Kansas town passes law requiring homes to own guns and ammunition

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Perhaps one of the most entertaining side-effects of the gun control issue is the cognitive dissonance and inconsistency that it induces in the American left. Apparently, civil liberties enumerated in the Constitution become optional when they conflict with transitory political agendas.

I say it is amusing because gun control is a very authoritarian tactic that has been used by every fascist regime in history to denigrate a populace's ability to revolt. As such, one would naturally expect groups like the ACLU to abhor it. Yet, for whatever reason, they embrace it like any other faddish nostrum purportedly guaranteed to create the utopia of their wet dreams.

It really goes to show how blinded by ideology some people can become, heh.

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
. As such, one would naturally expect groups like the ACLU to abhor it. Yet, for whatever reason, they embrace it like any other faddish nostrum purportedly guaranteed to create the utopia of their wet dreams.

The ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. They don't engage in lobbying either for it or against it, mainly because it is a controversial issue even within the organization.

From their web site:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

 

[spookz]

heh
blinded by ideology indeed

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by Nasor
The ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. They don't engage in lobbying either for it or against it, mainly because it is a controversial issue even within the organization. [/url]

Allow me to clarify a bit.

The ACLU has a vested interest in ensuring that gun rights are repealed, because their membership has a huge portion of leftist constituents. The furthest "right" the membership I know are libertarians like myself. Gun control has long been a pet project of the American left, and as such, for the ACLU to continue to receive a large majority of its support, advocating for less gun laws would be tantamount to fiscal suicide.

This is from the page you linked us to:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

The ACLU, much to my chagrin, has abandoned what is one of the more pervasive debates involving civil rights in the United States. This abandonment, in the presence of recurring attacks on those same rights, is tacit approval of their abolishment. Registration and licensing are fine to an extent, but they go to extremes.

At the very least they should have been staunch opponents of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. Yet they supported it:

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n071696a.html

Rep. McCollum and the co-sponsors of the bill all consistently voted against a 1993 youth jobs program, and (with one exception) against the 1994 assault weapons ban and for the 1995 repeal of the assault weapons ban.

Less jobs, more guns -- is that really the solution to juvenile crime?

The real danger is those who sell or give guns to teenagers. President Clinton's recently revived initiative to track gun sales to juveniles is a step in the right direction. The amendment on prevention proposed today by Reps. Conyers, Scott and Waters is another important step.

They know how duplicitous their position is, and they do their best to keep quiet about it. Every time they ignore a Second Amendment issue I have second thoughts about renewing my membership.

 

[Vortexx]

Nasor made a good point about causality/gun-ownership being more effective in Switzerland than in Brazil.

Must be the distribution of money and education... There is also some racial component, simply because money and education are not equally distributed amongst the races...


That's why in parts of America where there is a very offset distibution of wealth it would be better for the crime statistics if nobody had a gun and in Beverly Hills everybody should carry a gun because they are less likely to use it anyway...

...Or something should be done about the distibution of wealth and education in America, but no, I don't see that euro-socialist crap happening anytime soon, so don't complain about all those shootouts mmkay?

 

[Jerrek]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...=Man,+73,+kills+robber+holding+shears+to+wife's+neck&highlight=2,Lares,Drive

Man, 73, kills robber holding shears to wife's neck

A man in north St. Louis County was home watching "Death Wish," a movie about a vigilante who hunts down criminals, when he saw his wife held hostage by a robber holding shears at her neck.

Allowed to get his wallet, the homeowner retrieved his pistol instead and shot the intruder to death, county police said Wednesday after sorting out details of the previous evening's incident.

It happened about 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 11500 block of Lares Drive, a usually quiet neighborhood just east of New Halls Ferry Road and north of Interstate 270.

The residents asked police not to reveal their names. The man and family members declined interview requests.

Police gave this account:

An intruder, 26, broke into the home through a basement window and tore down a curtain to tie over his face as a mask. The woman encountered him in the basement and he forced her up the stairs to confront her husband.

Police said the husband, 73, was watching the movie on TV when the stranger approached, demanding money and holding 4-inch shears to the throat of the woman, also 73.

The homeowner told the intruder he had to get his wallet from the bedroom, but he got a handgun instead. When he emerged, she pulled away and he opened fire.

The robber grabbed the wife again and pulled her through the front door with him, but then let her go and ran. He collapsed across the street, where he was pronounced dead.

The woman was treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

The dead robber was identified through fingerprints, but his name was withheld pending notification of relatives.

Privately, police officers praised the outcome, saying that burglars should take a lesson from it.

County detectives said they believed the dead burglar might be responsible for other home invasions and burglaries.

Earl Garvin, a neighbor, said he had known the homeowner for 30 years. "He's such a nice man. He's a very fine guy."

Way to go!

 

[Tiassa]

Nothing thrills Jerrek like a dead body

I have to admit, Jerrek, you seem rather thrilled by the idea of a dead body.

Would you prefer a society in which we are all shooting each other to death or one which strives to reduce the reasons for criminals to be in business? Admittedly, the latter seems expensive and difficult, but you really do seem to prefer a frightened, heavily-armed culture as compared to one which seeks less reasons to steal and fight.

Don't get me wrong, Jerrek, if you're a dumb enough crook to get burned like that, well, you really shouldn't be in the business. I just don't understand your joy at the prospect and result of people dying.

When I read your cheerleading through this topic, it just doesn't make sense.

Consider:

• "KKK-licious"
• "And don't even think about ...."

All towns should make gun ownership mandatory? Are you so sure about that?

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by tiassa
Admittedly, the latter seems expensive and difficult, but you really do seem to prefer a frightened, heavily-armed culture as compared to one which seeks less reasons to steal and fight.

False dichotomy. Not to mention that "frightened" is highly subjective description. Just because you live your life in fear does not mean we all do.

Incidentally, I just got back from Arizona, visiting some inlaws. My father in law has a rifle range on his property, as well as a BATF machine gun license. We went through nearly 1000 rounds of 7.62x51 with his M60E3. 'twas fun.

 

[Tiassa]

Don't know what you'd call it, Stokes

Not to mention that "frightened" is highly subjective description.

When civility is viewed looking down the barrel of a gun, I would say civilization results from fear.

There are better reasons to get along with one another than being afraid of each other. They're just tougher to understand, although easier and less expensive to implement once people understand them.

 

[coolsoldier]

While I certainly don't dispute the right of a citizen to keep a gun if they want, I don't think it should be mandatory.
I don't own and don't want a gun, because I worry that if I had one I would use it.
Also, the original purpose of the second amendment, contrary to popular belief, was not for protection against criminals -- it was for protection against the government, which, while a great principle, is kind of outdated. Would you want to take up sides against the national guard with your revolver?

 

[Cowboy]

I am against this policy.

I am 100 percent in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but I also support the right to choose not to bear arms.

This policy is almost as bad as gun control.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Also, the original purpose of the second amendment, contrary to popular belief, was not for protection against criminals -- it was for protection against the government, which, while a great principle, is kind of outdated.

So it is no longer fashionable to defend yourself against tyranny?

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Would you want to take up sides against the national guard with your revolver?

The right to keep and bear arms applies to more than just revolvers.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

stokes

it seems like you only like to have guns because you get orgasmic pleasure from destroying things. at least galt's safeguard against tyranny argument can hold some water.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by shrubby pegasus
stokes

it seems like you only like to have guns because you get orgasmic pleasure from destroying things. at least galt's safeguard against tyranny argument can hold some water.

I like machinery, and I like explosions. Guns are both at the same time. I enjoy the discipline of marksmanship, and the therapeutic process of spending several hours of a Saturday afternoon working on a rifle or handloading some custom ammunition. Instead of immediately assuming that I have a lust for wanton destruction, how about admitting that everyone's tastes differ. As long as what I do doesn't hurt you, there should be no problem. Likewise, you're free to do what you want and I won't come piss on your campfire. I should move to New Hampshire, heh.

Also, I agree with Galt WRT this law. Encumbrance of any sort handed down by a government at any hierarchical level in the absence of a pressing necessity is something to be abhorred.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

liking machinery and liking explosions seems like an oxymoron. machinery is constructing, exploding is destroying. if you are making explosions you are obviously blowing something up. it doesnt seem to be a very good hobby to me. i think building things is much better.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Vortexx
...Or something should be done about the distibution of wealth and education in America, but no, I don't see that euro-socialist crap happening anytime soon, so don't complain about all those shootouts mmkay?

What a load of crap. Not being allowed to loot the wealth of your neighbors does not justify shooting sprees.

Quit making excuses for criminals.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

there is a correlation between pverty and crime. that is undeniable

 

[Cowboy]

I never denied the correlation. I just said poverty is no excuse for crime.

All that crap about redistributing wealth - taking property from one person and giving it to another to keep him or her from committing crimes - sounds like nothing more than some leftist mob protection racket.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

well there is never any adequate excuse for crime, that is why we punish it. we will always have much higher crime levels as long as there is a large gap between the rich and the poor. i dont know what can be done about thtat though. the entire functioning, culture, economic system, etc of the world is based upon an uneven distribution wealth. tehre will always be poor until somone starts making us robots to take care of all the jobs most of us dont want to do

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Maybe it is not so much the gap between rich and poor, but the american culture of worship of success, fame and being rich. You are nothing if you have no money.