I Believe In The Right To Own Firearms

Allan, it's a scientifically proven fact that the right to bare arms has led to an undeniable increase in skin cancer. The right to bear arms, however, is still open to question.

Richard Day Gore

Luyen asked "If the right to bear arms is self-defense, what are you defending yourself against?"

One need only defend themselves against anyone who would give any indication that they intended to take the life of an innocent person just as the man did @ Virginia Tech. I'm thinking your question was rhetorical, since I believe that the answer is self-evident, if not common sense.

The time to make preparations to defend oneself is NOT after someone has begun an offensive physical attack, as our gov't officials well know now that so many people have chastized them for not having done enough to be prepared for this unexpected and unpredictible attack. We as a nation have busted the president's chops ( as well as those of other politicians and police and military ) for not having been prepared to defend this great nation against what we experienced on 9/11.

In gun-safety courses, the trainee is told to never point the gun at something they're not willing to shoot. Self defense courses will teach a person that if someone gives them a reason to fear for their lives, they're not only right but wise to empty their gun to kill the potential assailant.

Anytime a person takes a gun in their hands, on the offense, and points it at another person, such as during a bank robbery, they are making a viable threat to the health and life of the person on the business end of that gun.

You've asked "A nut-case? How do you tell the difference?" and then you stated " ... the ability to determine who is "good" or "bad" is very very dubious at best ... ". Well, the way a reasonable sane person would see it, if they were looking down the barrel of a potential assailant is that whether or not they're a nut case isn't really a question in their mind. If the "nut case" threatens to kill or starts shooting, that's not the time to stop and wonder if the person is a nut case or if they're "good or bad". When they threaten an innocent person's life, it's too late for them to be given any 2nd-guessing considerations as to their character. They've kind of made that a moot point.

To suggest that Cho may have been "defending himself" suggests to me that too much credibility has been lent to the psycho-babble that is so prevalent in some of the nations "leading" university psychology classes. Cho was defending himself just about as much as Hitler was defending himself against all the people he ordered murdered.

I can't imagine, Luyen, that if an assailant broke into your work place and started murdering people and was making his/her way to where _you_ were ... and if you had a weapon with which you could drop the assailant, that you'd spend much time thinking over whether the shooter was a nut-case or "good" or "bad" or whether they were "defending themselves". If you watched as the assailant killed one person after another and then turned the gun on you, the expression "he who hesitates is lost" would take on a whole new meaning, especially if you stopped to mull over the goodness or evilness of the assailant as he prepared to squeeze the trigger.

As the assailant at Virginia Tech moved about, murdering people, I can hardly imagine any of the victims had the time to concoct a means by which they could "refrain him". Any who might have made an effort to do so would most likely have been shot before they could even begin to put such a hastily concocted plan into effect. The best thing to have done in this instant would have followed thru the steps someone learned in their gun safety & self defense course & been to have been prepared to take him out as quickly and as safely as possible. It's one of those situations when all the psycho-babble in the world will not save so much as one valuable life but might rather result in more unnecessary deaths.

Having an armed populus does not equate to a population who lives in fear. Our nation has (presumably) a strong military. We have a pretense of preparedness and because of that military, their equipment and their preparedness to use it, we presume to have a degree of safety from an _outside_ enemy ... ie: attack from another country. We don't live in fear that our country will be attacked ... tho not enough people have a fear that the well-armed military will some day be used (again) against it's own citizens who are NOT properly armed to defend itself.

Much rather a well-armed AND trained populus results in people having a heightened sense of security, knowing that they're strong enough and prepared enough to defend themselves AND that if ever they're attacked, there's a large number of other people near by who're prepared to come to their defense. I don't know a single common citizen who's been well trained in self defense ( martial arts ? ) who lives in fear of their life.

The purpose of the Right to bear arms clause was two-fold. Not only was it to defend ourselves against a personal assailant but was also to allow a country to arm itself against its own military and government so that they could not be ruled with tyrany, as so many people before us experienced in different European countries.

Remember, history speaks loudly about the "rulers" who disarmed their people in the process of taking them over and ruling them with an iron grip of terror. Nations have fallen who thought they lived in peace and didn't fear attack and who therefore laid aside any consideration of being armed or prepared.

I believe even MORE in the right to bare arms BECAUSE of the Virginia Tech incident.

One respondent stated "Gun's can kill a lot more people indiscriminately and quickly than knives are able to."

How often does it need to be said that gun's DON'T kill and they CAN'T kill. Killing is something that PEOPLE do with guns. The gun's not the problem. The problem is the murderer.

Every person in the USA has the right to bare arms. Unfortunately our society frowns upon ownership and the gov't gives people a reall challenge to acquire one.

If more of those students had guns and had been trained in high school as to how to be responsible with a fire arm, then that shooter would have killed far less people before being shot himself.

The right to bare arms is for self defense, whether that be person be defending themself, their family, friends, county, state or country ... defending the innocent where ever they may be.

All murderers should be put to death. Get rid of them so they won't murder again. The death penalty is not a punishment, it's a final penalty for the ultimate crime, that of murdering a person. It's only a deterant in that it prevents a "next time".

If all americans were trained in the public school system to be responsible with a gun ( and other weapons ), people who consider shooting up a class room would understand that they would be faced with rather sudden opposition and will (possibly) think twice before doing it ... and if they DON'T think twice, then they'll be faced with opposing fire power which would terminate them before they can kill 32 innocent people, including a professor who gave his life to save others.

Columbine wouldn't have happened. Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened. Not like they did. Some "might" have died ... but the shooters wouldn't have lived long enough to have done the damage they did.

The right to bare arms is a self-defense issue. You'll perhaps never appreciate that till someone points a gun at YOUR head ... or the head of someone you love ... before you'll have what even approaches an adequate appreciation for the right-to-bare-arms clause in our constitution. Sadly, by then, it may be too late, either for you or someone you love.

alba micol, ph.d.

Dear Ph D,

Come to NY and try to buy a pistol and to acquire a right to carry permit for a concealed weapon & see whether the gov't treats you as tho you have a right to carry or not.

If our gov't or any faction there of or any foreign interest or any rebel faction of our own society decided to launch an attack on innocent people here in the USA ( or, even more so, Canada, eh ) there is a reasonable probability that they would have at their disposal automatic weapons. Waco survivors can fill you in on which ones are likely to be used by our own "special forces" against our own citizens shortly before the crime scene is bull-dozed.

Now, come to NY state and see whether the gov't would accomodate your request to accumulate automatic weapons and munitions necessary to defend onself against such a ( presumably unlikely ) assult.

The intent of constitutional provisions for the right to bare arms was in recognition of how people in europ were easily over powered, due to their lack of arms and due to the ready availability of weaponry of various and sundry forms to those who had the money to acquire or to build / manufacturer them ... ie: The Government / Soldiers.

The Right to Bare arms is a provision which compliments the right to form militians ... for "we the people to be adequately equipped to defend themselves agains whom ? Yes, the Gov't, should it become tyrannical and need removing.

With what eas can a person acquire the same fire power as government forces have ? Laws are now in place, in the guise of protecting "we the people" which make it next to imossible for any but law enforcement and crooks to get the level of fire power which would be necessary to fend off a tyrannical gov't.

Hitler would have fought a different war if the Jews and christians he butchered were as well armed as he was !! Were these people disarmed before they were impoverished & ultimately imprisoned and murdered ?

Our constitution acknowledges that the hearts of rulers can become corrupt and that a goverment might wish to similarly impoverish and to subjugate those whom it rules and asserted therefore the right to bare arms in defense against what ever a corrupt government might seek to impose on the people.

This is not a new concept and I'm surprised that you seem to conclude that only we "stupid" people might be able to grasp such a concept ... and to appreciate it for showing the fore-sight which it indeed shows.

Those who don't know ( or correctly interpret ) history are indeed doomed to repeat it.

I think the author is entitled to his opinion, and in the case of Civil Rights and Freedoms, i honestly think there is a huge disparity in priorities in the U.S. Between other civil rights that are overlooked; such as the freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation - aren't these of higher priority than to have the right to bear arms?

North America isn't the wild-wild west anymore, you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from wildlife and frontier violence - at least the last time I checked.

Constitutionally yes, i think if you're going to interpret the charter literally, bearing arms is a freedom, but with every freedom comes responsibility.

That responsibility comes from where? It comes from individuals who are well-adjusted, within families, within communities, schools and so forth - and let's face it, our profit-oriented society is often at odds with this.

Having more guns therefore cannot be a solution - if everyone was armed, we'd all live in fear. Conflicts such as a fender-bender, a property dispute can end up in gun-fire, instead of being resolved where they should be, between two people, or in a court of law.

I don't think people should be denied to have guns, they should however be denied using them, not from legislation, but from their recognition that a 'better world' depends on more than just a stand-off.

This reminds me of the Cold War, where the mutual destruction of each other, meant a stalemate between the USSR and the USA. This is not peace, a stand-off based on fear and violence, just doesn't make sense for anyone, it can have its short-term benefits, but in the long-run it can't work.