Thursday, January 15, 2009

Afterthoughts on the Second Amendment

I really enjoyed the excellent thoughtful comments y'all made on yesterday's post. I found the articulate, thoughtful and very, very relevant. I also enjoyed that they weren't skewed with NRA rhetoric. (I think y'all know I have damn little patience with fanatics.) The key word for me in these comments was 'responsibility' and it gave me pause to think about it. Mary and Jams both mentioned it implicitly and it was implied by the rest of y'all. I don't know about y'all but "responsibility" was one of the first big words I learned as a kid and y'all probably did, too.

The intent of this amendment was that citizens be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government as they themselves had had to do. A worthy goal for their era; a somewhat impractical one for ours.

Here's another quote on arms that left me with chills:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -- Adolf Hitler

What's the answer? I'm not certain but I think education is important and letting cooler heads on both sides of this issue prevail to find a middle ground that will quell the epidemic of violence in our society.

Thank you all again for your excellent input.

Happy Blogging!!!!!!!!


  1. I agree with you on this. As a gun owner, I believe in the right to be armed, but I don't see that our weapons are a way to protect ourselves against a government gone amok. That comes from the ballot booth or even peaceful demonstrations like Gandhi. We cannot stand against the might of the US Military. I don't think any power can but it's the water drops that changes things. We need to have the right to have armed households but that's protecting us from the marauders when the government cannot be there in time. Also some use them to put food on the table which is also a valid use.

  2. I don't own a gun. Never had and never will.
    Quite frankly, even my friends that live in the country, the north or wide open plains and prairies of the west that have a gun to shot the odd critter that causes trouble, confess that they would be just fine without one.
    I believe in total handgun ban in all urban areas.
    No exceptions.

  3. i'm with Dave....NO handguns in urban areas, PERIOD.

    if the freaking meddlers from other states had kept their big NRA egos out of it, the DC handgun ban would still stand as written. i doubt if any of the DC families who have lost their loved ones to senseless handgun killings would want to see the ban lifted, either.

  4. While I support the stringent gun controls in place in the UK, they do not and cannot prevent gun deaths completely (Criminals can easily obtain weapons illegally). However gun death rates are far lower here and this must inevitably be due to limitations on availability. What this means of course is that people kill each other with differetn weapons instead but our overall homicide rate is mercifully relatively low (about a quarter of the rate in the US)

    Gun control works but there are some countries with ownership rates approaching that of the US: Norway, Canada for example. The gun murder rates are much lower than the US. Is the difference due to better education? I'm not sure but I would suspect so in the case of Norway.

    I suppose it comes down to rights ad responsibilities aain. People can have the right to bear arms but they must need to know how to do so with care and control.

    I nearly married a Californian lass years ago. Our views on gun ownership differed (She owned several firearms) but her father had drummed responsibility into her head from childhood. We had some heated arguments on the subject but I know she had a valid point


I love your comments!!! If you wish to post as Anonymous, please leave a name in your comment otherwise your comment will not appear.