Good lord, I hope not. I think, though, that IF our gov’t were to try such a thing, it would be more along the lines of incrementalism (is there such a word?)…always for our own good, of course.
I never have even tried to claim such a thing…please re-read my posts. At an advantage? Hell no. Easy? Hell, no. Probable? Again, hell no. POSSIBLE? Without a means to even try…hell, no. Abe
Really? That why we had to go in and bomb him into submission? Doesn’t seem like they worked that well, then. In any case, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t put into place just in the last decade, after we have had years and years of a gov’t not trying to take our rights away. Our Founding Fathers had just fought for their freedom, against arguably the most powerful military in the world. And they were rightfully aware of the power of an overbearing gov’t. Easy? Hell, no…but at least they had the means to TRY…and THAT’S why they put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution, right after Freedom of Speech.
Does the 2nd really give us that ability? Examples of Americans invoking their 2nd amendment rights to protect their freedom in recent times don’t support this notion. Look what happened to the Branch Dividians and that Weaver guy at Ruby Ridge. If protection is the goal of the 2nd, then maybe we need a more liberal definition of ‘arms’.
We bombed Milosevic because of what he was doing in Kosovo. He is not in power anymore because the citizens of his country voted him out. The US military didn’t remove him.
But if that example is a little too unclear, how about the fall of communism in Eastern Europe?
Allowing firearms, which cause an amazing amount ill, in case of a highly improbable situation, a situation in which it is unclear how much benefit firearms will have, seems to me to be lacking in forethought.
Notice I said ‘Eastern Europe’ - ie East Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, et al, as well as the USSR. While communsim failed for a number of reasons, including economic collapse due to trying to keep up in the arms race, the gov’t replacement was precipitated by citizens marching in the streets, without guns.
So again, I ask, do we, as US citizens, have more to fear from our gov’t than our counterparts in Australia, the Netherlands, or Japan (or just about any developed nation)? Or are they fools for not having the same rights to fireamrs that we do?
So, are you saying that I only have the right to defend myself against a single attacker? What if an individual is attacked by a large group of attackers? Maybe a grenade would be just the thing for that situation. And of course, if chemical weapons are outlawed, then only outlaws will have chemical weapons. Same for nukes. The only way I can defend myself there is mutual assured destruction. Why don’t I have that right?
earlier I said, “the avenues of democracy, which have worked even under the steel grip of Milosevic”, a phrase that was clearly not well received:
A review of the history facts seems in order, Toaster, although Great Dave made the important point already. Bombing Serbia accomplished precisely zero apart from severe infrastructure damage and making a lot of people wonder what the heck is wrong with the US. Or, to be accurate, what is wrong with Piggy Albright (the champion of the anti-Serbian movement in the US) since Serbians like the US and were allies for many years. It was only when Milosevic kept squeezing his dictatorial grip on Yugoslavia that the people revolted and deposed him, in a democratic and bloodless coup. Bloodless and democratic, in the Balkans of all places.
Bombing Iraq, likewise, did not dislodge Saddam Hussein.
That is why many people consider the 2nd Amendment to be rather anachronistic. One can certainly see the sense of it a few centuries ago, but today the world (certainly the US) is rather different.
I might be the one you were thinking of, because this sounds pretty much like something I said on these boards before.
I was raped by 3 individuals. Unluckily for me the attack happened a month before it was legal for me to own and carry a concealed handgun. The only means I had available to defend myself and try to prevent the rape was my own body. Hands and feet.
I did fight, and I lost.
Now there’s no guarantee that the outcome would’ve been different for me if I had been armed, but the one thing I do know is that I would’ve had a realistic chance to change the outcome.
It frustrated and angered me, because I grew up around guns. I’ve been shooting since I was six years old, both long guns and handguns, but an arbitrary law that said I couldn’t exercise my rights under the Second until I was 21 deprived me of a basic tool that I could use to defend myself from attack. I steamed about having been raped, and I steamed that I knew full well that ever since I started pistol shooting, I would buy a pistol at age 21 and get a concealed carry license. It made me mad that because I am a law abiding person and I was waiting out that last month until it was legal, that when I got attacked, I had no means of defense.
It still makes me mad that a line in the sand denied me the best chance I had to get out of that situation safe and whole. Makes me mad that until a person is 21, the government here says that you can’t exercise your right to defend yourself with the best tool you can get your hands on.
Because it was a reasonable restriction to prevent people under 21 from having a handgun and carrying it concealed.
It’s a emotional thing for me, but it brought to light a very arbitrary point with no logic behind it. A reasonable restriction that I can’t actually imagine any rational basis for.
Hopefully I’ll say this in a way that doesn’t make me look like a huge jerk regarding your rape, but:
Here in California, the gov’t has determined that it is a reasonable restriction to allow only persons over age 16 to drive, and only persons over 21 to drink. I think that 18 is a more logical age for both, but that didn’t stop me from driving when I was 16 and 17 (although I did drink before 21). Surely you don’t think that 12 year olds be allowed to by beer, or 10 year olds beb allowed to drive. So we have somewhat arbitrary ages at which those previliges are set. I’m not sure what the concealed carry law is here, but 21 wouldn’t surprise me. While it may be true that you would be a responisble gun owner at 19, or even 16, I’m sure there are plenty of people that age you wouldn’t trust with a gun. It’s more responsibility than a lot of kids can handle. Is there an age at which you would think that it is a reasonable restriction to not allow concealed carry permits?
catsix: No, you’re not the one I was thinking of. By posting your story though, nobody can say, “Oh, that’s just a hypothetical situation.”
As far as the requirement for a person to be 21, that’s a little dicey for me. Most 18-year-olds I’ve known (yes, even when I was 18) are not mature enough to have a handgun. On the other hand, you make the case that you grew up with firearms and were and are well-versed in safety and firearms responsibility. And you could have had something more than just hands and feet to defend yourself with. I’d have to say that I’m in favour of the law, but based on what you have written I would have made an exception.
That’s the problem with “one size fits all” laws. Lawmakers aim for the lowest common denominator.
You’re both right in that the age was probably picked as a lowest common denominator as to ‘who can we trust with a gun’, but what that really means is that I paid a very heavy price for someone else’s irresponsibility.
That is not an easy thing to keep living with, especially knowing that only one month later I would’ve reached the magic number and been ‘responsible and mature’ enough to have a handgun.
The law does not allow for exceptions, though, so I have to live with the fact that my 20 years, 11 months self was not mature enough in the eyes of the law.
At 17, I could’ve enlisted in the military, been trained and sent to a foreign country to carry a gun on behalf of my government, and even kill people as a representative of my country - but I couldn’t use the best of my abilities to protect myself from being attacked in my own country.
I don’t know that there is a good answer to the current age limit, but I do believe that everyone who can vote, pay taxes, support themselves, and fight for Uncle Sam ought to be unrestricted in their right to defend themselves if attacked. I can’t look an 18 year old in the face and tell her ‘Sorry, but you just can’t have access to that method of self defense.’, so I can’t support doing it on paper, either.
And Johnny, I was once accused of having made up the entire attack by someone who said that it was ‘a fictional sensationalist pile of bullshit invented to bolster a gun nut argument.’ So, apparently some people will always choose to disbelieve.
Just to make it clear that I am not doubting your story. (By your reply, I see that you don’t think I do, but that others have.) I know other women IRL who have been raped. Sadly, it does not seem to be a rare event.
I remember one particularly fierce debate in which a very staunch ‘ban all guns’ guy told me that I was the sickest, lowest, most disgusting form of human being on earth for making up a story like that, and that unless I could show him the actual court documents indicating guilty verdicts and sentencing he would never believe that I was anything but a gun nut fanatic lying bitch who would do anything to advance the position of the ‘wacks’… that I was worse than a rapist because I’d lie to support guns which kill little kids.
There are some real … stubborn people out there.
And I did not at all think you were saying that what I said wasn’t true… just showing how people can really get in gun debates.
Well, just because you have the right and the means doesn’t mean you will automatically win. Furthermore, I suppose one could make the argument that these people weren’t defending against a government from taking away their right to free speech/religion, etc, but rather than a government trying to serve/arrest criminals. It still doesn’t say anything about my argument about what the reason for the 2nd Amendment was in the first place, which was to give citizens a means to defend themselves against their own government, if necessary. Doing so wisely, of course, is another matter.
Mea Culpa on Milosovic. Guess I’d better take a refresher course in European history. Thanks, GreatDave, Abe
Hi, Opal!
Abe
I guess here’s where the nub of the whole matter lies. There are many people who consider it to be anachrostic, other who consider it to be essential, others who consider it to be essential, with modifications. In another thread, I had proposed what, to me, seems to be the only way out of this: a Constitutional Amendment that would then be voted in by the states (or voted down…whatever).
