Gun Control, who's for it?

stoirmeil
This story qualifies as the "Idiot criminal of the week".

Some people are just TOO stupid to be allowed to breed! Fortunately this dweeb took the responsabity onto his OWN shoulders!

I guess he won’t be pointing his gun at anyone, any time soon?

Here's a letter that was sent to The us concealed carry association. Just thought I'd share it.


I am one of those people who you loathe. One of those invisible people who come into your living room without asking your permission. One of those people who follow you while you shop, and make it harder for you to make legal purchases. One of those people who try and tell you how to raise your children, as if you don't know how. One of those who gives ratings to stations that promote our demise as a free nation. I am your enemy. Or at least I was.

I followed it all, all of the propaganda, all of the hoopla. Believed it too. Believed that leaving my house was more dangerous than being in a war. At any given moment one of you evil gun owners would open fire on me. I saw the NRA stickers, the Gun owners of America stickers on the cars that passed, and I thought you were all fools. I did everything in my power financially to try and help more laws pass that would prevent you from owning guns. I wholeheartedly believed that only the Police, and Military should have guns. Every time I heard of a gang shooting, or other criminal act committed with a gun, I honestly believed that if we could curtail the legal sale of guns, we could make a difference.

Boy was I wrong.

I have children, three actually, and to me the only thing more important than raising them properly, was seeing that they aren't hurt in anyway. I wanted to ban guns, save my children, save all children. No child should have to be part of any kind of death, especially the kind that involves being shot. I gave money to all of the anti gun organizations I could think of, went to the "Million" Mom March, even looked at Rosie when she spoke, and actually admire her. Brought the kids as well, and even yelled some not so nice things to those other marchers. I'm sure some of you know who I refer to.

I was on my way back from the march, on my way back to Connecticut, when I stopped off of the highway at a rest stop by one of those McDonalds they have off I-95. By this time I had dropped off two of my kids with their father, and only had my little one with me. I went into the restroom with her, and on my way out noticed two men hanging out by my car. There were only two other cars in the lot at the time that were anywhere near my vehicle. I immediately felt threatened by their demeanor, but continued on to my car. The smaller of the two approached me with a knife as I was about to open the door to put my child in her car seat. He yelled at me to get in the back of the car, they were taking me for a little ride. I obviously told them to just take my keys, they could have the car, but they insisted I get in the back. I then heard a man yelling something I don't quite recall, and saw him running towards me with a gun in his hand. The two men vanished into their car, and sped away. I stood there frozen in time, and by the time the gentleman with the gun got to me I just broke down and cried.

To make a long story short, you were all right, and I'm sorry. This man with a gun saved me, and I just keep thinking if I had gotten my wish and guns were banned, there is no telling where I'd be, and what would've happened to my daughter. The only regret I have is not getting the man's phone number who saved my life. I thanked him over and over again, and told him that he saved me, but he calmly said to me something I'd never forget. He said "That's what people like me are here for Ms., and I'm happy to have been able to help."

"That's what people like me are here for," those words keep on running through my head everyday. Maybe this gentleman by some chance is part of your group, and will read my message. If he does I would just like to say something to him, and to everyone else reading this note.

Thank you for saving my life, and to the rest of you thank you for fighting for this man's right to protect me and my child. Tell him for me that I will no longer be part of the group who invades his home, and tries to tell him how to store his guns. Tell him I will never be part of any group who tries to make it impossible for him to buy his tool he used to save me. And tell him I will never again tell him how to raise his children properly, because obviously I was oblivious to the fact that responsible people such as him know how to raise their children better than I do. I did rectify that situation the other day; I bought a shotgun for home protection, and am in the process of getting my concealed permit. Next time I will be ready to defend myself, or others for that matter. Some of my friends think I'm crazy, but they try their best to understand. I just tell them that as soon as their child's life is put in jeopardy by some criminal with a weapon that they will understand, but until then don't tell me how to live my life. I've lost some friends, but surprisingly most of them understand. If not for this man I could very easily have been killed or raped, and my child could've been taken from me, so once more I need to say thanks for saving me, and with all sincerity to the rest of you, forgive me, for I have sinned.

Interesting letter from the lady. I do believe you have a right to protect yourself and I hope she gets training in the use of her choices of weapons because a shot gun gives a pretty good kick when discharged. As to her particular situation it ended well for her and I am glad but it is like the old saying never take a knife to a gun fight. If they had a gun instead of a knife things probably would have turned out different if either party decided to make a stand. The last line of her letter where she says she has sinned is a little strong. Life presents ourselves with different situations where we constantly have to re-assess our beliefs and just because we might change what we believe in doesn't always mean we were wrong in the first place. I hope she finds peace in her decision.

New news here in Florida. The vote to be able to bring your gun to work with you and leave it in your car has passed through the state congress and is now awaiting Gov. Crist to sign. Which I'm sure he will. I know this has really ticked off some people. ai understand property rights. The inside of your vehicle is you own property and it's spelled out in the castle doctrin here.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The explicit purpose of the Second Amendment was to "regulate" the "militia"; a well-armed citizenry could prevent a military coup d'etat. That's why the United States relied upon the state militia system and didn't have a strong standing army until after WW I.

You can well imagine what the founding fathers would think of an annual military budget that exceeds all of the military spending of the rest of the planet combined, private corporations raising private mercenary armies like Blackwater (complete with mechanized armor and helicopter gunships), or corporations like KBR building privatized corporate concentration camps.

I'd say that the militia's bloody well past the point of being "regulated" now.

This is a good example of what happens when you privatize government responsibility. Privatization is a bad idea across the board. These private military/security companies exist outside of military law and are outside US territory and this has created some legal issues. I also believe that privatization of any part of government takes away, usurps, and waters down the publics responsibility and accountability.
I believe the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment was not to regulate the militia but to legitimize the existence of a regulated militia. Every State in the Union had a standing armed militia,in addition to having the ability to muster men as required. These militias were comprised mostly of citizen soldiers, who were required to maintain arms in their homes and possesion, at the ready to be called on by the State. Each State had its regulations in place.

This is a good example of what happens when you privatize government responsibility. Privatization is a bad idea across the board. These private military/security companies exist outside of military law and are outside US territory and this has created some legal issues. I also believe that privatization of any part of government takes away, usurps, and waters down the publics responsibility and accountability.
I believe the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment was not to regulate the militia but to legitimize the existence of a regulated militia. Every State in the Union had a standing armed militia,in addition to having the ability to muster men as required. These militias were comprised mostly of citizen soldiers, who were required to maintain arms in their homes and possesion, at the ready to be called on by the State. Each State had its regulations in place.

Your opinion and I respect it. However, unfortunately for you, the Supreme court doesn't agree nor do most of the US population.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/...o.bear.arms.cnn


This is interesting from Luo Dobbs.

This is a good example of what happens when you privatize government responsibility. Privatization is a bad idea across the board. These private military/security companies exist outside of military law and are outside US territory and this has created some legal issues. I also believe that privatization of any part of government takes away, usurps, and waters down the publics responsibility and accountability.
I believe the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment was not to regulate the militia but to legitimize the existence of a regulated militia. Every State in the Union had a standing armed militia,in addition to having the ability to muster men as required. These militias were comprised mostly of citizen soldiers, who were required to maintain arms in their homes and possesion, at the ready to be called on by the State. Each State had its regulations in place.

Your opinion and I respect it. However, unfortunately for you, the Supreme court doesn't agree nor do most of the US population.

Ohp! there yuh go again.

Would you mind itemizing for once: just who are those "most of the US population" you are speaking for?

This is a good example of what happens when you privatize government responsibility. Privatization is a bad idea across the board. These private military/security companies exist outside of military law and are outside US territory and this has created some legal issues. I also believe that privatization of any part of government takes away, usurps, and waters down the publics responsibility and accountability.
I believe the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment was not to regulate the militia but to legitimize the existence of a regulated militia. Every State in the Union had a standing armed militia,in addition to having the ability to muster men as required. These militias were comprised mostly of citizen soldiers, who were required to maintain arms in their homes and possesion, at the ready to be called on by the State. Each State had its regulations in place.

Your opinion and I respect it. However, unfortunately for you, the Supreme court doesn't agree nor do most of the US population.

Ohp! there yuh go again.

Would you mind itemizing for once: just who are those "most of the US population" you are speaking for?

What I got out of the previous posts were that the feeling was that gun ownership wasn't an individual right. If I'm reading it wrong then please correct me. BTW if you'd like to see the polls, here's just a few. Yes, I am skeptical of polls.

POLL EXCERPT

Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or does it only guarantee members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?

Right of all Americans Only state militias

All adults 73% 20%

Gun owners 91% 6%

Non-Gun owners 63% 28%


Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults Feb. 8-10. Margin of error for all adults: ±3 percentage points; for gun owners: ±6 points; for non-gun owners: ±4 points; Julie Snider, USA TODAY



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday.

In all, 65 percent said they thought the Constitution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

Men and people living in rural areas were most likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.

Nearly three quarters of men (72 percent) said they believed so, versus 26 percent who did not. More than half (58 percent) of women said they believed so, versus slightly more than a third (35 percent) who did not.

That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 points.

Among rural dwellers, 73 percent said they agreed, versus 64 percent and only half (50 percent) of city dwellers who thought the same.

Don't Miss
Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership rights
That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 7 points.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Some have interpreted those words to mean that everyone has a right to own a gun; others say the amendment protects only the right of citizens to form a militia.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,002 U.S. adults was carried out December 6 - 9



Now as far as Government vs. privitization? There are the pros and cons. I work in a Government job and I'm glad it isn't private. However, to play the devils advocate, our facilities are ok but if something breakes ,for example, the standard answer to get it fixed is "2 weeks". Translation, 2+ years. I worked private EMS that was Government contracted, but when our facilities needed fixing, they got it fixed ASAP. The workers always did a bang up job. I don't know. I've delt with civil service a lot and the folks there don't seem to have the accountability that a private employee has to have. Example. The DMV.

The first thing you have to be careful of is: who is even seeing the polling, especially if it's electronically mediated, and who is bothering to participate. Even so, and even if you're seeing numbers of over 50% (however spottily derived), you shouldn't be talking "most" until you are well up in the 80 to 85% range.

You know why there is less participation, in everything from voting to polling to even the census, among liberals? Because they're liberal -- they don't want to be railroaded into participation in things that don't let them look at all sides and think about it, dissect it, give it a part answer in a shade of grey, which the system often does not allow. So sometimes polling and even voting (unfortunately) don't happen at all in that sector. The conservative position has always been a lot more like: "we really don't give a damn for your finessy opinion, just get on the wagon." Much more suceptible to demagogues, too . . . So there's more opinion gathering, because the opinions are more simply framed, consensus is more easily achieved, and that's all the polling system is designed to pick up. It's not that there are fewer liberals, with their typical opinions about gun control and many other things -- but there are many who have no truck with simple-minded information gathering. You can presume too much from polls -- anyone can.

Your opinion and I respect it. However, unfortunately for you, the Supreme court doesn't agree nor do most of the US population.

I think this has been answered.

PS I do own guns and I am within the law, so I am not sure which Supreme Court ruling you are referring to.

Is the fact that it is Government a cause for a failure to function?
Is the failure of function and the solution of privatization in itself a lack of accountability to the governments responsibility in the first place? Hope this makes sense.
Do Government workers function differently for a reason? What is the cause? Cultural?
Does a bureaucracy cause a lack of accountability?
Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.

Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures.

Many corporate bureaucracies function just fine.

In reality , in my experience the State of Connecticuts' DMV is remarkable efficient.

Eschew obfuscation