You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

[Smackie Chan]

I didn?t wanna do this. I?ve made a conscious effort of late to refrain from engaging in political discussions on the board in an effort to project a lighter, more playful persona. However, Pogue decided to bring a conversation that took place during the Fresno TrollStop onto the board, where it was never intended to be. By doing so, he has forced my hand and compelled me to respond in gory detail. Blame him, not me, for what follows.

If ever a constitutional amendment needed to be repealed since the 21st did away with the 18th, it?s the Second. It?s obvious that the framers included it in the Bill of Rights for only one reason: to support a militia that would be expected to fight for ?the security of a free State.? Seeing as how that militia is no longer necessary and hasn?t been for over 100 years, the Second Amendment outlived its usefulness long ago, and can be held at least in part to be directly responsible for the premature deaths of countless innocent Americans. It?s not rocket science to conclude that the Founding Fathers did not include this among their intentions.

Notice that nowhere in the Second Amendment is it stated that self-defense, hunting, or target practice is sufficient reason for firearm ownership. It is all but explicit in stating that the right of the people to own and bear arms was due to the necessity of maintaining a ?well regulated Militia.? Yet supporters of the Amendment conveniently ignore this first portion of it, focusing entirely on the phrase ?the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.? It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that without the first part of the amendment, the second part would never have been written, and without the requirement of a militia, the last part of the Amendment becomes moot.

The lyrics to Lynyrd Skynyrd?s Mr. Saturday Night Special include, ?A handgun is made for killin?/It ain?t no good for nothin? else.? Truer words have seldom been spoken. Of what other product legally manufactured or sold in this country can this claim be made? As dangerous as cigarettes, alcohol, knives, and cars can be, they are all good for something other than killing another human being. Consider handgun owners who simply enjoy taking target practice; what is the target usually in the shape of? Generally, it?s a human silhouette.

The facts and evidence surrounding gun ownership and violent crime should have made it apparent long ago that whatever good comes from the right to own and bear arms is greatly outweighed by its negative impacts. The chances of a homicide or other violent crime being committed increases dramatically when emotions run high or alcohol is involved if a gun is handy. Simple probability dictates that the more guns there are and the more individuals there are who have access to them lead to increases in accidental or unintentional shootings, not to mention those of the intentional variety. Self-defense represents a very small number of shootings in this country, and it has been shown in studies by John Henry Sloan and others that lax handgun ownership requirements do not deter burglars.

As a taxpayer who helps pay for police protection, I?d like to think that I?m helping to fund a police force that has a decided advantage over those whom they pursue when it comes to firepower. But this is not always the case. Plenty of reports are available from officers who find themselves outgunned both numerically and in terms of lethality. The proliferation of handguns and other firearms, including assault weapons, has made the streets of many of our inner cities battle zones at times, with ordinary citizens possessing greater numbers of deadlier weapons than the police.

Unfortunately, I?m not speaking merely from academic knowledge or basing my arguments on the opinions of supposed pundits. I am among the far too many parents who have received a call from a police officer saying something like, ?Mr. Chan, your son has been shot.? We?re not talkin? about Compton or the South Bronx here. This happened in downtown Ventura, a sleepy little beach community. My son was 14 at the time, standing next to a friend who was making a call from a pay phone on the corner of Oak and Santa Clara Streets. From around the corner came running a group of youths, followed by others, at least one of whom was firing. As much as I love my son and would never call him a derogatory name, in this instance, he was simply an innocent bystander. The slug entered the bend on the inside of his left arm and exited through the tip of his elbow. Couple inches to the right and he takes it in the chest. Left bone chips and nerve damage that required surgery, and he still can?t fully extend the arm. He?s 22 now. He could never get the shirt he was wearing back from the police, as they considered it evidence, even though they never pursued the perp. My son said he knew who did it, but that ratting him out would likely result in him being on the receiving end of another bullet, and the dude was already locked up for something else.

When we were discussing gun control over breakfast, Pogue employed the popular rebuttal to my viewpoint that goes something like, ?But Smackie, why should we law-abiding gun owners have to suffer for the stupid acts of the relatively few who abuse our constitutional right?? This is one of my favorite arguments, since it can be easily shown by any number of examples how it is flawed, but one will suffice. Using this rationale, there is no need for airport security, since relatively few fliers intend to get on airplanes to hijack them and fly them into buildings. Why should the vast majority of us law-abiding travelers have to suffer through invasions of privacy by having our bags gone through by total strangers without probable cause, and be searched like common criminals by having to empty our pockets before stepping through metal detectors while our carry-on luggage is X-rayed, and endure the needless delays caused by restrictions on conveniences such as curbside check-in and other security measures? The answer is, of course, that the need for public safety is considered to be among the most important concerns of a civilized society, and because of that, seemingly excessive measures impinging on individual rights is necessary to achieve the level of safety demanded by the public because of the actions of a very small minority. This mentality is used in making policy decisions regarding national security and public safety, except when it comes to the issue of the Second Amendment. Somehow, this topic remains immune from consideration using this rationale, for no reasons that I?ve ever found compelling.

Let?s take a hypothetical situation that may not be so hypothetical after all. Suppose, if you can, that the status quo was such that private ownership of guns was STRICTLY prohibited and enforced, and that virtually all handguns in this country were in the possession of either the military or law enforcement agencies. All other aspects of American society remain as they are. Do you think that voters would choose to overturn this and allow private ownership? My guess is that it would never make it to the ballot, and would not even be seriously given any consideration. The reason I say that it?s not so hypothetical is because this is precisely how it is in most if not all other democratic civilized/industrialized nations, and they don?t seem to be flocking to the polls to adopt American-style handgun policies. Are we just smarter than they are? Methinks not.

In Pogue?s thread recounting his experiences at the TrollStop, he gamely, but lamely, attempted to ridicule me for a solution I proposed for stopping an intruder in his tracks and getting him to retreat. All he accomplished was to demonstrate the shallowness and lack of creativity he possesses. It?s obvious Pogue is not a poker player. Anyone who plays the game will tell you that it is far more gratifying to win a big pot by bluffing than by laying down a straight flush. With a good hand, you have no business losing. With slop, you have no business winning. So when you do win with slop, the sense of personal satisfaction is far greater. My solution was based on the bluff mindset, as it takes no creativity to offer up a solution involving firepower. But at no time during our discussion did I suggest that the bluff card was the only line of defense, merely the first. Pogue?s inability to think outside the box, however, prevented him from realizing this. Basically, my argument was based on the fact that the sound of a 12-gauge shotgun being cocked is a universal signal that one should do a 180 and go back in the direction from which he came, or at least in a direction opposite that of the source of the sound. To do otherwise is, to say the least, imprudent. This being the case, I argued that an actual shotgun was not necessary, but merely a means to accurately reproduce the sound next to one?s bed. Of course, since the stakes are somewhat higher when faced with an intruder than when playing a game of poker, one could be excused for failure to consider playing a bluff, or to wholly rely on it. In that case, should the intruder either not be fooled by the sound effects or choose to proceed in spite of it, the real deal can be at the ready, and the perp can be Swiss cheesed.

One reason I contend that such solutions are not more widely considered is that many of us actually want to shoot someone. This is not saying that we are necessarily evil. Some of us want to simply experience the power of taking a human life, but to be justified in doing it. We want to be considered heroic, as being brave enough and manly enough to pull the trigger when necessary. Ask yourself this: if an intruder were to break into your home, would the better solution be to:

a) Somehow encourage the intruder to leave with none of your possessions and no one harmed, or

b) Blow the son of a bitch away.

I?m guessing answer ?b? wins, hands down. It?s an emotional reaction, but is it really the best solution? You?ll likely have to put down new carpeting, since blood is nearly impossible to get out. You?ll have to deal with police investigations and possible judicial proceedings. Life will generally be unpleasant for awhile. While answer ?a? may not provide the sense of heroic satisfaction or swift justice provided by ?b,? no harm comes to anyone and life pretty much goes on as usual. Yeah, I know, by busting a cap in the mofo you guarantee that no one else will ever be victimized by him. But by this reasoning, we should kill all burglars. While burglary is certainly wrong, the punishment does not fit the crime if the punishment is death, whether carried out by an individual or the state.

When all is said and done, opponents of gun control have no other real reason to argue in favor of Second Amendment rights than to state, what boils down to, ?That?s the way we?ve always done it.? They allow a group of men who?ve been dead for two centuries and who weren?t interested in the rights of the common man to establish policies that we have to live with in a world that little resembles the one in which they existed. In general, as a liberal, I?m all for greater individual freedom and fewer government-imposed restrictions. But the right granted in the Second Amendment is one I would gladly surrender in exchange for being able to open any newspaper in any American city on any day and not have to read about some senseless death resulting from our insistence to allow almost anyone to own a gun. Innocent people, including children, being killed by the thousands each year is not worth that right.


------------------
I moderate with hate




[This message has been edited by Smackie Chan (edited November 09, 2001).]

[IBystander]

Innocent children are killed because their parents are stupid. It's like leaving knives or matches or plastic bags out.... some parents do that, too. And their children die.

Anyway, its all about mandatory military service from all citizens, male and female, for a certain period of years. Couldnt that satisfy that amendment, as well?

------------------
"A man is basically as faithful as his options." - Chris Rock, philosopher

[Harsh]

All this was talked about at the Troll Stop?

Damn, all I did was drink beer and smoke dope!!

H

------------------

Finish Line Smack

TSTEC

[Smackie Chan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IBystander:
Innocent children are killed because their parents are stupid. It's like leaving knives or matches or plastic bags out.... some parents do that, too. And their children die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only argument I have aginst this is that knives, matches, and plastic bags are not made or bought to be used to kill humans. Guns are, and I'm not arguing in favor of legislating against stupidity.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Anyway, its all about mandatory military service from all citizens, male and female, for a certain period of years. Couldnt that satisfy that amendment, as well?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the tail wagging the dog. Society's purpose is not to find ways to abide by laws that are no longer relevant. The laws are supposed to serve society, not the other way around.



------------------
I moderate with hate

[The Vainglorious One]

That was a long MoFo and I only got through the first 3 Paragraphs before I had to respond.

A) Props to you for seeing that Gun Control by the Feds MUST be done by Constitutional Amendment.

B) You do realize that the 14th did NOT incorporate the 2nd so the States can still regulate guns all they want?

C) Guns in the hands of the populace is to protect Us from Them, not Us from Us or Animals and shit. If Nolan Ryan, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, and Emmett Smith had been inside the house at Waco, how long do you think it would have taken for a million shotgun totting texas (with a small ?t?) iodiots to surround the place and Run the Feds?

Now back to your War and Peace.


------------------
No sig.

[~The Rock~]

Damn you for that batch of long windedness, Pogue!!!


Was that enough blame??

------------------

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Banning guns is a pleasant thought for gun-control freaks, but whatever you outlaw, that just makes it stronger.

Are you saying just because it's illegal, the production and distribution will stop?

Technology and sick minds are more powerful than any law we can set. Too bad.

And the amount of gun owners who are law abiding citizens are much more significant than gun owners who are convicted criminals.

If someone wants to commit a crime or harm someone, they'll do it. Gun or no gun.

------------------
If you ever drop your keys in a river of molten lava, forget it man, cuz they're gone.

-The Great Jack Handey

[This message has been edited by MgoBlue-LightSpecial (edited November 09, 2001).]

[The Vainglorious One]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IBystander:
Anyway, its all about mandatory military service from all citizens, male and female, for a certain period of years. Couldnt that satisfy that amendment, as well?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you can't even read the Constitution.....
Aw fuck it.

Smackie Says: "The chances of a homicide or
other violent crime being committed increases dramatically when emotions run high or alcohol is involved if a gun is handy."

TVO says: "The chances of a genocide other mass murder or simple oppression being committed increases dramatically if a gun is handy to only one side."




------------------
No sig.

[Buccaneer]

While I respect the philosophy behind your argument Smackie, and am not personally a gun owner...neither is anyone is my immediate family...consider this...

Drugs are illegal.

Drugs are very easy to obtain.

Drugs are very difficult to police.

When you prohibit something...when you make it illegal, you take control away and put the market into the hands of criminals. The people who ride around at night firing their guns off blindly at pedestrians...or gangsters out pulling midnight heists on a Taco Bell, etc, etc...will still be able to get gun easily. All you are doing is restricting those who need it the least.

There are laws in place which if properly enforced I believe prove effective. Prohibition and the "war on drugs" have shown that federally removing something just makes it more of a problem. The police are a guard, but sometimes you just can't make it to a phone to call them. Your shotgun bluff that you mention...if it works...is sucessful because we do have access to firearms.


Cars kill more people than guns Smackie. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, boats, motorcycles, airplanes, high cholesterol foods...these all kill probably close to or more people a year than a gun...where is the talk on banning them? It's not really a ridiculous thought...



------------------
truth is a concept conceived by liars

[Smackie Chan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Vainglorious One:

TVO says: "The chances of a genocide other mass murder or simple oppression being committed increases dramatically if a gun is handy to only one side."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're seriously suggesting that the only thing that keeps our government from turning its guns on its own citizens is the fact that we own guns? C'mon TVO, I'd expect that from 95% of the posters on this board, but I figured you to be smarter than that. My bad.

Are the governments of England, France, Italy, Japan, or other industrialized nations that forbid private handgun ownership struggling with this problem? What makes you think it would be an issue here?



------------------
I moderate with hate