Seriously, I am scared that people as clueless, as dumb, as incomprehensibly stupid, as asinine as this joker even exist. Why am I not surprised that this article is found in the Toledo Blade? That's another thing to be scared about, that Cleveland is so close to Toledo. This pathetic loser seriously asserts that America can and should be disarmed. Uh-huh. Read the article. Then when you're done throwing up, or rolling on the floor laughing, go read the great fisking by Iowahawk.
In the meantime, men with guns have helped save the lives of at least 40,000 babies every year in Afghanistan by ousting the Taliban. Guns don't belong in museums. They belong in the hands of everyone who is fit, able and willing to defend themselves.
h/t to Ace for the links.
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
My Take on the Virginia Tech Shootings
This is partially in response to my blog friend Jau, since her latest post set off this whole long ramble. She suggested we should limit "tools with which people can express intense anger and misery." I pointed out that now that guns are illegal in the U.K., there's a call to ban kitchen knives, as they are responsible for a large portion of the current violence there, perhaps as much as half. People will turn nasty and violent. It's sad, but it's a fact of life, has been for the thousands of years that humans have been around, and always will be. The first recorded sin in history, after eating the forbidden fruit, was a violent murder.
Secondly, if Clayton Cramer is correct, the two guns that the shooter owned were a Glock 9 mm and a .22 caliber pistol. These are semi-automatic weapons, not automatic weapons. At some point, the shooter probably had to change the magazine on his gun, although he probably could have done it fairly quickly. And many gun owners will argue with you about their right to own automatic weapons just as much as their right to own semi-automatic weapons. The reason we own weapons is not just to protect ourselves from the thief who breaks in at night, but to protect our liberties from a tyrannic government, if need be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Founding Fathers saw that their system of government might not last and that tyranny might raise its ugly head once more.
Clayton Cramer also implies that since Seung-Hui was a resident alien of the United States, there was no reason why he could not have owned these guns legally, although he was not supposed to have them on campus, but hey, that didn't stop him. I would like to know where Jau got her information that gun shows are exempt from background checks. I purchased my gun at a gun show, and you'd better believe the person from whom I purchased that gun did a background check on me. A federally-licensed firearms dealer must always run a background check before selling a firearm. Any exceptions there may be, such as LEOs and people with a CCW, are just another form of background check. Any hobbyist can set up a table and sell his collection at a gun show, but those people are probably being watched to make sure they are really hobbyists and not firearms dealers. And anyone can sell a firearm to anyone else in a private sale, which I do not believe the government should ever regulate. The government has no business in private sales. In any case, do we know where Seung-Hui purchased his firearms or have any reason to believe he owned them illegally? Let's not bring up situations that may not even fit this story, and are unlikely on top of that. The MSM may love to put out scare stories about gun shows, but a gun show is not someplace to just go anonymously load up on all the guns you want. I've been there; I know.
Lastly, Jau asks, "Why must being an American include the fairly frequent and not very remote possibility of being mowed down by lunatics?" Well, first of all, because Americans have rights and freedoms, guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Do we want to destroy those any more?
Secondly, I really do not believe the possibility is "fairly frequent." According to this page, "The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder." Yes, shootings like this are spectacular and they make the news, but how often do they really happen? To me, this is like the scare stories on roller coasters every time a roller coaster death or accident occurs. You are more likely to get into an accident on the way to the amusement park in your car, than get hurt on a roller coaster.
Thirdly, these sorts of shootings don't just happen in America. See Montreal, for example. I agree with Clayton Cramer that there was no way to prevent this person from obtaining handguns except a complete ban on handgun ownership, which will never happen. Please also read this link on Clayton Cramer's blog where a Virginia Tech student who has a CCW wishes he had the same right to protect himself on the campus of Virginia Tech as he does elsewhere in the state - and he wrote this last August. Perhaps if someone else on campus was legally carrying a firearm, this tragedy may not have reached such huge proportions. I know I will never, EVER give up my right to carry, nor to own firearms, nor to protect myself and my daughters, if need be, by using a firearm. Call me a whacked-out gun nut if you like, but I believe I have presented facts in a reasonable manner in this post.
Secondly, if Clayton Cramer is correct, the two guns that the shooter owned were a Glock 9 mm and a .22 caliber pistol. These are semi-automatic weapons, not automatic weapons. At some point, the shooter probably had to change the magazine on his gun, although he probably could have done it fairly quickly. And many gun owners will argue with you about their right to own automatic weapons just as much as their right to own semi-automatic weapons. The reason we own weapons is not just to protect ourselves from the thief who breaks in at night, but to protect our liberties from a tyrannic government, if need be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Founding Fathers saw that their system of government might not last and that tyranny might raise its ugly head once more.
Clayton Cramer also implies that since Seung-Hui was a resident alien of the United States, there was no reason why he could not have owned these guns legally, although he was not supposed to have them on campus, but hey, that didn't stop him. I would like to know where Jau got her information that gun shows are exempt from background checks. I purchased my gun at a gun show, and you'd better believe the person from whom I purchased that gun did a background check on me. A federally-licensed firearms dealer must always run a background check before selling a firearm. Any exceptions there may be, such as LEOs and people with a CCW, are just another form of background check. Any hobbyist can set up a table and sell his collection at a gun show, but those people are probably being watched to make sure they are really hobbyists and not firearms dealers. And anyone can sell a firearm to anyone else in a private sale, which I do not believe the government should ever regulate. The government has no business in private sales. In any case, do we know where Seung-Hui purchased his firearms or have any reason to believe he owned them illegally? Let's not bring up situations that may not even fit this story, and are unlikely on top of that. The MSM may love to put out scare stories about gun shows, but a gun show is not someplace to just go anonymously load up on all the guns you want. I've been there; I know.
Lastly, Jau asks, "Why must being an American include the fairly frequent and not very remote possibility of being mowed down by lunatics?" Well, first of all, because Americans have rights and freedoms, guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Do we want to destroy those any more?
Secondly, I really do not believe the possibility is "fairly frequent." According to this page, "The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder." Yes, shootings like this are spectacular and they make the news, but how often do they really happen? To me, this is like the scare stories on roller coasters every time a roller coaster death or accident occurs. You are more likely to get into an accident on the way to the amusement park in your car, than get hurt on a roller coaster.
Thirdly, these sorts of shootings don't just happen in America. See Montreal, for example. I agree with Clayton Cramer that there was no way to prevent this person from obtaining handguns except a complete ban on handgun ownership, which will never happen. Please also read this link on Clayton Cramer's blog where a Virginia Tech student who has a CCW wishes he had the same right to protect himself on the campus of Virginia Tech as he does elsewhere in the state - and he wrote this last August. Perhaps if someone else on campus was legally carrying a firearm, this tragedy may not have reached such huge proportions. I know I will never, EVER give up my right to carry, nor to own firearms, nor to protect myself and my daughters, if need be, by using a firearm. Call me a whacked-out gun nut if you like, but I believe I have presented facts in a reasonable manner in this post.
Labels:
2nd Amendment,
freedom,
guns,
rants,
roller coasters
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Good News for Ohioans Who Carry
Here is everything you need to know about Ohio HB347, which goes into effect tomorrow. Makes the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones easier.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
In the News
Okay, this is why I don't want to send my children to a public high school. And this isn't even taking place in, like, San Francisco, or Lakewood or anything. Yeah, who am I kidding. They're just trying to keep the students and teachers alive in Lakewood. And yes, I was less popular in high school than the one boy in high school that I now know is/was gay. But then, playing Nathan Detroit in "Guys and Dolls" is a sure ticket to popularity, yes?
And for you 2nd Amendment people out there, what may be a positive step in our right to keep and bear arms.
And for you 2nd Amendment people out there, what may be a positive step in our right to keep and bear arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)