Why I Think We Should Lose Our Gun Privileges

Author’s Note: Apparently this post has caused a bit of a stir.  When we first started TTAF we tossed around the idea of having point-counterpoint articles in which one person offers their ideas on an issue and then another writes their own, opposing view.  While this was not the intention with the particular post, we have decided to open up the floor to it.  If you want to write a post positing the opposite view please do so and send it to us.  My email address can be found in the comment section and you can find the TTAF address on your right in the sidebar.  No profanity or personal attacks, keep it under three pages, and have it in by wednesday.  The four administrators will look over the posts sent in and we will publish the one that we feel is the best.  Note that this post is my own personal opinion and it is not necessarily shared by the other administrators so don’t accuse me of picking an essay that is weak, we will fairly assess all of the entries.  Lastly, this is not a political blog, we do not have a collective political agenda, we are just sharing our thoughts about being men, and, wanting to share all viewpoints within the realm of being a man, we would like to give you the chance to offer the opposing viewpoint.  Gentlemen, to your computers!

Administrators Note: We have removed all comments containing hateful attacks on the author and obscenities.  We want to promote real dialogue in the comments section, not profanity laced tirades.

Remember in elementary school when your teacher would threaten to take away recess?  With some teachers it would be with a strike on the board, with others it was frowny faces, and still others would erase tallies on the board as the class became more and more unruly.  Sometimes these actions were taken because the entire class was out of control, like during the week before Christmas, but for the most part it was because of a few bad apples in the class ruining it for the others.  There were always the quiet kids sitting in the corner, doing what they were told and listening, that would lose recess because of the actions of others.  Similarly, I can remember in high school when the entire baseball team had to run miles on the beach, so much that some guys puked right in front of people laying out by the water, because of someone sticking gum in the vents of the bus on the trip down to Florida.  Yet again we all remember how the events of 9/11 and the horrible decisions of a few people resulted in all of us, even to this day, having to give up certain privileges in security and what we are allowed to carry on planes.  Cell phone bans in cars because of careless decisions, dress codes in businesses and schools because some people do not know how to conduct themselves in public. The list could go on and on.

As unpopular as this is going to sound, I think that it is about time that we adopted a similar approach with guns.  Despite the fact that the vast majority of people out there are responsible with them, I think that we should collectively have our gun privilege taken away.

I have thought about this for some time now and it has most definitely been influenced both by the recent events in Aurora, Colorado as well as the death of Trayvon Martin.  These two events are not the only reason I am writing this post, though. This is not a reaction piece.  In fact at various points in my life I have owned/possessed a gun and had little hesitation though much regret in wielding one.  Simply put, we have come to a point in time where I truly believe that we urgently need to control guns, even to the point that I would vote to make them completely illegal.

What Do I Think We Should Do?

To be honest, I do not know the answer to this question, but I have some ideas.  First of all I think we need to make all automatic and semi-automatic guns illegal.  I am sorry, but you simply do not need a gun that can shoot off rounds at that rate, and what happened in Aurora is a perfect example of why.  If you truly believe that you do need this type of gun please let me know why in the comment section.  Yes it can be fun to shoot guns, yes they can be collectors items and, again, the vast majority of people out there are responsible with these guns, but the fact that many people throughout history have not been responsible with them and killed people makes this, in my mind, a reasonable request.

Also, I think that we should impose heavy taxes on guns used for hunting (in conjunction with a ban on semi-automatic weapons).  Not only this but the screening process should be much more in-depth, and the waiting period longer (it took me all of about ten minutes to purchase a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol in 2007).  In short, I think that it should be much harder and more expensive to obtain a gun.  I am not completely sure that these solutions would actually solve any problems (some say that gun control laws are not the answer), but there is no way that they could make the problem worse.  The best solution would be to make all guns illegal, but I know that would never happen, and I am willing to accept that.  Feel free to offer suggestions below.

What About Hunting?

I am willing to leave guns for hunting alone for the most part, the main reason being in their inability to fire an enormous amount of rounds in a short time frame (I would also be for regulating magazine sizes in guns).  Again, there are plenty of people that use guns for the correct reasons and they do not abuse that privelege.  However, as I mentioned above, I do believe that even hunting weapons should be heavily regulated.

What About Other Deadly Objects?

You may ask, “What about knives, cars, and other objects that kill people?”  Yes of course there are other objects that people have used to kill others.  Car accidents happen every day, and many people are murdered with knives as well.  In many ways I have no argument against this but then I think about the fact that guns really only have one purpose, which is to kill.  Cars and knives have many other purposes, many of which are necessary and so many people are willing to be more lenient when they are used improperly.  Guns were made to kill, or at least inflict massive injury, or threaten to do so and without them we do not really lose any great ability that we would not have without them, the same cannot be said for cars, knives etc.

What About The Second Amendment?

This is where it becomes a little dicier.  You may tell me that the second amendment gives you the right to carry a gun and that no person or government has the power to take that right away from you.  Though most of our ideas about the right to carry a gun are based on the second amendment I think that the argument is fundamentally wrong.

Have a look at the second amendment:

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.

I am by no means a constitutional expert but when I read this, especially in the context of the third amendment,

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I see a law passed specifically within the context of a country fresh out of a revolution and wanting to guarantee people the right to overthrow a government if its oversteps its authority or becomes dictatorial.  Basically, it appears that this amendment is setting up the possibility to do the whole revolutionary war thing over again if needed.  There is no way that when this amendment was written that the founding fathers were trying to guarantee the right for a guy to carry a semi-automatic pistol with 17 rounds in the clip with him as he walks down the street, or for a man to have a house full of assault rifles in the middle of a suburban neighborhood.  This may be an unpopular opinion, but I simply refuse to believe that our current gun culture in America is what the writers of this amendment had in mind in 1791 when they were writing it.  So while our current laws give citizens extensive rights when it comes to guns, I think they do so based on a misinterpretation of the second amendment.

For more on guns, the Trayvon Martin case,  and the second amendment check out this article from The New Yorker.  I think it makes some important points and in a much more eloquent way than I ever could.

I Am Not Trying To Demonize Gun Owners!

Please understand this point.  I am not blaming you for anything, nor do I think any less of a person because they own a gun.  I am only trying to make the point that I think it is well past time that we undertake some serious attempts at curbing gun misuse by removing guns from society in general.

Wrap It Up Man So We Can Tear You Apart In The Comments!

Guns are too accessible in this country and I for one am willing to give up many perceived rights that I may have if it will keep events like the Aurora shooting from taking place, and probably even if it would not.

Not to sound too much like a hippy but I did write this post while watching a documentary on Bob Dylan and I cannot help but ask the question

How many times must the cannonballs fly before they are forever banned?

The role of government is to protect the people.  The role of a citizen is to promote the higher good. I for one think that much stricter  gun control laws would be a huge step towards both of these goals.

I promise I am not trying to start a fight, if you would like to discuss the topic please feel free to do so in the comment section.  Thanks for reading.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Various Things

Follow TTAF

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

94 Comments on “Why I Think We Should Lose Our Gun Privileges”

  1. Jump
    July 27, 2012 at 7:16 am #

    Uno: I was the first-grader that sat quietly in the corner while you bearded neanderthals got recess taken away for the rest of us. I hated group punishment back then and I hate it now. And I’m fairly confident you had a beard in first grade.
    B: I think the second amendment literally was written with the intent to give people the ability to form another militia. To be able to do that effectively in this era would mean the right to own stealth fighters and nuclear warheads… so do with that what you want.
    3: The distinction does have to be made between banning automatic guns and the other privileges you listed which have been taken away. You can carry box cutters on your person, just not on a plane. You can play on the Facebook all you like, just not while driving.

    … and I’m late for work. Thanks a lot.

    • curtisrrogers
      July 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

      I was the quiet kid too. I agree with B we would need tanks and jets to form a militia now. I also think that the point you make actually illustrates what I am trying to say, the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to modern american society and cannot be used as a basis for what people believe to be their right to carry a gun. Thanks for reading man and for being civil with the comment. Tell Andre I say hello.

  2. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    For whoever asked I being his brother can confirm that he did have a beard in the 1st grade, but would not have been responsible for you losing recess. I also agree that I am not a fan of group punishment due to the acts of a few people, but I do see the need to have some tougher laws when it comes to owning a gun. In my opinion taking away the right to own a gun, or taxing guns heavily will be about as useful as prohibition was. There are so many guns out there that the people who want them are going to get them no matter what the regulations. There would also be the problem of what to do with the guns people already own, especially those that are not registered correctly. I agree with your over all thought brother, but I’m not sure there is a good way to solve the problem.

    • curtisrrogers
      July 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

      Brother, I think prohibition is the best argument against what I wrote. But at the same time I am not sure that inability to properly enforce a law is a good argument against such a law. So for example it is impossible to control marijuana use or even something like texting and driving yet we still have laws against those things. I by no means think I have it all figured out, just throwing some ideas out there. I hope some of these folks who are obviously really angry over this realize that my opinion doesn’t matter much, after all I am 27 and live in a room at our parents house. Thanks for reading, commenting and not threatening my life.

  3. Pat
    July 27, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    It wouldn’t work, just wouldn’t. Chris’s example of prohibition is perfect for this, the wrong people were more than willing to keep the supply coming. Another modern example: the War on Drugs, the government can’t seem to stop those smugglers. And the cartels are already smuggling weapons into the U.S., including “assault rifles”. The 2010s would end up as a bloodier version of the 1920s. Just because the government says guns are illegal doesn’t mean that criminals and the black market will give there guns up. Remember, they’re criminals, they BREAK laws for a living.

    And also statistics say 1 in 5 Americans own a gun(s) as of 2010. So out of 312,543,872 Americans that means roughly 62,508,774 Americans own guns. In the past year 2 Americans have abused their guns and caused nationally known tragedies.

    Finally, you can buy fertilizer and other ingredients to make a homemade bomb just as easily as a gun. You take away guns and the people determined to cause tragedies such as Aurora will find a different tool. Ball bearings blasted in every direction can be just as nasty as a bullet.

    I’m of the firm opinion that guns are tools. It’s how they are used that’s the problem. At the heart of every attack there seems to be a social issue. Why not focus on that rather than the tool they used to commit the act?

    • curtisrrogers
      July 27, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

      Thanks for commenting Pat and for doing so in a way seeking real discussion. Like I told Chris (my brother) I think that the prohibition argument is the best attack of what I wrote. However, like I said I am not sure that not being able to enforce a law well is a good enough reason to not create a law.

      Yes I discussed two nationally known tragedies in America but they are by no means the only two cases of people misusing guns and killing people in the past year. I do not know the exact number of crimes committed with guns in the last year but I am sure they number in the thousands.

      You are right that people would use other tools to cause violence, but I have to believe it would be harder than accessing a gun. I know we cannot stop violent crimes, but we can make them more difficult to commit.

      Lastly, I agree that there are major social issues that need to be solved, I would just like to see gun control laws being passed to go alongside addressing those social issues. I understand that you think a gun is a tool but I would be interested in hearing what other use a gun has outside of causing, or threatening to cause violence (again remember that I am okay with hunting/sporting guns). Outside of sporting use, it seems to me that the only use of a gun is some sort of violence. Thanks for reading the site and for keeping it civil, the whole point was to start discussion, I by no means have all the answers and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

      • Pat
        July 28, 2012 at 12:01 pm #

        No problem, I enjoy a good, honest debate. I also find it rather annoying when people instantly go to attacks and insults.

        I don’t think that a law shouldn’t be passed just because it can’t be enforced. But, I think it would take an already rather difficult situation and make it much, much worse. The way I see it is if guns were banned it would create a bigger demand for them. A ban would force the “gun culture” underground. With the laws and paperwork required today there is a paper work trail, slim as it is the police were able to find exactly how and where James Holmes bought his guns. If guns were banned everything would move underground, no paper trail for when the next tragedy, unfortunately inevitable, occurs.

        Yes, there are undoubtedly more incidents with guns involved. I could not find a solid number that I was confident was accurate so I went with the latest pair of national news stories. But in contrast there also have been many times when a gun has saved someone’s life. And, every time that has happened that person has had a higher level of training then the average guy who just wants a .45 by his bedside.

        I’m all for making guns harder to access, but not banning them. I think many of the problems with guns are caused by people who really have no clue as to what they are doing, as in Trayvon Martin’s case. My thoughts are that classes like those offered by Magpul Dynamics should be mandatory and included in the CCW course. Stricter checks should be worked into the process as well, maybe a full background check in addition to the questionnaires and criminal checks.

        Guns are to many a hobby, like a car. I enjoy tinkering with my guns in addition to hunting with them. I think under the term “sporting gun” every gun qualifies for that, almost all of the gun owners I know have them to hunt with or for target shooting, one even does reenactments with his. The few who have them for the purpose of self defense have taken the higher level classes and are very proficient with their use, especially for when you use it and when you don’t. One guy specifically took the courses and bought his after a man broke into his house while his family was asleep.

        Finally I suppose I should address the Second Amendment. The right to bears arms is what I see as a way of equipping the population for another revolution if the government got out of control. That way the tools would be available should the situation ever get bad enough to call for something so drastic.

        In the end, it’s a very relevant argument and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss it.

      • curtisrrogers
        July 28, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

        The more I discuss this with others, the more it seems that a person’s belief of whether or not another revolution, or the need for another revolution, is plausible, is a key issue in the debate. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  4. July 27, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    I don’t have any gun privileges. I have gun rights.

  5. Henry Bowman
    July 27, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    Government cannot take rights they did not grant. The Constitution does not GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms, it merely ACKNOWLEDGES the pre-existing right.

  6. kevin
    July 27, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    They’re not privileges, you pinhead. They’re rights, and they were written EXACTLY for the reasons you suspect, then reject out of hand. In the Revolution, private citizens owned and operated all manner of cannon, as well as the most powerful weapons of the day, cannon armed ships of war, called privateers.

    There are 300,000,000+ guns in this country, and a miniscule number of them are ever used to do harm. You’ll never collect all of them, or even a significant portion of them, in any sort of ban.

    Then there’s also the fact that whatever idiotic laws passed by pinheads like you, I, and MILLIONS of others, simply will not comply.

  7. Dan Overcast
    July 27, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Okay, you’ve convinced me. Come to think of it, irresponsible journalists have quite often made incorrect statements, and released national security information that have cost lives. The Vietnam conflict, for example, was prolonged for years costing many American, and ultimately ended in the fall of South Vietnam, with the results being the mass execution of thousands of Vietnamese. I suppose it’s time for our freedom or the press privileges to be given up as well. Religious wars have resulted in untold millions of deaths, and we’ve all seen the result of religious zealotry… I suppose the privilege of being able to worship as one chooses also has to go. I’m sure there have been jury trials that have allowed criminals to go free, and doubtlessly those criminals have killed people, so our privilege of a trial by jury must be eliminated as well. Need I go on, or have I made my point?

  8. Anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    I have inalienable rights given to me by my creator.

    You evidently have privileges granted to you by the state,that can be taken away on a whim.

    If you want to go through your pathetic miserable life giving total control to the state, go ahead and take your place in the cattle car. What could go wrong with the state having a monopoly on violence? History shows no examples of abuse……………

    I will stay armed and vigilant and trust no man that wants to disarm me or my fellow citizens.

  9. Anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Let’s take away your “privileges” to free speech until you’re thoughts are inline with the king while we’re at it.

    You’re clueless.

  10. July 27, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Thank you for introducing me to your website.

    Unfortunately, it sucks.

  11. nigmalg
    July 27, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    Somebody find me this bill of privileges!

  12. nigmalg
    July 27, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    “There is no way that when this amendment was written that the founding fathers were trying to guarantee the right for a guy to carry a semi-automatic pistol with 17 rounds in the clip with him as he walks down the street, or for a man to have a house full of assault rifles in the middle of a suburban neighborhood”

    Boo. You make it too easy. No way the founding fathers could have seen the artificial violence capabilities of modern CGI in our movies. If we can stop these violent stories from influencing just one mass murderer, it would be worth it.

    Thanks to hollywood’s abuses, I think we should lose our first amendment privileges.

  13. DJ
    July 27, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    Pretty sure I don’t see any privileges there to be taken away.

  14. Ashamed_at_the_author
    July 27, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    You have no grasp on what a RIGHT is, and what a privilege is. I grant you zero internets.

  15. July 27, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    The right to bear arms and all other rights for that matter predate the constitution they come from God (the real one, you know the Father of Jesus)

    OP ewe is dumb as a bag of hammers ..

  16. Anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Typical liberal spewing. Maybe before you pontificate, you should shut your pie hole for a minute and pick up a US history book. Maybe you should go read the Federalist papers. Maybe you should go read the BILL OF RIGHTS – notice it doesnt say bill of privileges, it says the Bill of Rights. A privilege is something given to you and can be taken away. Whereas a right is not given, and as such cannot be taken away.

  17. Anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    I think the above comments pretty well sum it up for me as well. The only reason I will not stop liking on FB is ito see how much further and faster you can fall.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

  18. July 27, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    First, it’s a RIGHT, period. An inalienable human right, as essential to the life of liberty as the right to free speech. If it were subject to the notional “they never could have imagined” clause, as you say, then: The only protected speech would be that of public, written, or typeset printing nature, the rest; TV, radio, internet, phone, text, etc. would be subject to an arbitrary annual permitting process where you demonstrate competence and a “need”, before you pay for the privilege to speak. If it were notional, women would still be denied the vote and the only religions recognized and protected would be the ones in common practice during the 1700’s. There’s more, but everyone else has already beaten up the “rights’ angle.

    Second, none of the things you propose actually survive the common sense test. You openly admit that you’re not sure any problems would be solved, but contend that it couldn’t be worse. To the contrary, somewhere between 800K and 4.5 million people per year lawfully defend themselves with a firearm. In the wake of a ban on weapons, these successful defenses (since the only people really effected by laws are the lawful) essentially drop to zero, shifting their stats from the defender side to the victim side. For example, in the wake of bans in Australia and Great Britain, violent crime rates skyrocketed so much so that the British Home Office was caught lying about them in an effort to minimize the drama. As the phrase went, “God made men, but Col Colt (guns) made them equal”. Without efficient weapons, how else does a 110lb woman defend herself from a 250lb attacker? Before the Batman shooting, there was another incident that barely made the news where a 70 year old man defended himself and others with his gun. The worst mass killings in US history have involved bombs and fire, but I suppose the actual number of deaths mean less to you and other gun banners than the method of their deaths. You challenged the “need” of semi-automatic weapons and more, so, I submit to you the ghosts of victims of LA riot and Hurricane Katrina violence, of African genocide, Mexican and Colombian cartels, and the governments of China, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. These people often died by the gun, but more than that, they died for the WANT of a gun, a viable self defense tool. A simple analysis of successful and even failed popular revolutions throughout the centuries show the value of a well armed populace even against a superior opponent, and I can summarize that need with a simple question.

    Lets say you’re in a mall, doing some Xmas shopping. Thousands of people around you, when suddenly the bomb blasts and shots begin to ring out. Terrorists (or a psycho, take your pick..) have began killing people, and you have your wife and kids huddled behind a large planter. You’re quiet but can hear the approaching steps of the gunmen as they shoot the wounded and helpless. Your kids are crying and you can pick what you want in your hand. A: A cell phone, B: a single-shot .22 pistol (used for hunting) or C: a modern semi-automatic firearm with reliable ammo and extra standard capacity magazines. If your choice is A or B, then I applaud you for sticking to your convictions, but if it is C, then you are a hypocrite and should take a long look in the mirror.

    • curtisrrogers
      July 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

      Thanks for leaving a well thought out comment, I appreciate that. The point you make about freedom of speech and the internet is actually a pretty valid point. I have said it a couple of times already in the comments, I by no means think I have all the answers, I am just trying to work through stuff like this as I go. I fail to see how the people in the situations you listed died for the “want” of a gun, I am not sure that is the case, especially in the case of Hurricane Katrina. As to your question at the end of your comment, I have actually shot a gun at a person, find the story in the post “how I became a pacifist.” I have no desire to ever do so again. If you are asking what I would use to protect myself in that situation, with only these three choices I would take the semi-automatic rifle over a .22 or a cell phone, but I am not sure that makes me a hypocrite, maybe it does, I don’t know. Thanks again for being civil.

      • etcssmccrackin
        July 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

        The “want” of a gun comment was directed at situations where the weak and defenseless were subjugated by those who were armed. During the LA Riots Korean store-owners were famously pictured on the roofs of their businesses with AR-15 and AK style rifles, defending their businesses. During Hurricane Katrina there were several examples of roving looters passing by potential victims because of their prominently displayed arms. In Africa, the genocide committed by machete armed rival tribe-members is well documented, but less so are the rare cases of well armed villages becoming islands of peace in the horror, left alone by the savages. As far as the major nations, one need look only as far as the example of the Warsaw Ghetto and their valiant but failed uprising once the “final solution” was obvious. A few more guns and willing souls may have spared a few lives, it sure did in the case of Polish refugees that survived in the forests, fighting when they had to, and saving hundreds of Jewish Poles. What you desire for you and your family is your business, and if, after careful consideration, you have made a decision about how guns and or violence have no place in your life, then I wish you the best of luck. I for one have been in the military for 17 years, have family members that have been the victim of rape and armed robbery, and will do whatever is necessary to protect those I care for. I ask only that my decision to exercise my rights remain un-interfered with and not limited or infringed in any way. You are welcome for the civility.

      • Mike
        July 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

        Curtis – I read your story, “How I became a pacifist” and I’m finding a couple more holes in your argument and am less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You describe your Haiti incident as having occurred in 2004 when you were 19 years old and that it was such a significant emotional event that it generated the base of your pacifistic change. Then in this post you said you bought a .45 handgun in less than 10 minutes in 2007. Those two thoughts are pretty tough to reconcile. What made you buy the .45? I’m thinking that you didn’t actually buy a handgun. I’m looking for a credibility check here.

      • curtisrrogers
        July 27, 2012 at 11:55 pm #

        Your timeline is correct. I did in fact buy a gun (Springfield XD .45 Caliber) after that event. I felt like I needed to at that point in my life when I was moving to Haiti with my wife. The gun sat on a shelf for a couple years, I may have fired it 10 times at a barrel. I gave the gun to a friend a while back. This can be confirmed by multiple people. I guess the title “How I Became a Pacifist” is a bit misleading since I didn’t necessarily completely “convert” at that moment, even though that one moment made the biggest impact in my move to(wards) pacifism.

      • curtisrrogers
        July 28, 2012 at 7:24 am #

        I see it similar to my conversion to Christianity. I was baptized as a kid which was most definitely a turning point in my life. However it was and continues to be a process with various highs and lows and though I was baptized at the age of 12 I would say that I didn’t really become a Christian until I was about 17. Have I done things that are counterproductive to my original acceptance of Christ? Of course but I am still heading towards the same goal in the long run. My journey as a pacifist and guns is a similar road with various twists and turns. Of course this is not to suggest that my views on pacifism or guns are nearly as important to me as my faith, just an example of how they are similar on the exterior.

      • curtisrrogers
        July 28, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

        Mike, make sure you check out the note we added to the post and let the guys on your site know that we are looking for posts offering your viewpoint.

  19. FU
    July 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    To everyone who wants to ban guns… Molon Labe. Ill be waiting.

  20. Mike
    July 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    I’m saddened that you, as an American, would give away yours and my freedom so cheaply. You won’t receive any profanity from me or any personal derision though I am incredibly disappointed in you. You are looking for easy answers to reign in psychopaths and to do that you would remove a fundamental freedom here, ignoring that the actual facts (those compiled by the FBI, most other law enforcement agencies in the U.S., and in many strict gun-control countries) show removing weapons from law abiding citizens makes the problem of gun violence and other forms of violence worse. All gun control does, the type of which you’re proposing, is make some people feel good and somehow safer and makes us less safe as individuals and, more importantly, as a nation. The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted a myriad of ways since it’s ratification, but the bottom line is that it was intended to retain an armed citizenry capable of threatening its government (even Supreme Court judges agreed that was correct despite wanting to rule for strict gun control laws). That implied threat keeps government cognizant of its limitations. It gives citizens a last line of defense against a despotic, totalitarian government. It’s that simple. You also think that imposing high taxes on gun ownership would somehow help: So much for the rights of poor people… I can’t tell if you’re misguided, misinformed, uninformed, or simply want to exonerate yourself of the responsibility for your safety and the ultimate security of our form of governance. Despite the variety of TV shows and movies that portray government as being benevolent and reasoned, all history has shown that governments without the check of the people, i.e the ability of the people to overthrow it, eventually become totalitarian…but for the good of the people of course . I apologize for the length of this post; it wasn’t my intent to write a manifesto. Suffice to say, I think you’re wrong and I hope that you and those like you do not attain what you wish for. We will all lose and in a few years you will be one of the people asking, “How did this happen…?”

    • curtisrrogers
      July 27, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

      Mike, thanks for the extremely articulate comments and for doing so in a civl way. We obviously disagree on the issue, which is fine. I will say that I by no means think that the government is some benevolent entity that always has our best interests in mind. Also, I would say that Americans have not had the ability to overthrow the government, or hold it in check through the use of guns since the 1800’s (because of america’s military power) and we have yet to become a totalitarian government yet. I think you make a good point about excluding the poor. My idea would be to ban semi-automatic weapons and to heavily tax hunting firearms so you are right that would inhibit the poor’s access to hunting. Thanks for your thoughts and for keeping it friendly.

      • Mike
        July 27, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

        I disagree that Americans have not had the ability to overthrow the government since the 1800’s; we just haven’t felt a need to try related to the risk involved. While the Civil War was in the 1800’s (outside of the time period here), the South was able to generate a significant number of people who brought their own arms (a part of the reason they lost, inferior weaponry) to revolt against the United States government (not the “North” until hostilities began). You’re also assuming that America’s military servicemen are homogeneous in thought if used to combat insurrection. Surveys have been conducted within the ranks (sanctioned by the USG) asking questions related to how individuals would support efforts to put down insurrection. The results do not indicate a majority of support, despite the propensity of servicemen to follow orders. I think the reason we’ve seen no insurrection against our government is because it simply hasn’t been bad enough yet to warrant a majority response (the boiling frog analogy is probably pretty apropos though). I would argue that the government has not become totalitarian not because it’s benevolent, but because it still fears its citizenry, hence the push for further disarming efforts despite the facts (by the FBI, ATF, most law enforcement agencies) that these efforts do not reduce crime. The reduction in crime argument is factually hollow.
        The threat needs to remain. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating insurrection. I’m saying that the capability needs to be sustained. I still don’t see any rationale to heavily tax hunting rifles even under a strict gun control paradigm. Why tax something heavily if you’re already going to severely limit access? It doesn’t make sense and to still want to do it is not logical in any way. It doesn’t accomplish anything other than generate revenue and make criminals out of poor people. I would hope that you would, at a minimum, change your stance on that. To not do so makes me think that simply limiting access is not what you’re actually after. Gun control isn’t about guns: it’s about control.
        I respectfully disagree with your stance…still.

  21. joshacorman
    July 27, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    The Constitution is NOT scripture. It was not written by divine, omnipotent beings who could have understood that the right they were so eager to guarantee (while not bothering to guarantee the same rights to women, minorities, etc., but that’s a discussion for a different time) would some day mean that citizens could carry hand-held firearms that could do more damage in five minutes than an entire regiment of trained soldiers could have in the late 1700s. The complex political reasons they had for maintaining a militia are NOT, no matter how paranoid we may be, still viable. For the Aurora shooter to do what he did last week when the Constitution was drafted would have been impossible. A firearm to those men bears little relationship to the automatic and semi-automatic weapons that are so easily available today. To pretend that the 2nd amendment is in some way infallible simply because it comes from a revolutionary – and yes, incredibly wrought political document – is to pretend that our social needs have stayed the same since the late 1700s. Gun ownership is not an inalienable human right. It was not handed down to James Madison by God Almighty. To think that liberty has to include gun-ownership to be authentic has, to my mind, little grounding in rational thought, and is instead born from the trumped up rhetoric of fear-mongers who see regulation of any activity, no matter how dangerous or deadly, as an affront to existence.

    Also, on outlawing knives because they are also dangerous: I am in favor of outlawing all knifes that can stab dozens of people in just a few seconds.

    All in all, I see a lot of ad hominem attacks (surprise, surprise), misguided and often vague references to liberty and/or history, and hang-ups about semantics that skirt the actual issue.

    We have the highest gun ownership ratio in the world, and a similarly disproportional rate of deaths and injuries resulting from firearms. Because we have a free and democratic society, we don’t have the same concerns as the USSR did, or that North Korea, Iran, or other dictatorial societies do. If you really think that the US belongs in the conversation with those countries, then we simply don’t see the world through the same lens, and further discussion is, unfortunately, unlikely to prove fruitful.

    • Mike
      July 27, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

      Sadly Josh, you’re the type of person the Constitution was trying to protect against. The drafters of the Constitution and subsequent documents did understand what they were so fervently trying to protect, only in a different time. Jefferson and most of the other signers of the Declaration of Independence were staunch proponents of a citizen to be as capably armed as were the soldiers of the day. The complex political reasons you so quickly dismiss are just as relevant today as they were 200+ years ago. How ignorant of you not to see that. You will also be one of those people standing around wondering, “How could this happen?” when the rest of your rights are stripped away under the guise of safety and security. Enforce the laws already on the books for dealing with criminals and psychopaths and don’t blame evil on an inanimate object such as a gun or knife. They are only tools (as apparently you are), though more capable than your mind. I’m disappointed in myself that I even lowered my intellect to respond to you. You’re wrong Josh, and I hope you never get to see the society you wish for, one that is unarmed and has ceded all personal responsibility.

  22. etcssmccrackin
    July 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    You say Josh, that the comparison is irrelevant because we are hardly Soviet Russia. Perhaps not directly but the lesson still rings true. But, for a more contemporary example, how about the “battle of Athens”? Crooked local government and police dominate small town Georgia immediately after WW2 using intimidation, threats, and voter corruption. A group of veterans using military weapons defended themselves and their rights, forcing change and upholding their rights.

    Maybe gun rights were not “handed down from God”, but the right to self defense was. It is inherent in every living being, insect to man. Self defense without a gun however, becomes mostly a question of strength, size, and numbers. For a person to be able to successfully defend themselves with their hands takes decades of training and practice, whereas an elderly person can defend himself with a gun in far more examples. It is the equalizer, the vital link between having a defense right, and actually being able to use it.

    Also, it would have not been impossible, as I stated, alternative methods abound, especially for an intelligent individual. Are you really so naive as to think that, lacking guns, this latest murderer would have simply thrown up his hands and said “well, bombs/swords/fire/chemical/or biological weapons are too much of a hassle, I guess I’ll just finish my degree and become a productive member of society..” Lest you forget, the firearm was the most fearsome personal weapon at the time, we view them as inadequate due to our perspective, but to the founders, they were guaranteeing the most advanced personal military weapons available. They had just wrest their nation from a tyrant, and sought to never have to do so again. In fact, the first battles were as a direct result of gun control attempts. History is our guide. “We just want to register guns, not take them..” then “we want to take SOME guns, but just the bad ones..” then well, we’ve decided most of them are bad…” then what? Depending on the setting, the result is either: pointy knife and beer glass banning with an accompanying stratospheric violent crime rate, genocide, or subjugation, every time.

  23. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    I don’t even own a gun much less many guns which would necessitate an entire rack!

    But seriously I am blown away by the number of people who A. Think that we have a right handed down by God to own a gun. And B. can only express their opinions with vulgarity and attacks on the author.
    This is an opinion not an announcement of new law, let’s all calm down and be civil. I may not agree with the above opinion but I’m not going to jump to a conclusion about the person who holds the opinion, nor will I attack him.

    • July 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

      I agree with Chris, I may not agree with anything anyone said on here but I would never feel the need to attack someone for their opinions. We all have ours and per the 1st amendment, we are all allowed to speak them. I am appalled by the way people are treating the author. I think we all need to practice a little more LOVE and maybe guns wouldn’t even be necessary.

    • Mike
      July 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

      I agree with Chris on the matter of civility. While I 100% disagree with the author, there isn’t any need resort to vulgarity or profanity. There really isn’t any middle ground here though. The author and several others here would cede my ability to protect myself and defend against tyranny, both of which are actual concerns, not fictitious as Josh espouses. We can talk about the perceived problems, but the bottom line is I will never agree to what the author proposes, and no amount of discussion will change that. That doesn’t mean I’m ignorant, poorly read, or a conspiracy theorist; it means I fear the negative potential of my government bureaucrats, some elected officials and an uninformed and irresponsible electorate.

    • etcssmccrackin
      July 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

      The right handed down by God/Allah/Cthulhu or simply existing immaterial of a Creator or the lack thereof (whatever your beliefs), is the inherent right to self defense. Every human being on earth possesses a right to defend themselves, irregardless of place of birth or country of residence. The difference is that in some (read: most) places on earth, the right is unjustly infringed upon. Those we would defend ourselves against don’t care about laws and they don’t care about chivalry, they will accept any advantage given them and press it to their advantage. What weapons laws do is remove the tools of the law abiding (since they are the only people that pay attention to laws) to best exercise this right. In 100 years, perhaps the best, most efficient tool will be a phazer, but right now it is a modern firearm. It may be a semi-auto pistol (as in concealed handguns) or it may be a modern semi-auto sporting rifle like a AK or AR-15 clone (as used by those defending their homes and bushiness during the LA riots and Hurricane Katrina). Banning weapons places the law abiding in a position where unarmed combat is their only defense, and that’s fine if you are a 25 year old man that has practiced martial arts for 10 years (as long as there is one attacker, which there often is not) but what about everyone else? Legislated into helplessness by wishful thinking hoplophobes who quite frequently have the funds and social position for their own armed security.

  24. curtisrrogers
    July 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Alright, this has to be my last comment, I am taking up way too much time reading all of these. Here are come closing thoughts. #1 I am 27 years old and I live with my parents, you guys don’t have to ever worry about me obtaining some political rank and changing laws. Similarly, laws aren’t being changed because of this post, just a guy giving his opinion. #2 I am in fact not a pinhead, actually I have like a size 8 hat, I have a huge head. #3 The word “privilege” was used as a play off of the opening paragraph about kids in school, arguing the semantics over privileges and rights is outside the point of the article, it was intended to be a use of figurative language. #4 Thanks to the folks who kept it friendly, I was hoping to have a civil discussion on what I think is a valid point and I appreciate those of you who reciprocated. #5 I would like to thank the website that encouraged its readers to “tear me a new one” I have been needing a new one for quite some time now #6 The opinions in this post are solely my own, I do not speak for the other writers so any anger that you may have can be pointed directly at me, curtisreed.rogers@gmail.com. There are other great posts on this site that I think people on both sides of this issue can enjoy so check them out. Thanks for reading.

    • Mike
      July 27, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

      Curtis – Don’t leave now 🙂
      I came here as a result of being notified of your blog entry via #5 above and I don’t think you’ve been flamed too bad 🙂 Nowhere near what other, less literarily capable people have incurred. In a way, you should be flattered you’ve garnered our attention. We see you as possibly salvageable; intelligent and articulate enough to hopefully see that those who lead the gun control efforts don’t truly care about reducing violence: they care about control. I’m not talking about the victims in Colorado; I’m talking about the likes of the Brady people and their ilk.
      When we write e-articles we never know how far they go or what audience will take exception to them. You wrote on a hot topic that has heavily researched data to show that gun control efforts, even the attempts at complete elimination, don’t accomplish what many of the advocates think they should. Wishing for no crime or violence doesn’t make it happen (something I’m sure you’re aware of, not trying to be patronizing), but taking a gun that I have legally and responsibly purchased in no way makes this country safer. It makes it more dangerous in at least two fundamental ways.
      Lastly, here’s my one pointed comment that you will probably take exception to but take it in the spirit of all my other responses here: Don’t write on this subject (or any other) if you can’t take the heat and aren’t well-armed with factual data to support your stance. Be ready for it. Disregard the nasty comments, no dialogue is expected there, but if you say we would be better off with no guns, be able to articulate why, but not with simple opinion or wishful thinking. In this case I know you can’t, but you should at least be ready. We are an unusually factually well-armed advocacy group and we have millions (literally) of people combatting disinformation. Your article was simply brought to our attention. I hope you change your mind about gun control and rejoin our ranks (considering you stated you used to be a gun owner).

  25. Anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

  26. curtisrrogers
    July 27, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Hey guys, again thanks for reading and commenting. Check out the note I added to the post above and get to writing. Just don’t expect me to go buy a gun anytime soon. Thanks

  27. Anthony
    July 27, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    I don’t know what I love more, Curt and Josh’s brilliant take on the issue, or anonymous Internet tough guys.

  28. Taylor
    July 27, 2012 at 11:54 pm #

    You’re so wise. You’re like a miniature Buddha.

  29. Jamie
    August 2, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Hey Curtis, just saw this and love it. I’m glad you’re contributing to the dialogue about this issue in such a measured manner. The more people who stand up and point out that it is indeed just a wee bit backwards and un-evolved to keep going down the path where the answer to society’s problems is access to more weaponry, the better we’ll all be.

    Just yesterday a friend told me he was going to buy a gun. He’s been hanging around a bunch of people from a Church for whom this is normal and so he’s begun to normalize it in his own mind as well. I cited Cass Sunstein’s work on how when we gather with like-minded people we almost always become radicalized unless there is an opposing voice being heard that introduces stability into the situation. His normalizing of gun ownership, his development towards the assumption that it’s a good idea represents just this sort of radicalizing process towards the extreme notion that he might need to kill someone. Naturally, as a Christian, I take this to be a transgression of Christian morality. To invoke Foucault: if one regards oneself as an heir to a spiritual tradition, then one will take on the responsibility of maintaining or reviving that tradition through subjecting oneself to its prescribed virtues. So for me, the question of gun ownership has to be subjected to the degree to which I want to form myself as a heir to Christ and his mission. I take the choice not to own guns and campaign against their legitimacy to be a part of Christian moral formation, and I take such a formation to be the degree to which I maintain/revive the spiritual tradition of which I am a heir.

    However, as a member of society, I also think it is a bad cultural choice to allow such free access to weapons. Not for Christian moral reasons, rather for the simple socio-psychological fact that people who own guns have given themselves mental access to an anti-social solutions which itself wreaks havoc with their ability to grow and adapt socially and civically. It’s no wonder that most terrorists are right wing conservatives of whatever group they belong to; they simply want their way and will move to force if they don’t get it. They only do that because the option of force has been presented to them, otherwise they’d have to employ more civil mechanisms for dealing with their issues. So gun ownership, I believe, results in a psychologically stunted or ill-developed society, and as I look around me that’s just what I see. Indeed, some of the belligerence surrounding this debate is a perfect example.

    • etcssmccrackin
      August 2, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

      Un-evolved, Jaime? While I applaud your personal decisions to embrace Christian values in a non-violent manner, should I (and others) not also have the freedom to make the choice ourselves? You feel that gun owners are “emotionally stunted” and have given themselves “mental access to anti-social solutions”, and while I would love to live in a peaceful world where violence was a thing of the past, simply put, humans are violent. Even if some manage to repress these animal urges, others surely will not. I for one, having seen the lasting effects victims feel, long after the offense, will NOT submit to those that desire to do my loved ones ill. Where would the world be, if not for the judicious use of violence in the right hands? Perhaps a Third Reich Europe? Maybe the Soviet machine of the early 80’s, not faced with armed opposition, could have taken far more? I’m sure it would be nice to be morally superior while being hauled to the Gulag for not supporting the Party, or maybe being lead into the Nazi gas chambers while clucking disapprovingly. Again, I fully and completely support your decision to not use violence, and furthermore, I wish you luck. That does not mean however that you have the right to decide that laws that would remove that option for the rest of us.

      • Jamie
        August 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

        Hey etcssmccrackin, I realize that many Americans process their sense of personal freedom in terms of the degree to which they can have access to weapons, so I understand why so many baulk at the notion others might take away their right to have weaponry. Still, I think that Americans have historically demonstrated profound immaturity with reference to their access to weaponry, both domestically and internationally, and have failed, as a people group, to bear the responsibility that comes with common access to guns, so yes, I do think that he public at large should not be allowed to make the choice to have guns.

        Usually, I find that most arguments for common access to guns are based on scenarios that are either unlikely, statistically insignificant, or just use flat out extreme and unhelpful rhetoric. I believe that we should base public policies on likelihoods—if the mission to go to the moon used the same logic as gun owners use, we’d never have gone, since, as one astronaut noted, they don’t base their decisions on what *might* happen, they base them on what will *likely* happen. The vast majority of people will never need a gun, so why bother retaining such a corrupting influence in American society? I live in Cincinnati, and of the two-million people who live here, and with all of the shootings, less than five people each year are killed by people they don’t know (muggings and accidental drive-bys, etc.), and of those less than five people, I honestly don’t believe that a gun would have helped at all.

        I also believe that America can and should leverage all of its God-given advantages—and there are an insane amount of advantages here, mostly squandered though—to lead the world in how to be a rational society and promote the well-being of each other, as per the spirit of the constitution and the declaration of independence. And let’s be clear, reducing the fundamental aspirations of the founding fathers to whether you can buy a gun or not, fundamentally fails to grasp what they sought to accomplish. So if Americans fail to find the fortitude necessary to achieve the lofty notions of the founders couched within those documents, and if it rather continues to take the easy, violent path, then it can’t also achieve the aspirations its forefathers had for it, nor those aspirations for which people left Europe. The “Idea” that is America will have become a failure.

      • curtisrrogers
        August 3, 2012 at 6:10 am #

        You will find a few of those unlikely scenarios here in the comment section, they do not actually prove a point other than the fact that we as Americans are insanely paranoid. “And let’s be clear, reducing the fundamental aspirations of the founding fathers to whether you can buy a gun or not, fundamentally fails to grasp what they sought to accomplish.” Actually it not only fails to grasp what they were doing but it seems downright arrogant to think that our “right” to carry a gun, over 200 years later, was of paramount concern to the founding fathers at that particular point in time.

      • August 3, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

        Again, Jaime, I ask you, where would the world be without Americans and our weapons? I guess it would be ok if all of Europe spoke German, and was devoid of Jews and “undesirables”. Maybe it would have been “mature” of us to have allowed the Japanese their “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, especially given their concern of human rights demonstrated in Nanking. And I can see how we failed in preventing North Korea from simply being Korea; after all, it is the workers’ paradise.

        You assume that simply because an event is “statistically insignificant” it should be discounted, saying that if the moon mission had used gun owners’ logic, we would have never made it. I submit that the Astronauts were actually exemplifying the logic of gun owners. The training, equipment, and preparation of the space program are excellent examples of the mindset of most gun owners. They (we) realize that while horrible events are in fact unlikely, preparation for them are essential. A gun is not a magic talisman, and is not evil or good, but it is an important component of a personal protection plan. The plan is comprehensive in nature and starts with mindset and awareness, follows up with communication skills and verbal de-escalation, and finishes with escape plans, unarmed fighting, and as a last resort the use of deadly weapons. By comparison, a catastrophic home fire is unlikely, but an intelligent person has a multi-layered plan to prevent, detect, extinguish, and compensate/rebuild, despite the rarity of the event. The point of retaining the “corrupting influence” is that those that would wrongly use force will do it, regardless of the victim’s level of preparation.

        Finally, I submit that in the aftermath of being branded traitors and revolutionaries, and wresting their new nation from the grasp of a corrupt and tyrannical government, the founders would naturally and obviously have sought to ensure that the capability to do so again would always be available.

      • curtisrrogers
        August 3, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

        I am not sure, though I could have missed it in reading the comments, that anyone is suggesting disbanding the military. Armies, prevented all of Europe from speaking German and the other events you mentioned, not an informally armed citizenry outside of the command of the government.

      • Jamie
        August 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

        Hey there etcssmccrackin, back to the point, military examples don’t actually count for civic policies. Yes, the US has become a war-mongering nation (Gulf War, Invasion of Iraq to cite some recent examples) and has failed to keep pace with social evolution experienced in other first world nations, who, having learned from the errors of WW1 and WW2, now describe themselves as “post-war.” But again, military examples don’t serve as the basis for civic polices.

        People who “prepare for the worst,” with a sort of survivalist mentality, actually have a psychological problem. It’s been well demonstrated even that people who own alarm systems that have to be armed each night have a higher rate of anxiety than people who don’t. It’s counterintuitive, since you’d imagine that having the alarm system leads to a sense of security. Turns out that such anecdotally based assumptions are wrong in the face of empirical data. People who live in a world where they always imagine someone’s going to try and kill them, and so prepare for that, have a psychological filter (hermeneutical filter actually) that sits in front of their view of other people and alters their perception of the world. In my anecdotal experience, such people are not as capable of understanding another person’s perspective as those who don’t try to “prepare for the worst.” But I think the most obvious macro level example is the absurd behavior and belligerence of the so called “tea party,” and other right wing extremists.

        As to the revolution, I don’t process that as a heroic act we ought to look towards for examples. It was really a group of insurgents insisting that the legal state of affairs should change and sought to enact that change with increasing violence. Since Americans are the heirs of that, like the children of the Palestinian Hamas, they naturally assume it was a all good an noble, and that the “enemy” was “corrupt and tyrannical.”

        Still, regarding the second amendment, I’d say that when you’re comfortable with your neighbor owning a nuclear warhead, that’ll be when you really believe that it’s all about the people being able to defend themselves from an evil, oppressive regime, since a couple of Glocks and a shoty aren’t going to do it. You’d best also arm yourself with some hacking software, guidance systems, maybe some battle cruisers and a couple of tanks and some F22-Raptors. You’d need all of these to fend off a genuine governmental threat. But of course, you’re not going to get these and you don’t want your neighbor to have them, because at the end of the day, gun slingers just want to own guns and they want to pretend that it somehow establishes national security since they want to leverage one interpretation of the second amendment as “constitutional rights.” But, deep down, they know it has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with a desire for personal and private power, a desire that is a corrupting influence in American society and upon the American psyche.

      • etcssmccrackin
        August 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

        Guys, the international military view was important because it illustrates how the right and judicious use of violence had done significant good throughout the years, for nations as well as individuals, and to suggest otherwise would mean that somehow to suffer violations (tyranny, genocide, flash mob violence, or an individual rape/murder) in a stoic and morally/intellectually superior manner is far better than to fight back using any means necessary.

        As far as the remarks about preparing, while I have no doubt that there is data indicating the overall stress rates of those with alarms versus those without, I submit that some stress is actually a good thing, and is indeed a symptom of responsibility. Is a life where one does not worry about being a crime victim more free from stress than the alternative? Absolutely it is, just as a life where people don’t worry about wearing a seat belt, buying auto/fire/flood/life/renters insurance is an easy one. Not worrying about possible mishaps and consequences is a worry free and blissful existence, and it is precisely how my kids live their lives. At some point however, we all need to grow up and recognize the pitfalls in life and take the steps we feel will best evade those pitfalls. I have to worry about car accidents, job security, personal safety for me and my family, and a slew of other grown-up problems, making a modicum of additional stress a part of that job description.

        As I have mentioned before, in my immediate family, I have two victims of violent crime, one rape and one armed robbery. Both took place in small and “crime free” towns in Texas and in both cases “paranoid preparing for the worst” steps may have prevented them. These assaults are not imagined nor are they “anecdotally based”. Additionally, somewhere between 800K and 4.5 Million Americans each year successfully defend themselves with firearms, so I would say that those cases aren’t an “altered perception of the world”. As I said, owning a firearm (or other effective weapon) is simply the last phase of a multi-layered approach to ensuring my safety, and given the occasional (not imagined) life-and-death nature of the human existence (there’s a lot of dead victims that complied with their attackers only to be killed at the 2nd crime scene), I fail to see how a little focused “paranoia” isn’t a good thing.

        Now, speaking to the effectiveness of an American insurrection, and how you seem to deem it hopeless, you are forgetting a few points and lesions of history. First, the American military is made up to a significant degree of precisely those that would support a righteous rebellion. To suppose that rebels would be facing the full might of the US military is to be drastically short sighted. Second, semi-organized guerrilla forces have traditionally been very effective, especially when operating in a permissive or at least indifferent environment against an opponent unwilling to take the steps necessary to literally “crush” a rebellion. For example, insurgents typically make a mockery of hand-wringing “feel-good” UN forces, simply because of their will to win. And third, especially today, full abdication victory is not required to win. Vietnam and even Soviet Afghanistan show that successive losses and a strong propaganda machine can “outlast” even the strongest opponents.

        Finally however, if you feel that the nation and freedoms won by the founders are not somehow worthy, and are the equivalent of Hamas, a persistent terrorist organization that targets civilians, women and children, then I’m afraid our viewpoints aren’t just opposed, they are quite literally worlds apart.

      • Jamie
        August 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

        This will sound poncy, but, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus’ teaching is radically appropriate here: “Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be added to you” (Matt 6.33). I only say this is true for Christian people, not non-Christian people. Although, Buddhists and some other groups get this concept really well, perhaps better than most people who lay claim to being Christ followers. Specifically, fear as a basis for action is not the Christian path. Fear is tied securely to a materialistic view of life and well-being. For this reason, as a Christian, electing to arm myself with various weapons because of what “might” happen, and knowing that such an action disables certain psychological processes that Christians are specifically called to adopt, I would have to be choosing to reject the bulk of Jesus’ teachings. Many Christian people in the US believe that there is no contradiction here, but that’s only because they have a deeply materialistic view of Christianity. No one who is a serious student of the New Testament or seriously attempting to adopt Jesus’ teachings can in good conscience think it’s a good and spiritually benign idea to arm him or herself.

        As a Christian, I believe that what Jesus teaches is good for all people, not that I would try to make non-Christians adopt my ethics (partly because Paul instructs us not to). But I naturally pursue a public policy based on what I think is good for all people, and that is primarily influenced by Jesus. I would say that my position is in direct opposition to many other Christians who pursue policies based on the legacy that Western Christianity has been physically and politically dominant/powerful, and have equated that power with validity. Such people have assumed that Christianity as a political force is God’s will for the world, and this adoption of force as a means of bringing about the Kingdom has been translated into average people’s households as a legitimization of beliefs about force and violence that stand in direct conflict with the specifics of Jesus teaching in the New Testament. That is, those beliefs are very specifically anti-Christian (and it is important to grasp that being legal and being Christian are two things, not one thing).

        This is a centuries old problem, it stems back to the second century when Stoics introduced into Christianity the notion that pain was the same as good; this evolved into the notion that violence and force is good (provided the end of the violence leaves the Church and certain Christian beliefs intact). But the world keeps evolving and Christianity is beginning to realize this about itself and has started to get back to an ethic more true to the teachings of Jesus without all of the political power that has come to be associated with it. This is why it is all the more remarkable to see the persistence in American culture that the whole gun thing is a good idea (since to many of the gun owners also claim to be Christians!). It quite simply resoundingly marks Americans (American Christians in particular) as having stopped a social and theological development at some earlier point. It’s like the culture is digging in its heels and refusing to budge.

        I’m reminded of the recent Texas republican convention where they call for an end to critical thinking being taught—the clear desire is to refuse to evolve and to assume that we’re at our cultural zenith already. I really believe that anyone, a Christian in particular, who thinks that owning a gun will solve a problem is someone who has been unconsciously swept away by a cultural framework that refuses to grow and evolve. It would be one thing if these people were secular atheists who believed in the idea of American values being more important than Jesus’ teachings, but when Christian people do it, I despair for the future of Christianity in the US, and thus also for the US itself.

    • curtisrrogers
      August 3, 2012 at 6:04 am #

      I could have used you a few days ago on this post, thanks for reading and commenting. You make some great points. The idea of gun ownership leading to a “psychologically stunted or ill-developed society” is particularly interesting, and I think that you are spot on. When given the easy way out of a situation, using a gun as opposed to “more civil mechanisms,” the tendency is to always take the easy way out. It actually reminds me of the same problem with our speech, when a person will substitute whatever word they are looking for or cannot think of with an expletive. Instead of using valid arguments, even on this post, many people resorted to simple name calling and threats. One person on another, pro-gun, site even encouraged readers to stop attacking my ideas and to attack me instead, which I think is a perfect example of what you described. It is also funny that when this post went up a large number of people were quick to post hateful comments in opposition to my thoughts but when we offered the pro-gun folks the opportunity to write an essay in response to my own we get nothing in ways of a reply. Anyways, thanks for reading. We would love to have you write something for the site if you ever have the time.

      • Zach hubbard
        October 11, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

        This is dumb. All of your points are non-legit reasons for taking away guns. Do you really thing banning guns is going to take away the guns from criminals? Cocaine, heroin meth are all illegal and there is a (Ban) on those drugs but look at the drug problem we have in this country, I am a paramedic so dont tell me we dont have a drug problem. I see way more deaths from durnk driving and drug use then I do firearms. Criminals will always have a gun and how are we supposed to defend against home invasions, rapists murders that escape from prisons (prisonser did escape from a texas prison a few months ago so dont say it cant happen). Let me spell someting out for you…A well regulated militia (meaning a military or police force to protect us against terrorist or foreign invasion), being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people (notice it says the people not the army, governemt or military but the people) to keep and bear arms( keep and bear arms, meaning I can keep and bear my firearm for protection from rapists, murders, home invasions), shall not be infringed ( shall not be infrigned meaning should not be taken away.

        If you dont like the right to bear arms why dont you move to another country where they dont have the right to own firearms of any kind. how can you say that there is more civil ways to handle conflict? I am sure the dad whos wife and 2 teenage daughters were raped and burned alve in there home in virginia pleaded with the 2 convicts that got early release from prison not to hurt his family, but did that do any good? nope The 2 convicts knew they had power over the family and did as they pleased to the 2 teenage girls and then set them on fire. This was all over the CNN, NBC, Foxnews and MSN so if you dont believe me look it up. Pull your head out of the sand and realise that there are Psychotic people in the world who will kill, rape and murder just because they can. The only way to defend yourself in your home against those kind of people is not to call 911. A 357 magnum responds faster than 911.

    • Kevin
      August 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

      I’ve been following theses posts and came back today to check out whether or not TTAF had posted a rebuttal essay. Since I don’t see one, I guess the conversation will continue in the comments section of this post. There are a whole host of issues that are being addressed with these posts, but I wanted to offer my thoughts to the conversation and the general topic.

      As a believer I understand that just because I have a legal right to do something does not mean that it is something I SHOULD do as a slave to Christ. Does God want me to carry a gun. My answer is…maybe.

      We should always be conscious of what God is most concerned about, which is not our personal safety or our legal rights, but the condition of our heart. I’m not sure that I agree that if i carry a gun I am NECESSARILY displaying a lack of evolution in how to resolve conflict or that I am psychologically stunted. Quite the contrary, I may have a highly evolved sense of conflict resolution, it is the other guy, who wishes to harm me or my family and his ideas of conflict resolution that is the issue. And it is the actions of others that may create the need for a gun.

      Do we have the moral freedom from God to protect the innocent with violence if necessary? I believe we do, and I think that scripture supports that. For those that would use the coercive power of the government to take guns away from everyone in an effort to elevate the nature of conflict resolution, they are basically using violence (the ultimate end of government requirements) to accomplish their own ends, which isn’t a very highly evolved resolution, is it?

      That being said, if I carry a gun because of fear, pride, or a sense of power, then I am in danger of moving away from God’s intention for my life. However, and this is a key point, the gun is a symptom of that, not the cause! Removing the gun will not necessarily remove the fear, pride, or sense of power, and carrying a gun does not necessarily bring with it peace and humility. From the standpoint of scripture it is not the gun that is the issue, and while I appreciate the concern that others show for my level of conflict resolution, I see no moral or scriptural reason for others (government included) to impede on my responsibility to protect the lives that have been entrusted to me, my wife and kids, in the manner that I believe is most effective.

      • curtisrrogers
        August 7, 2012 at 5:32 am #

        Hey man, thanks for your comments. The reason that we have no posted a rebuttal article is because nobody has sent us one. If you want to write one that would be great. Apparently most people were quick to call me every name in the book but did not care enough to write an essay.

      • Kevin
        August 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

        Give me a couple of days and I will see what I can put together 🙂

  30. Anonymous
    August 11, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Heavy taxes on guns used for hunting ? Why ? To punish hunters ?
    Make all guns illegal ? We all know that prohibition worked so well. Alcohol was illegal, so nobody made it themselves, and everone stopped drinking alcohol.
    After all, when you make something unaffordable and/or illegal, criminals never find a way to obtain it.

    Criminals will always have access to guns (including criminal governments), and I want the right and have the right, thanks to our founding fathers, to defend myself with a weapon equal or better than theirs.

    You can be a passivist. You have that right, thanks to our Constitution. I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones, and plan on keeping that right, despite misguided opinions like yours.

  31. Dakota96
    September 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    I think that the semi auto weapons should be legal, you said that there is only main purpose for weapons is to kill, that is not true they are used for defense and protection for people. If these weapons arre baned criminals can still have acsess to weapons. No matter what the crimiinals just want to shed blood and they will find a way.

    • Anonymous
      September 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

      Oh my, how about learning to spell before you worry about slaying your enemies with your semi-automatic weapon.

  32. Zach hubbard
    October 11, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/justice/connecticut-home-invasion-sentencing/index.html

    This right here is a prime example of why we should NOT have our gun rights taken away. @ convicts invaded a home, beat the dad over the head, raped his wife, raped his 11 year old and 17 year old girls and then set them on fire. There should not have been a trial and jury to waste money on these two scumb bags. The dad should have had a fire arm he should have shot and killed both of the convicts who were in prison but got early release. By killing both of the convicts his wife and two under age daughters would still be alive with there dignity intact. You people that think there are other “civil ways” to handle a home invasion need to pull there head out of the sand and realise that you cant give the world one big hug and fix everything. Im a paramedic and see things happen frequently where someone should have had a firearm to defend themselves.

  33. George
    November 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    I read alot about gun banning and stiffer gun laws, but the problem would not be solved with either, let me explain, I like my guns, I like target shooting and hunting, i personally agree with what you say about semi auto firearms, if you don’t like guns, fine thats your right, my problem is just because this person wants to go on a shooting spree shouldn’t mean that me along with every other law abiding citizen should have to give up our right to have guns. Now back to the gun laws, stiffer ones or hundreds more won’t solve anything, why? because with all the ones we have now, who inforces them? thats what needs to happen, stop being the bleeding heart with criminals, they are the ones who break the laws, inforce the laws on them. why is it that when laws are broken the criminal seems to have so many people feeling sorry for them but its always to hell with the victom, as for taxing the guns why seems to me your making enough money off the guns, everyone seems to forget how many people will be put out of a job if you ban guns, and i am talking from the government down to the working man, so if you want to stop all the abuse caused by guns, inforce the laws we have on the ones causing the trouble.

    • Jamie
      November 9, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

      I like how you’re thinking George. I agree entirely about enforcing the law. Should we start by enforcing the laws of spelling, grammar and punctuation?

      Speaking of violations: I especially like the principle that we should not ban guns because it might cause unemployment for the employees of gun manufacturers.

      I’ll just remember to send a quick note to our police department next time they’re raiding a crack house to help them to understand that, if they shut down the crack manufacturing plant, some people will lose their jobs. Good thinking!

      We should have applied this principle to the manufacturing of DDT. Yes it causes cancer, miscarriages, kills animals and poisons the water and yes it likely stays in your liver forever and makes you a girl, but the important thing is that some people would still have a job if we didn’t ban it.

      And just imagine how many people would still be employed, if we had not banned lead paint. Yeah sure, it deforms the brains of your children, but hey, at least we’d still have people earning a solid wage . . . plus it tastes sweet.

      Excellent thinking, I like where all this is heading.

      • Anonymous
        November 17, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

        well Jamie just reading your post just shows everyone how people like you will just bitch about everything, hey dumbass they took the lead out of paint they didn’t stop making it. how about this, seems like your one of the bleeding hearts so the next time there is a crime why don’t we just arrest you for it instead of the criminal who actually commited it, oh and by the way, my spelling and grammer and punctuation, well its on purpose so dums rednecks like you can understand it. every thing you wrote, oh sorry, typed in answering my post is just stupid, tell you what if a criminal ever comes up to any of your family members with a knife or ball bat, a rope, a pipe, any number of things that have been used to kill people, don’t go crying to the law or anyone for help, remember you can spell and punctuate and have good grammer, that should scare them off. one last thing though, why do you want to ban guns? why do you think everyone who owns a gun is the criminal? why don’t you spend your useless time on trying to get rid of drugs and everything else you said causes death? you and everyone like you think that if we ban guns it will solve everything, just remember that when the criminal is after your useless ass.

  34. Moose
    December 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    People like you scare me to death for our freedom….and make me very sad at the same time. You said yourself that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding safe citizens yet you would still take away are right to protect ourselves. Our founding fathers knew that there is no police force that can protect us from criminals…in fact the police are not here to protect us, that is impossible, even if a cop was on every corner. The police are there to gather facts and bring criminals to justice, it’s our job to protect ourselves. Many more people die every year in a car than with a gun. If enough people got together to persuade the government to take away your car, would you be ok with having lost that freedom? What you’re advocating is just as reckless.

    There are more restrictions now on guns than 50 years ago yet I agree, recently there have been more instances of mass murder. So ask yourself what has changed in the last 50 years…therein lies your answer. Video games, less 2 parent homes…I really don’t know. But If someone wants to kill a group of people they will find a way…homemade bomb, car, baseball bat. You can’t remove all danger from an evil world by taking all freedoms away….you’ll still be in danger but not free, and that is unacceptable to me. Taking the guns won’t stop the Timothy Mcveys of the world.

    Take a look at our country now. Look at the facts. Guns are banned in Chicago, NYC, etc, yet crime involving guns is through the roof. Where criminals are the only ones with guns crime is out of control. You have to remember criminals aren’t really concerned with breaking the law by owning a gun.

    My prayer is that people like you, who are agreeable to a larger government allowing certain freedoms while taking away most others, will just give up and move away to Australia or Europe. Really, not a joke. I value my freedoms and will fight to protect them.

    • curtisrrogers
      December 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

      Not sure why I decided to respond to this comment, there have been many others that are worthy of response. It could be that I am tired and a bit sick, it could be that I just wasted two dollars on the movie “The Campaign” at the local Redbox, it could be that I am simply bored and it is freezing outside. Nevertheless…

      #1 Pretty sure that the motto of the police force is “to protect and to serve.”

      #2 You are right there are certainly a multitude of reasons as to why there are more violent crimes these days. Guns are not the only issue, but they are definitely a part of the problem along with lack of mental health care, problems in the justice system, perhaps violent video games etc. etc.

      #3 I couldn’t disagree more with the driving argument other than the fact that more people do die in car wrecks than by guns, it is not the same thing at all. By getting in my car and driving it is understood that I am operating a machine that can wield deadly force and that I am at the whim of others doing the same thing. By going to see a movie or going to school I should not have to undertake the same thought that there is a chance that I might die because someone may decide to bring a gun in and shoot me. People can stop driving if they wish, we cannot however stop living to avoid being shot. The driving argument is brought up often and there are so many reasons that it is not the same as guns, and I think you and all the other gun nuts know that deep down.

      #4 I acknowledge that criminals will still most likely find ways to get a gun. But what about the random kid that goes nuts and shoots up a school, movie theatre, mall, etc? The case may be that these events would still happen. The case may also be that with tighter gun control laws these people have a harder time finding a gun, or have a harder time finding a semi-automatic gun, or a gun with a large capacity clip. If so then it would be safe to assume that the ability for that person to kill large numbers of people is somewhat diminished. I guess the point I am trying to get at is if tightening gun control laws, or evening eliminating guns all together means that one less person is murdered in America, then the law would be worth it. Looking at the issue honestly I do not see how tightening gun control laws would not save at least one life per year. I have been wrong before, once or twice, but I do not think that this is one of those times. One life is a big difference and I am 100 percent willing to give up a number of presumed “rights” if it would mean that another person would get to live. That is what being a citizen of a nation is about, living together, putting aside selfish desires, which in this case some deem as a “right” for the betterment of society as a whole. Personally, I do not want to live in a society in which people are more eager to hold onto their possessions than the life of another human being.

      #5 If you are offering the money for my family and I to move I will gladly take a three bedroom in the Queensland area, a flat in London, or a home in the land of my family, Greece. See the email address above and feel free to send me any offers, I accept cash, check, Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Paypal.

  35. Moose
    December 30, 2012 at 12:38 am #

    Curtis….You are correct…the police are here to protect and serve…what I’m saying is it’s impossible for them to protect. I live a little ways out of town…sheriff’s jurisdiction….the average response time is 38 minutes. Even in a big city the response time is not quick enough to “protect” you, if they could be all places there would be no crime and no need for this discussion.

    Maybe the car wasn’t the best analogy….my point is that there are roughly 62,000,000 (that’s million) gun owners in the U.S. and we’ve had a few terrible incidents lately. Please don’t misunderstand, 1 incident is one too many and I can’t imagine the pain and suffering those kids and their families went through, but I’m just saying statistically speaking it is an incredibly rare thing. To ban any and all guns “statistically” speaking makes less sense than banning all cars. I’m not speaking of intent…only lives saved.

    Look, there are some evil people in the world and evil people do evil things. Depending on where you live you might be surprised at the number of citizens around you each day who carry a concealed weapon legally that you don’t know about….and you’re safer because of it.

    The “leaving the country” comment wasn’t meaning I was ready to pay, ha. Seriously though…don’t tread on my rights because of your fears, fears which many would deem slightly irrational (statistically speaking, you’re more likely to die tomorrow in your car than a mall shooting).

    Confiscating guns is not the answer but I’m willing to search for the right one. Unlike the NRA I don’t have a problem with banning some types of guns. What some don’t realize is “automatic” weapons are already illegal to citizens. An automatic sprays more than one bullet with just one trigger pull…..Semi-automatics only fire one round per trigger pull. I agree that we don’t need semi-automatic weapons that will fire 50 or 75 or 100 rounds in a magazine. it might be time to look at who’s buying guns more closely….maybe even look at family who live in the same household of a potential gun owner.

    Look, guns aren’t for everyone and it’s your right to not own one…..but at this time it’s might right to carry one and I’m willing to do what it takes to keep that right. It’s one of the great freedoms I have as a law abiding citizen of this great country.

    • B. Roth
      December 30, 2012 at 11:19 am #

      Apparently, I still get notifications when these comments are updated..

      Well, with the importance of recent events and the resulting fight gun owners have ahead of us, I’ll weigh in again.
      First: Although the general police motto is indeed to “protect and serve”, and the vast majority of police officers are professionals with a true desire to save lives, according to common sense they simply cannot be everywhere. Even when police response time is extraordinary, it is still not instantaneous and as a result gives a killer several uninterrupted minutes to do whatever he wants. Also, there have been several court rulings; state, district, and US Supreme, which unequivocally states that law enforcement officially, has no duty to protect anyone.

      Second: Guns are tools, nothing more. This is why the driving example is a reasonable one. Curtis, you talk about how you realize the responsibility of driving, but you hardly speak for everyone. A day in traffic reveals: texting, applying makeup, and general lack of attention which results in close calls all day long. According to stats from the CDC and the National Safety Council, while approx 12K people died and 32K were injured due to firearms, 35K were killed and 2 Million were injured thanks to vehicles. Now, this number is invariably higher because more people own cars than guns, but parallels persist. 1- The overwhelming majority of car/gun owners use their property responsibly. 2- Regardless, horrible isolated incidents take place as a result of those few irresponsible users. Despite these parallels though, how often does anyone appear on the news demanding new car laws to protect others? Talk to any cop and the major causes behind car accidents: speed, intoxication, and inattentiveness, is revealed. Technology exists to mitigate these, so why isn’t Sen Feinstein clamoring for these laws? Mandating that every new vehicle has a 70mph governor, breathalyzer ignition, and cell phone signal jammers while the vehicle is driving, would invariably address a huge number of vehicle deaths (and would save more lives than associated gun laws) but where’s the outrage? If those so concerned with “gun deaths” were worried strictly about “deaths”, they would be all over these new car laws, but they’re not. Therefore, what they’re REALLY concerned about are “guns”, things they don’t own, shoot, or even understand very well, so “sure, let’s get rid of those awful guns, I don’t like them anyway…”

      Third: The search for answers, or “needs”. Absolutely we need some answers. Mental health care, media glamorization, violent video games/movies with zero parent involvement, and “gun free” defenseless killing zones should ALL be addressed. Again however, the gun is a mere tool. Guns in general are powerful tools sure, but tools nonetheless. Ban “large capacity” mags? < Killer has to reload, and with several minutes of uninterrupted killing time thanks to the aforementioned response times, he can reload as many times as he needs. One of the guns at VT had 10 round mags… Ban “assault weapons”? < The killer uses whatever other semi-auto pistol, rifle, or shotgun he wants. Ban semi-auto weapons? (by the way, full auto guns aren’t “illegal”, they are heavily restricted and supremely expensive, but with proper paperwork and cash, most citizens could own one..) < Killer uses revolvers, lever actions, and pump shotguns. This of course doesn’t even cover: fire, Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, homemade explosives, and even cars.. More tools.
      What we are REALLY doing is beginning an incremental drive against guns in general. Looking at the lack of concern for what causes MORE deaths, the “head in the sand” approach against armed protection in schools, and the laser focus on tools with “scary” cosmetic features; that’s the only answer that makes sense. “we don’t need semi-automatic weapons that will fire 50 or 75 or 100 rounds in a magazine.” Then, what amount DO we need, and why is that amount less dangerous? There is no rational reason other than an arbitrary “yeah, 10 sounds OK”, and what many don’t realize is that there is the trap. We agree to ambiguous and subjective “what we need” regulations and there’s the “nose under the tent” so to speak. Ban anything over 10 rounds and do any of you REALLY expect killings to stop? Of course not. So what happens when a murderer uses a sack full of 10 rounders? “Oh, well 10 rounds was clearly too many, let’s try 6 now..” There’s still no real reason for 6 vice 10, but we have allowed this subjective limit, so now the limit is subjectively lowered. We allow “assault weapons” to be banned thanks to a made up and arbitrary list of features, what’s to stop: “sniper rifles” = any scoped rifle. “armor piercing rounds” = any rifle round. “cheap handgun” = what’s cheap versus affordable? “military guns and ammo” = any round or weapon used by the military. “guns made for killing” = anything not a “hunting” gun. The anti-gunners in DC have said, OFTEN, that nobody needs guns, and that they want them all gone. Looking at the facts, it’s the only logical goal.

    • curtisrrogers
      January 2, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do want to make sure that you know that I fully understand that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people and citizens. I am in contact with these people every day. I guess my main point is that I am more than happy to give up gun “rights” and even to eliminate guns as a whole in order to help stem the problem. Yes it is not the only solution, but I believe it is one that will help, we obviously disagree at this point, which is fine. The basic idea for me here is the school example, when a couple bad kids acted up in class we all lost recess. Did it suck? Yes. Was it fair? No. Was there a lesson learned? Yes. I do believe that at the very least semi automatic weapons and large magazines should be outlawed, and I have thought so way before the past month. Thanks for reading and commenting. As you may have noticed we posted a rebuttal piece after this post was written. If you ever read something hear that you disagree with and you want to write an opposing piece, please feel free to do so. We enjoy the discussion. There has even been a significant discussion on this topic among the four site administrators ad we all have our own, varying opinions on the topic.

      • curtisrrogers
        January 2, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

        my last comment was for Moose, not sure if I replied to his comment or B. Roth’s

      • January 2, 2013 at 11:43 pm #

        I can certainly understand your viewpoint Curtis, as I can appreciate your continued fair treatment and amicable disagreement.

        In my view, one of the major occurrences of emotional ignorance following these tragedies has been the persistent focus on an arbitrary group of tools, the “easy” answer, instead of the real causes. The “need to do something”, of the “shut the gate after the horse got out” cliché.

        I know, dead kids and parental anguish, I get it… Bear with me. Sure, these killings use the most popular weapons in America. They are popular due to games, TV, movies, and because like their fathers and grandfathers before, these guns are what millions of Americans are familiar with. Like our great-grandfathers that came home from WW1, they had been trained on the civilian-unfamiliar-at-the-time bolt action rifle, so when they came home with war capture Mausers and purchased surplus Enfields and Springfields, they used what they knew and loved to hunt with and defend their homes with. Yes, these murderers use semi-auto weapons, because that’s what’s available. But the real question is: would these killings end or even get better if the “killing technology” was somehow limited? Consider that the CT killer had over 10 minutes to stalk the school and the VT murderer had over two hours for his spree. Even using the height of technology circa 1900, these murderers would have access to pump shotguns, lever and bolt action rifles, and revolvers. Do you honestly suppose that, with a pocket full of shells and the aforementioned weapons, the VT scumbag would have been somehow hampered by the need to reload somewhere in a 2 hour span? Even during the 10 minutes in CT, the killer had ample time, especially given the completely non-hostile environment, to reload as often as he needed. For clarity, let’s say this again, in 10 minutes with free reign of the killing ground, a killer can reload as many times as he needs until he either is sated or (more often) someone that opposes him shows up. Yeah, it sounds more horrific to say that someone was shot with an “assault rifle”, but in 10 minutes couldn’t a “Billy the Kidd” wannabee kill just as many with grandpops lever gun and a “Dirty Harry” revolver? Of course. Perhaps if the 10 minutes was filled with nonstop shooting, a running Afghanistan style gunfight, then and only then, would mag capacity or semi-auto be a factor, but again, in all these killings they have ample time for however many reloads they need. They have never been limited by mag capacity, but time. Why then are “high cap mags” and “assault weapons” the focus?

        They are the focus quite simply for two reasons. First: The people promoting these laws have NOTHING to lose. We’re never talking about people that will “sacrifice their guns for the greater good”, the proponents are always either people that “don’t own any of THOSE guns anyway” or people that “get or deserve protection because they’re special”. Sen. Feinstein has a CCW permit, and Obama kids are especially safe due to their armed protectors. They don’t own or care about “assault weapons”, so what do they care if they’re banned?
        Second: It’s “scary” and quickly gains traction among those that either don’t know better, or simply don’t care. It advances the (stated) goal of “Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in..”. Any step is a good step, right? By their admission, most in the prominent gun ban group want them all gone, with little exception, so is this not a great start?

        Look, I understand the guttural reaction, but it quite simply doesn’t make sense. It’s pure emotion, and it’s based on people with an agenda taking advantage of the relative ignorance of much of the population, but again, it simply doesn’t stand. Now, more than any time in the past 15 years it’s important however to stand firm, or else the sensationalists will win, at the loss of personal rights, and the detriment of the REAL answers.

  36. Moose
    December 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    You and I can agree that you don’t need a gun….after that, not so much. Good luck with all that…..

    • etcssmccrackin
      December 30, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

      You and I may agree or disagree on a great many things, but your evaluation of my “need”, not so much. Good luck with opening the door to UK style legislation…

  37. j
    January 10, 2013 at 9:53 am #

    that is what the amendment means. people do not change some thinking may change but people will always want more power and British over stepped it bounds and we retaliated. just because it 2013 does not mean another war can not happen its happens all over the world and we are not above it. not saying i could or would fight back but there are people that will and more than a few are in our own army.

  38. January 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    I believe the second and third amendments were indeed placed there in case the government oversteps its authority. You’re comment regarding the founding fathers idea of a man walking down the street is also true. Prersonally however, I fear these new fun control laws. If anything were to happen where the government became almost tyrannical in its decisions, how would we be able to resist them? That sounds far fetched and almost unreasonable to say our government would do such a thing. But it’s for those reasons the founding fathers put the second amendment into place. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington.

    • January 26, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

      I forgot to add this point: we can’t resist a military without military grade weapons.

      • January 26, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

        Also, I re rea my comment I don’t see an edit tool but I’m posting from my iPhone.. It’s late and autocorrect did my spelling for me… Sorry about that haha.

      • curtisrrogers
        January 27, 2013 at 10:11 am #

        No worries about the spelling. Thanks for reading the site. We obviously disagree on the point, but that is fine. My argument would be that times have changed, we are not living in a post revolutionary war setting like George Washington, just as the fact that our founding fathers owned slaves does not mean that it should also be acceptable for us to own slaves today. I believe that the side affects from what people view as their right to bear arms (violent crimes, shooting sprees) nullifies the “right” to own a gun in the off chance that the government becomes tyrannical. Also, if you truly want to resist a military takeover with equal arms why not legalize missile silos, tanks and fighter jets? Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts in a civil manner.

    • Jamie
      January 28, 2013 at 10:09 am #

      Quote from Washington is a fake. The real quote as I understand it:

      A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
      —George Washington’s First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

  39. Brian hacker
    January 31, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    This is America land of the free, opportunity, and choice. There will always be criminals in every society. wheather you have a criminal on the streets or the goverment spending more in one year than this country has spent in 200 years who realy is the criminal. The hard working people work harder and the lazy scam and cheat more. You wants to take my guns away but wont stop a single mother of multiple kids stop breading. Please Obama came from Chicago and looked the mess he left there. He has never been truful up front or honest. Our guns keep our goverment in check. Look at history do u know why Japan did not invadeus here at home because of our private gun owner ship.

    • curtisrrogers
      January 31, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

      Amazing. Your eloquence, superb grammar/writing ability and logic have won me over. I recant my beliefs. Go NRA, buy more guns, don’t tread on me, Jesus is a Republican etc. etc. Thank you for showing me the ignorance of my former ways.

    • Jamie
      February 1, 2013 at 6:10 am #

      Yes, will someone please stop all the breading! That’s the real problem. Next time I see someone throwing bread around, Ima shoot ’em.

      • curtisrrogers
        February 1, 2013 at 9:45 pm #

        Trufully, there are two things that I hate. #1 When single mothers bread and #2 when other countries invadeus.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. You Favorite Posts In July | thethingaboutflying - July 31, 2012

    […] Why I Think We Should Lose Our Gun Privileges […]

  2. Why Gun Rights Are Common Sense | thethingaboutflying - August 14, 2012

    […] Note:  A few weeks ago I wrote a post supporting strict gun control laws.  You can read that post by clicking this link, don’t forget to check out the comment section as well. The post caused a bit of a stir and […]

  3. What Are We Supposed To Do About Sweatshops? | thethingaboutflying - September 5, 2012

    […] I didn’t choose to boycott these companies for some act of nobility; I wasn’t making it a public scene, though I guess I am now,  I wasn’t boycotting these companies because I felt like I could change their practices or hurt them financially, I think Nike, Disney, and Wal-Mart will all be fine without my business.  I certainly wasn’t boycotting these companies to set myself apart from other people, to give myself some sense of superiority.  Rather, I did so simply because I felt like it was the right thing for me to do at that time and place and I did not, nor do I now think less of anyone who thinks otherwise, much like my thoughts on gun control. […]

  4. Church Called Due To Darkness | thethingaboutflying - October 18, 2012

    […] note: I was about three hours deep into a political post for today.  Then I remembered how well my last attempt to dip my toes in political waters was received.  So I decided to post another story from a book that I have been working on for a friend’s […]

  5. #37 Why Gun Rights Are Common Sense | thethingaboutflying - December 5, 2012

    […] Note:  A few weeks ago I wrote a post supporting strict gun control laws.  You can read that post by clicking this link, don’t forget to check out the comment section as well. The post caused a bit of a stir and […]

  6. #21 Why I Think We Should Lose Our Gun Priveleges | thethingaboutflying - December 21, 2012

    […] For the original post click here. […]

  7. My response to guns | Kent's Fish Hatchery - February 1, 2013

    […] Now the original article. http://thethingaboutflying.com/2012/07/27/why-i-think-we-should-lose-our-gun-privileges/ […]

  8. The Late Night Ramblings Of A Christian Heterosexual | thethingaboutflying - March 1, 2013

    […] a long day of work tomorrow, please don’t fill up my inbox with obscenities ala the post on gun control. This post was by no means a comprehensive or well written essay on the topic so please continue […]

We want to hear from you, leave your thoughts below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: