Reply #146: Some questions for you...

[gorfle]

I think simple, old fashioned hunting rifles are probably okay.

What kind of firearm represents an "old fashioned hunting rifle" to you?

Most assuredly nothing whatsoever automatic.

I assume you mean semi-automatic? Fully automatic weapons are extremely regulated and have not been used in a crime except once, by a a police officer, since 1940 or something.

What is your stance on revolvers? They are not "automatic"

The most common argument I'm given by gun owners for owning guns is to defend themselves against the very problem they caused: gun murders due to gun availability thanks to them.

I still refuse to allow you to frame the argument in this way. Gun owners did not cause the availability of guns. They have been available to the common man since this country was founded. Like anything, bad people will get a hold of them. Just because a bad person goes and kills someone with "object x" does not mean that everyone else who owns an "object x" is somehow responsible for the actions of the bad person.

It does happen to be true that the best way to defend yourself from people with guns is with guns.

Yes, gun owners work today to preserve the availability of guns to law-abiding, sane people, to preserve the intent of the founders of this nation. The fact that bad people will continue to get access to the tools of liberty is sad, but not sufficient to remove the tools of liberty from the good people of this nation.

their justification has continued because back in olden days we had no military and our now-archaic constitution had to have a way to fight a war in the absence of a military. However, now we're living in 2008 and we have a military.

Your assessment is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment speaks of militias. Those militias were not created just because there was an absence of a military, they were made specifically to eliminate or greatly reduce the presence of a military. Why would the founders create such a decentralized military system? The answer is plainly written in many contemporary documents. They feared a strong central government with a strong military force able to enforce a tyranny. Consequently they enshrined the State Militia, made up of the people of the States and lead by officers from those States, as the seat of military power for our country. They knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and strove to prevent such a concentration of power. That concept is not archaic. Yes we live in 2008. Yes we have a military. We also have a National Guard, which used to be under the control of the State but now functions as reserve troops for the Federal army. We are moving farther and farther away from the balance intended by the founding fathers. Now more than ever it is necessary for The People to continue to be armed in the name of that vision.

It seems to me that in the last 30 years we have seen incredible strides in power grabbing by our government at all levels. The War on Drugs was a handy excuse to spend trillions of dollars enhancing the police powers of the government. Now the War on Terror and the Patriot Act is taking us to new heights of government intrusion and power grabbing. If we are unable to stop this erosion of liberty at the ballot box, are you really wanting to limit our recourse with the cartridge box?

I understand gun owners have quite an obsession. So do drug addicts.

I cannot believe that you would stoop so low as to compare the obsession with liberty to an addiction to drugs. I truly and honestly feel my shoulders sag in sadness when I realize there are people out there in the world that would really and honestly make that comparison.

The majority should not be forced to pay for the obsessions and addictions of the addicted.

Should the majority of firearm owners be forced to pay for the actions of a few?