Time to Compromise on Gun Control
|
|
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/04/28/time_to_compromise_on_gun_control
Type of Content: Article Read the entire article. Don't judge an article by its title. There is little doubt that this will be the most controversial column I've written to date. But sometimes when working in a university environment one is exposed to ideas that one simply cannot repudiate. And this requires a modification of views -- even if those views are deeply held -- or very fun, or both. Such an occasion happened last week on "Empty Holster Day" -- an event sponsored by the College Republicans at UNC-Wilmington. It began as an event designed to convince campus leftists that our laws should be modified to allow those above 21 years of age (with valid concealed carry permits) to carry on campus. But the event actually backfired, so to speak. First (and Second) Amendment hero Tyler Millage -- a junior at UNCW -- organized the event. Beforehand, he invited Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo to attend. After the always accessible Chancellor ignored both of his emails he posted an open letter to DePaolo on Face Book -- and even brought a hard copy to her office. That got her attention and she responded 90 minutes later saying it would be inappropriate for her to attend and thus interject herself into the debate. Then, after the local news showed up, UNCW released a written statement opposing our position on the gun issue. The statement was released by UNCW Marketing and Communications. That's the office in charge of disseminating DePaolo's political views to the tax-paying public at taxpayer expense. They always keep her name out so she won't have to actually defend her views. DePaolo is also an English professor -- a position perfect for people who have strong feelings but lack the courage to defend them. This was reminiscent of the time two female students were murdered at UNCW -- both by male students with prior criminal records. I argued for background checks to protect the students. The university (DePaolo) disagreed. ABC's 20/20 invited both me and DePaolo to express our views on national television. I accepted. She declined. This was after DePaolo publicly expressed the need for open communication on the issue -- thus revealing her lack of courage and integrity. But the same thing cannot be said of the UNCW political science professor who ultimately changed my views on gun control. He had really strong feelings and a willingness to face people who disagreed with his views. That's why he came to visit our "Empty Holster Day" table last Tuesday. But, unfortunately, the political science professor let his feelings get the better of him, which led directly to my change of heart on gun control. He began hurling epithets like "stupid, ignorant, and crazy" to the 19-year-old Millage. He so badly disrupted the event that the College Republican president called me in my office asking that I come over to try and calm him down. I gladly complied with her request -- largely because I know that these events generate intelligent debate until the first professor shows up. When I got to the table, I was told that the political science professor said I am "unqualified" to discuss the issue because I am a "right-wing nut job." I ask if it was true that he said that about me. The professor admitted the quote was accurate. Next, I calmly let him know that 60 percent of the refereed studies indicate that CCW (concealed carry weapon) laws reduce homicide rates while 40 percent show they have no effect. And none provide evidence that they actually increase homicide rates. I owe the professor an apology because I actually misquoted the number of studies indicating CCW laws reduce homicide rates. The number is actually 15, not nine as I had claimed. Thus, he was right to predict I would present a biased argument. But it was biased in his favor. After he admitted he had read none of the literature on the topic, I made two requests: First, I asked that he familiarize himself with the literature so he can offer "qualified" commentary. Second, I asked that he stop yelling and hurling epithets at the students. Surprisingly, the professor responded well to the rebuke. He apologized to me and then he apologized to the students. Then, with the professor under control, the students were able to resume with an informed debate on an important topic. I went back to my office and read the Book of Joshua. As I was reading the Bible in my office, I reflected on all the childish name-calling by the professor. It was then I realized that a partial gun ban is necessary. Specifically, I concluded that liberals cannot be allowed to own guns, much less carry them on our college campuses. If they cannot control their emotions enough to engage in rational debate, they cannot be expected to handle a firearm responsibly. Handguns were not made for people with shaking hands and raised voices. They were made for those with self-control. Maybe some will object to the notion that a constitutional right can only belong to one segment of the population. Or maybe their objections will be drowned out by campus feminists shouting "my body, my choice." by Mike S. Adams Read »
Created 22 weeks 1 day ago
Made popular 22 weeks 1 day ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 204 reads
Mostly a reply to the powers that be on the subject of the 2nd Amendment.)
The 4th amendment is almost gone. Now we are hearing a call for the 2nd to go. They want the first as well. Not to mention the entire Bill of Rights.
When wearing a 6 shooter on you hip was the norm years ago, there was less crime and violence. We have been taught to believe that the days of the old west where anarchy, and everyone was getting shot left and right. It actually did not happen all that much. BECAUSE OF THE 2nd on the hip
Just some 70 years ago here in Texas if someone messed with your family, or stole your property, it was common for that person to be killed. That discouraged many people from messing with other people.
But the real reason for the 2nd is to defend ourselves from an oppressive government make not mistake about it. Yes there weapons are astronomiclay more powerful that ours, but as Iraq, and Vietnam have proven, that superior fire power does not necessarily mean a victory. So, as long as we have something to defend ourselves here in the US with, we have a fighting chance when they decide to attack us, and they will, it is just a matter of time until they turn on the people.
No law from an unlawful government is going to tell me what to do. I dont recognize the US Government any longer, I am a Sovereign Citizen, these petty things dont have any place with Freedom and Liberty. I throw off their Un Constitutional Laws, and will never follow their High Treason, and nor should you.
I thought this was funny, not meant to be taken too seriously. Anyway, here are a couple of interesting quotes: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Jefferson Papers, Proposed Virginia Constitution) and:
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them." (Thomas Payne, Thoughts on Defensive War) These supplemental sentiments of the times ought to be used to argue this "unclear meaning" of the 2nd Amendment. Tell your friends!
Gun control legislation only serves to further relinquish the rights and security of the average law-abiding citizen. In Canada, 1 billion taxpayer dollars -- more than 500 times the amount originally estimated, has been squandered in legislation that's proven a dismal failure. In the first 3 months of this year, Vancouver alone had 8 reported murders. The Canadian government has even admitted in the past that it couldn't identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. It makes you wonder whose pockets the money ended up in.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" Patrick Henry
Did you even read the article?
Just making a comment in general on gun control. Do you have a problem with that?
Nope I was just checking.
No offense intended.
Much respect.
Freedom,
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period."
Actually, the amendment reads:
"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."
There are no historical documents to indicate that the text of the amendment is to be interpreted as the anti-gun folks attempt to do. Someone has pointed out that it would be ridiculous to have an amendment that would guarantee that the military could have arms. I think the author of the amendment wanted to set a context for the right. The militia is drawn from the general population, and most likely its members supplied their own arms as a general rule. It doesn't seem the founding father were being slopping in their thinking and failed to make it clear that "the people" had to join the militia before they could possess a fire arm. The amendment is clear for anyone who lacks an agenda to contend otherwise.
If you have watched the YouTube video of Naomi Wolf discussing her book "The End of America," you got to hear a "liberal" tell a "liberal" audience the real purpose behind the Second Amendment. (I don't like to see the word liberal used in conjunction with these folks. In most case, their intolerance and closed mindedness disqualifies them from being liberal, even by their own definition. But, it can be difficult to come up with a suitable, concise label for them, and most people understand the implication of the modern usage of the word. Robert Ringer recommended using the word "theftist" for "liberals" and "leftists." That was over 25 years ago, so I don't think it is catching on.)
The gun controllers follow a consist mode of thinking: a person is not responsible for his/her own actions; the state knows best and can be trusted; the state will provide all things, including physical security; etc.
++++++++
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
Great article
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. When you open the door to banning one specific group of people from owning guns based on their beliefs, even if you are trying to ban liberals, the day will surely come when you are included in a group to be banned as well. You can bet they would ban anyone who owns a Bible from owning a gun before they would ban someone simply for being a liberal. To our government (current elite oligarchy) Christians, pro-lifers, and Constitutionalists are already considered dangerous people who are likely to be homegrown extremists or terrorists. Department of Homeland Security workers are trained to believe that our Founding Fathers were terrorists (there is a Youtube video of it out there). Take a look at this training manual and see how you would be considered a homegrown extremist/terrorist for reading that Bible:
http://devvy.net/pdf/oct07/Homegrown_Extremists.pdf
Yes, I agree with you completely. I think the author of this article was trying to be humorous in making fun of liberals though more so than advocating an exclusion of liberals from the 2nd amendment...