• FaithfulDisciple said on Jul 11, 2006....

  The right to life includes one's right to defend one's own life. Government should respect that sacred right as it is included in our Bill of Rights. Not all the time, is the government readily able to protect its citizens against imminent life threatening danger. Gun control is taking away a citizen's vital right to last resort of self-defense. A gun is a neutral tool. When use to defend oneself, it becomes a defensive weapon. In the hands of a criminal it becomes dangerous as are knives, bombs, torches, etc. When the ability to defend one's lift is curtailed such as the intent of gun control law, the right to life is also curtailed. No to gun control.

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2006....

  Should citizens be allowed to own tanks, bombers, missiles, etc?

• silverwhisper said on Jul 11, 2006....

  bloc: no they should not. at least, not IMV. a lot of second amendment zealots like to cry about the right to self-defense against government power. i've previously ||{1}|| that argument and i find it ludicrous. however, i do believe we should possess the right to self-defense against one another. the gun nuts are right that a handgun is a great equalizer, esp if you're smaller or otherwise not a match for your assailant. you'e an old hand at these discussions, aren't you? :> ed

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 11, 2006....

  I agree with everything youve said silver. Now on to reality. When my sons were born I sold my gun collection. When the last one moves out (sometime after Jesus comes back) I'll start collecting them again. I choose not to excercise my right to bear arms because that right is not worth the very slim chance that one or more of my sons might get killed playing with the gun I'm so proud the constitution said I could have.

• Rakaka said on Jul 11, 2006....

  I would love to own my own tank... I'd take it out to the desert on long weekends and just ride over everything. Does a tank take only Premium gasoline? Guns, tanks, and SUVs don't kill people... people ... ahhh, you know the rest.

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2006....

  rakaka, should i be able to own a nuclear missile? Nuclear missiles don't kill people ... The point I'm making is that virtually no one will claim an absolute right to own any kind of weapon. 99.99% of people will say that citizens shouldn't be allowed to own nukes. This is obvious to any sane person. Now we agree that the right to bear arms is limited, after all a nuke is an "arms". Now let's put aside all the silly catch phrases like "only people kill people" because they are meaningless. My question is where should the line be drawn. Nukes are a no. My guess is that 500lb cluster bombs are off the table. So where is the line drawn for everyone?

• bloc said on Jul 11, 2006....

  "you'e an old hand at these discussions, aren't you? :>" yes :)

• anonymous said on Jul 11, 2006....

  Hey now and I thought the discussion was about gun control not a treaty limiting nuclear armaments. So while were at it, the rest of the world is reacting negatively to the nuclear missile tests launch of North Korea. Is it the same reaction then when you see your neighbor test firing his latest smart hand gun at his backyard while you bear all the smoke of gunpowder and noise rattling at the walls? Guns don't kill people, people do. Even if there was a law on gun control, do you honestly think everyone would comply, what's to stop someone from keeping an unlicensed gun in his house as a matter of self defense when the need arises. Wouldn't you do the same, if your family was threatened by armed intruders and use any firpower available to you licensed or unlicensed to defend them? Are you just gonna sit there and call 911 waiting for them to arrive while you watch your family get raped and murdered?

• RobsStuff said on Jul 12, 2006....

  So the ownership of guns is enshrined in the Bill of Rights big deal! If guns offer protection why does the US have one of the highest rates of gun crime? Why do you have more school shootings than any other nation? How does a gun protect? A gun serves one purpose to kill. By owning a gun you say that killing is ok. Try this for a thought, if gun ownership was not allowed kids could not accidentill shoot themselves with a perants weapon. Legally owned guns could not be stolen and used to commit crime. Anyone who owned a gun could be charged immediatly with a crime. Testosterone fulled arguments would end with a fist fight not another corpse.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 12, 2006....

  bloc: only an experienced hand would use the "are you insane" acid test. :> rob: cars provide transportation, yet the US car death rates dwarf the gun death rates. cars, use of which is expressly [i]not[/i] a right, are a much bigger industry, routinely cause vastly more deaths and injuries/year and also require a permit to use. if you wanna get anywhere in this discussion, you have to address this point. if you do not, i will construe that as a concession. owning a gun does not say that killing is OK. that's a completely and totally unwarranted conclusion which does not logically follow. owning a gun says that you want to own a gun. the choice of gun might say something--someone sporting a .45 magnum ruger super redhawk most likely wants to compensate for something--just as it might for car ownership, but the decision to own one does not intrinsically mean diddly squat. the burden on you is to support that assertion. [quote][b]rob[/b] quoth [i]if gun ownership was not allowed kids could not accidentill shoot themselves with a perants weapon. legally owned guns could not be stolen and used to commit crime. anyone who owned a gun could be charged immediatly with a crime.[/i][/quote] you're badly in need of a class in logic: 1) kids can steal guns illegally owned by their parents, 2) illegally owned guns are stolen and used to commit crimes, 3) just b/c you have means does not mean you have motive: this artificially inflates the number of possible suspects without adding any actual value. your argument [i]completely[/i] ignores the prospect of illegal gun ownership. ed

• bloc said on Jul 12, 2006....

  @anonymous Your comment jumps around a bit so I'm going to assume that you are in favor of the right to own guns. What I'm asking is where is the line drawn. What should be legal and what shouldn't? Rifles, handguns, 50 cal machine gun, grenades, missiles, tanks, bombers, nukes Where in this list is the line drawn and why?

• Rakaka said on Jul 13, 2006....

  I was trying to be funny with my tank comment, but there's also a point in there (when you dig around). I think it's ridiculous to think that people could own nuclear missles. Have you checked weapons grade plutonium prices lately? What a rip-off. Not to mention the chances of getting your missle stolen by some freedom hating terrorist. Who wants to blow your hard earned Nigerian royalty money on something so sought after? Just imagine: You come home from work, pull up into your drive-way, wave hi to the neighbors, get your mail, and realize that your garage door has been tampered with. You go into your garage, and to your dismay, find an empty spot next to your washer/dryer where your nuclear missle used to be. Bastards! I only had 4 more payments!

• silverwhisper said on Jul 13, 2006....

  [giggles like a drunk monkey] quite possibly my favorite comment on any blog all day. :> ed

• anonymous said on Jul 13, 2006....

  I don't know about you but I know a lot of rich people that own a lot of land and could easily own missles and tanks if allowed.

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2006....

  "I think it's ridiculous to think that people could own nuclear missles. Have you checked weapons grade plutonium prices lately? " Like anonymous said, just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people that can. Bill Gates could have an army bigger than most nations if he wanted to. I still ask where you would draw the line. Is anyone up to this question?

• silverwhisper said on Jul 13, 2006....

  sorry, i didn't realize that was a general question. i personally draw the line at firearms of the non-military variety. you? ed

• bloc said on Jul 13, 2006....

  sorry i was trying to get an answer from the "guns don't kill people ..." crowd. They still haven't answered :) I think about the same as you. No fully automotics, no 50 cals, etc.

• anonymous said on Jul 13, 2006....

  bloc: this is the reply to your question The fact is that guns don't kill by themselves, it's people who use guns to kill others are the ones killing people. And so are knives, baseball bats, sticks and metal rods. In fact, any thing solid and hard can be used by people to kill other people. The only difference is guns kill faster and with exact precision. And so do cars. It is not so much the instrument per se but the intent of the user, banning guns doesn't guarantee diminished crime rates. Banning guns for self defense will not eliminate armed robbery committed with knives and sharp pointed objects. Evil people with evil intent will use just about anything to commit a crime. These very same people will not hesitate to use handguns whether unlicensed or banned to commit hideous crimes. So who's the biggest loser if guns are banned from civilian access? The intended victims of these crimes have a right to protect themselves. Handguns of sufficient stopping power such as caliber 45s and 9mms should be allowed and not restrained by gun control. Instinct dictates that man use the simplest most practical means of self-defense to defend oneself to protect his life and that of his family. No to gun control.

• bloc said on Jul 14, 2006....

  You didn't answer my question. You just gave the same tired argument. Where should the line be drawn? Why not protect our families with grenades, missiles, and tanks? After all, "Evil people with evil intent will use just about anything to commit a crime. These very same people will not hesitate to use [b]grenades, missiles, and tanks[/b] whether unlicensed or banned to commit hideous crimes. " The logic you just used applies the same to tanks, missiles, nukes, etc. So again I ask, where do you draw the line and why? I'm pretty sure your american by your point of view. Have you ever lived outside of america? do you know anything about the ways other countries handle gun control? Do you know anything about their crime rates? I am american, but have lived in other countries with much stricter gun laws. They were much safer and far fewer "bad guys" had guns so your assertion that outlawing guns will only take them away from law abiding people is wrong. However, I have never in this thread stated my position. I just want someone that is in favor of gun control to give me a logical explanation of where they draw the line of what is illegal.

• bloc said on Jul 14, 2006....

  edit I just want someone that is in favor of gun control should read I just want someone that is NOT in favor of gun control

• FaithMatters said on Jul 14, 2006....

  Bloc, The "line" of armed personal protection (tank, missile, etc.) cannot be drawn arbitrarily. In a densely populated environment even a pistol may not be an appropriate tool because innocent bystanders abound. In rural areas a 9mm pistol may prove insufficent to defend oneself against a bear. If I lived in a suburban, exurban or agricultural area where home invasions occasionally take place and police response time is deathly slow, I'd probably opt for some sort of shotgun - generally too heavy for small kids to play with, very effective at short range. In a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan or some of the more dangerous parts of South Africa I would indeed wish I had Bill Gates' money to fund a team of armed bodyguards. This is the problem Federal cookie-cutter legislation like gun-control poses. What is a tragic problem in urban areas may not be such a big deal in rural areas. To respond to your question, I think it's up to the local community - citizenry and government working together - to determine which types of "arms" are appropriate, and under what circumstances they can be used for personal protection.

• bloc said on Jul 14, 2006....

  great answer and I agree.

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 14, 2006....

  But..... On the other hand..... What if there was a complete worldwide ban on all guns and explosives.... The police could hit us with a stick if we were extremely rude... People would rob banks by threatening to flick a booger... Palestinians would protest their lack of Free Western Guilt Aid by eating gross things in Jewish deli's... Israel would commit mass flatulance on unsuspecting refugee camps...

• bloc said on Jul 14, 2006....

  explosives can be made from common things.

• anonymous said on Jul 15, 2006....

  Then again you only dealt with firepower. While we're at it, why not include, chemical weapons and biological hazard weapons to go with it. With or without guns, there will still be evil people with evil intent and no amount of gun control can reduced crime rates. How about spears, darts and poison arrows to go with it or even a poisonous dart gun to boot. No to gun control, with or without guns evil will not be eradicated in this world, so let the good people defend themselves at all costs.

• bloc said on Jul 15, 2006....

  yes, let the good people have nukes. Hysterical!

• fuschia said on Jul 15, 2006....

  I fervently agree. I'm also a registered Democrat, and a liberal, but later this year I plan to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. I'm not entirely sure I'd put it to use, but I do plan to at least own a handgun at some point. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right for a reason. As long as people are responsible with their weapons, I see no reason to prohibit their ownership or use.

• bloc said on Jul 16, 2006....

  "The right to bear arms is a constitutional right for a reason. As long as people are responsible with their weapons, I see no reason to prohibit their ownership or use." The constitution never says guns. It says arms. Missiles are arms. Tanks are arms. Should people be allowed to own any sort of weapon they want? This is the question that no advocate of free arms has answered except the person that said people should be able to own anything including nukes. So, fuschia, should people be able to own nukes and if not where do you draw the line?

• cfamommy said on Jul 16, 2006....

  While cars kill more people than guns, I don't think we can argue that because cars aren't banned, guns shouldn't be, either. Cars serve a useful purpose; they get me from point A to point B faster I could get there walking, and with significantly fewer blisters on my heels. Guns are for killing. I haven't figured out any other practical purpose for them... I don't claim to know a lot about gun control law and the debate surrounding it; I'm from Canada, where we have fewer problems with gun-related violence. I can't tell anyone what the answer is on this one. I do know, though, that I'd never have a gun in my house, especially while my child is living here. It's not worth the risk. I'd like to think I can be sure that when he goes to play at a friend's house, they won't have guns there, either. I don't get the feeling I could be so sure about that in the USA, what with people exercising their rights, and all.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 16, 2006....

  bloc: a broadsword is also an arm. :> cfamommy: but a US citizen does not enjoy a [i]right[/i] to own/operate a car: it's a privilege granted and managed by the state. therefore, the ability to own/operate a car takes place at the state's sufferance, whereas the same cannot be said for owning a weapon. guns serve several purposes: safety and/or self-defense, hunting, etc. if you don't like guns, that's fine, but just b/c you don't like them, it doesn't mean that i should have to restrict myself to what you don't like. therefore, the association between cars and guns continues. ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2006....

  It's amazing how many times I can ask a direct question without getting an answer from those opposed to gun control. Can someone that believes the 2nd amendment allows citizens to own any gun they want please tell me why it does or doesn't allow citizens to own missiles, tanks, bombers, and nukes!

• anonymous said on Jul 21, 2006....

  bloc: We accept limitations on First Amendment rights all the time. Pornography Slander Reckless Endangerment Assault We need to accept reasonable limitations on our Second Amendment rights as well. Class 3 limitations (military or law enforcement grade weapons) are examples of these kinds of limitations. Criminal background checks are another. I'm fine with the law as it is currently written, but I support certain changes to federal law that will help protect me and my rights. For example, H.R. 4547/S. 3275-Legislation that would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if he or she meets certain criteria. Importantly, the laws of each state governing where concealed firearms may be carried would still apply within its borders.

• bloc said on Jul 21, 2006....

  anonymous, you are absolutely right. You and I do not have an absolute right to carry any weapon we want. This is the premise with which any sane debate on gun rights needs to start. Unfortunately, many gun rights zealots haven't realized this point you.

• Paladin7 said on Nov 16, 2006....

  I love Gun Control!
  Good sight alignment good sight picutre means I have control of my gun and the person i am pointing it at will die a quick painless death.See I am humane as well.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2006....

  heh...paladin, welcome to my blog.  :>
  
  ed
  

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  I got to the party a little late, but I'm interested in answers to a few basic questions, particularly from those who oppose gun control on a general basis. Note: I don't intend for these to be trick questions and I am seriously interested in seeing what people think. I'm not trying to bait anyone here.
  
  1) What good purpose do handguns serve that cannot be provided by another means?
  
  2) In what ways do handguns and other currently allowable firearms improve the lives of ordinary citizens? Note that by "improve" I do not mean "protect when under assault."
  
  3) What is the cost-benefit argument for arming ordinary citizens for self defense?
  
  That ought to do for now. Thanks in advance for your considered responses.
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: in answer to your questions:
  
  1. handguns serve the role of self-defense in a way that other weapons cannot. handguns are first and foremost intimidating for most people, but secondarily, allow you to inflict significant damage at a distance. while pepper spray is in theory capable of doing the same, i believe there have been cases where it's been ineffective.
  
  2. this question is based upon the premise that the validity of owning a firearm itself requires defense. this is not a valid premise, as the constitution expressly permits it (2nd amendment)--just as it expressly permits a right against self-incrimination (5th amendment). i wouldn't enter a discussion about the fifth amendment by requiring that this right requires justification as it's utterly wrongheaded.
  
  3. this is a leading question, isn't it? citizens enjoy the right to be armed, even as heavily circumscribed as it is in some states of the union, and again proceeds from what i consider a flawed premise, as does 2, above.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Dec 27, 2006....

  1. self defense (other means aren't equivalent)
  2. In what way do any of your hobbies improve your life? Ok, now you know the answer.
  3. http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/law_and_order.html
  
  
  The interesting part is that you keep saying "handguns". Are you fine with rifles? 
  
  
  I have odd views on this. I've lived in a semi rural area, and I've lived in big cities. In the city guns seem bad. In more rural areas your only defense is yourself. There may not be anyone else around and it may take a while for cops to show up anywhere. I completely understand the desire for guns in certain places.

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  To respond:
  
  I'm not entirely persuaded that self-defense can best be provided by the use of a handgun as the misuse of one can just as easily kill or maim the user as it might the assailant. I guess that my issue with this argument is that it is far more theoretical than practical.
  
  I believe that the validity of owning a firearm requires defense. The same part of the constitution that grants the citizenry the right to bear arms (for the moment we'll ignore the fact that the amendment appears to be framed and positioned in the bill or rights so as to provide for defense en masse against a tyrannical leader) also gave the citizenry the right to own slaves. Just as we reversed the right to own slaves, we could, at least theoretically, reverse the right to bear arms. Being in the bill of rights does not, in and of itself, make something perfectly good.
  
  Whether one accepts the constitutional right to bear arms as a good thing or not, eventually you have to ask and answer the cost-benefit question. To what extent does the ownership of arms benefit or cost society? Shouldn't our views on this practice of owning firearms be judged at least in part on the basis of its worth to society?
  
  Bloc, like you I have lived in both urban and rural places. I grew up in a state that is over 90% forested and where virtually every family includes at least one gun owner and hunter. For the second half of my life I have lived in the country's third largest city. I was held up at gunpoint twice in my life. It is my view that firearms enable far more crimes than they permit. I don't have an answer to the "bad guys will always find ways to get guns" retort. But I believe that ownership of firearms (I think we can safely omit bows and arrows and other non-firearm arms from the discussion) causes more harm to our society than good.
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: a gun is a more efficient tool for harming others than, say, a sword is. so if your concern stems from a concern for accidental injury/death, yes, i suppose i can understand that, but then again, how many more people are injured/killed by cars/year? and our legal ability to operate a motor vehicle is not, you may have noticed, itself a right: it's a privilege granted by the government. i suspect all of us operate a car more often than use a firearm, no?
  
  further, making a firearm illegal is not addressing the root cause. i do not accept the idea that we should voluntarily surrender a right, esp nowadays when our government seems increasingly more hostile to citizens rights.
  
  yes, i understand the constitution was changed--honestly, LJ, it isn't like you're speaking to a child. :> but the thing is that there was no compelling reason to permit slavery to continue--it was itself a concession to southern states when the nation was formed. there is not yet a compelling reason i can detect to change this particular part of the constitution w/ an amendment. yes, people are killed/injured by guns. i don't accept the notion however that operator idiocy on the part of someone else means my rights should be curtailed.
  
  and no, there will never be a successful counter-argument re: the illegality of guns restricting them exclusively to criminals. :>
  
  i respect that you feel differently than i do on the matter, LJ. and i can understand your position, having once held it myself. but bringing the power of the federal government to bear on this matter is to me unnecessary interference in citizens rights at the federal level, and AFAICT, would do so in a manner which would not fix the problem for which this solution is being sought.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  In my view, as you no doubt suspect, the problem with firearms is the same as the problem with nuclear weapons: they exist but it's a damned shame that they do. Ordinary life is not improved by the existence of firearms. Not any longer anyway. At one time owning a good long gun meant that a man could feed his family more reliably. That's no longer the case.
  
  The problem is that we murder each other in this country at a rate that surpasses virtually every other first-world nation. Why is it that in Canada the murder rate is so much lower than it is here? Apparently Americans and Canadians own firearms in nearly the same proportion. What practical differences exist between our two systems of regulated firearm ownership that explain the difference? Or are we, as a nation, somehow more predisposed to murderous violence? Who will support that position?
  
  I just wish that those who oppose gun control would complete the thought experiment of imagining life in American cities without the threat of violence and crime that are enabled and executed with the use of firearms.
  
  As for the argument that firearm ownership in rural areas is justified because the police can't possibly get onto the scene of a crime fast enough to protect people and so folks there must protect themselves, I have a simple question. How many violent crimes occur in rural areas between people who do not know each other? Is this crime rate really so overwhelming? I suspect that this is a specious argument.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Dec 27, 2006....

  I think this is a good illustration of my core values. I believe that we should always err on the side of more freedom. If there isn't a very clear advantage to restricting freedom then keep it free. 
  
  
  Here's an interesting tangent. Canada has similar gun laws to us and they don't have the same problem with violent crime. Are guns really the problem?

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: the problem however is that the one-size-fits-all solution that's being propounded by gun control advocates (making gun ownership illegal) assumes that life in the city and what that entails trumps the fact that firearms do serve a useful function in rural areas. which is why this becomes problematic when escalated at to the federal level, no?
  
  IOW: it isn't just about city dwellers: it's about all americans, in every state of the union.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  Ed, this is exactly the problem. For many of us the very idea of gun ownership feels wrong, though it's probably an irreversible problem at this point. I hear you on the one-size-fits all problem. What is your take on cities and some states or counties enacting stringent firearms control laws?
  
  Bloc, I read somewhere that while Canada's gun laws are somewhat similar to our own, their enforcement is much more stringent and much more uniform than ours. But see, if you suggest that the Canadian murder rate demonstrates that guns by themselves are not the problem, you have to explain what it is about the American psyche that makes us many times more murderous than our northern friends.
  
  Question to all who are interested: what is your take on local laws that require firearms ownership of all adult citizens? Presumably the argument behind such laws is that if all citizens carry weapons then all citizens will be better protected and much safer from harm. A) Does this sort of law make sense to you? and B) Does anyone know if such local laws have had any impact on the local crime/violence rate?
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: my take is that each state or county presumably is answerable to its own constituency on the matter. so long as the views of the majority of the voters there are being reflected, what the voters in a given state/county want is, irrespective of my own feelings, what should be respected.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  So, Ed, does this mean that your stance on gun control is limited to the federal level? If this is the case, why would increased federal regulation be any worse than local controls in your eyes?
  
  You see, I ask this because a slight majority of Americans actually prefer increased control of firearms from the federal government.
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: yes, as a matter of fact. local voters understand their needs and wants better than congresscritters several states away and like bloc, i too prefer to err on the side of less legislation rather than more.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  I could hardly argue with your assessment of certain congresscritters, but your willingness to accept local regulation is predicated on the principle of majority rule. If it were the case that a majority of Americans supported increased federal regulation of firearms, would you accept the validity of their desire?

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: no, i would not. this is b/c people want to legalize/criminalize a large number of things (e.g., prostitution) which might make sense in one locale that may not in other locales. it's precisely this kind of thinking that irritates me about the social conservative push for a constitutional amendment re: gay marriage. there is a great possibility of backlash against anything so implemented, which might yield results that are even worse than the current state. in short: i prefer the devil i know to the devil i don't.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Dec 27, 2006....

  "you have to explain what it is about the American psyche that makes us many times more murderous than our northern friends."
  
  no i don't. If I knew I'd tell you, but I have no clue on this one. In my eyes it's obvious. There is something about our culture that causes these higher murder rates and it's a lot higher. I don't think better enforcement makes up the difference.
  

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  Bloc, at least you recognized the problem with the differential between the Canadian and American experiences with gun ownership. Personally I'm not willing to say that there is something dramatically different about the American psyche but there clearly is some thing or complex of factors that is behind this differential and I think that if we understood it better we might be able to address the horror of gun violence more effectively.
  
  And if the answer has nothing to do with regulation or law enforcement, then I'd be the first to say that we should drop the calls for more regulation.
  
  Ed, your point is well taken. Unfortunately, Illinois is a microcosm of the nation (as are a couple of large eastern states like NY, NJ, and PA) in that there is a sizable part of the state that is dominated by urban centers and a sizable portion dominated by rural area and agricultural interests. It's virtually impossible to achieve anything like a consensus on the gun control issue because each part of the state has such opposing interests (we'll leave the well-funded NRA out of the discussion for now). Unfortunately, because the end result looks like a victory for the "less-regulation-is-better" crowd, we in the urban centers feel cheated and disregarded.
  
  My take on the constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage is that no one on either side of the argument ever expects the amendment call to make any headway. It's just a way of calling attention to the "issue" to rally the political base and to provide opportunities for political opponents to point fingers at one another over support/non-support of the measure.
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2006....

  LJ: FWIW, i've been saying for years that the next major political dichotomy in the US will be rural/urban, not conservative/liberal or even authoritarian/libertarian.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Dec 27, 2006....

  In many respects we are already well on our way toward that day, ed. For at least the last six or seven election cycles the republicans have been playing off the conceit that all democrats are urban elite snobs - or ues wannabes.

• CopsExtrodinaire said about 7 hours ago....

  Much by accident..and that / this is the truth.. I stumbled upon this blog on gun control.

   

  All I can say is.. thanks !! It echoes exactly what I have written many editorials on. Being a retired police officer I do NOT believe that all should possess or own a gun. That makes no sense but I sure do favor the "right" of the people to make that election on their own.

   

  Maybe we are not as far apart as I thought.

   

  What ever..thanks for that little piece on gun control.. JD

Comment on "gun control: why it is bad"

Currently tagged	gun control defend oneself Bill of Rights politics Right to Life flawed argument personal protection legislation self defense US constitution bloc (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment