Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I don't want to take away from the democratic process - but I am obligated to speak out if I believe something isn't right - regardless of the majority opinion.
Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.
Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make a comprehensive ban right.
I own a firearm for the protection of my family and myself - I am trained and qualified to own and operate a firearm for personal defense. A blind-comprehensive gun ban means that I, as a law-abiding citizen, will be required to turn in any handguns in my possession. Tell me specifically how that makes me safer? On the basis of principle you might believe that “society as a whole” is better because of “one less gun” in the world – but that has absolutely no relevance on my personal well-being within my lifetime.
A blind-comprehensive gun ban will affect straw purchases of illegal arms - but it will affect the law-abiding gun-owners even more (since we won't have them at all). Do you believe the most problematic criminals wouldn't generate alternative means to obtain them?
When legal means of alcohol were eliminated during prohibition (where, undoubtedly, it was most readily available) did the use of alcohol cease? No. That just transferred existing demand to a flourishing black market of illegal smuggling. The same is true for marijuana, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. There’s no reason to think that gunrunning wouldn't flourish as well. Gunrunning is as old as guns themselves.
But even the potential elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have one as a means of self-defense either. It is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife or a pipe who is intent on doing harm. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but should I be expected to enter a knife-fight with such a person? What if I were an elderly person living alone? What if I were a woman about to be raped?
Contrary to how it may sound, I’m not making the case to arm more civilians nor to make firearms more universally available to the public. Some degree of legislation is certainly in order as well as the funding for resources to address underlying social problems as well as the means to fight criminal activity – but a comprehensive gun-ban is NOT the solution. I think it’s important to enact laws that would have a more SPECIFIC effect on the criminal acquisition of deadly weapons.
|
You make good points, but this isn't prohibition either. Nor are these witch hunts, or basing laws against race, sex, religion, ethnicity. These are laws that concern a voluntary privilege, same as drinking, driving and so on.
Carrying a gun is not a right, it is a privilege because not everyone is allowed to carry a gun. (Mental illness, or past mental problems, felons, and so on).
Prohibition was a national experiment that failed miserably, however dry counties, cities, townships tend to work very well.
Doesn't mean they don't drink (as they can go to another county/township/city) but the areas are usually safer and have less crime.
My point is unless you actually LIVE in SF, you really can't expect someone to go in there and sue them because the citizens of that city made a choice.
That is a serious problem in the US. People complain about the ACLU and trying to take the 10 Commandments out of a courthouse, yet they believe it is ok for the NRA to sue a city because of gun issues. I"m sorry both sides are wrong.
I'm sure if you live in SF and have a gun in your house they aren't going to bust your for it. Nor do I think if you are driving down the road and have your UNLOADED gun in the trunk or out of physical reach as you drive to Oakland or a suburb with a shooting range they'll do anything to you.
But it sounds to me like the citizens of SF have decided they do not wish to have guns in their community (in public). So let the voters have their voice, if it fails and there are more violent crimes and guns used by bad guys ..... then their experiment failed.
However, and this is what I think the NRA fears, if violent crimes go down, the use of guns in crimes go down, then other communities may decide to try it.
But, just because that worked in SF doesn't mean it will work in LA.
But the citizens should have the right. Like I said above, it's the same as smoking, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. The community should be able to decide and vote their wills.
I say let SF try it, see what happens and then judge. But that won't happen, the NRA will be in there by the end of the year, if they aren't now. And they'll sue. Voice of the people be damned.
Yet, when a state like Texas votes to ban gay marriage that is ok and people who fight saying that is prejudicial are crybabies and leftist pigs?
Same exact thing. People going into a community and dictating that they know better.
Neither of those groups are right. The voters who live and work in those communities and know the areas and are there daily..... they are the ones who should determine what goes on, not big self serving organizations.