be careful – even with your posts on DU from there.
#205 MM
Arming the population or the elimination of all guns are not addressing the root causes of the problem.
The need of guns by the populace is indicative of a problem – people want to protect themselves.
Protection from what?
Well, other people with guns!
Why do these other people with guns want to hurt me?
Ahhh that’s the problem! Get that taken care of and everything else falls in line.
Yes it is 5PM somewhere but not here its 1:50am and time to say good night to all of you – I had a great time having such a great discussion! I managed NOT to get much work done today and this post will move off the front page…so signing off…
Cheers! 😀