N.J. shooting deaths draw focus to 'two universes' of gun culture

[davepc]

http://www.nj.com/newark/index.ssf/2009/08/nj_shooting_deaths_draw_focus.html

There are two universes of American gun culture.

In one universe, the Second Amendment is a stanchion of protected American freedoms, as sacred as free speech. In this universe, when the right to bear arms dies, so does a free America.

In another universe, guns make blood run in our city streets. They kill and maim criminals and innocent alike, make good people prisoners in their own homes.

Last week in New Jersey, it wasn't hard to visit both universes.

At the Riverdale Pistol Club Range in Passaic County, instructors from the National Rifle Association were teaching first-timers how to safely fire handguns during a stringent all-day seminar. In this universe, the power of the gun is feared, but mastered for protection.

At the Betty Shabazz housing project in Newark, residents were angry over the shootings of a neighbor and her adult granddaughter, both caught in crossfire of a turf war. Here, the power of the gun is not mastered. In this universe, the gun is no instrument of protection; it is cause for fear.

...

[47of74]

1. If the founding fathers knew the carnage and misery that would result from the 2nd Amendment

Would they have been so quick to have include it in the Constitution? I wonder.

[JonQ]

2. Are you saying we should trade some freedom

for security?

[hedgehog]

4. What part of two universes didn't you understand?

If you want to keep your guns, figure out a way for the rest of us to be protected from the mis-use of guns.

[JonQ]

6. What do we do when a drunk driver wipes out a family?

Lament about the evils of the car culture we have here? Plot to ban all automobiles? Stigmatize legal and safe drivers?

No, we penalize those who mis-use them and move on. Kill someone while driving irresponsibly? You go to jail. Often times you lose the right to drive a car for the rest of your life, or at least for a period of time. And if you are caught driving while you are not allowed to you go to jail. Or if you are caught drunk while driving, or otherwise impaired, you go to jail. Simple enough.

Why are guns different?

BTW, guns kill fewer people than cars and are specifically guaranteed rights. Cars are not.

[yost69]

53. Oh no, we can't ban automobiles that would be an inconvenience to anti-gunners.

[Pavulon]

9. IF you want to keep your penis, figure out how to stop rape. FAILURE..

here is a start. legalize drugs, make health care universal, and punish any 1st time offence with a firearm with a 10 year mandatory stint in a federal pen not in your home state.

How's that.

Get it done son.

[JonQ]

12. Well I think you should have that privledge

but only after passing an extensive background check, registering with your state, demonstrating that you safely lock it up at night, and subject your home and person to random searches by the government to make sure you aren't out committing rapes.

[yost69]

54. umm, how do you lock up your penis at night?

[JonQ]

57. With one of these

[yost69]

61. LOL Ok, sorry I asked.

[orwell]

5. I don't understand...

...the often obligatory guns=freedom link.

[JonQ]

7. The constitution

has something to say on the subject, if you're curious.

[orwell]

17. Is that the same Constitution...

...that conferred voting rights to only white males over the age of 21.

This is the same constitution that set up the US as a Republic instead of a Democracy, that favored the power of wealthy white landowners in small rural states?

Is that going to be our definition of freedom?

[JonQ]

27. That was never stated in the bill of rights

those were people who wanted to reinterpret our rights for their own benefit. Much like gun grabbers today.

So the right to bear arms should become extremely limited and specific in the same way the right to vote was make extremely limited and specific. All in an effort to control the masses of course.

See why we should be wary of people redefining our rights in a way as to limit their usage?

[orwell]

33. You brought up the constitution...

...not I. I am not a gun grabber. I hope you are not including me in that statement. Who is doing the redefining here?

The masses have been effectively controlled in this country for most of it's history. It is primarily accomplished by the application of clever catch phrases that play on cultural and social stereotypes. Hence the frequent use of terms like "peacekeeper", "freedom, "liberty", "defense" to mask the more pedestrian violent applications of state power.

I have not argued the redefinition of rights. I believe the core human rights are inalienable. They are not "conferred" by the constitution.

Just so we can be clear, my assertion is that guns = freedom is demonstrably false. I have still not read any evidence to the contrary.

If we research guns per capita by country and overlay it with third party analysis of the degree of liberty in any particular nation, there is no correlation whatsoever.

Ergo, the simple assertion is that guns do not equal freedom.

In fact, the US which has the highest amount of guns per capita has a pretty poor showing when it comes to an objective analysis of it's "freedoms" in relation to other countries.

But then, we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of comforting social myths. After all, that might lead to the removal of our mass chains of ignorance.

[JonQ]

35. Oh I agree you can have a free society

without guns. Just like you could have a free society without a professional and diverse news industry. Or separation of powers, or term limits, or elections.

It is theoretically possible to have an absolute dictator who is both competent in leading a country and respects the rights of the people and works tirelessly towards that end. And if we could guarantee an endless supply of such leaders that would be great.

But it's not a good bet.

Private gun ownership is one of many checks put in place to ensure the government serves us, not the other way around. Just like the separation of powers, and elections and so on. Remove any one and it won't necessarily come tumbling down but that is a possibility and it certainly weakens the structure.

The more limitations on the power of government, shifting that power to the people, the better.

[orwell]

39. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

...I understand what you are saying. I just totally disagree.

Obviously I am not in favor of dictators, benevolent or otherwise. I guess you could class me as an impatient Darwinist. In the end it's seems more likely than not that we either evolve beyond primitive mythologies or die. That is how it has worked so far.

As I said before, weapons have a purpose as do any tools...hunting, personal protection, sport, hobby. I just don't think government accountability is one of them.

I think we've beat this dead horse.

Have a good one.

:toast:

[JonQ]

41. Ok

it was a fun debate though.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Perhaps I can assist.

Many of us see the 2nd as a 'canary in the coal mine' so to speak. When the Government feels that amendment needs to be abrogated, we are in deep shit.

No one wants to have to use firearms to 'correct' a wayward government. It's a lose-lose proposition. Worse case scenario. Past the point of no return. Frankly the end of the world, or of our way of life as we know it, etc. No one wants to go there. That we still have this right is assurance we will not have to 'go there'.

Right now the armed teabaggers are perceived as nutbags. The government isn't taking our guns. All is well, and I'd like to keep it that way.

[Israfel4]

50. So

"Just so we can be clear, my assertion is that guns = freedom is demonstrably false. I have still not read any evidence to the contrary."


The American Revolutionists would disagree with you.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Do you have any idea how fucked we would be

if the United States was a Democracy, and not a Republic in 2002? Remember when the voters were swinging for the Republican Party? Yeah, they still did a lot of damage, but our representatives were able to stall and block some of that damage, until the winds of the general voting population started going our way again.


Slaveowner provisions, and lack of sufferage are embarrassing bits in the Constitution, but something we could fix. You can 'fix' the 2nd Amendment, if you think you have the support.

I mean fuck, they could have outlawed abortion with a 51% vote when they were thumping their 'contract with america' drums, and the evangelicals were dancing in the streets. Remember that shit? No thanks. I'll take a Republic. It's not a dirty word, and has no relation to the 'republican party' or it's antics.

[Statistical]

34. Ben Franklin summed it up best...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

The founders intentionally chose a Republic because it provides more protections for the minority against the rule of the mob(majority). The bill of right was intended to strengthen that protection.

[JonQ]

37. Yeah, absolute democracy is a terrible idea

no better than absolute anything really.

At least when a king screws up it's easy to assign blame and find the right neck to chop. When the mob screws up everyone is to blame, so really no one is. No accountability. Humans are terrifying animals when in the mob-state.

Government for the people and by the people, but limited in it's actions is best.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Never mind that at the time of the writing of the constitution the firing rate

of the best weapons was 3 rds/minute - not 300 rds/minute.

It is a different paradigm.

[virginia mountainman]

19. Yea, I wonder how the founders could have envisioned.

the speed of an Ink Jet printer, over a hand cranked press??

[X_Digger]

21. psst..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

predated the constitution, removable 20 round magazine, fired 51 cal balls at a velocity comparable to modern 45ACP by simply pulling the trigger (air loaded the next ball and cocked the gun again.)

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Oh damn.

I guess I've banged that drum enough, someone finally read it. :D

[dashrif]

43. Yep

And Louis and Clark packed one all over, dam fine work of art that is

[JonQ]

26. Machine guns are heavily regulated

and aren't really the major gun used in crimes here.

Also the same parallel can be extended to the other rights.

Mass communication was certainly never as cheap, easy, or widespread as it is now. Should we be limited to hand operated printing presses?

DNA and fingerprint evidence were never considered, should cops be able to collect both from innocent citizens without a warrant? Same with wire-taps.


The technology may change but the rights don't.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Wrong. Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

The propellant is meaningless. That weapon could fire in excess of 30 rounds in a minute, with enough force to kill a man at 150 yards. That rifle killed a fair number of frenchmen, and Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

That weapon is extremely analogous to a modern 'assault weapon'. 20 round magazine. The only major difference is, the propellant is in the stock, and must be changed or recharged separately from the bullets in the magazine, instead of a complete cartridge that includes propellant and bullet.

[SteveM]

59. Hey, I can type faster than a 1776 printing press. Paradigms indeed. (nt)

[hack89]

13. The Bill of Rights and freedom go hand in hand, wouldn't you agree? nt

[orwell]

14. Uh no...

...I don't.

It is quite possible to have freedom without the Bill of Rights. Other countries have fairly free societies without our constitution. Guns don't necessarily protect or define freedom.

I can understand a gun as an instrument to hunt, protect against an aggressor, apprehend a criminal but I still don't understand the automatic conflation of guns=freedom.

I can just as easily (and lazily) conflate guns with genocide.

Both assertions would be wrong.

Are the Somali pirates free? They have guns.

[hack89]

16. The 2nd is not about guns

As part of the BOR, it is about the relative balance of power between the government and those governed by them. Our freedoms are secured when all respect that balance. The founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms was an important part of that balance - up there with free speech, right to assemble, freedom of religion. They recognized that things could change but also recognized that change had to hard so that America could enjoy robust and stable governmental, legal and social institutions.

An al a carte BOR like many gun control advocates embrace, where the 2nd Amendment is less important than the others or is the only amendment that does not enumerate an individual right, is a danger to our freedoms. It is important to our freedom that the BOR be respected as a whole. Hence my support of the right to bear arms - I don't even own guns but I use my other Constitutional rights daily.

[orwell]

20. This has nothing to do with gun control or the BOR...

...I have asserted nothing about gun control.

...I am questioning the conflation of guns with freedom.

Others brought the constitution and the bill of rights into this, not I.

If we link guns with freedom, then can I also make the baseless assertion that more guns = more freedom. Both assertions are preposterous and demonstrably false.

As far as your balance of power argument, even though it seems far afield, the government per se has exhibited no respect in the past when it comes to the application of power over a citizen or citizens who are armed. I would submit the Branch Davidian fiasco or Ruby Ridge as recent examples. The government routinely uses armed violence in pursuit of political objectives. I would submit the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as examples or the decades of murders and political violence in South America under the watchful eye of the US government.

The wackos at Oklahoma City struck a pretty major blow. How did that work out?

There can be no balance of power when you are talking about the US Government. It is the most awesome killing machine ever assembled. And for the most part, we enabled it every step of the way with this conflation of guns and freedom. We have created this monster all in the name of "Freedom."

So lets stop this fantasy. If the government wants you dead, you will be.

As of 2007 India has 4 guns per 100 citizens and Iraq has 39 per 100. Do Iraqi citizens enjoy more freedom than Indian Citizens?

[gorfle]

24. Ah, that old chestnut.

There can be no balance of power when you are talking about the US Government. It is the most awesome killing machine ever assembled. And for the most part, we enabled it every step of the way with this conflation of guns and freedom. We have created this monster all in the name of "Freedom."

Ah, the old chestnut that no one can stand up against the United States.

There are many examples in modern history of technologically inferior forces successfully winning against technologically superior forces.

The United States in Vietnam. The Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The United States in Mogadishu. The United States in Iraq. The United States in Afghanistan.

I am questioning the conflation of guns with freedom.

Make no mistake, having guns does not guarantee freedom. They are simply a tool that can be used to secure it. Guns can't help with apathy, for example.

As of 2007 India has 4 guns per 100 citizens and Iraq has 39 per 100. Do Iraqi citizens enjoy more freedom than Indian Citizens?

As they say, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Nonetheless, a dog does need some teeth in order to bite.

[orwell]

31. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength...

One of my favorite quotes from my namesake...


The United States in Vietnam.

The US lost the political will to fight in a war of choice. If we felt it was for our survival Vietnam would have effectively ceased to exist.

The Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

See answer 1 but substitute the Soviet Union. Also, the resistance had the covert backing of the US. Before that, the war was not going well for the Afghanis. The extremely effective Stingers came directly from the US.

The United States in Mogadishu.

A pipsqueek. See answer 1

The United States in Iraq.

The US achieved all of it's initially stated objectives and more in Iraq in a remarkably short amount of time. They left a burned out shell in their wake that will take years to recover.

The United States in Afghanistan.

The jury is still out but I suspect a scenario far closer to the Iraq rubble than the Soviet's experience. As of this writing our puppet is still running the country and the CIA backed covert heroin trade is booming.

The results of US application of power are always directly proportional to the perception of the threat to survival (see Hiroshima). If the US perceives at the highest level that the nation's existence is in question, they have recently asserted (under G.W. Bush doctrine) that they will launch a first nuclear strike. Does that sound like weakness? At the very least it was the existing policy for years that we would annihilate most of the world's population in defense of "liberty" - the retaliatory strike scenario. Exactly how does that freedom thingy work when the planet is a radioactive ball?

Isn't this just the natural extension of the failed guns = freedom fallacy?

Make no mistake, having guns does not guarantee freedom. They are simply a tool that can be used to secure it. Guns can't help with apathy, for example.

Ah, now we get to the heart of it. I would assert that guns never secure freedom. The freedom borne of violence is a false one. It is the replacement of one tyranny for another.

Freedom is the natural condition sans sociological or cultural construct. This was at the heart of the concept of inalienable rights. Our freedoms in a society are always limited. The idea is to construct a society/culture that allows the most freedom, yet still provides for the commonweal.

As they say, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Nonetheless, a dog does need some teeth in order to bite.

I saw a wolf pack kill (and presumably eat) a local dog of decent size. At some point, that statement becomes just another myth like guns = freedom. I agree that a small poisonous snake can kill a man. In the natural world there are examples of small beats big. But we are so far divorced from that world at this point that analogies are at best misleading.

I don't know of any dog that can push a few buttons and essentially end life as we know it.


War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength...

Why not just assert these canards?

I'm sure we'll all believe it if we say it long enough...

[gorfle]

36. A victory is still a victory.

If we felt it was for our survival Vietnam would have effectively ceased to exist.

A win by attrition and forcing a lack of resolve in your enemy is still a win.

The bottom line in both Vietnam and Afghanistan is that the occupying forces gave up as it was considered too costly to press the issue.

In point of fact, England could have also beaten the United States in its war of independence. It simply became too costly to do so, and they considered it not worth the effort.

See answer 1 but substitute the Soviet Union. Also, the resistance had the covert backing of the US. Before that, the war was not going well for the Afghanis. The extremely effective Stingers came directly from the US.

No doubt, third parties often play a role in revolutions. The French in the US Revolution. The US in Afghanistan vs. the Soviets. The Soviets in Vietnam.

The US achieved all of it's initially stated objectives and more in Iraq in a remarkably short amount of time. They left a burned out shell in their wake that will take years to recover.

The bottom line is the US pulled out because the people got sick of supporting the war.

Exactly how does that freedom thingy work when the planet is a radioactive ball?

Since we are talking about armed revolution here, it seems logical that you cannot use nuclear weapons against yourself.

Ah, now we get to the heart of it. I would assert that guns never secure freedom. The freedom borne of violence is a false one. It is the replacement of one tyranny for another.

No doubt lots of people have overthrown their oppressive government for a worse one. This does not mean that people should not overthrow their oppressive governments.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength...

Why not just assert these canards?

I'm sure we'll all believe it if we say it long enough...

I have no idea what you mean by that, but the bottom line is this:

The sum of your argument is that resistance against tyranny is futile and thus no one should attempt it.

To you, I offer the words of Samuel Adams:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were ever our countrymen.”

[orwell]

38. Ergo Sum Zero Sum

The sum of your argument is that resistance against tyranny is futile and thus no one should attempt it.

The assertion is that guns do not equal freedom. I never claimed that resistance to tyranny is futile. I do claim that the United States with it's current military power (ironically rooted in the notion that guns = freedom) has become a tyrant in and of itself. In many ways, it is the categorical refutation of the guns = freedom argument.

The right wing militias claim that they must fight the tyrannical government by threatening the use of the force. This is the same force of arms, albeit on a much larger scale, that empowers and threatens them when wielded by the government. This is the definition of circular logic. I can almost guarantee that if they overthrew the government, this same logic would now empower them to be the oppressors. This is exactly what happened in the United States. The "liberators" eventually become the "oppressors".

It wasn't the arms that repelled England, it was the political and social will. The same has been accomplished by mass non-violent resistance. The recent example of India and England comes to mind.

The words of Samuel Adams are not relevant to these assertions.

Why not quote Gandhi:

“Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.”

How about this peacenik, George Washington:

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

In the end, none of these statements have anything to do with the original assertion. Freedom is not born from the barrel of a gun. Liberty is an inalienable right. Just social societies are born of compromise, dialog, morality, and most of all, social intelligence, all of which are sorely lacking in the US today.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Political and social will don't matter if the oppressor is ruthless enough

Yes, mass non-violent resistance has worked. Against civilized societies like the later British Empire.

Against the Third Reich, not so much. Hitler could have been stopped in 1936, but nobody wanted to exert themselves.

In 1939, he decided "Shit, this conquest thing works. I'm going to keep on doing it!" (Or words to that effect).

And let us be candid here- The US Army slaughtered Native Americans if they resisted nonviolenly, violently, or didn't
resist at all. Sometimes people do bad things to others and won't stop unless they run out of targets or are stopped
by whatever means necessary.


I'd like to think, as Howard Jones put it, "things can only get better"- but I can't.

Go back and read most futurist writers from circa 1900, and their predictions for the twentieth century,
then recall what it was *really* like.

I hope for fuck's sake we never see the likes of the Japanese Empire, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Slobodan Milosevich
again, but chances are we will see someone (or someones) like them again. What do you propose we do?

[SteveM]

60. You do know that Orwell was a vigorous defender of armed civilians?

[hack89]

32. Ok then - the 2nd Amendment has everything to do with freedom

as an integral part of the Constitution and BOR. To that extent that the 2nd amendment relates to guns, guns are related to freedom.

You are right - more guns do not equal more freedom. As inanimate objects their simple possession in any situation will not necessarily engender freedom. However, respect for the Constitution and BOR does - not a perfect system but good enough. Therefore, in America, respect for gun ownership and their owner's civil rights is one way to ensure that respect for the Constitution and BOR is maintained.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Hrm.

Depends on your definition of 'freedom'. By your post, one might conclude the Somali pirates are extremely 'free', and they are. But they have no system of laws, and no recognition of 'rights', property or otherwise.

Iraq is a good example of your point though, possession of firearms alone isn't enough. The Iraqi people were well armed, with weapons you can't easily obtain legally in the US. A very high rate of firearms ownership. Yet, they were subjected to a homicidal maniac of a dictator for 30 or so years.

I think there can be a balance of power with the government. If the executive branch begins issuing illegal orders, the military need not side with it. We have an all volunteer military, sworn to uphold the Constitution, we have people living in, around, and part of all supply lines and bases our military uses, our people are heavily armed, etc. It would be very difficult for an executive to hold the US in thrall, and do away with the Constitution and our rights, by force.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the last administration, you can get some of that without using force at all. Which is all the sadder.


Frederick Douglas had something to say about this matter:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress."

[gorfle]

23. Yes, they are free!

It is quite possible to have freedom without the Bill of Rights. Other countries have fairly free societies without our constitution. Guns don't necessarily protect or define freedom.

But - when you are being oppressed by force, force is usually required to resist.

I can understand a gun as an instrument to hunt, protect against an aggressor, apprehend a criminal but I still don't understand the automatic conflation of guns=freedom.

I can just as easily (and lazily) conflate guns with genocide.

This is because guns can be used for both good things and bad things.

Are the Somali pirates free? They have guns.

By all appearances, they are quite free - free to do pretty much whatever they want, through force of arms.

[orwell]

40. I guess...

...If Somali society represents a desired representation of freedom, it makes a compelling case for the opposite.

I have guns. I am also under no illusion that my gun ownership limits the government's (or the corporation's) tyranny or in anyway represents a credible threat to their power over my life and death. Nothing in our history has proved me wrong.

Ask the South how that Civil War deal worked out...

[gorfle]

45. Freedom is not necessarily civil.

I guess......If Somali society represents a desired representation of freedom, it makes a compelling case for the opposite.

I did not say that it represented desired freedom, only that they were, in fact, free.

Freedom means you are free to do good things or bad things. You are free to choose which path to take. The Somalis have elected to use their freedom to deprive other people of their lives and property through force of arms. We elected to to use our freedom to create a representative government through force of arms.

I have guns. I am also under no illusion that my gun ownership limits the government's (or the corporation's) tyranny or in anyway represents a credible threat to their power over my life and death. Nothing in our history has proved me wrong.

Ask the South how that Civil War deal worked out...

Ask the Vietnamese how it worked out. Ask the Afghans how it worked out. Ask the Iraqis how it worked out. Ask the Mogadishus how it worked out. People can and have stood against first-world military powers and won.

Two men shooting out of the keyhole of the trunk of a car shut down the commerce in a large swath of the United States. Imagine two hundred doing it.

[orwell]

48. Freedom as Tyranny...

I did not say that it represented desired freedom, only that they were, in fact, free.

Freedom means you are free to do good things or bad things. You are free to choose which path to take. The Somalis have elected to use their freedom to deprive other people of their lives and property through force of arms. We elected to to use our freedom to create a representative government through force of arms.

You seem to be engaged in circular logic. Freedom can't mean you are free to do good things or bad things. If I take away your freedom through violence, I exercise my freedom at the expense of yours. This is not freedom, it is the definition of tyranny.

Ask the Vietnamese how it worked out. Ask the Afghans how it worked out. Ask the Iraqis how it worked out. Ask the Mogadishus how it worked out. People can and have stood against first-world military powers and won.

Every one of these countries is ranked "not free" in the Freedom of the World Assessment as of 2007, with the exception of Afghanistan which is not listed. I doubt if anyone would consider Afghanistan a bastion of freedom. So I guess it didn't work out so well for them either. Where is the guns = freedom equation. Violence brought greater repression.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html

Two men shooting out of the keyhole of the trunk of a car shut down the commerce in a large swath of the United States. Imagine two hundred doing it.

I'll leave that up to your fertile imagination. I choose to spend my time imagining a world where violence does not supplant rational political discourse.

[gorfle]

51. Of course it does!

You seem to be engaged in circular logic. Freedom can't mean you are free to do good things or bad things.

THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF FREEDOM! You are free to choose. You can wake up tomorrow and do good works, or you can wake up tomorrow and do bad works. You have a CHOICE. You have FREEDOM.

Now, with your choices there may very well be consequences. But YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO GOOD THINGS OR BAD THINGS.

If I take away your freedom through violence, I exercise my freedom at the expense of yours. This is not freedom, it is the definition of tyranny.

You are free to try to take away my freedom through violence, and I am free to resist you, and have society intervene on my behalf to resist and/or punish you.

Every one of these countries is ranked "not free" in the Freedom of the World Assessment as of 2007, with the exception of Afghanistan which is not listed. I doubt if anyone would consider Afghanistan a bastion of freedom. So I guess it didn't work out so well for them either. Where is the guns = freedom equation. Violence brought greater repression.

As I said - the ability to resist tyranny and oppression does not guarantee that what you end up with will be any better than what you started with. Nonetheless, the risk of failure is no excuse for not trying.

I'll leave that up to your fertile imagination. I choose to spend my time imagining a world where violence does not supplant rational political discourse.

Given that it has happened every day since the beginning of time, I hope your imagination is more fertile than mine.

[Statistical]

55. "Freedom for wolves means death for sheep". - Isaiah Berlin

There are no absolutes.

Some people in Somalia are very free. Free to do what they want, when they want, how they want and there nothing anyone can/will do to stop them. However their freedom is balanced by the tyranny they inflict on others.

What most consider "freedom" is also restrictions. We live in a "free society" which means we have a social structure that attempt (although imperfectly) to balance freedoms. Your freedom to not be killed by my reckless driving is balanced by the restrictions (via driving laws) on how, when, where I can drive.

[jody]

15. RKBA is a pre-existing or inalienable right and does not depend upon the Constitution. Scotus said

in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

[gorfle]

22. Do you think that firearms did not cause carnage then?

If the founding fathers knew the carnage and misery that would result from the 2nd Amendment would they have been so quick to have include it in the Constitution? I wonder.

I think so. Firearms had existed and were used to cause carnage and misery for some 500 years prior to the writing of the Constitution. Arrows, swords, knives, and all manner of arms had been used long before that.

The Founders were well aware of the risks that come with liberty, but they chose liberty nonetheless. This is why Thomas Jefferson said:

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”

[rd_kent]

44. Yes.

The carnage and misery is due to the LACK of enforcement of the gun laws we already have, and the pointless war on drugs.

[GunGuyinPA]

49. The good side of guns.

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

[JonQ]

3. Guaranteed rights do not guarantee

that all will use them responsibly.

For instance, neo-nazis taking part in a rally in a predominately jewish neighborhood. This is not likely the highest expression of free speech that our founders had hoped for. Still protected though.

These thugs, and their victims, are not the products of a free society. They are the products mostly of a failed war on drugs, break down of social order in the inner city, and poor alternatives due to a weak economy and poor education. I would guess that the war on drugs had the most to do with it. Leading to a rise in gang activity, driving out businesses and decent families, and destroying community bonds.

[Hangingon]

8. I don't think 2nd amendment covers the illegal uses of wepons

Turf wars are usually about drugs and other illegal activities. Gangbangers should be arrested and convicted.

[Tim01]

10. How about if we pass a law making it illegal to shoot people? nt

[yost69]

56. That is a great idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of that. LOL

I can just picture it. Everyone will be friendly and get along because it will be against the law to commit a crime. No anti-gunners would be scared anymore. Wow the country would be so much nicer.
:sarcasm:

[JonQ]

11. Libel is not covered by the constitution

and yet people still do it.

I think we should revoke the 1st amendment to deal with this.

[gorfle]

25. Only one of those universes can be controlled.

The bottom line is this:

Only one of those two universes can be controlled. We can control, or even eliminate, the universe where the firearm is mastered for protection.

We will never control, nor eliminate, the universe where the firearm is used in turf (drug) wars.

So the question is simple: Do you destroy the universe that helps you or not? Because that is the only universe you can affect.

[chrisa]

42. I would rather have too much freedom,

Than too little.

[slackmaster]

52. The "blood running in the streets" universe is a product of poverty and criminal behavior

Criminality is rooted in poverty, discrimination, lack of education, and poor health care. I do not believe that simply removing guns from it would make it any safer.

[Statistical]

58. Also criminality is also rooted in mental disorders.

Anti-Social personality disorder being just one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Of course some of that is environmental especially in early childhood years creating a cycle of violence.