Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
You may recall that after the horrible Tucson shooting massacre, I wrote a piece for this blog suggesting that it might be a good time to consider banning deadly weapons and the high-capacity magazines of the type that the alleged killer used on that fateful day. It was a difficult issue, but I thought then and still think now that it is an important issue that needs to be discussed by not only us, but by the American public through their Representatives and Senators in Congress. With that prior posting in mind, I was shocked to read a story earlier this week about the president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who blamed the shootings on government policies in a recent speech to the CPAC conference on Thursday, February 10th.
You did read that correctly. The head of one of the biggest lobbying organizations in the country went in front of those “reasonable and moderate” CPAC members and made the claim that it wasn’t guns or ammunition that caused the deaths of 6 people and the wounding of 13 bystanders. “LaPierre said U.S. gun laws provide more protection to killers like the Virginia Tech and Tucson shooters than to the victims of their attacks, and suggested the current environment puts women at risk for rape. He condemned “gun-free zones and anti-self defense laws that protected the safety of no one except the killers and condemned the victims to death without so much as a prayer. “Government policies are getting us killed,” he said. “ CBS News.com
Mr. LaPierre goes on to give the usual response that guns don’t kill people, people do. He even suggested that if people with guns were there they could have prevented some of the death and destruction. I guess he didn’t bother to read that one gentleman who was packing a gun at the event, almost shot one of the people trying to subdue the alleged killer. Doesn’t he know that people can carry a concealed weapon already in Arizona? Where is this “gun-free zone” that he was referring to? It certainly wasn’t in Tucson. I also am confused how the Virginia Tech shooter was aided by the government?
Why is it asking too much to limit even the size of a magazine? Why does the NRA continually blame government policies that weren’t even applicable in the Tucson shootings? Wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss making it harder for mentally ill people to buy guns legally? Why does anyone listen to the NRA at all? As usual, I have more questions than answers, but I was hoping you would help me!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
Hey Buddha – I will catch up with you on another thread soon; but first more Kate!
“Ooh, Wayne, are you selling your soul for a cold gun?”
“So, it is beliefs which are actually dangerous, and nothing else.” – Brian Harris
“April the 4th, 1984. To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man… greetings.” – Winston Smith
mens rea: An element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and willfulness.
actus reus: As an element of criminal responsibility, the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally require proof of both actus reus and mens rea on the part of a defendant in order to establish criminal liability.
By definition, a dangerous thought is just a thought and is not a malum in se crime without action being taken on that thought.
Once again, you are staggeringly and completely wrong, Brian.
RE: Jason, February 14, 2011 at 9:15 pm
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.-
“Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.”
I’m only half kidding when I say I fear hot glue guns more than firearms.
########################
Because a person tends to be within very close range to a hot melt glue gun, the high temperature ones can be truly dangerous, but not to someone a few blocks away, sitting in a city park, as was one grandfather who got shot dead by a bullet mis-aimed at an inadequate target, in the Chicago area. Guns are not particularly dangerous, and bullets are not dangerous if not overheated and if no one ever uses them.
People are not dangerous unless, as Albert Ellis observed, a belief is activated by an event and the activated belief produces a dangerous act.
So, it is beliefs which are actually dangerous, and nothing else.
Introductory Science 001.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.-
“Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.”
I’m only half kidding when I say I fear hot glue guns more than firearms. I’ve never been hurt using a firearm. On the other hand, I can’t seem to be in the same room as a hot glue gun and not get third degree burns. Screw hot glue guns.
Stamford Liberal-
“You can incorrectly read into my posts that I seek to ban guns,”
So I should interpret your words as saying you are not in favor of banning “military grade” weapons, that you think it’s ok for civilians to own them? You’ve implied otherwise, but I’d be happy to be wrong.
“Obviously, you think that by not having a gun on my person or in my home it somehow disables me in defending me and my own.”
That wasn’t what made me think that, it was these words that made me think that:
“If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens.”
I don’t think I’m being unreasonable when I interpret that as, “If I get attacked, so be it,” which in turn seems to mean, “I won’t defend myself.” Call me crazy.
“So, I see that I must spell it out for you – should anyone ever break into my home I will grab a knife or baseball bat;”
Now it’s just a matter of what kind of lethal force we are willing to use. You are willing to smash people with a bat or slice their vital organs until they withdraw or bleed out, while I wish to use a gun, hoping they’ll leave at its sight but willing to punch a nasty hole through them if necessary. See, we’re not so different! High five!
“if on the street and confronted by a criminal who doesn’t just want my wallet, I will use whatever strength and whatever tools I can find, be they keys, the can of mace I carry, or a brick lying on the ground, in order to fight them off.”
Stamford Liberal-approved methods of self defense: bone crushing, brain smashing bat or brick, disemboweling, hemorrhage-inducing blade, mace, and keys. Ok, got it.
As an aside, my 62 year old mother lives alone and is virtually immobile (like it takes minutes to walk thirty feet). Which one of those would you recommend for someone in her situation? I’m thinking bat, brick, keys, and knife probably aren’t practical. So mace?
Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
“Just because I choose not to have a gun doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other means of protecting myself or my family. Jesus Christ …”
No no, I’m glad to hear that you are willing to severely injure or kill someone to protect a loved one. You just want to use a different tool to do it.
What you still haven’t told me:
*Why are three guns ok, but seven not? And what rationale did you use to select the “correct” number?
*What do you mean by “military grade” weapons?
*Why is an AK-47 bad but a pretty, wood-grained hunting rifle good? Especially since most hunting rifles are more powerful than an AK-47?
I’m not asking these questions to be a smart-ass. This type of thinking is behind a lot of gun control ideas, including the high capacity magazine ban.
Another presentation by Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership: No Guns For Negros.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4mJW-kjSc&w=640&h=390]
http://jpfo.org/
Here is another clip at the JPFO website about the BATF gangsters.
http://www.thegangmovie.com/gang-atf-vidplay.htm
Folks, the only people who want to take your guns away are the ones who want to kill you.
Jason:
You can incorrectly read into my posts that I seek to ban guns, that I don’t believe people have the right to have them. Whatever, I’m not going to continue the circle jerk with you as I haven’t the time nor the energy to do so.
Obviously, you think that by not having a gun on my person or in my home it somehow disables me in defending me and my own. So, I see that I must spell it out for you – should anyone ever break into my home I will grab a knife or baseball bat; if on the street and confronted by a criminal who doesn’t just want my wallet, I will use whatever strength and whatever tools I can find, be they keys, the can of mace I carry, or a brick lying on the ground, in order to fight them off.
Just because I choose not to have a gun doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other means of protecting myself or my family. Jesus Christ …
I am thinking of turning in my soldering guns to the police. Yes, it would be possible, though perhaps challenging, to murder someone with a soldering gun.
Oh. Sorry. Forgot the hot melt glue gun.
What about that grease gun?
How do I turn in an imaginary rivet gun?
Guns are not the problem, human violence is the problem?
What causes humans to become violent is the problem.
No unborn fetus has ever committed willful homicide.
The will to homicide is learned, not inborn.
Please shoot that down if you can.
Please do not shoot me with real bullets in your shooting, words alone are all that I find acceptable for such shooting down.
Some day, someone may be stupid enough to really try those supposed teachings of Jesus, to see if they actually work.
To paraphrase a story told of Bill Gates, “Why not try it sometime?”
Never ask an engineer-type-person a question that starts out with, “Why not…”
Lest you may learn something!
Stamford Liberal-
I think we’ve reached the point where we are dancing in circles. I’ll try to answer anyway.
“I didn’t put words in your mouth, don’t do it to me. If you don’t believe me, that’s your opinion. You’re wrong, but it’s your choice to be wrong just the same.”
Ok, fine. You want to place numerous arbitrary rules and bans in place, but you support the right to bear arms. Is that more accurate?
“But, I do not begrudge anyone else having a gun under their roof. Their home, their choice, not mine.”
Unless it’s a gun that you don’t like, or it’s “too many” guns, or…
“Anything more than what is necessary is an arsenal, IMHO.”
So now you or the government dictates what is “necessary” based on what?
“And here all this time I thought the primary reason for gun ownership was protection.”
For some people it is. For others not. Others see them both ways equally.
“Now there’s a gun for every reason, for every season.”
This has always been the case. Self-defense guns are usually different gun than those used for buffalo hunting or target shooting. It was true 100 years ago and it’s true now.
“Three guns is fair as they each provide a distinct “service” for your needs. Seven? A bit extreme in my mind but, that’s just my opinion.”
You still haven’t explained why three is ok but seven isn’t, nor have you given a rational explanation for why it’s bad for a law abiding citizen to have a lot of guns. Which number makes it bad? If three is ok and seven isn’t, is it four, five, or six that crosses the line? And why?
“What is the purpose of having a private citizen have access to these kinds of guns?”
You’re not paying attention. Do you understand what you are talking about when you say, “these kinds of guns”?
“Is bambi that dangerous that private citizens need AK-47′s?”
This is one of the most tired and ridiculous cliches. As I mentioned, the typical AK clone is LESS powerful than a deer rifle. Aside from that, AR clones are becoming more and more common as hunting rifles because their caliber can be switched easily, they are very accurate, light weight, and have a huge aftermarket.
So called assault weapons like AKs and ARs are used in a tiny fraction of all gun crime. ALL long guns account for only two percent of crime guns.
“Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun.”
This is insane. He didn’t know the facts so HE DIDN’T FREAKING SHOOT. It went the way things are supposed to go! The guy assessed the situation, realized that he couldn’t do anything safely with his gun, and chose not to fire.
And yes, it’s incredibly rare. I’ll make a challenge. You dig up all the news stories of legal concealed carriers shooting someone innocent, I’ll dig up all of the stories of them defending themselves without hurting anyone innocent. You don’t want to put money on this challenge, trust me.
“So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.”
No, rare compared to people using guns to defend themselves, which you don’t think should count apparently.
“Sadly, I’m not being ironic. And fear isn’t behind every proposal to relax gun control laws? Or does fear only apply to gun control?”
I flat out said that they were the mirror image of each other. Yes, they both use fear.
“I agree to a point – I see the NRA and its supporters screaming, “BOO!” a hell of a lot more than I see the gun control lobby screaming, “BOO!” Obaman’s coming to take your guns, government is looking to strip the 2A, etc., etc., etc.”
And I see the gun control people yelling boo as in, “Oh my god deadly assault weapons think of the children,” and, “Oh my god, high capacity magazines,” and, “Holy crap gun shows, we have to do something!”
In almost every instance, that which they are screaming about has little or nothing to do with violent crime, but does scare the crap out of people who don’t know better (or know that violent crime has plummeted in the last twenty years.
“Which is why I have 911 on speed dial. That’s what my taxes pay for.”
That’s nice, but the police are a reactionary force. The crime is already in progress when you call them. You then have to hope that they get there in time. I don’t pay them tax money on the assumption that they can magically get to my house the instant I call them.
“You choose to carry a concealed weapon, I don’t. I’m not looking to take your right away to do so.”
But most of your posts have been about doing that. You don’t want me to own more weapons than you want, you don’t want me to own scary looking guns because, I’m not sure.
“You don’t find it ironic that you condemn gun control advocates for instilling fear, then post what you did above??”
I put up an obviously unlikely scenario to try to get an answer from you. You are the one who said you weren’t willing to shoot someone to prevent rape. I used an obviously extreme hypothetical in the hope that you would clarify your view.
“I form them based on my life experiences. If something bad is going to happen to me, it will and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it – it’s called life.”
But there is something you can do about it sometimes. Do you have fire extinguishers? Do you use a seat belt? If so, why? House fires happen, car accidents happen, there’s nothing you can do about it, right?
“I have experienced quite a bit of violence and abuse and have gotten through each and every experience much stronger. Why? Because I have a very good sense of who I am and what I am capable of, virtues I have instilled in my family. Falling victim to fear is not one of them.”
Again, do you take ANY precautions in life? I’m reasonably certain that I’ll never fire my gun in anger, quite a bit more certain than that I will never get in a car accident.
“My family takes the necessary precautionary actions”
Why? Life happens, you can’t do anything about it.
“without having guns strapped to our sides, but, should misfortune come our way, I will not be the blase’ person you appear to think I am. I will do my damnedest to support, nurture and do whatever is necessary to see them through whatever may happen.”
But not protect them? So if forced to choose, you’d prefer a loved one be harmed to protect the person harming them?
The “blase'” comment was uncalled for as well. I take the thought of taking life seriously. I know the ramifications, legal, financial, and most importantly, psychological. I do not wish for a chance to use my gun, I do not dream of scenarios where I “get” to blow away the bad guys. I want “peace, love, and understanding” as much as anyone. But I don’t base my actions on what I wish was true, but on what I can best determine is true.
Oh, and the best gun group in America: Gun Owners Of America.
http://gunowners.org/
This production is from a Jewish gun ownership organization it is called No Guns For Jews.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-qOUmCrIU&w=640&h=390]
Stamford Liberal wrote:
Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun. So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.
The key word is “almost” which evidently equates to the crime of brandishing, and attempted murder?
We’re knee-jerked into “GUN!!!” and everyone goes into hyper-drive.
New Orleans cops smash a 80-ish year old women into the wall when a gun is shown to them in a position incapable of discharge. On videotape. What did they say prior to doing so?
“M’am, may we have that please?” No. “GUN!!!!” as-if she’s some known gangbanger.
In Tucson, lets say this fellow sees the carnage, and a man with a gun. He bashes the (good guy) over the head with a 30 pound microphone stand, as the phrase: “GUN!!!!” was heard, and he can see the bloodshed. Would you be so incensed?
Accident. Reasonable reaction given the circumstances.
Instead, this fellow you speak-of used a minimal amount of force and made a good (safe) decision.
In hind-sight you call it unwarranted and “ALMOST shooting” an innocent. ONLY due to the presence of his firearm.
If it was a cop who did this, on or off-duty, you’d be citing due diligence. Training. Rules of engagement. So it comes down to the civilian possession of a gun, as the one thing that must END NOW. Got it.
The biggest mass murderers in history are governments. They are the biggest murderers of unarmed civilians. This is who is to be feared the most.
Lone wackos are pikers in comparison.
The feds have NO authority whatsoever to limit weapons. Though, as a result of my continued education and learning about the subject of the tenth amendment, I do believe the states have the power to make reasonable laws about guns (what kind) and who can own them (not the mentally retarded, etc).
The feds have absolutely no power. None. All they can do is beg the states for whatever laws they would like. And foolish would be the state to give the feds everything they want.
The BATF? Unconstitutional.
Jason:
“This is sort of like when you are talking to someone and they say, “Look, I’m not a racist, but….” You know that you are about to hear some good ole fashioned racism. You hate guns, you don’t like anyone owning them. At least be honest about what you want. Because everything that follows that line screams, “I don’t believe in a person’s right to bear arms.”
I didn’t put words in your mouth, don’t do it to me. If you don’t believe me, that’s your opinion. You’re wrong, but it’s your choice to be wrong just the same.
True, I don’t like guns – even owned one for a while after I got divorced many moons ago, took safety lessons, etc., but found that I just wasn’t comfortable having a gun in the house. But, I do not begrudge anyone else having a gun under their roof. Their home, their choice, not mine.
“As I said to mespo, who or what determines what an arsenal is? Most criminals don’t collect weapons, and damn near every gun crime is committed with one gun. It’s very very easy for even non-collectors to amass what to you might be an arsenal.
Let’s say I’m into the sport of Three-Gun. As you might guess, that requires I own three guns, a rifle, shotgun, and handgun. If I’m also into hunting, I’m going to need at least one rifle and one shotgun (usually of different types than used in Three gun). If I want to carry concealed, that’s another handgun. If I want to shoot at the range cheaply or work on my form, I might buy a .22 handgun. So without collecting a single weapon, just buying different guns for different purposes, I’ve got seven. And if I’m engaged in those sorts of hobbies, I’m not typically going to shoot people.”
Anything more than what is necessary is an arsenal, IMHO. And here all this time I thought the primary reason for gun ownership was protection. Now there’s a gun for every reason, for every season. Three guns is fair as they each provide a distinct “service” for your needs. Seven? A bit extreme in my mind but, that’s just my opinion.
“I suspect you don’t know what you mean when you say military-grade. Are you referring to what are commonly called assault weapons? Semi-automatics like the AR and AK platforms that are very popular? If so, they aren’t military grade. They are nothing but semi-automatic rifles that look mean to some people. They aren’t particularly powerful (in most cases they are less powerful than a typical hunting rifle) and their ability to use detachable box magazines is not unique to military weapons.
I also find it funny that anti-gun people will argue both, “The second amendment is about the militia,” and, “People shouldn’t have military weapons.” Regardless of what you think the 2A was about, it’s clear that they wanted regular people to have the same weapons that a soldier would have. And we don’t. Not even close.”
What is the purpose of having a private citizen have access to these kinds of guns? Is bambi that dangerous that private citizens need AK-47’s? Remind me to make sure I leave treats out for Santa’s reindeer at Christmas, too.
And, please do remember the timeframe of when the 2A was written. We now have LEO’s and a military, unlike during the time when the Constitution was written. Do keep that in mind.
“As has already been shown, these incidents do happen, though they are rare. Sort of like mass shootings or crimes where a high capacity magazines had any impact.”
Rare. Sort of like where a man almost shot an innocent man, without knowing the facts, because all he saw was a gun. So the rare from your point of view trumps the rare from my point of view just … because. Got it.
“You’re being ironic, right? Fear is behind virtually every gun control proposal in existence. More to the point, *irrational* fear is behind them.”
Sadly, I’m not being ironic. And fear isn’t behind every proposal to relax gun control laws? Or does fear only apply to gun control?
“You’re response was addressed to me, so I have to repeat that I carry no water for the NRA. Indeed, they do rely on scare tactics and I hate them for it. They are in that sense the mirror image of the gun control lobby, who also spend much of their time yelling, “BOO.””
I agree to a point – I see the NRA and its supporters screaming, “BOO!” a hell of a lot more than I see the gun control lobby screaming, “BOO!” Obaman’s coming to take your guns, government is looking to strip the 2A, etc., etc., etc.
“If I *know* that they are their to take my TV, I agree, I will not shoot someone over property. The tricky part is knowing what they are there for. Most often, it will be just stuff, and if I’m awakened in the night by a noise, I will not go on a commando raid through my house. I’ll call the police and park myself at the top of the stairs. But if they come upstairs, I can’t afford to believe that they are there for stuff only. Thankfully, this is very unlikely to ever happen.”
Which is why I have 911 on speed dial. That’s what my taxes pay for.
“Again, I agree in general. You have to understand something. In most states, a licensed concealed carrier can’t just shoot anyone who scares him. He has to be in reasonable fear for his or another’s life. If I think that handing over my wallet will end the confrontation, I’ll do so. But it doesn’t always end that way. And if someone points a gun at me, they are de facto threatening to shoot me. They should not be surprised if I take that the wrong way.”
You choose to carry a concealed weapon, I don’t. I’m not looking to take your right away to do so. I have a better chance of being wounded or killed with my own weapon than I am someone elses. This is not a risk I am willing to take.
“And here’s where we will have to part ways. I can’t even comprehend this attitude. Let me change your scenario slightly. How about if someone was raping or threatening your spouse or significant other? Your child? You are ok with allowing them to face that trauma or harm rather than shoot the person doing it? “Hey, sorry honey, but I value life too much to shoot the guy who was raping you. Don’t worry, we’ll get you counseling. You know what I always say, ‘Shit happens!’ Hope you understand.””
You don’t find it ironic that you condemn gun control advocates for instilling fear, then post what you did above?? I’m sorry you cannot comprehend the way I look at this but I don’t form my opinions or way of life to please other people. I form them based on my life experiences. If something bad is going to happen to me, it will and there’s not a damned thing I can do about it – it’s called life. I will not apologize for not having a gun under my roof or on my person in the chance that a fear-driven “might” happen.
I have experienced quite a bit of violence and abuse and have gotten through each and every experience much stronger. Why? Because I have a very good sense of who I am and what I am capable of, virtues I have instilled in my family. Falling victim to fear is not one of them. My family takes the necessary precautionary actions without having guns strapped to our sides, but, should misfortune come our way, I will not be the blase’ person you appear to think I am. I will do my damnedest to support, nurture and do whatever is necessary to see them through whatever may happen.
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, February 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.”
———————
What a beautiful thought.
Joy cannot live without sorrow…I hope you have more Joy than sorrow.
Happy Valentines Day ^..^
################################
That saying is a Yoruba proverb.
My greatest Joy of all is being given to rejoice, without limit, in the gift of life; even in the midst of the greatest of sorrows.
For such is the gift of having accepted trusting existence absolutely without reservation.
As I do, so I say.
Mandel,
I believe that the context for the gun free zones came from LaPierre in his lame attempt to blame government policies on the shootings in Tucson. The area where the shootings occured was not a gun free zone and Arizona is a conceal and carry state so the head of the NRA was talking out of his back end.
As to your comment on the so-called gun show loophole, it doesn’t matter what you call it if people can sell guns without proper and necessary checks on the party buying the weapon.
Stamford Liberal-
“Jason:
While I believe in a person’s right to bear arms,”
This is sort of like when you are talking to someone and they say, “Look, I’m not a racist, but….” You know that you are about to hear some good ole fashioned racism. You hate guns, you don’t like anyone owning them. At least be honest about what you want. Because everything that follows that line screams, “I don’t believe in a person’s right to bear arms.”
“I do not believe a private citizens needs an arsenal,”
As I said to mespo, who or what determines what an arsenal is? Most criminals don’t collect weapons, and damn near every gun crime is committed with one gun. It’s very very easy for even non-collectors to amass what to you might be an arsenal.
Let’s say I’m into the sport of Three-Gun. As you might guess, that requires I own three guns, a rifle, shotgun, and handgun. If I’m also into hunting, I’m going to need at least one rifle and one shotgun (usually of different types than used in Three gun). If I want to carry concealed, that’s another handgun. If I want to shoot at the range cheaply or work on my form, I might buy a .22 handgun. So without collecting a single weapon, just buying different guns for different purposes, I’ve got seven. And if I’m engaged in those sorts of hobbies, I’m not typically going to shoot people.
“nor do they need military-grade weapons.”
I suspect you don’t know what you mean when you say military-grade. Are you referring to what are commonly called assault weapons? Semi-automatics like the AR and AK platforms that are very popular? If so, they aren’t military grade. They are nothing but semi-automatic rifles that look mean to some people. They aren’t particularly powerful (in most cases they are less powerful than a typical hunting rifle) and their ability to use detachable box magazines is not unique to military weapons.
I also find it funny that anti-gun people will argue both, “The second amendment is about the militia,” and, “People shouldn’t have military weapons.” Regardless of what you think the 2A was about, it’s clear that they wanted regular people to have the same weapons that a soldier would have. And we don’t. Not even close.
“When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.”
As has already been shown, these incidents do happen, though they are rare. Sort of like mass shootings or crimes where a high capacity magazines had any impact.
“Common sense should dictate gun control, not fear,”
You’re being ironic, right? Fear is behind virtually every gun control proposal in existence. More to the point, *irrational* fear is behind them.
“however, if left to the NRA, fear would rule the day.”
You’re response was addressed to me, so I have to repeat that I carry no water for the NRA. Indeed, they do rely on scare tactics and I hate them for it. They are in that sense the mirror image of the gun control lobby, who also spend much of their time yelling, “BOO.”
“Sorry, that’s not how I want to live my life.”
It’s not how I live mine either.
“If someone breaks into my home, my possessions are not worth my life so they are free to take whatever they want.”
If I *know* that they are their to take my TV, I agree, I will not shoot someone over property. The tricky part is knowing what they are there for. Most often, it will be just stuff, and if I’m awakened in the night by a noise, I will not go on a commando raid through my house. I’ll call the police and park myself at the top of the stairs. But if they come upstairs, I can’t afford to believe that they are there for stuff only. Thankfully, this is very unlikely to ever happen.
“If I get mugged, take my wallet – there isn’t much in there anyway.”
Again, I agree in general. You have to understand something. In most states, a licensed concealed carrier can’t just shoot anyone who scares him. He has to be in reasonable fear for his or another’s life. If I think that handing over my wallet will end the confrontation, I’ll do so. But it doesn’t always end that way. And if someone points a gun at me, they are de facto threatening to shoot me. They should not be surprised if I take that the wrong way.
“If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens.”
And here’s where we will have to part ways. I can’t even comprehend this attitude. Let me change your scenario slightly. How about if someone was raping or threatening your spouse or significant other? Your child? You are ok with allowing them to face that trauma or harm rather than shoot the person doing it? “Hey, sorry honey, but I value life too much to shoot the guy who was raping you. Don’t worry, we’ll get you counseling. You know what I always say, ‘Shit happens!’ Hope you understand.”
“When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.”
———————
What a beautiful thought.
Joy cannot live without sorrow…I hope you have more Joy than sorrow.
Happy Valentines Day ^..^
QUOTE “When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.”
For no reason other than I happen to think it’s cool:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmnQvMHlRs&w=480&h=390]
I am truly grateful for having the right to bear arms.
If I did not have the right to bear arms, driving my 1998 Chevrolet Metro Sedan would be difficult, it has a manual transmission and I need one arm for shifting while using the other arm for steering.
I knew a man who lost the right to bear arms during World War II.
He kept only the right to bear his left arm.
His right arm was blown away along with his right to bear two arms.
His right to be left without his right arm was his right to be wronged.
And, whenever I go swimming at the Door County YMCA (my wife and I are members), I am grateful for the right to bare arms.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Fifteen years ago, today, the priest at the cemetery let my wife and me sprinkle holy water on the caskets of our son and his wife, Michael Harris and Shelly Dukes.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Our son was born on St. Valentine’s Day in 1968 and buried on St. Valentine’s Day in 1996.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
I am now crying.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
My son and his wife lost their right to bared arms.
My son and his wife gained the right to buried arms.
When the man who knows no sorrow hears weeping, he thinks it is a song.
Buddha is Laughing, Happy Valentine’s Day.
Knowing sorrow, I am now weeping.
Buddha is Laughing, Happy Valentine’s Day; for I love you.
Understanding sorrow, I sing the song of sorrowful passion.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
Selah!
As it be, so be it.
It is the Day of the Way.
Jason:
While I believe in a person’s right to bear arms, I do not believe a private citizens needs an arsenal, nor do they need military-grade weapons. When was the last time a homeowner needed to protect his or her property from a Black-Ops type home invasion with like weapons? None to my knowledge.
Common sense should dictate gun control, not fear, however, if left to the NRA, fear would rule the day. Sorry, that’s not how I want to live my life. If someone breaks into my home, my possessions are not worth my life so they are free to take whatever they want. If I get mugged, take my wallet – there isn’t much in there anyway. If I get raped, while it may take a toll on me physically, it will not destroy my soul or who I am. If I get shot in the process? So be it. Shit happens. I’m going to die at some point anyway and it just means my number was up. But I do know the chances of the perpetrator of a home invasion wounding or killing me with my own weapon are much greater than if I don’t have a gun at all.