Archived Story
Trust me: You believe in gun control
Published 9:01am Thursday, May 24, 2012If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner (and I have … at Thanksgiving dinner), why it’s important to own a gun, they’ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!”
This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted in the 1970s. It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property.
The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years it was for gun control and didn’t mention the Second Amendment as their cause.
Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, “Gun Fight,” what we call the “wild west” had some of the strictest gun control laws we’ve seen as a nation. The shootout at the OK Corral took place, after all, because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw cowboys in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance.
The KKK was among other things, a gun-control organization. They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed slaves … but still gun control.
The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA’s slogan is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Yes, well regulated —it’s in the Constitution!
Now, to some, guns are as sacred as Scripture.
If you ask, again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like Pat Flynn’s, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska.
“Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the government, number one,” Flynn said in a debate right before the primary. “Hunting’s number two. But protecting us against our government is number one.”
Remember, Flynn was trying to land a job in the government (he didn’t win his party’s nomination, by the way).
The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something). The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, “bunker busters,” and nuclear weapons. Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles “for protection?”
Of course they’re not. They actually do want limits on ownership.
And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why gun owners shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, I’d bet you’d get the same answer as to why we don’t want every country to have the capability: “Because they could get into the wrong hands.”
So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-capacity magazine is an absolute right?
A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
So we’re not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited. We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns and fewer requirements for ownership doesn’t curb this.
George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman, a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive, is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners.
There’s no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
The United States is number one in the world in civilian gun ownership. And since we’re not last in gun violence (we’re the 14th highest in deaths—way higher in just injuries) it’s safe to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn’t decrease the number of gun deaths.
Just like cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue—making gun ownership unlimited doesn’t make us safer.
It’s a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby. Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters this Christmas—you believe in regulations as to who gets a weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
Gun control laws are not tyranny—as the family of Trayvon Martin can testify to—a de-regulated militia is.
Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.
I get such a chuckle from these types of screeds.
To all the “more gun=more gun crime” please explain these simple common sense facts that prove just the opposite.
Cities with strict gun control=highest gun crime
Urban with less strict gun controls=less gun crime
Rural where everyone has guns=lowest gun crime
All based on DoJ data on a per capita basis.
(Report comment)
Every year Criminals use guns to kill around 9,000 victims.
Every year innocent citizens use guns to kill between 200 and 257 criminals. Justifiable homicide.
Police also use their firearms to protect themselves and or others from criminal violence some 300 plus times per year.
Gun control laws do nothing to stop the criminal from obtaining firearms.
Gun control, as practiced by a trained citizen excercising their right under the 2nd amendment allows 200 plus citizens to remain alive and enjoy life with their families and keep from being added as a victim/death statistic. It also removes one criminal from the street.
Should we trade our rights so that the Criminals can be safer?
(Report comment)
Why no comment, clarification, correction, or apology from the award winning writer Ms. Dupuy?
(Report comment)
“typical hyper-political gun owner”
Great start. Let’s show how objective we are from the get go. What about the typical dumb blonde?
“what we call the “wild west” had some of the strictest gun control laws we’ve seen as a nation.”
And how did that work out for them?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
“Regulated”, of course, according to dictionary.com, meaning “to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation” (like a regulated clock). To “tune up” or “make accurate”. But, you knew that.
“Yes, well regulated —it’s in the Constitution!”
I’m doing my best. Ammo is expensive.
“Now, to some, guns are as sacred as Scripture.”
“…let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.” – Jesus
“The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something).”
Google: “What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army?”
“A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.”
No it didn’t. It netted a fiberglass training tube. But you knew that.
“There’s no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol.”
Name one conviction. You also forgot to mention that St. Trayvon’s past wasn’t so rosy either. But, that doesn’t fit the narrative, now, does it? Remember that he was the one who possessed drug paraphenalia, arranged fights, and was SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL and had DRUGS IN HIS SYSTEM at the time of the incident? And when your neighborhood falls victim to a series of crimes, there certainly IS a reason to patrol the neighborhood.
“the fact remains if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.”
17 year old. He was 17 years old. But you knew that. And sure, Trayvon might be alive. And Zimmerman might be dead. Or, a vegetable. But that’s okay…he had a criminal record, right?
“Gun control laws are not tyranny—as the family of Trayvon Martin can testify to—a de-regulated militia is.”
The real tyranny is the media which present only one side of a story and approach each issue with an agenda, as you have done.
(Report comment)
Keta, No person who is for the second amendment has issue with getting illegal firearms (stolen, illegally modified, in the possession of criminals) off the street. That is reasonable. That is the government’s duty. Mentally ill persons (if known)are prohibited from purchasing firearms already. Gun owners do not want people to die. But they would prefer the “Criminal” be the one to be injured or die in a situation where the “Criminal” decides to violently attack an innocent victim. Your statement that gun owners want criminals and the mentally ill to have firearms is 100% untrue. Your response is based on emotion. Not fact. Not truth. Not even the law. And then you stoop to name calling. Very childish when dealing with such an important issue.
When gun owners talk about secret agendas of government it is for good reason. Look at the latest “Fast and Furious” gun scandal where the ATF was FORCING gun stores to make illegal sales to prohibited persons, so “they could trace the guns…” when in fact it was in order to have increased statistics of illegal gun ownership and the crime caused by that illegal possession in order to justify passing stricter provisions on free U.S. Citizens from purchasing and or owning firearms.
The Bill of Rights… read them. They are for the purpose of personal protection from undo interference from the government. Individual liberties. Freedoms. We can give up our rights individually. But none of us should be able to take the rights away from others. When individuals take the rights of another by force, coercion, deception, or intimidation we call it a crime. The government has been known to use all of those tactics in the name of “Security” and because well they just know better. Then when they are caught in their bad behavior they shuffle, hide and don’t cooperate as the Attorney General Mr. Holder is doing now with the investigation on the gun operation mentioned earlier.
Democracy is not the most efficient form of government. Our legal system has many loopholes for criminals to escape punishment and yet our jails are still overcrowded. Society tolerates criminals being let loose with early release only for the criminal to recidivate.
The world is more unstable than ever. Governments have been collapsing. Economies are in terrible shape. Peoples morals have been declining for decades. Are we part of a Utopia that I am unaware of?
Look at Riots in different cities. Look at peaceful protest that have a handful of anarchists looking to cause trouble. The increase in Natural disaster and in their severity. In California local governments tell us we are overdue for “the Big Earthquake” and that we should be prepared to take care of ourselves for a minimum of five days. A minimum of Five days without services. No medical response. No police response. No food or Water. Instead of relying on the government for everything as so many do, we should be able to do for ourselves.
The beauty of living in the U.S. is that YOU can live your live the way YOU choose and I can live the way I want to!
(Report comment)
Wow Mick, your absolutely right!
Gun owners have the 2nd amendment to give them the right to take a life if their home is invaded by a potential killer.
An unborn baby doesn’t have any rights of protection by the killer abortionist. In fact he or she doesn’t even have his or her mother to try to defend him/her or them.
In fact the mother is condoning the act of the abortionist and letting him/her or them be torn apart.
Why don’t we hear the screams of over a million babies?
(Report comment)
Historically speaking, Prohibition (alcoholic beverages) was a failure. I feel all out Gun Control would also be a failure. However, due caution should be observed in regards to those purchasing firearms. As far as rights go, don’t we all have an inalienable right to life? Is this observed? I feel the question of owning a gun, pales in comparison to the right to life.
(Report comment)
the president isn’t a citizen, wants to destroy our country, is secretly arming our enemies–your coming around keta.
Also, my science teacher always said to breath thru the nostrils, it’s healthier, any reneck knows that!
(Report comment)
NOTHING you can do to legitimately disarm us
———————————————————–
Disarm you? Any reasonable attempt to get illegal handguns off the streets, or make it hard for the mentally ill to purchase firearms, etc. is met with “Obama wants to take our guns!” Interestingly. many people who feel this way also believe the president isn’t a citizen, wants to destroy our country, is secretly arming our enemies, blah de blah de blah. The number one reason to not be a republican is the sheer embarrassment of being aligned with so many ignorant, racist, mouth-breathing, trailer-dwelling rednecks.
(Report comment)
trailer-dwelling rednecks;liberals now say pre-fab home-dwelling rednecks, you should have known that.
(Report comment)
You argument made from the sandbox at a 3rd grade level of name calling lost any and all credibility you may have had.
(Report comment)
Yes the KKK was so very good at gun control the White government had all the guns and the blacks got the rope. It is so much easier to terrorize a group of people when they can not fight back. Having the cabin surrounded with overwhelming force, out gunned if you have a gun at all, the males die and the females are raped 20-30 times and turned loose to let the others know they better stay in line. YES gun control works! Once the KKK realized that they could not stop the black people from voting they just forced them to vote Democrat and now suffering from Stockholm syndrome they are stuck voting the same way.
(Report comment)
*sigh* Ms. Dupuy. Your regurgitation of discredited arguments is as tiresome as any other. You people just can’t get it through your heads that there is nothing, NOTHING you can do to legitimately disarm us, because such an exercise is constitutionally illegitimate. So, then, why do you persist? Just accept the fact that the SCOTUS has spoken, and in doing so has honored its commitment to our history and tradition of individual liberty.
Regarding your bogus attack on the ownership of so-called “assault weapons”, the Court had this to say:
“Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179 . . . Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.” – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Semiautomatic rifles and pistols are definitively the most common small arms in use in America today, and have been for quite a long time. People of your ilk demonize the ones that look like select-fire rifles because their looks scare you, ipso facto, you push to make them illegal. However, there is functionally no difference between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and one that is cosmetically “military”, and the Court has held that these are the types of small arms protected by the Second Amendment.
As to your misdirectional reference, “a de-regulated milita”, the Court defanged that snake in the first paragraph of its holding:
“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.” – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
You really should quit wasting your (and our) time with these diatribes, and get a productive hobby.
(Report comment)
Tina,
Congratulations. I think you finally did it. I’ve been waiting for years, but to my recollection I’ve never seen a more perfect article espousing gun control. A true tour de force.
Like all gun control articles, it starts off with a few basic assumptions and moves on from there. Of course since these are assumptions, and not facts, you are free to make them up as you go along and you do an incredible job there, let me tell you.
Next, the classic ‘blame everything going wrong with gun control today on the NRA and their political henchmen’ (nice touch on the added ‘hyper-political’ by the way).
Now some more made-up ‘facts’ about how bad guns are, and how a 22 caliber bullet is the same as a sub-launched nuclear missile or weaponized Ebola virus.
And to finish things off in a nice emotional burst, lets make sure to take the tragedy dejure (the less relevant to your article the better, you don’t want any actual information mixed in at this point) and hold it aloft for all to see while shouting ‘think of the children!’.
You hit every point just the way the Brady’s and the VPC would have wanted you to. Somehow, and I don’t know how you pulled this off, you managed to put every single gun-control argument ever onto a single sheet of paper.
Normally I would write back about where you got your facts wrong (Are there even any there? Incredible! Not one!).
Next I would chide you on logical contradictions, but you were way ahead of me the whole time, and cleverly kept the entire article logic-free.
Lastly, I would take you to task for sensationalizing a tragedy for the sake of your political agenda, but the emotional appeals you raised were so intense I can’t even see my keyboard right now through the tears. My Gosh! WHY WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! (sob).
OK, I think I have things under control again.
I do sincerely want to thank you. I was spending a lot of time and effort commenting on gun-control articles. But you have made everything so much simpler.
All I need to do is write the definitive reply to your article. That reply, slightly edited of course, should work for any gun-control article written from this point on until the end of time.
Wish me luck.
(just like this article, this reply was cut & pasted here).
(Report comment)
the KKK was formed by White Democrats
———————————————————–
…..in 1866. It’s hilarious the way republicans have to travel back in time a century or two to find something they can feel good about. Republicans also have trouble with irony; I wish you could appreciate the entertainment value in your pointing out that that the KKK’s original goal was keep blacks from voting. The only logical reply to that is, “Wow, they really did a one-eighty there!” – too much to hope for.
(Report comment)
Hate to break it to you but the KKK was formed by White Democrats to keep Black Republicans from voting
The right to bear arms is about keeping our government honest. An armed populace is difficult to push around.
That is why you liberals hate guns so much
(Report comment)
because they can
——————————————————–
Sure. Why on earth shouldn’t people who disagree with the president be able to openly display firearms near him? It’s not like we’ve ever had a problem with that; it’s not like a lot of gun nuts are a tad unstable. What could go wrong?
(Report comment)
I apologize for the spelling and punctuation mistakes of my former post. I read the article and wanted to respond but had babysitting duties for my one and three year old…
An additional thought though…
Look further at our legal system and all of the rights we give to criminals. How many victims rights are there? A far deal fewer. Many victims feel re-victimized by the legal process.
How many criminals get off due to an ommission, mistake, or oversight in documenting one of these rights? A few to say the least. How many get off due to victims and witnesses not wanting to testify from intimidation and fear of retaliation? A few more. How many criminals get off due to individuals not being able to come to a determination of “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. Saying to themselves, “Who am I to judge?” A few more.
And we have laws preventing double jeopardy. Sometimes we know someone committed a crime, a jury finds not guilty, and further evidence, witness or statements later confirm actual guilt, still off free!
We as a nation hold the ideal of these rights. We accept the addage, better for 10 guilty to go free than one innocent to be convicted.
Why are we willing to let criminals go free on one hand and then make laws for the sole purpose of making lawful gun owners to be in violation of the law if they choose to keep owenership or possession?
So, again I ask, why are there so many who are tolerant of so much that society must pay for, but feel so adamantly that they should dictate if I, a law abiding, hard working, productive, and somewhat intelligent, U.S. Citizen can own a firearm, what type of firearm I can own, and or how many firearms I can own.
Yes there do need to be restrictions and prohibitions on ownership but those are based on the demonstrated violations of those prohibited.
Most anti-gun advocates appear to have a demonizing rationale when it comes to those who would legally exercise their rights to possess firearms. Why is that?Not everyone should possess a firearm. I freely admit to that.
I won’t force you to possess one and you should’nt prevent me from possessing one.
(Report comment)
It’s funny that Dupuy talks about the start of the NRA but liberals never want to talk about Planned Parenthood and it’s founder who said: “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”
(Report comment)
When teabaggers began strutting around the president’s political events with loaded weapons, including assault weapons, to demonstrate their opposition to his policies, we hit a weird new low point as a nation. In my opinion, it would be OK for Ms. Dupuy to use words like “morons” and “obsessed”. Their aim was the same as Mr. Zimmerman’s. They were patrolling the area, with a gun for intimidation and no authority whatsoever…
———————-
Keta hun, you are such a drama queen! They were “strutting” around? Were they sticking their chest out or what? And how do you know the weapons were loaded (even though they probably were)? Where they whipping the pistols out and spinning the chamber around so everybody could see the rounds? You have such an imagination!
And assult weapons? Do you mean the rifle carried by the young African-American male? I thought you told us that tea-party members were just old white folks?
You tell us (without any proof) that they carried them to “demonstrate their opposition to his policies” and “They were patrolling the area, with a gun for intimidation and no authority whatsoever” and yet scoff when the real reason is stated… because they can.
You claim intimidation but where is your proof (well maybe there was some soiled liberal panties)? Did a single person say that they stayed away from rallies because tea-party people had guns? Who was intimidated and what was changed because of the guns?
These people did nothing wrong. There was not a single law they broke. Concealed Carry people go in stores, bars, shopping centers all the time with them on and nobody is intimidated. My boss stated that whenever he leaves his house, he has his gun on him. What part of it’s legal doesn’t your pea brain understand?
(Report comment)
I think it’s actually pretty kind of Ms. Dupuy to use terms like “vehement gun rights advocate” and “hyper-political gun owner”. When teabaggers began strutting around the president’s political events with loaded weapons, including assault weapons, to demonstrate their opposition to his policies, we hit a weird new low point as a nation. In my opinion, it would be OK for Ms. Dupuy to use words like “morons” and “obsessed”. Their aim was the same as Mr. Zimmerman’s. They were patrolling the area, with a gun for intimidation and no authority whatsoever. Asked why on earth these particular cretins brought loaded weapons to political events, the head of Tea Party Nation said, “Because they have a right to.” Wrong answer. None of them were bright enough to see beyond their hatred to other citizens’ right to assemble, to free speech, etc. Anyone who believes this kind of crap leads anywhere worth going is a moron.
(Report comment)
Vincenzo–Never thought of what party the KKK belonged to. So the KKK are democrats. That figures.
Also, back in late seventies went to a civil war museum in Virginia. Museum covered in weeds which suprised me but made me look around and decided to get back on the interstate as soon as possible.
Passed a neighbor hood watch person and he had a side arm strapped to his hip. Living in Lawrence county makes one a little ignorant of big cities.
Big cities are great as long as you know your way around and what neighborhoods to stay clear of.
(Report comment)
Domin8r; My highest and utmost compliments. One of the best apologia I have ever read. However! I do take exception to your comment referring to King George and how he treated the “Colonists”. A little honest historical research will demonstrate that the American Colonists were treated rather well in comparison to other lieges (Middle Ages term) but appropriate. In other words, the taxation imposed was not inappropriate to services rendered.
(Report comment)
I don’t think you have that quite right Mick. I don’t think I would like it if our goverment demanded that I should put up the troops in my home. Especially when they weren’t from my country. Castro did this to his own people and forced families to take in strangers.
Quote:As a child I couldn’t understand these children I didn’t know playing with my toys!! –First hand from a cuban immigrant–.
The difference between the US and South America? The Carolina’s were first occupied by endentured servants, but as soon as debt was paid were given 50 acres free and clear;”private property”. The spanish did not do this in South America. Everything still belonged to Spain.
I’m happy to be in the land of the free.
(Report comment)
Vincenzo; Your comments are very informative and full of insight. My compliments. However, your overall condemnation and derogatory comments pertaining to the Democratic Party and Socialism are lacking in knowledge and perception. I can understand this emotional outburst due to the circumstances in which you are living. I think, if I were in your shoes, I would consider relocating.
(Report comment)
For better or worse, we are a nation of laws. Our nation is known around the world as, “Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave.” Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a direct result of how the Colonists were treated be King George. Our Country was formed in Revolution. People gave their lives then and since for the liberties we now possess. Are we or should we be completely free to do whatever we please? Of course not. The Second Amendmant does include two declarative clauses. Why do the other amedmants offer protections from the government? That’s because our founding fathers realized that government, however well intended, has a proclivity to take away personal freedoms in the name of governmental interest.
In your story you classify gun owners as hyper-political. Maybe they seem that way to you because these individuals have passion for and an understanding of history and politics. Most people who argue from an emotional standpoint get frustrated when presented with facts.
In our country on average 9,000 people are victimized annually with guns in criminal homicide. These are criminal using guns many times illegally obtained to perpetrate their criminal actions.
Yet every year a much higher number of people are killed by DUI.
Multiple times more people are killed annually by misdiagnosis or malpractice by Dr.s
How many are killed every year from abortion? At a minimum, ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND, as many states do not report full figures. Where is your outcry over the hyper-political pro choice activists?
Whatever gun laws there are do nothing to prevent CRIMINALS from obtaining guns?
Should there be laws as to who should not be able to possess firearms? Absolutely! Criminals, people with psychological disorders, drug addicts, children, etc.
I am a Deputy Sheriff in Los Angeles. I am not afraid of law abiding citizens possessing guns of whatever style or caliber. They many times are some of the most responsible, eloquent, and helpful individuals out there. They take their freedoms and responsibilites seriously.
I have seen children abused by their parents with belts, ropes, cords and hands. I have seen old people stabbed, brutally beaten with a fireplace poker, and abused by hands and feet. I have seen numerous drunken brawls in which pool cues, beer bottles and beer mugs have been used, along with hands feet and knives.
So, what is the answer? Do we take everything away, because of what some may utilize as weapons in their criminal activity? I think not.
look at our Justice System. Innocent until proven Guilty, yet you disparriage George Zimmerman because he used a gun. His Community was plagued for months by young black males breaking into(Burglarizing- a Felony) their townhomes. Responding police always arriving a few minutes to late and these males getting away. That would frustrate me, I know.
To many Americans expect government to take care of them. That is not governments purpose. It is to establish the rules by which we play. WE have a never ending list of laws. Legislators feeling they can fix any problem by creating a new law. Our jails and prisons are overcrowded as a result. The penal system is a revolving door as people cannot do their full sentence due to overcrowding, thereby pushing additional criminals back out onto the street on Probation or Parole until they do something bad again, get another few months incarceration and then back out.
So, why is it you want your freedoms to be absolute but you want to tell me and moralize to me what is ok or not ok for me to do or what I can possess. Even when that thing is explicitly and specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendmant?
I could go on but I think you get the point.
I would love to see a response to your responses.
(Report comment)
“The KKK was among other things,”
The enforcement arm of the Democrat party……odd you never mentioned that did you Ms. Dupuy? But then again that information certainly wouldn’t have fit your agenda either would it?
(Report comment)
As a side note Ms. Dupuy, how’s that gun control stuff working in Chicago where in the space of 3 weeks back in April, over 50 people were shot and 9 were killed? How many of the shooters do you suppose had criminal records and were still walking the street with an illegal firearm in their posession?
And YOU want to prevent me, an honest law abiding citizen, from having the right to carry a licensed firearm for my own protection? I live in a suburb of Detroit (a Democrat/Socialist controlled jungle) and there is no way in hell I’m entering that city unarmed…….
(Report comment)
“There’s no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol”
To address your first lie, Mr.Zimmerman doesn’t have a criminal record, any such charge you claim was dropped. As for a Neighborhood Watch captain, you obviously don’t live in an area which chose to implement such a program due to their high rate of crime do you?
Let me guess, you’re in one of those upscale, lovely tree lined honkey enclaves where your own neighborhood watch is your community police department who have little crime to respond to and all the time in the world to respond to your call for help………
In other words, you’re one of those typical limousine liberals who are afforded the security that your payscale and social status provides you while you thumb your nose at the average American who has to rely on our Constitutional rights to protects ourselves..
In other words, you’re nothing more than a self absorbed, ignorant hypocrite……
(Report comment)
“A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.”
Had you done your research, the rocket launcher in question was merely a spent casing sans ordnance. Totally harmless since it’s a “one shot deal” and readily available for purchase at select army surplus stores or via the internet. But then again, accuracy in reporting certainly wasn’t a requirement in wherever you got your so-called journalism degree……Nor does it suit your agenda…………Not Comforting at all since you have the soapbox.
(Report comment)
There’s a difference between ownership of firearms as guaranteed under the constitution and nuclear weapons, hand grenades and other implements of “mass” destruction.
Individual firearms allow the owner to protect himself against invasion of property and immediate threat to one’s personal and family safety and also allows him/her to target their immediate threat.
Nuclear weapons, tanks, hand grenades, RPG’s and other such devices do not offer the same “personalization” of target without immense destruction to the targeted area and any and all innocents in the vicinity. Due to the nature of their ordnance, they are rightfully banned.
The nuclear weapon argument has been a forever argument posed by the gun grabbing socialists and has also been forever slapped down.
(Report comment)
Only a fool would wait for law enforcement which may or may not arrive.
(Report comment)
George Zimmerman should have waited for law enforcement, period.
————————
Also, over 30 states have reciprocal conceal carry permit laws.
Also, many other states have stand your ground laws.
The Second Amendment gives US citizens the right to own guns.
——————————————————
Now; to all thugs,thiefs,druggies and criminals; should the US keep or amend the Second Amendment? Only individuals with a proven criminal record will be allowed to vote.
(Report comment)
Hi. I am from Australia, where in 1996, gun laws were changed to severely restrict civilian firearms ownership. Let me tell you, it did NOTHING to stop criminal ownership of firearoms, it increased the rates of violent crime, including sexual assaults against now defenceless women. The only gun death related statistic that went way down, was gun related suicide… but what the anti’s ignore is that suicide by other methods increased by about the same amount if not more! If you wanna die, you’re gonna find a way, it seems.
Your own example – the OK Corral – showed that criminals will do as they please when it comes to guns. Now you’re right, a shootout happened when law enforcement came after them (and they were right to do so, thats the law…) but, if the crooks have a gun to defend themselves, and the law has a gun to defend themselves, why am I – the non-law-enforcement law-abiding citizen – the only one that doesnt (or in your argument – shouldnt)get anything??!!!
Of course you might argue that I should just call the police if in danger. Well thats fine but they are understaffed and under resourced to do everyones personal protection, and if they were truely responsible for our protection they’d be getting sued a lot for failure to preform their job. Nothing against cops, the majority are good people and try very hard to do their job.
Now as a non-US citizen, I dont beat my chest over the 2nd amendment. As far as I am concerned, the amendment isnt a directive for all people to arm themselves… it gives them the option to do so, or not.
Why do they need assault rifles? Militia werent cavalry, or artillerymen, for the very large majority. They were foot soldiers. Even with nukes, smart bombs, drones, and god knows what. You cant take any piece of land without ground forces… and eventually it comes down to man vs man (or person vs person if you want to be PC). Generally, such things are done with a rifle. Now if the assault rifle happens to be the best technology you can get to give you an advantage in such a situation… Why the hell wouldn’t you take the best man has made, over some paddock gun that’s seen better days?
I never really understood the whole ‘protect yourself from the government’ thing. I guess because I was always taught that if the government was so bad, you could just elect a new one at the next election. Probably a bit naive I know… we havent had many violent civil uprisings here. But, with each new law our governments here pass, I understand, now, how people can feel that way.
When my government decides if i can work in a tattoo studio…. or own one… and requires my finger and palm prints to do so. When I need legal advice in case I buy the wrong kind of single-hand open pocket knife and end up with up to 2 years in jail. Thats when I understand why people might feel that way.
As for Zimmerman… last I heard he’s innocent until proven guilty… and then the court will decide if his hands were the wrong ones. I do agree with at least one commenter here that said that Martin might be alive if Zimmerman didnt have a gun…. but Zimmerman might be dead and I doubt you’d have as much sympathy for a man beaten to death
(Report comment)
Ms. Dupuy I honestly hope you never have to find out just how wrong you are. I hope you are never the victim of an assault with only a cell phone to defend yourself. On one point you are correct if Zimmerman did not possess a weapon the Martin kid would still be alive, Zimmerman may have been beaten to death but the 17yo would be alive.
Also being a woman and as anti gun as you are seems to highlight you as a potential UNARMED victim just ripe for the picking, I personally would rather a criminal not have the answer ahead of time whether my wife was armed or not but that is your choice.
(Report comment)
Dear girl,
I deeply want you to try and understand
In your ranting, you are trying so hard to convince Americans that
owning arms is silly and unnecessary for any serious reasons.
You use the tool of the fool,… “Mockery”
to insult your readers into changing their minds,….
I cant hope to educate you, here
but just a small tip for your argument about
mocking powerful deadly nuclear weapons that the US government “HAS”.
,..please just list where these weapons are bought,?
“From? and Who built them to sell?,….
,…you see the US Government does not make weapons?
they Buy them from civilian company’s,..
Ta”da”,..
and the US Government is”of the people and by the people”
its members are civilians in office controlling the military,
who are also volunteer civilians donating there service for penny’s to protect You in your home,…
elected president Obama is the “Civilian”
“commander in chief”
of all these scary weapons you are so uncomfortable with.
you didn’t seem to understand this tiny fact,…
and yes I’m using your style of mockery just this once for you.
Our weapons and our American courage to hold them in the face of danger ,attack and terrine protect us just like your founding fathers said they would in the 2nd amendment .
A well regulated militia”being necessary to a Free state”,…..
Respectfully ,
-American Free Citizen
(Report comment)