Sir, I hope you will not take my post as disrespectful.
No disrespect intended here, but "opinions" about the right to own firearms concern me about as much as someone else's opinion about who I ought to be allowed to marry or let eat in a resturant I might own or let sleep in my house. It is my right and not subject to the opinion of others. As in "shall not be infringed". But even without the Constitution, I would still have the natural right to self-protection and arming myself however I see fit. The founders simply wanted to recognize the natural right by mentioning it. Thank you, founders.
I don't have a problem with that, in fact, I think it should be even easier.
I would recommend training just so you can use them safely for your own protection and that of others, but I would reject the idea that this should be a "law". If someone uses a firearm (or their fist or a rock) to hurt someone or does so with negligance, than they should face liability.
What right does the government have to stop the private transfer of goods? None. The attempt to do so is under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution. My own state rep introduced the "Alaska Firearms Freedom Act". Basically pointing out that firearms manufactured and sold within our own border are no business of the federal government. Only when the firearm travels across state lines does the federal gov even have slim grounds for oversight, but I would take exception to that. Not only is private transfer "right" it is a right, as in "shall not be infringed".
What about SUVs, chainsaws, motorcycles over 850ccs, ribbed condoms, malt liqour, or salt without iodine in it? I love all those things but some people don't. I hate those spinner rims, rap music, tootsie rolls, and those ugly bald cats, but I don't want them banned or not for sale if someone wants to buy them and someone else wants to sell them.
Sir, I think your statements here make some broad assumptions about those of us who stand for the natural right of self-protection. I myself have been the personal victim of gun violence and also used a firearm to protect my own life. I have been a resident of one of those cities you mention. People like Roy Innis, NRA Board Member, have lost family to gun violence (2 sons in his case) and still fight daily for civil and natural rights. We know that when only police and violent criminals have firearms, the rest of us will suffer. When I went to Oakland last year, my first stop after the airport was the Home Depot for a carpet knife and a framing hammer. Cause I knew that I, a peaceful free citizen, would not be allowed to protect myself by the police while the police would be unable to protect me as they were too busy protecting San Fran-rich-co and not poor white trash who visit Oakland 
. Protection is my right, and my responsibility.
. Protection is my right, and my responsibility.
I think that the violence in the street has a lot to do with drug prohibition. Ending the Drug War will end much of the violence the same way ending alcohol ended the violence surrounding Prohibition. The flow of illegal drugs and the flow of illegitimate violence are connected at the hip in the same way as during the years in which America was denied booze by a voting majority. The violence involved between turfwars between gangs, the theft of property, and retaliation for both are all failures of the Drug War.
You seem like a good person and a honest man. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. I just wanted to respond to some of these opinions and I hope I have done so in civil manner.
I appreciate the mature discussion.
.
Comment