Everyone is probably familiar with all the rhetoric and arguements pro- and anti- private ownership of firearms. I admit right now, up front, that I am biased: I am a staunch believer in and supporter of the 2nd Ammendment. However, this is not about my stand on gun rights but my observations of the people that get involved in debating the issue.
Invariably, the Anti's make the point that if everyone had guns, violence would be uncontrollable - simple arguments might escalate out of control, fender-benders could become shoot-outs, cutting in line at the grocery store check-out would possibly be a fatal mistake, and on and on. They seem to believe that people, our citizens, apparently cannot be trusted to show restraint or judgement if they have the (potentially) lethal power of a firearm available.
How depressing it must be to feel that way about their friends, neighbors, co-workers, family. If they really believe this, perhaps (probably?) they feel that way about themselves, too, deep inside. After all, if they are part of this society it must be part of them, and they can't be so different than what they seem to observe around them. (Maybe they need anger-management counselling for themselves?)
The Pro's generally contend that people don't necessarily choose to be violent if there is any alternative, people can be trusted to manage the responsibility of having (potentially) deadly force available to use, and they should be allowed the right to self-defense if it proves necessary.
No, the Pro's don't deny that there are violent criminals in our midst; they simply choose to believe that they don't dominate our society, and thus society as a whole shouldn't be punished or deprived for the aberrant few.
The Anti's arguments seem to me to be negative, dis-trustful, even paranoid about society in general, whereas the Pro's arguments seem to demonstrate more faith in people, a more positive opinion of their (our) society in general.
Another sticky point: The majority of the Anti's leaders seem to feel - even demand - that since they don't choose to own firearms, no-one should be allowed to. Seems like a societal control issue to me, more than an object control issue. Something to think about when deciding whom to repeat, support, or emulate.
On the other hand, even the most adamant 2nd Amendment proponents don't demand that everyone should own a gun just because they choose to. What they do say is that everyone has the right to decide ownership status for themselves. Quite a different disposition, I'd say.
Interestingly, there is the town of Kennesaw that passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to own and maintain at least one functional firearm in the home, but it is my understanding that there has never been any attempt to enforce it. Personally, I would assume such a law to be more of a statement than a binding rule. (In this case apparently the "statement" made was that the town's inhabitants were not helpless or willing victims, because crime levels dropped dramatically and have remained low since.)
But, what about those "nuts" that want to stockpile weapons and supplies for "The Day?"
So what?
That doesn't diminish society - you, them, us - in any way. What's the danger in that anyway, if they aren't taking from you? The only real danger is to themselves, from the Janet Reno-type Anti's that would "take them down" for - what? Those people are only a threat to you if you attack them, so why not just leave them alone? (Besides, if "The Day" does come, who will you look to for protection? The Police? Guard? Reserves? Ever heard of "Post-Katrina New Orleans?" Maybe those "nuts" are on to something, after all.........)
If I just suddenly fell to earth, having no concept of firearms and no possible means to learn anything about them other than to hear the two different sides debate the issue, I believe I would choose to side with the Pro's because of the less negative attitude.
It also seems just a little bit amusing to me that, if you try to approach NYC's fanatical Mayor Bloomberg, or Rabid Rosie O'Donnell, or pretty much any of the top Anti's, you will be swarmed by their personal armed bodyguards.
I can afford to buy a reasonable quality firearm and ammunition and training to protect myself, my wife, and our four children, but I cannot afford to hire bodyguards for all of us. Does that mean my family and I have less right to live in safety than they do?
Would they change their minds about me (personally) if I carried a gun to protect them? Would they change their minds back if I left their employ and decided to just protect my own family?
Apparently so.
How can anyone be so hypocritical, self-important, self-righteous? (After all, they are paying the guards to carry privately-owned firearms! In public!) They have money, I don't, so I guess their safety matters but mine doesn't.
Money is just money; it buys things like education, cars, radio/TV time, fame, even politicians.
It can't buy intelligence, or class, or morality, or a sense of principles.
