My last post touched a nerve
I was told in a comment from my last post that there is "NO documentable evidence that more guns are being sold then normal". However, there is evidence that gun sales are on the rise http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/ and http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/Obama-wins-gun-sales-increase-/1226193968.html are but 2 websites that I found in seconds of searching. These aren't even right wing or pro-gun websites either. Sticking one's head in the sand and saying that I don't want to believe this doesn't make the issue go away.
What I LOVE about the left and their anti-gun agenda are their arguments based on fear, and no substance. Most of the time they know NOTHING about the laws. For example, in PA it is illegal to use a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. What is an assault rifle? Do people even know anything about the firearm laws in PA? Or is just "obvious" that these things are evil.
People complain when some folks "ran around crying foul" when others want more "safety measures" on guns? But it just common sense they say .. its for the children they cry. Shut up! It is a constitutional issue. What part of "shall not be infringed" causes so much issue with the left and the anti's? What if we put a muzzle on the amount of BS that CNN or Fox news or even the NY Times spout off each and every day? (1st) What if we allow the government to randomly come in to our homes with out probable cause just in case they might find that you have something illegal. (4th) What if we force every one to follow 1 religion? (1st) And while we are at it lets do away with trials. (6th) Would anyone be okay with any of these examples? I doubt it. At least I sure as hell hope they wouldn't be. I for one would MUCH rather suffer the effects of to much liberty then the effects of not enough.
The anti's seem to believe that the founding fathers weren't talking about automatic weapons that fire 600 shots a minute. Why the hell not? The founding fathers were talking firearms. They won a war using the SAME technology that the standing army of the worlds largest empire had - single shot muskets. Why would they limit themselves to single shot muskets if their opponents would have better technology? Why would we let only the police and the government have automatic guns?? Are you telling me that you trust EVERY single police officer with your life? I sure as hell don't. About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. (C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)
Why would we want MORE laws that the lawless would ignore anyway?
I'm open for a discussion on the topic, but don't tell me that its unfounded and undocumentable. That's just insulting.
What I LOVE about the left and their anti-gun agenda are their arguments based on fear, and no substance. Most of the time they know NOTHING about the laws. For example, in PA it is illegal to use a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. What is an assault rifle? Do people even know anything about the firearm laws in PA? Or is just "obvious" that these things are evil.
People complain when some folks "ran around crying foul" when others want more "safety measures" on guns? But it just common sense they say .. its for the children they cry. Shut up! It is a constitutional issue. What part of "shall not be infringed" causes so much issue with the left and the anti's? What if we put a muzzle on the amount of BS that CNN or Fox news or even the NY Times spout off each and every day? (1st) What if we allow the government to randomly come in to our homes with out probable cause just in case they might find that you have something illegal. (4th) What if we force every one to follow 1 religion? (1st) And while we are at it lets do away with trials. (6th) Would anyone be okay with any of these examples? I doubt it. At least I sure as hell hope they wouldn't be. I for one would MUCH rather suffer the effects of to much liberty then the effects of not enough.
The anti's seem to believe that the founding fathers weren't talking about automatic weapons that fire 600 shots a minute. Why the hell not? The founding fathers were talking firearms. They won a war using the SAME technology that the standing army of the worlds largest empire had - single shot muskets. Why would they limit themselves to single shot muskets if their opponents would have better technology? Why would we let only the police and the government have automatic guns?? Are you telling me that you trust EVERY single police officer with your life? I sure as hell don't. About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. (C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)
Why would we want MORE laws that the lawless would ignore anyway?
I'm open for a discussion on the topic, but don't tell me that its unfounded and undocumentable. That's just insulting.