So, here's some background: I was over at a blog, commenting on another "ban assault weapons" post. There was some good back and forth, the pro-ban crowd was represented by the blog's writer, Catherine, and to some extent Skyewriter.
The anti banners were myself, Dimensio, Grond, RuffRidr, conservativelesbian and others. In the final comment, lauraclark pens a masterpiece (some editing on the format, nothing is omitted)
It is as evident as the sun shedding light on the earth that the framers of the Constitution intended that the citizens of this nation have right to bear arms. In order to accurately exegete what the framers’ words mean, it is necessary to understand what the point of their message was at the time it was written.
Anybody, liberal or conservative, who is honest and impartial, and who has a desire to deal with the true problem at hand, cannot deny that the men who wrote and approved the second amendment intended that in order for a free nation to remain free from an oppressive government the people of that nation must have access to form a militia in the event it becomes necessary for the people to overtake an oppressive government.
Would a ban on firearms, of any sort, be in direct contradiction of this? Absolutely. I am sickened by the way guns have wreaked havoc on our society and caused countless, senseless deaths. But the answer is not banning or regulating the guns.
How many people in our society own guns and have never even considered using their weapon to commit a crime? Those who commit crimes using a firearm are the minority of the gun owners in the U.S., not the majority. Therefore, it is only logical to believe that the problem is with who has the guns, not the fact that they have them. And that population of people who commit crimes with guns are not deterred by regulations, bans, etc.
The answer is not to take away constitutionally sound right to bear arms, but to deal with that group of people who are using guns during the commission of a crime. This would end the bickering back and forth over banning certain firearms and that energy could be directed at addressing the real problem, which is what will give us all the end result that is the common goal of both sides of this argument. It does not make sense to blame an inanimate object for what somebody does with it.
Comments are closed at that post now, but I'm glad Ms. Clark managed to get this in.
.
8 comments:
wow that woman was delusional (the author of the original blog post.)
I can't help but feel sorry for folks like that.
Yeah, she was one step away from fingers in ears, lalalala
Ya know what I mean. =)
That was very well written, but I would submit that there is not really a common goal at the end of the gun-control debate. At issue, rather, is control, not crime or gun violence. Gun-banners want power to rest solely with the state, and gun control is a means to strip power from individuals. The crime/violence argument is a smokescreen for the idea that each person should be dependent upon the state for personal safety.
Brandon - I agree. At the heart of things there can't be a common goal (or "compromise")
The anti's want to ban guns. Not outright, but through a slow erosion. (see Massachusetts and the declining gun ownership rates they've seen in recent years)
Just to let you know, it's sometimes all in the approach. If you explain rather than assume that those who don't like the violence are simply against all guns, your points might be better received.
The "lalala" was not appreciated, but you are entitled to your opinion and it is your blog, but that kind of statement just makes some people less likely to state their opinion, but it really won't change their mind. If it is to change someone's mind, you need to persuade, not ridicule.
From reading your post and responses below it, I came to the conclusion that your mind was made up on the issue. I, and the other commenters, attempted to point out flaws in your logic, but had no success.
As far as "lalala" goes, constantly repeating "just one death" is, in my opinion, the equivalent of "lalala".
There are many gun owners who share your opinion of so called "assault weapons". They too, are mistaken.
Lady, you had better consider yourself lucky that firefox crashed on me. Had it not you would be curling into the fetal position by this far into my comment with about 4 times as much left to read. Frankly my comment has little to do with the issue of guns. It is directed solely at you because I am fed up with the attitude you project.
To sum it up:
You want to discuss something then STFU and leave comments open on your blog. Don't shut it down, then have the gall to go to one who criticized you and start telling them how to run their life. Your self-righteous attitude is despised by the vast majority of Americans, as is the action of sticking your nose into other peoples business. The exact thing you did in your comment here. The "you catch more flies with honey" lecture.
Your education proves the flaws in the education system.
If idiots like you would shut up and keep your worthless opinions to yourself when confronted or criticized I would make it my life's work to ridicule, heckle, and shout down 99.999% of the government, media, union workers, and bleeding hearts like you that are devoid of an iota of thought or a second of thinking before they open their mouth to spew their emotionally charged drivel. In an effort to hold you to your word I give you the following.
You are a dangerous ignorant simpleton, the type to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it sounds "green." http://www.junkscience.com/news/glassman.html
Based on what I've read from you I have formed an opinion. You are, strictly speaking for myself and stating my opinion, a self-righteous, controlling, ignorant, racist, sexist, bigoted, devoid of critical thinking skills, lacking in common sense, submissive, insecure, self-important, bullying, irresponsible, know-it-all with no pronounced social value whatsoever who spends her time in an echo chamber maintaining her appearance amongst equally vapid hags who no doubt share your co-dependency.
There are approximately 6 billion people on this earth I would help out of a burning building at my own peril before I would give you the slightest acknowledgment, let alone assistance.
If you wish to further a real discussion on an issue, rather then simply "LALALALA" yourself into a false sense of moral superiority based on absolute ignorance on the issues and emotional hysteria create a post on your own blog and invite folks knowledgeable to comment without deleting them and shutting down comments to prevent those you disagree with from educating you. It's called "deferring to the experts" and something those of your political persuasion demand we do all the time in areas such as gorebal warming, education plans, diplomacy, law, public policy, etc. Before you do that however, please educate yourself and attempt to determine facts rather than use your manipulative emotionally driven liberal claptrap. Remember CHANGE is in this year. Gaining the most basic understanding of what you wish to discuss like a big girl would certainly fall into that category.
In case you haven't managed to figure it out I despise you. I cannot stand those too stupid to realize they are an easily manipulated fool who will eagerly enable and endorse totalitarianism if it comes with a wonderful orator with a smug smile and empty promises. You personify the phrase the phrase "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I don't like you because you're gonna get me killed!
Gee, Tom, tell us how you really feel. =)
Post a Comment