TargetTalk

Guest (hiding again) wrote:Jose, you are wrong.

The people you denigrate are posting thoughtful comments. Some of the comments to which you object are clearly attempts to 'out-think' or think around those making gun ownership ever more difficult.

I've learned a lot from this thread. Others might too, rather than proudly admitting to hardly ever having changed their mind. Attempting to justify one's ownership of a gun by repeating that it is one's right simply isn't good enough these days. What is meant by a 'right' is highly debatable. If we are to continue to enjoy gun ownership, we need ever more sophisticated arguments, backed up by fact, to counter the arguments and distortions of the facts used by the anti-gun brigade. Some posters may be acting as devil's advocate, not as trolls, to illustrate the weakness of emotive and outdated arguments.

Personal gun ownership is under threat internationally. In some countries it is practically impossible, in others it is dying by a thousand cuts. Out-flanking manoeuvres by various agencies are adding to our problems: it is now extremely difficult to find international carriers for pistols, for example. How clever: add to our difficulties without the government being seen to have done anything.

I am outside USA and don't understand many of the points made about your constitution, etc.. In any case, interesting though they may be within USA, they are irrelevant outside. I would, however, be worried that politically-driven re-interpretation of such an old document, or even re-drafting of sections of it could invalidate the 'it's my right' argument. Is there no mechanism to change the constitution to accommodate changes and developments in the world, or is it cast in stone and to be as immutable as, say, the Old Testament? After all, look how religious interpretation has shifted over the millennia. Do I still have a 'right', or even religious duty to stone adulterers?

I'm concerned that legislators in other countries look at what's happening in USA and see that the major justification for gun ownership, voiced by the pro-gun population, is for self-defence against armed aggressors. This is frightening, because it seems like an arms race. The arms are seen as the problem, rather than the criminals using them. It's then a small step to sell the banning of gun ownership to the electorate. For a state to change the law to allow armed self-defence would be to admit to the electorate that the government has failed to maintain law and order, so, realistically, it isn't going to happen. Therefore, outside USA, the self-defence argument is weak, if not outright dangerous and counter-productive.

I'm still waiting for good arguments supporting gun ownership which we can use (outside USA) when our government starts to squeeze harder. The squeeze will come sometime...

I am not wrong. I am right, as evidence by the trend in gun laws in America over the last decade.

I have nothing else to say to someone who will not sign his name. Your problems, wherever is it that you may live, are irrelevant to me.

Jose Rossy wrote:You seek prior restraint on behavior just because it might injure someone.

If your friend, or anyone else, shoots through an attacker and injures or kill a bystander, there are plenty of laws to punish that injurious conduct. Your prior restraint is unnecessary.

Jose,

Perhaps you’d like to do away with speed limits and laws against drunk-driving as well. After all, these are also “… prior restraint on behavior just because it might injure someone.”

Jose Rossy wrote:Please don't insult our intelligence by trying to tell us that what works in sparsely populated rural states will not work elsewhere.

Where did I ever write anything like that???

Jose Rossy wrote:Prior restraint laws affect only those who respect the rights of others anyway. They do nothing to prevent crime by those who are anti social.

You are correct that laws only limit the behavior of law-abiding people, like the person I described with the patriot pistol. In his case, a reasonable law would certainly substitute for his lack of common sense, since he would be likely to actually obey the law. And it wouldn’t interfere with his ability to defend himself. A .45 or a .357 magnum would serve him just as well.

What I’m talking about is not an issue of how to deal with violent crime, it’s an issue of public safety, and how to get law-abiding people to behave in a safer manner.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

Regards,

Al B.

Guest (still hiding) wrote: Have we avoided an arms race, to some extent?

That’s the second time you’ve used that phrase, so I assume that it’s being bandied about in your country with respect to this issue. If you accept that idea, what is the logical conclusion? “Criminals use more guns because they’re concerned about armed victims. If we disarm the victims then we can put an end to the arms race and criminals won’t use guns anymore”. You may laugh at the imbecility of that argument, but variants have been used to criticize the arms buildup in the Cold War as well as the “War Against Man Made Disasters”. If we’re nice to terrorists they’ll be nice to us, just like the abused spouse thinks that if she’s nice to her husband he won’t beat her anymore, just like Chamberlain seduced Hitler by being nice to him.

Guest (still hiding) wrote: A couple of police were shot and wounded recently in a residential neighbourhood. The reaction of the locals was not to clamour to be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth.

Of course not; no need. The police will protect them.

Was there any clamour to put the shooters away for the rest of their natural lives? Any investigation into how often they had been arrested previously for violent crimes? Putting repeat violent criminals away would do far far more to make society safe than any conceivable anti-gun legislation.

Guest (still hiding) wrote: I would still suggest that basing individual behaviour on a literal interpretation of your constitution may be akin to religious fundamentalism.

People may be religious fundamentalists for a number of reasons, and they may be devoted to the Constitution for a number of reasons. Some people have strong religious beliefs because it’s the “Word of God”, Fire and Brimstone, and all that stuff; they follow the precepts without question because it’s the Word of God. I guess this would (SHOULD) be analogous to how our elected officials and judges should respect the Constitution. They take an oath to uphold it, and there’s no part of the oath that says “only the parts I like”. It’s the Law of the Land, and it’s their sworn duty to uphold it, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Other people hew to their religion (say, Christianity) because they believe the moral system exemplified by Jesus is one to be admired and emulated (and I would generally agree). Similarly, many people realize that the US Constitution provides the best framework ever seen for protecting the rights of the individual from the whims of the masses. No matter how the times may change, I can’t believe that that would become obsolete. Words have precise meanings (politicians notwithstanding), and once you deviate from the maligned “literal interpretation” you change the meaning.

Guest (still hiding) wrote: Other posters have suggested that parts of the constitution are being interpreted nowadays in ways they might not have been intended all those years ago.

You’re right that many parts of the Constitution are being interpreted in ways that were not intended, and that is at the root of many of our problems. As Frederic Bastiat notes in “The Law”, the law has been turned on its head. Where it used to protect rights and property from plunder, it is now the instrument of plunder, where he who controls the legislative process can strip assets from others to award to friends and cronies. One of the beauties of the Constitution as originally written (and still written, just not read) is that it would not allow (Federal) law to be turned to the instrument of plunder.

Excellent book from 1850: The Law http://mises.org/daily/2060

Guest (still hiding) wrote: Whether right or wrong, that's how it appears to me, outside USA, and in considerable ignorance of the constitution. I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate here and acknowledge that I may be mistaken.

You’re not alone. Many people in this country have no knowledge of the Constitution and yet insist it needs to be changed to keep up with the times. It’s hard for me to understand how someone who doesn’t have knowledge of a topic can be so ready to propose changes and improvements.

Guest (still hiding) wrote: the person is carefully vetted when applying for a licence.

Here we have a presumption of innocence. In most states, as long as you pass an instant background check you can acquire a firearm (although some states put up more hurdles), and you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone (except in a few locales).

TomAmlie wrote:
If you don't think that protecting yourself, your family, your property, and your community is a good enough reason to own a gun, then we have a truly unfathomable gulf between our outlooks.

I think Tom Amlie has hit the nail on the head, or scored a 10.9 to use a target shooter collaquialism and maybe that's where we should end this discussion.