pudge's Journal: Guns

I just want to point out that this guy could have done this attack in Colorado without a gun. Having a gun just made it harder for people, especially government authorities, to stop him. Which is precisely why we must never take guns away from the people.

Which is also one of the biggest reasons I am working to stop a Democratic takeover of the Congress.

Now Playing: fessler - unkansas12

Uh... pudge...

[ellem]

this JE is especially disjointed. Perhaps you should re-write it to make your point a little clearer. As it reads it says:

This guy could have molested and killed without a gun. But his having a gun made it easier for him to do it.... so we must let people have guns.

Re:

[FroMan]

I was sorta thinking the same thing. Definitely not high quality pudge. But I am thinking we are missing something. Like this being an analogy something, but it went right over my head. Basically pointing out that something is true, while the reason used to defend it is incorrect.

Re:

[pudge]

No, I didn't say it made it easier. I said it made stopping him harder. And yes, that is precisely why we must let people have guns.

Re:

[John Harrison]

A few years ago I would have said that you're crazy, but after watching all the ways in which the government is willing (anxious, really) to flush our civil rights down the toilet I think that you're on to something.

Re:

[pudge]

I don't think the government is any more or less willing now than before, for the most part. Sure, external threats result in the government reducing our liberty (as the Founding Fathers said many times), but it's always a constant struggle to keep our liberty, and there are ups and downs. Remember, Waco and Ruby Ridge happened under Clinton, when we weren't at war.

Guns are the last resort to maintain our liberty; if were sufficiently vigilant in other means, the odds we'll need the guns are significantly

Re:

[jdavidb]

I encourage everyone to get a permit to carry/possess a gun (whatever your state laws are).

Do you feel it's possible that doing so just legitimizes the unconstitutional government requirement that arms bearing be licensed? (Or do you feel that this requirement is constitutional?)

(I'm not a gun owner, but your comment made me consider getting a permit. But then I thought, "Wouldn't I just be telling them that I approve of their assertion that I need to ask their permission?")

Another thought: I've h

Re:

[pudge]

Do you feel it's possible that doing so just legitimizes the unconstitutional government requirement that arms bearing be licensed? (Or do you feel that this requirement is constitutional?)

I lean toward it being unconstitutional, but there's no easy way back. So since we have it and we can't easily get rid of it, the best thing to do is to create noise in it that will make it more difficult for government to abuse it.

Another thought: I've heard that in Australia lists of registered people became lists of h

Re:

[jdavidb]

I used to be way pro gun control until one day I really stared starkly in the face of the possibility of a world without guns. And I decided that, even though I'm a pacifist and even though I won't be a gun owner, I didn't want to live in such a world.

Not exactly

[ces]

I just want to point out that this guy could have done this attack in Colorado without a gun. Having a gun just made it harder for people, especially government authorities, to stop him. Which is precisely why we must never take guns away from the people.

I agree with this. There are any number of reasons why law-abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. (or arm bears if that is what floats your boat)

Which is also one of the biggest reasons I am working to stop a Democratic takeover of th

Re:

[pudge]

This doesn't follow. Opinions within the party and among Democratic elected officials vary widely.

Well, I agree with the latter sentence, but I think it does follow. I didn't mean to imply there is unanimity, but the leadership of the Democrats (in DC, not in WA) wants a new assault weapon ban and more restrictions on handguns. I am absolutely confident this will be on the agenda, if the Dems win Congress and the Presidency (well, depending on who the President is, of course, but I wouldn't put my money o

Re:

[jdavidb]

Here's the problem, as I see it. First:

There is indeed a group who has a hard-on for further restrictions on gun ownership.

There is another group where gun issues just aren't something they care about much one way or the other. This group can be further subdivided based on which way they lean when pressed on a particular law or proposal. This group is by far the majority within the party.

Those two groups together add up to further restrictions on gun ownership. Second:

There is a third group w

Re:

[pudge]

I wouldn't go that far. Some people think I am in the wrong party because I am a fiscal conservative. Of course, it's probably true that there are more fiscal conservative Republicans than pro-gun-rights Democrats, but that also depends on your region. In the South, it's different than California, and in CA it's different than WA. WA is a "blue state" but there's no way the Dems in control of the gov't are going to significantly restrict gun rights any time soon, like they try to do in CA, because the p