[SpamCop-Social] Re: You too can be on the NRA Blacklist!

[Pete Stephenson]

In article <Xns94278FDEDFEA7TheShrubIsAnAss at 216.154.195.61>,
 Charles <8hmte5s02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:

> That's a very American attitude you have, there.

Perhaps. I am an American, and firearms have been part of our country's 
culture since it's inception, and thus hold a certain place in society. 
Indeed, there's a reason that the right to keep and bear arms is the 
second amendment, and not the fourteenth or twenty-third. It shows that 
the people who drafted the Bill of Rights held it to be a priority.

In many other countries, firearms do not have the same historical 
significance as in the US.

Might I also point out that while I am an American, I'm most definitely 
an opponent of The Shrub.

> It is not that simplistic, in the slightest.  We are talking about 
> the health, safety and longevity of society as a whole and guns are a 
> threat to that health, safety and longevity.

I beg to disagree. Crime is a threat to the health, safety, and 
longevity of a society of a whole. Guns are inert pieces of metal and 
other materials.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to propell a small piece of metal 
(or other material) in a specific direction at speed. It is a persons 
choice if they are going to use a firearm in a legitimate manner 
(personal defense, hobby use, practicing at an appropriate range, etc.) 
or an inappropriate use (crime, violence, etc.).

The thought that gun-related crime will disappear when law-abiding 
citizens can no longer keep and bear arms is simplistic. Criminals 
already know that their actions are illegal, yet that does not stop them 
from violating the law. Making firearms illegal will not stop the 
criminal use of firearms, it will only take away an effective deterrent 
of crime for law-abiding citizens.

Crime's already illegal. Why not punish criminals for committing crimes, 
rather than punish law-abiding citizens for possessing 
firearms...something that in the US is legal.

> Part of living in society is doing things that are good for the whole 
> and avoiding doing things that are bad for the whole.  And making 
> rules and punishments to attempt to enforce the view of what is good 
> for the whole and what isn't.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your second sentence, but the first 
sentence is indeed valid, however not in the respect that I think you 
intend. In every case where a citizens right to keep and bear arms has 
been restricted, gun-related crime has increased dramatically. In every 
case when citizens are able to carry firearms, crime has dropped. Armed 
citizens make an extremely effective deterrent against crime.

Simply surrendering our arms to the authorities, and relying entirely on 
another entity (the police) to come and protect you when you call is 
irresponsible. The courts have already decided that the police have no 
duty to protect individuals, only the public at large. Also, what 
happens if one is not able to summon the police before they are attacked 
by the criminal? This happens frequently. In cases like this, armed 
citizens are able to resist and repel their attacker and survive 
(usually) unscathed. Unarmed citizens become victims.

Your suggestion of taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens would 
serve only to harm society as a whole.

> And so, yes, of course I feel that guns should be restricted (your 
> case) and that vehicle emissions should be reglemented (hello Heidi!) 
> and that you should NOT be allowed to do whatever you frickin' please 
> with your property (just because it's yours).

Why should I not be allowed to do what I want on my property, as long as 
it doesn't affect others? For instance, if I were to engage in 
explosives testing on my suburban property, that would affect my 
neighbors. However, if I wished to engage in oral sex (which is illegal 
in several states) in the privacy of my own home, why should I be 
prohibited from doing so?

I agree with your statement about vehicle emissions -- I drive a hybrid 
car that emits practically nothing. ;)

> If I may be so bold, and hoping not to cause the argument to 
> degenerate into mere name calling, it does seem to me to be a selfish 
> attitude on your part.

I'll try to keep ad hominem attacks out of my arguements, as I usually 
do. I would hardly consider my opinion on firearms to be selfish. It is 
part of the US Bill of Rights that citizens are permitted to keep and 
bear arms. It does not require that people possess firearms, however. 
Thus, if I choose to possess a firearm, that's my choice and I ask that 
you (the royal "you") respect that. If you choose not to posses a 
firearm, that's your choice, and I respect that.

I'm not a criminal, I don't intend to commit crimes. My reasons for 
possessing a firearm are limited to personal protection, maintaining my 
skill for military-related duties, hobby/sporting purposes, and to 
exercise my constitutional right.

-- 
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com