Comments on: what is the primary debate about gun control? http://hr45.com/2009/04/01/what-is-the-primary-debate-about-gun-control/ Discuss HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:46:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: michael b http://hr45.com/2009/04/01/what-is-the-primary-debate-about-gun-control/comment-page-1/#comment-413 michael b Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:53:21 +0000 http://hr45.com/2009/03/29/what-is-the-primary-debate-about-gun-control/#comment-413 The debate concerning gun control has many different facets. There is the extreme left who feels that all guns are evil and should be banned from private ownership. Then there is the extreme right who feel that anybody should be allowed to own anything. The Constitution is clear on this matter in the 2nd amendment, which reads: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The key words in this right are "the people". As used in the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments it indicates that this is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right as many on the left side of the aisle would like it to be. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that it is an INDIVIDUAL right in a landmark case in Washington D.C., much to the chagrin of the gun grabbing left. Previously in United States vs Miller, the Supreme Court had ruled that the right applied only to those guns found suitable for use in the military. At the time it was considered a boon to the gun grabbing left, but upon further reflection they have distanced themselves from this ruling, coming to realize that if strictly followed, it would enable the general populace to be armed in a manner identical to the standing army. Both sides use the legislative process to enact new laws or repeal old laws on the books restricting the lawful use of firearms. The Brady Bill is but one example of this. The strategies employed by the gun grabber almost always relies on the uneducated fears of the typical "soccer mom" who has no data to go on other than what the likes of Gun Control Inc. feeds them. Most of the time when the opposing view is allowed to be expressed, the attitudes of the soccer moms changes to either one of apathy, or "pro-choice" in the personal ownership of firearms. Gun grabbers will point to such tragedies as Columbine, Va tech, and other shootings to try and prove their point about how laws are needed to prevent these atrocities from happening. What they DON"T tell you is that there w3ere already laws on the books that if followed, would have prevented them from happening. The problem with laws in preventing crime is they are only effective if the people don't break them. Common sense right? In each of the shootings portrayed in the news media, the shooters should: A. Never been in possession of a firearm. B. Never been in possession of a firearm in a "gun free zone". C. Used the firearm to commit a felony. What the law does do is hamper the law abiding citizen from adequately being able to defend himself or herself. If 1 single person had been armed, properly trained, and proficient in the use of a firearm at ANY of these atrocities, the outcome could have been VERY different. What celebrities are touting gun control? Usually the liberal left leaning ones who have no problem using them in their movies in an illegal fashion, citing their first amendment rights to do so. People like Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Streisand, Timothy Hutton, etc. What celebrities are pro-gun ownership, Tom Selleck, Gerald McCreany, Charlton Heston (RIP), Steven Segal, and Sylvester Stallone. To honestly figure out where you stand on the issue of personal gun ownership ask yourself these questions. 1. What is the average response time for the police to get to my house on a 911 call? If it is more than 5 minutes ask yourself how long it would take the criminal to rob or kill you and your spouse? 2. Who do you think a criminal is more likely to target for a robbery/ ****? A person he KNOWS to be unarmed, or a woman who just might be packing a .38 in her purse? 3. If you were faced with a situation where a criminal was threatening to **** you or kill you, could you use lethal force in defending yourself? If you could not, would you want somebody else near by to be able to do so on your behalf? If not, ask yourself how their doing so on your behalf would be any different than a policeman doing it on your behalf? It is a dangerous world we live in, and wishing for a utopian society where everybody obeys all the laws is a waste of time, effort, and money. In the long run it becomes dangerous as it insulates people from the real world and makes dealing with a confrontation with a raper/robber something they are not prepared to do, allowing the criminal element a much easier time to perpetrate the crime. The debate concerning gun control has many different facets. There is the extreme left who feels that all guns are evil and should be banned from private ownership. Then there is the extreme right who feel that anybody should be allowed to own anything.
The Constitution is clear on this matter in the 2nd amendment, which reads: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” The key words in this right are “the people”. As used in the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments it indicates that this is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right as many on the left side of the aisle would like it to be.
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that it is an INDIVIDUAL right in a landmark case in Washington D.C., much to the chagrin of the gun grabbing left. Previously in United States vs Miller, the Supreme Court had ruled that the right applied only to those guns found suitable for use in the military. At the time it was considered a boon to the gun grabbing left, but upon further reflection they have distanced themselves from this ruling, coming to realize that if strictly followed, it would enable the general populace to be armed in a manner identical to the standing army.
Both sides use the legislative process to enact new laws or repeal old laws on the books restricting the lawful use of firearms. The Brady Bill is but one example of this.
The strategies employed by the gun grabber almost always relies on the uneducated fears of the typical “soccer mom” who has no data to go on other than what the likes of Gun Control Inc. feeds them. Most of the time when the opposing view is allowed to be expressed, the attitudes of the soccer moms changes to either one of apathy, or “pro-choice” in the personal ownership of firearms. Gun grabbers will point to such tragedies as Columbine, Va tech, and other shootings to try and prove their point about how laws are needed to prevent these atrocities from happening. What they DON”T tell you is that there w3ere already laws on the books that if followed, would have prevented them from happening. The problem with laws in preventing crime is they are only effective if the people don’t break them. Common sense right? In each of the shootings portrayed in the news media, the shooters should: A. Never been in possession of a firearm. B. Never been in possession of a firearm in a “gun free zone”. C. Used the firearm to commit a felony.
What the law does do is hamper the law abiding citizen from adequately being able to defend himself or herself. If 1 single person had been armed, properly trained, and proficient in the use of a firearm at ANY of these atrocities, the outcome could have been VERY different.
What celebrities are touting gun control? Usually the liberal left leaning ones who have no problem using them in their movies in an illegal fashion, citing their first amendment rights to do so. People like Jane Fonda, Rosie O’Donnell, Barbara Streisand, Timothy Hutton, etc.
What celebrities are pro-gun ownership, Tom Selleck, Gerald McCreany, Charlton Heston (RIP), Steven Segal, and Sylvester Stallone.

To honestly figure out where you stand on the issue of personal gun ownership ask yourself these questions.
1. What is the average response time for the police to get to my house on a 911 call?
If it is more than 5 minutes ask yourself how long it would take the criminal to rob or kill you and your spouse?
2. Who do you think a criminal is more likely to target for a robbery/ ****? A person he KNOWS to be unarmed, or a woman who just might be packing a .38 in her purse?
3. If you were faced with a situation where a criminal was threatening to **** you or kill you, could you use lethal force in defending yourself?
If you could not, would you want somebody else near by to be able to do so on your behalf?
If not, ask yourself how their doing so on your behalf would be any different than a policeman doing it on your behalf?

It is a dangerous world we live in, and wishing for a utopian society where everybody obeys all the laws is a waste of time, effort, and money. In the long run it becomes dangerous as it insulates people from the real world and makes dealing with a confrontation with a raper/robber something they are not prepared to do, allowing the criminal element a much easier time to perpetrate the crime.

]]>