Monday, May 05, 2008

Another "No Duh!" Commentary

This opinion piece re-iterates what should be a slam dunk for everyone with a mind. I particularly like the faux sign posted along with it. It speaks volumes on the stupidity of gun control and gun-free zones. I think that if any school or business wants to consider their property a gun-free zone, they should require that all who must be there must wear a tee shirt with targets on the front and back.

There are so many stupid, and I mean REALLY stupid, arguments against concealed carry. A couple of favorites include: "It'll turn into the wild west!" and "So if someone wants to carry a bazooka, you think it's OK?" I usually laugh when I hear people say stupid things like these, but it's really not funny any more. For the first lame quote, a simple examination of all states allowing concealed carry would show just how stupid the comment is. It just hasn't happened. The second quote, far more stupid than the first, doesn't need a response. It's that stupid.

The whole notion that there is no way to decipher the 2nd Amendment properly in order to allow for self-defense is probably the most stupid suggestion of all. The founders were prolific writers and speakers. We know for certain that the amendment meant self-defense, period. I commit to searching through my dusty and cobwebbed archives of stuff saved over the years for a gun magazine that spent about a half dozen pages supporting this very point. Wish me luck. If I'm not out in two weeks, send for help.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link. I loved that sign. I appreciated his points about what has worked for the Israeli's.

Erudite Redneck said...

Um, hmm.

I am a gun owner. I'm a used-to-be hunter. I think I have a right to bear my arms that supercedes the Constitution in the same way that the Constitution, from the post-Civil War amendments forward, affirmed freedom for all men regardless of race. (That was confusing: I'm saying that people, all people, including and espeically black people, has the natural right to personal freedom way before our Constitution recognized it. And that I have a natural right to gun ownership thast, like personal freedom, supercedes whatever the Constition, or SCOTUS, says at any point in time.)

But this is incorrect: "We know for certain that the amendment meant self-defense, period."

Not even close to period.

The case before SCOTUS now is a landmark case, and I hope they come down on the side of individual rights of gun ownership and not state's rights to maintain militias. If they come down on the wrong side, I will, in fact become an outlaw.

But there is an argument to be had.

Marshall Art said...

But it's a false argument based on what I've read, and I fully intend to support my position once I, in a triple gainer in the pike position, dive into my junk to find the aforementioned magazine. This is one of those arguments that should never be, one that has a plainly obvious perspective that cannot be objectively opposed. Personal defense is the only thing that truly guarantees personal liberty.

Doc said...

I certainly believe that the second amendment should be well preserved. Gun-free zones, though, are a choice of any civic, public, or private entity. One does not have to patronize the civic or private entity (e.g. restaurant) as a means of showing preference against those policies. Public entities, though, must have decisions upheld by the people. This should always occur in the legislature. The most recent case before the SCOTUS has the potential to be just further construction of legislation via the courts.
As to Kates' blog posting; it needs some work. For example, the statement: "Third, if you don’t think that the policy is wrong, Virginia Tech has no liability for the deaths it facilitated." is logistically incorrect. There are many factors involved in determining potential liability that have nothing to do with this gun free policy--response, preparedness, quality of services, etc. This is an "agree with me or shut up" statement, and is one sign of a weak argument.

Marshall Art said...


I agree that gun-free zones are indeed a choice of the establishment in question, but I think they are also illustrative of the basic argument for concealed carry: restrict the law abiding and only the bad guys will have guns. How more sharply focussed than the Virginia Tech tragedy can one make the point? The same happens in those states without concealed carry or similar allowances. The general public becomes victimized, and unnecessarily so.

As to the Kates quote, weak arguments only add to the collection of far better arguments. They're ususally at the bottom of the list of arguments and not what one leads with. At the same time, it might add to the trouble of determining liability all the same, even if it fails in the end. Then still, we're left with the fact that gun-free zones are bad ideas.

Teresa said...

Whatever the decision, good luck disarming a population where there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens.

Seriously, I have to laugh whenever I get into a conversation with someone breathlessly asserting that gun-ownership is in any danger at all in this country.

The country is full of gun-hording nut-bags. Look at what we found in a recent repair project done on our house: a former owner had concealed a shotgun in the doubt in anticipation of the great U.N. invasion or some other bizzare conspiracy theory.

They'd have to fight their way through the Freemen in Montana, and the millitia/common law court weirdos in every state before they could even START on nice normal hunting families like mine.

It'll never happen. The specter of gun illegality is jut a convenient political panic button.

Marshall Art said...


It's really not a matter of how hard it might be. Just to have more anti-gun owning legislation is an assault on our rights, and just because they might not bust down doors to corral every weapon they've ruled illegal, how can you believe that they might not catch you with your weapons? An extreme, but it's just to illustrate that merely having another law is an infringment.

But the threat of more laws is NOT just a political ploy, it's a reality. In Chicago, Richie Daley is always up for more laws against legal gun ownership. So don't kid yourself. I'm glad it won't be easy, but the Aussie's might want to add a warning as well.

More important of all, is that there are 18 states that prohibit one's right to carry a firearm for protection. This is the central issue of the debate.

Teresa said...


I'm not saying that more gun laws would be irrelevant.

I'm saying that more gun laws are unlikely, or even if they are acheived, they will be very short-lived and then repealed.

After all, I grew up in a typical northern midwerstern rural area, and if I had a dollar for everytime I heard someone say some variant on "citizens own guns, those who don't are subjects", nobody in my family would have to work again.

I'm just sayin' "good luck getting overbearing anti-gun legislation passed, and if passed, good luck enforcing it, and given the measures necessary to enforce it, good luck keeping it on the books."

Teresa said...

And if Kennesaw, GA can institute "Gun Control" in the form of forcing people to own guns whether they want to or not...I don't see why some other city can't give more regulation a try.

Heh: Kennesaw GA; "If it's illegal to not own a gun, only owtlaws won't have guns!" LOL!

Marshall Art said...

OK Teresa. Now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.