On Tuesday 10 October 2006 12:48, Net Llama! wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Bruce Marshall wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 October 2006 10:59, Net Llama! wrote: > >> Crushing constitutional & civil rights is far worse than the evils > >> committed by prior administrations. > > > > And if the Dems come into power.... what will they do to the 2nd > > amendment? > > > > There are evils on both sides of the aisle. > > Its funny how the only ammendment that the Republicans care about is their > right to arm themselves. Who cares if you can be imprisoned forever > without a trial, as long as you can carry a gun around before they lock > you up & throw away the key.
Then why are the liberals so intent on taking that right away? What do they gain by it? The basics, in case you don't get around much, is that the 2nd amendment is the one that protects all the other amendments! And yes, it comes down to a distrust of governments, and the forefathers of this country thought enough to the right to bear arms to make a separate amendment for it. Take note throughout history that all oppresive govements usually start out by disarming the populace. Ask the Jews in Germany what happened first. > > What I've never understood (and would genuinely like to understand) is > how the right to bear arms benefits anyone? Maybe I can have a shot (no pun intended) of fending off a bad guy who breaks into my house... maybe on drugs so he could care less what happens to himself? Have you read at all about the increasing crime rates in countries that have done away with the gun-rights? Canada, England, Australia? It is well documented what the crime rate does when guns are taken away. And a good reason for the spate of school shootings is that schools are gun-free zones. If someone wants to create mayhem and not be stopped for quite some time, pick a gun-free zone to do it in. Why do almost all states now have concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens? This has all come about in the last 10 years or close to that. It is well documented (you love your facts - well they are out there) that "More guns, Less Crime". Gee, Washington, D.C. has has a ban on handguns now for how long? At least 10 or more years. Yet it is known as the "Murder Capitol of the USA". Crime is rampant. > Sure, you can hunt animals in > the woods, but I've never heard anyone getting fired up over the potential > loss of that right. You don't read much then. Lots of people get upset about that.... However most of them down live in San Francisco. > Most folks get very ticked off that they lose their > right to defend themselves. What exactly are you defending yourself from? Anything from a break-in burgular, to a rabid dog, car jacker, you name it. I own a mini-storage business and frequently have to hold auctions to sell the goods of people who haven't paid up. I often worry about a disgruntled tenent coming to an auction and causing problems. > Unless I'm missing something (and perhaps I am), the only time a gun > benefits you is when the person attacking you has a smaller/weaker gun, or > no gun at all. Not really.... How about the element of surprise? How about hearing someone break into your house and you can sit in your dark bedroom and shout that you have a gun... and can see when the person comes down the hall. All kinds of scenarios are possible; I would think just shouting a warning that you have a gun would get half of the breakins to leave immediately. Sure you might have a gun fight, but its better to come to a gun fight with a gun rather than nothing at all. > And as we all know, in an arms race, there are no winners, > only losers. I read at least 20 cases a month where homeowners or business people have successfully 'won' in an attempted burglary or worse. You sure aren't looking for the right information. There is also an estimate made based on reported facts that guns are used 2.6 *million* times a year to fend off attackers. You don't hear about them, because the liberal media doesn't want to report on successful gun use. Don't believe that? I can probably dig up a report where someone went and researched the shooting at the Virginia law school a few years back. That attack was stopped by *two* students who had guns in their cars (legally). But if I recall correctly, the media never reported that fact, even though they interviewed the two students and the students told them exactly what happened. Nope, the news just said the attacked was stopped by two students. Didn't say how. > When it comes down to it, unless you distrust the govt, such > that you feel that you're going to need to defend yourself from their > attack, what good is a gun going to do you? Need I say more. Why do Diane Feinstein, Dick Schumer or the rest of the governement want to dis-arm me? What are their motives? (not to mention the fact that Diane once had a carry permit herself. probably still does and I suspect many of our Congress-critters carry too. And then there is the Washington columnist - forget the name - who long railed against guns until he shot a teenager who was using his swimming pool. A bunch of hypocrits for sure, all of them) > And if the govt is coming > after you, the odds of you having sufficient & large enough weapons & ammo > are just about nil. Depends whether the army goes along with it or not. > > So, can someone actually help me to understand all of this? I honestly > would like to understand it better. Get out and read a little. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen. Oh, and while your at it, place a sign in your front yard: "There are no guns in this house" and see what happens. It has been tried before. _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
