Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:30:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2436 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
Your gun in your house will not take the weirdness out of your country.
Ever.
I was going to sign off with that but just that line gots me ta thinkin’
(which is never a good thing...) That’s one of the bigger problems right
there--“Oh I have my gun, so if things ‘go south’ I can rise up and join ‘the
ol revolution’. Failing to consider that by participating in and helping
society ‘before it goes south’ is a much better, and ‘more civilized’ option.
Then again, I forget who I’m talking with--the US has always been more
‘reactive’ than ‘proactive’--like the kid, who, when sleighted, just lashes
out at any convenient target.
Which always brings me back to the other idea--when you grow up, we’ll be
here, waiting for you.
|
I was looking for a spot to jump in to this debate too, and I don’t know if this
is it, but what the heck I will butt in anyway.
I know and understand the Jeffersonian arguement that citizens need to be armed
against an oppressive government, but my take on the whole gun issue goes much
deeper.
A couple of weeks ago here in Southern California a mother and son came home to
find a man kidnapping her daughter. Having no gun she grabbed a frying pan and
tried to fend the man off; the larger man was relatively unharmed by her blows
with the frying pan and he wrestled it away from her then used it against her.
Ultimately the man was able to successfully kidnap the poor girl. Had this woman
actually put a couple of bullets into this guy rather than a couple of lumps on
his head the whole situation would have been much different. True the
possibility exists that he could have wrestled the gun from her and used it
against her, but I imagine his attitude would have changed greatly facing a
bullet rather than a frying pan.
This is just one example of the utility of a gun, guns are not like samarui
swords they do not need to be used everytime they are pulled. Police officers
pull their guns out many times a day without firing them. Why do they pull them
out, to protect themselves against an unknown circumstance.
Guns are a great equalizer, most women would have no defense against a larger
male attacker. My wife carried pepper spray for years, but when we visited
Canada she was told to keep it in the trunk. Did she feel safer? She almost
freaked out when some bum asked her for a few loonies. So the question is
without guns how are the weak supposed to defend themselves against the strong
who would prey on them? A few doors down from my grandmother a man broke into an
elderly womans home, in the middle of the day, while she was home, and beat her
and robbed her. How does my grandmother ensure that she is protected against
such? Better locks?
My opionion, for what it’s worth, government should not remove citizens rights
to defend themselves and their families. I am not about to sit around and hope
the police arrive soon while a criminal is threatening my family, nor would I
lose any sleep over killing an assailant who threatened any of their lives,
although I would pray that my mere weilding the gun would cause them to flee. I
doubt there would ever be a situation where an armed militia was needed in this
country, but personal defense is needed by citizens every day.
More guns, less crime!
Scott C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
