Substitute one word for the other and you will be unable to distinguish the subject of debate. Only the nature of the partisan will give you away.
On the right, they believe that the right to bear arms is given to us by the constitution. Any attempt to regulate that right is really just a strategy to chip away at that right with the goal of removing all guns. If sometimes bad people use guns in the wrong way and manner, that is the price of freedom.
On the left, they believe that the right to an abortion is given to us by the constitution. Any attempt to regulate that right is really just a strategy to chip away at that right with the goal of removing all access to abortion. If sometimes bad people use abortion in the wrong way and manner, that is the price of freedom.
Remember this when you are debating either guns or abortion.
No town in the U.S. has been as public about its support for guns as Kennesaw, population about 30,000, where city leaders for 30 years have required that every household have at least one gun. The Dec. 14 killings of 20 children and six adults, the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, has done little to change that, residents say in interviews.
The state of Georgia allows citizens to carry guns openly as long as they hold permits, in a region where guns have long been prized and firearms are part of the culture, Crowe said.
“It’s ingrained in us,” he said. “It’s about responsibility as much as anything and I am passing that on to my kids.”
Kennesaw, about 30 miles northwest of Atlanta, had about 5,000 people when its City Council adopted an ordinance requiring heads of households to own a gun and enough ammunition to use it, said police Lieutenant Craig Graydon, 47, who’s fielded questions about the law for 26 years.
Jodie Tabak, Mayor Tom Barrett’s spokeswoman, released this statement:
“Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”
And there’s more:
Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said she hears “over and over” from most law enforcement officials that the community should work to “take more guns off the streets, not add more.”
“What (Clarke’s) talking about is this amped up version of vigilantism,” Bonavia said. “I don’t know what his motivations are for doing this. But I do know what he’s calling for is dangerous and irresponsible and he should be out there saying this is a mistake.”
However, the sheriff is not without his supporters:
Asked about Clarke’s assessment of 911, James Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro Gun Movement, said, “It’s never been a great option (calling 911). Unless you can take care of yourself, you’re kind of SOL.”
Fendry, a former police officer, said that he tells citizens, “You’re not armed to be law enforcement. You’re armed to protect your own life and the lives of your family until law enforcement arrives. Do not go on search and destroy missions in your home.”
I tend to agree with the folks who are calling on Clarke to show restraint. The debate is amped up as it is; folks are already looking for any and all reasons to buy a gun. Heck, in many cases they’re looking for reason NOT to buy a gun. And when a cop comes out and says that the white hats can’t get there in time; well, it only serves to embolden the guys in the black hats.
County Executive Chris Abele said Clarke is sending the wrong message.
“I think it’s irresponsible and it doesn’t help public safety to tell the public there’s some kind of imminent danger that they need to go buy guns,” Abele said. “Essentially, you’ve got a (public service announcement) that’s recommending people need to go buy guns because they can’t rely on the response they’ll get from 911. I’m here to tell you, we have phenomenal police departments.”
Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, said the ad sounded to him like a call to vigilantism.
“That doesn’t sound smart,” Felber said. “That’s why society has police officers.”
One the main and best deterrents to crime is that the cops are on the way and that they WILL catch you. To break that seal, to allow even a hint of doubt tears down that curtain and what’s behind, may or may not be, ugly.
By Tuesday, if you believe the deadline Biden has for his report, Obama is going to receive a report on how to curb violence. By the way, wouldn’t it be nice if the President could demand as timely a report on such things as budgets? Anyway, the report ….
We all have ideas on what we might like to see in the report. It goes all the way from ban every single gun in America to posting armed guards at every single school.
But I think that reasonable people understand a couple things:
Gun violence in America is heading down.
There really is very little need for assault weapons and large capacity clips.
The most recent string of mass shootings involved mentally retarded individuals.
That allowing our 6 year old kids to play with toy guns makes a parent a bit queezy.
Hollywood’s obsession with violence creates a “culture of violence”.
Same for video games.
But no one likes to hear that when the target of blame falls on them or theirs. The NRA doesn’t wanna hear that guns kill people. And the parents of children with learning disabilities don’t wanna hear that the shooters were crazy. Parent’s don’t wanna think that there is anything wrong with cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.
And Hollywood doesn’t wanna hear that their movies cause violent reactions:
Listen, I don’t know if violent movies cause kids to fantasize about violent acts and that those fantasies then are played out. But I DO know that if Hollywood feels they can wade into matters politic then they are certainly fair game when it comes time to lay blame.
(Reuters) – Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves – even in public places – and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces.
The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.
I maintain my natural fears of lobbying organizations and the NRA is no exception. However, there is something to say about a group that protects a constitutional right.
A front-page story in today’s New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), “More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.” That’s a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, “more than 240,000.” So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes “represents a small percentage of those with permits.” More like “tiny.” By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year–more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders.
I didn’t know this. However, it kinda makes sense. See, in order to get a conceal carry permit, you have to have a clean record. Considering that most criminals begin young, this would seem to only include law abiding people. Do folks suddenly have occasion to make a poor decision? Certainly. But not typically.
I don’t like guns. I think they’re dangerous. But they’re less dangerous than swimming pools and I have no problem with people having them. I even let my kids play with swimming pools.
I also think that it’s okay to regulate guns. No one needs a fully automatic assault rifle. And you’d be hard pressed to convince me that we need armor piercing ammunition to take down Bambi. We already agree that criminals shouldn’t have guns. So it isn’t a case of “should we regulate” it’s more of a case on “where do we draw the line.”
The more I see that gun owners are safer and law abiding, the more I’m willing to push that line out a little further.
Listen, I’m a pretty big “small government” kinda guy. I resonate with the whole, “leave me alone” kinda thing. I firmly believe that if we required government to focus on what government was supposed to do, we’d all be better off.
Gun enthusiasts are rallying opposition to a string of new federal proposals that could close off hundreds of thousands of acres in the open West to target shooting.
The proposals from the Bureau of Land Management potentially would outlaw target shooting in swaths of public land in Arizona and Colorado as part of a broader conservation planning effort.
As near as I can tell, the government isn’t saying that you can’t own guns on Federal property. They aren’t saying you can’t CARRY guns on Federal property. They’re just saying you can’t shoot skeet on government property.
There’s a lot of stuff you can’t do on government property.
You can’t speed.
You can’t sit in the middle of the street just because you’re a stinky hippy sad that someone makes more money than you.