LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Jack Lawman · 09-16-2004, 09:19 AM

G.W.,
Here's my rant I posted on the P38 forum a little while ago:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Most cops (in New York) are anti's. They say things like, "Yeah, everybody should have guns... flintlocks, like they had when they wrote the 2nd ammendment... nothing else." "There's no need for that kind of weaponry, it's for nuts and killers." I give them the crash course in constitutionalism (original intent of the 2nd Amm't, equality of citizenry with government), and they have absolutely no response. The smarter ones will concede that I've made a "clever" argument. I'm not sure when honest truth became merely clever, but I just shake my head and they maintain their ignorance (spewing it about amongst the public who highly respects their opinion because they're gun carrying officers).

It's a chicken/egg conundrum. Which came first:

A) The masses of urbanized humanity who not begrudgingly, but WILLINGLY surrender to the will of the government. They DESIRE to be told what to do. They want NO PART of solving their own problems (that would be a defacto admission of bringing about certain conditions upon themselves).

or...

B) The democratic party politicians who band together, promoting the notion that people are NOT better off left to their own devices... that too much freedom is dangerous... that salvation ultimately lies in bigger and more restrictive government.

At the end of the day, which came first is of no consequence. The present day reality is that these two forces have swirled together for so long, they have become self perpetuating... like the winds of an enormous forest fire.

All we can do is sprinkle the perimeter of this fire with the seeds of self-determination. By increasing peoples' estimations of themselves, we may be able to prevent them from getting sucked into the fire. Maybe in a hundred years we can bring it under control. <hr /></blockquote>In most American cities, if you call 911 with a life threatening emergency, you will have a police response in 6-10 minutes (often sooner). In the very rural areas, it could take 30-40 minutes or more. With respect to protecting one's own life and property, restrictive gun laws are relatively more unfair/punitive to rural residents. Problem is, rural residents have only a fraction of the voting power and can do little to stop the steamroller driven by the anti-gun/big city politicians. The next civil-war is going to be the "inside" vs. the "outside"

The United States has a mechanism to deal with this... "State's Rights". Any state can pass restrictive gun laws (and Lord knows they do!). The bottom line is that gun control should not be a Federal issue (beyond their mandated recognition of the second ammendment and the undisputed original intent of that ammendment). I say, "Let the States handle their own affairs."

Jack

09-16-2004, 09:19 AM	#11
Jack Lawman User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Near NYC Posts: 428 Thanks: 30 Thanked 64 Times in 37 Posts	G.W., Here's my rant I posted on the P38 forum a little while ago: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Most cops (in New York) are anti's. They say things like, "Yeah, everybody should have guns... flintlocks, like they had when they wrote the 2nd ammendment... nothing else." "There's no need for that kind of weaponry, it's for nuts and killers." I give them the crash course in constitutionalism (original intent of the 2nd Amm't, equality of citizenry with government), and they have absolutely no response. The smarter ones will concede that I've made a "clever" argument. I'm not sure when honest truth became merely clever, but I just shake my head and they maintain their ignorance (spewing it about amongst the public who highly respects their opinion because they're gun carrying officers). It's a chicken/egg conundrum. Which came first: A) The masses of urbanized humanity who not begrudgingly, but WILLINGLY surrender to the will of the government. They DESIRE to be told what to do. They want NO PART of solving their own problems (that would be a defacto admission of bringing about certain conditions upon themselves). or... B) The democratic party politicians who band together, promoting the notion that people are NOT better off left to their own devices... that too much freedom is dangerous... that salvation ultimately lies in bigger and more restrictive government. At the end of the day, which came first is of no consequence. The present day reality is that these two forces have swirled together for so long, they have become self perpetuating... like the winds of an enormous forest fire. All we can do is sprinkle the perimeter of this fire with the seeds of self-determination. By increasing peoples' estimations of themselves, we may be able to prevent them from getting sucked into the fire. Maybe in a hundred years we can bring it under control. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In most American cities, if you call 911 with a life threatening emergency, you will have a police response in 6-10 minutes (often sooner). In the very rural areas, it could take 30-40 minutes or more. With respect to protecting one's own life and property, restrictive gun laws are relatively more unfair/punitive to rural residents. Problem is, rural residents have only a fraction of the voting power and can do little to stop the steamroller driven by the anti-gun/big city politicians. The next civil-war is going to be the "inside" vs. the "outside" The United States has a mechanism to deal with this... "State's Rights". Any state can pass restrictive gun laws (and Lord knows they do!). The bottom line is that gun control should not be a Federal issue (beyond their mandated recognition of the second ammendment and the undisputed original intent of that ammendment). I say, "Let the States handle their own affairs." Jack __________________ Why do you guys hate black circles so much?