The anti-gun and the gun control groups who are engaged in the current debate in America do bring up several valid points – it is just not ones that they think that they are talking about.
I do separate the two groups in the my assertion because I do see two distinct groups – there are those who believe that the Second Amendment can be converted to a cultural speed limit, throttling specific rights to a level that they would accept and there are those who simply believe that the Constitution is horribly outdated and can just be ignored at their pleasure.
Both are wrong but both do raise these questions:
- What is the tradeoff between liberty and security – that is to ask, what do we get for what we give up?
- When liberty is traded for security, what is the responsibility of the state to assure that security?
- If the state cannot provide absolute assurance of security and safety, what obligation do they have to inform the individual citizen?
- If the state cannot or will not provide total security (i.e. an end to crime), is it legitimate to expect citizens to give up the means to defend themselves?
I started thinking about this after this exchange between Professor Progressive and myself this morning about FC’s post on the two animals that killed the little baby in Georgia;
James McPherson
I’m surprised Joe hasn’t dropped by to tell us that the tragedy could have been prevented, if only the baby or his mother were packing heat.
I’ll bite. It absolutely could have been. How is it civilized or noble to stand by and watch your child get shot in the face by two thugs, animals that can be described as “human” only because they share a common DNA sequence?
How will “justice” truly be served by a trial now that the child is dead?
I’ll also play your game – what if all guns were banned and these animals choked the baby to death? The mother would still have been outnumbered and overwhelmed.
The very reason for a gun is that it is a force multiplier in the hands of the weak. It levels the playing field as much as it possibly can in situations like this where seconds count and the police are 15 minutes away – or simply aren’t coming. By restricting the personal ownership of a weapon, the “state” is assuming the role of protector and guaranteeing individual safety at all times and in all conditions. In this case, the “state” was clearly incapable of protecting this child from either being shot or strangled – how is it morally defensible to deny the mother the ability to do so?
You “progressives” love to detail the failures of the individual in service to the state (we don’t pay our fair share, etc) but not so much when the state fails in its responsibility to the people.
You are every bit as pathetic as I remembered.
What are the limits? Where is the line?
There we go with the “Who, Whom?” question again.
The Rio Norte Line 
Read more: http://www.abc15.com//dpp/news/national/florida-firearm-violence-hits-record-low-concealed-gun-permits-up#ixzz2OO5eDtGY
Gee, Utter, since there’s no line for you, I guess you have no problem with those kids having the gun they used to kill the baby. And because you saw fit to highlight my comment and your response from another post, I guess it’s only fair for me to repeat the related part my response here for those who may not have seen it elsewhere:
“How is it civilized or noble to stand by and watch your child get shot in the face”
No one said anything of the sort, of course.
“how is it morally defensible to deny the mother the ability to do so?”
No one suggested that, either. But what makes you think she want to pack a gun, or would be able to handle it, or wouldn’t have it used on her (which is far more common than “self-protection” among women with firearms in the home)?
Your level of honest and reading comprehension are every bit as pathetic as I remembered.
I will never understand the mental and moral defect in those people who think it is justified to deny innocent citizens their RIGHT to self-defense because they think it will keep criminals from breaking the law. By definition, criminals are already demonstrating they do not care for the law, so how does passing another law stop them? It doesn’t. It never will. All it does is demonstrate that the people who push such laws are as deranged as those who break them — an observation re-enforced by the many cases of gun-control advocates later being caught breaking the very law(s) they helped push.
Me, I think it’s easier to just call these people what they are: IDIOTS!
(of course, liars, hypocrites, busy-bodies and tyrants would also apply)
Because Professor Hobbes doesn’t think we can be trusted.
Well, no one can trust Hobbes — not even Hobbes.
Watch out for Lil’ Jim – I forgot he is from the mean streets of Spokane where the largest minority are Asians. It is particularly rough around Whitworth where he “teaches” since it is just around the corner from the Spokane Country Club.
Holla.
Utter, you’re wrong (as usual) about the biggest minority group here, not that it matters–the town in general is very white. And yes, the school is in a better part of town than where I live (though probably not nearly as nice as where any of your houses are), and Spokane is a pretty safe place in general. Your point, assuming you have one?
I’ve also lived in Phoenix and two North Carolina cities, and occasionally spend time in New York and D.C., with no urge to pack heat there, either. Besides those cities, of course, I’ve also walked the streets of many others–including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans, Chicago, Tucson and even Tampa–without feeling like I needed a weapon. I generally felt more threatened growing up as a principal’s kid in an Idaho logging town. 🙂
I always dismiss arguments from people like our Lil’ Jimmy when they break out the word “extreme” as if believing that the Constitution means what it says is somehow “extreme”.
Gee, I’ve learned to pretty much dismiss arguments that have your photo or Joe’s attached. 🙂
Consider his statement above, which I didn’t find worth answering him, because it was so stupid–and then the two of you managed to extend the inanity for several more comments.
His statement: “I will never understand the mental and moral defect in those people who think it is justified to deny innocent citizens their RIGHT to self-defense because they think it will keep criminals from breaking the law.”
Nowhere, of course, have I made a argument “to deny innocent citizens their RIGHT to self-defense” for ANY reason, let alone the fictionally added “because they think it will keep criminals from breaking the law.”
I have noted that I find it troubling that Joe thinks anyone should also be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, hand grenades and rocket launchers. (Wouldn’t a few grenades do wonders in the next school massacre?) But I do find Joe’s position at least more consistent than that of most of the cowards here and in the NRA who refuse to say what, if anything, you would allow or disallow in terms of weaponry.
It used to be fun to come here because I thought a couple of you folks were at least trying to both understand and influence the world in which you live. I’m guessing I’m not the only former regular who rarely bothers to drop by anymore?
Since mostly you folks just want to talk to each other, anyway, maybe you ought to look into a Facebook group. There you could keep making crap up without any danger whatsoever of someone calling you on it.
We don’t “Mostly want to talk to each other” … we want to have discussions about Issues; Instead of responding to rants which are little more than thinly veiled political campaign ads focused on passing laws limiting our rights.
I’m happy to have any conversation that doesn’t start with Jimmy telling me how wrong I am or how extreme my views are when they match the ideals that the country was founded on. If you notice, I am not trying to tell him what to do, how to live, what to believe or who to be – what I am doing is objecting to him telling me those things.
So this is where the righter of inherent internet wrongs resides. I feel like I have been searching for a beacon of hope in a dark world of horrible reasoning my whole life, and have now found it: James McPherson.
Up next: James attempts to reason with us evolution hating, pro-gun advocates, on the benefits of a woman laying down her guns to urinate or vomit on an alleged rapist; or attempt to explain to him in an academic thesis (over 5000 words, with great grammEr!)) on why she does not want to be raped.
Special features include a Piers Morgan cameo and an hour of power hosted by Karl.
And from there James goes on to explain why the glorious state of Washington is going to force employers to provide abortion insurance.
“The Reproductive Parity Act, as supporters call it, would require insurers in Washington state who cover maternity care — which all insurers must do — to also pay for abortions.”
http://www.sify.com/finance/wash-weighs-1st-abortion-insurance-mandate-in-us-news-international-ndxtKxccijf.html
Yeah …. James ..”In-your-Face”..McPhony……He da man !
I read a post on another forum that people like james get twenty cents per reply for pushing the illegitimi’s adgenda.
I guess the new taxes signed into law by by jimmies hero are cutting into his bottom line!
I read a post on another forum that people like james get twenty cents per reply for pushing the illegitimi’s adgenda
Well, gee, it must be true if you read it on the internet!
I have a date with a French model.
Vraiment !??….On ne sais Jamais !
So if you claim to be sane …. we are to BELIEVE it ??
I live in Washington. I’ll be hearing about the praise of abortion insurance at my vastly liberal job, for God knows how long.
Libercrite: my sympathies on your liberal job. You know, if feminists really wanted equality, they’d pay for stuff themselves instead of insisting that Uncle Sugar do it.
Its not just the feminists, its the socialist drones (who have no problem accepting a pay check from greedy Capitalists), and the plethora of homosexuals, that feel we need to have “legalize love” group therapy before work, so that we can better understand and support each other emotionally, as we all tolerate and coexist with each other in the work place.
There is a whole rant on the feminist subject alone though. Thanks for the much needed sympathies Sally!