Too Many Guns

In Chicago, the fourth annual gun buy-back program is scheduled for this Saturday. Here‘s what one critic has to say about it in the Chicago Tribune. I personally think anything that gets guns off the streets is good. If even one of the collected guns would have otherwise resulted in a killing, isn’t it worth it?

Here’s another article in which Mayor Daley and some commenters explain why they support the program.

The Huffington Post published a great article by Lloyd Garver about the guns in Minnesota. The author’s opinion can be summed up by this:

Has the world gone completely insane? There’s a governor who thinks it’s okay for people to carry guns at the airport, but we’re not allowed to carry a bottle of shampoo onto the plane.

Here‘s what I had to say about guns before.

I’d love to hear your opinion. Please feel free to leave a comment.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: american culture, American politics

Tags: , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

10 Comments on “Too Many Guns”

  1. B.E. Earl Says:

    The sitiuation in the United States is ridiculous. The statistics overwhelmingly show the enormously high number of handgun-related crimes in the US vs. the number of handgun-related crimes in countries with strict gun-control policies. The corollary is pretty simple. Make it harder or impossible for citizens to purchase guns and the number of people who are shot will go down…dramatically.

    Unfortunately there are way too many guns out there already. The buyback program is nice, but it will only be a drop in the bucket of guns in a city like Chicago much less the country as a whole. And the gun lobby is so powerful that amending any gun control laws is next to impossible. It almost seems hopeless.

  2. mikeb302000 Says:

    Earl, Why doesn’t everyone see that? To me it seems indisputable.


  3. […] written about guns before, basically talking about handguns, but perhaps shotguns should be included. What’re they for […]

  4. Weer'd Beard Says:

    “If even one of the collected guns would have otherwise resulted in a killing, isn’t it worth it?”

    But if one of the guns could save a life wouldn’t it be worth allowing Illinois the right to Conceal Carry, and lifting Chicago’s Handgun ban (Which doesn’t do jack anyway because, as you’ll note the murder rate in the city)?

    Most of the time the buybacks are for deceased or elderly family member’s sporting guns (Gran’Pa is too old to hunt ducks and deer, and I don’t like the sport, so lets pawn off the guns! *BTW usally those people get soaked by the city a few hundred bucks for thousands of dollars worth of guns that will be melted down*) Other instances are scenarios like this
    http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/07/robin-hood.html

    Happens on all the gun boars when the local town has a buy back. We scour the shops for the cheapest peice of shit that meet the critiera….or unload broken guns that would be hard or impossible to ever fix (Why spend $200 for a firing pin on a $75 gun when you can get a $200 gift card)

    Gang members keep their guns, as they are means of their trade, or they use the Police “No Questions” policy to essentially fence off stolen guns, or have murder weapons destroyed.

  5. John Bates Thayer Says:

    To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?

    Emotion in Reading:

    The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional “gun” issue. Let’s re-state the 2nd in another context:

    A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

    If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.

    There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

  6. mikeb302000 Says:

    Dear John Bates Thayer, Thanks so much for your comment. The Second Amendment argument is certainly not new to me, not that I’m any kind of an expert in these things. On the contrary, I’m not even all that passionate about them. I am interested though and I hope you don’t mind my questioning your ideas. What occurs to me is that the appropriateness of the second amendment argument is questionable. When it was written, the country was small, there were few states and compared to now few citizens. In those days the country allowed, even encouraged slavery, and women couldn’t vote. We’re talking about a different world, the laws of which are not necessarily relevant today.

    The question I have is, is “the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.” applicable to our society today. I think not.

  7. Weer'd Beard Says:

    “hat occurs to me is that the appropriateness of the second amendment argument is questionable. When it was written, the country was small, there were few states and compared to now few citizens. In those days the country allowed, even encouraged slavery, and women couldn’t vote. We’re talking about a different world, the laws of which are not necessarily relevant today.

    The question I have is, is “the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.” applicable to our society today.”

    I would turn this around and point to the line above the 2A….the 1st Amendment. Back at the ratification of the Bill of Rights there was NO mass communication. You wanted to talk to somebody, you had to go see them. Population was MUCH less dense, and no cars so you had to walk, sometimes hours or even days just to talk to somebody. You could write a letter, and it would need to be carried to the recipient. This also would take days….and might not be very clear if you handwriting was sloppy or your Currier got into a spell of rain….and this was useless if one side of the conversation was illiterate…and most of the common people were those days.

    God forbid you wanted to talk to another country. You’d have to SAIL, or have your Currier sail to the other nation, often taking weeks, and storms, pirates, and disease like Scurvy could kill you in the process…and that was only for nations easily accessed. You lived in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania and wanted to see what was happening in Japan or China, that communication was just out, or too damn impossible to bother. There was mass-printing technology, but it was expensive, and time consuming to lay out the printing plates, and then again the work needed to be distributed, and if you wanted a wide “readership” it needed to be mostly pictures because of literacy.

    Now fast forward to today. Mr. Thayer found your blog from somewhere, read through your archived posts, and wrote a very thoughtful post, which you linked in my blog, that I received an email about and followed here.

    I’m living just north of Boston, and I have no idea where you guys live, or even if the names you have given are your real names.

    We read blogs on the internet, we get newspapers delivered to our door for pennies an issue, and watch events unfold on TV, we drive in cars, and fly in planes. If I wanted to discuss this information with either of you real-time we could find a chat room, or pick up a telephone. Even if you lived on the opposite side of the nation….or in another nation, I could fly or drive to you inside of a day, and for a cost not prohibitive to an average sallery.

    It isn’t important how you feel about the political aspect of the issue, but “Rathergate”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

    is a GREAT example of power granted by the 1st amendment that I would think was UNTHINKABLE for our founding fathers. A fake document presented to defame a seated president on an election year….that was later debunked by a collaboration of bloggers on the internet.

    Rather was terminated for his ethics violation…but no criminal charges were filed.

    On the other side, Do you think Richard Nixon would have resigned under threat of impeachment if we only had 1st Amendment rights on par with the technology of the 18th Century?

    With great power comes great responsibility….and not everybody will take that responsibility, or use that power wisely. They didn’t have any Nigerian email scams back then, no telemarketers, no computer viruses, no Jerry Springer, no internet trolls, ect.

    But Imagine how horrible our lives would be if the government had the right to restrict these things!

    The 2nd Amendment really hasn’t been that much of a hot-bed issue until the last 40 some years, and look at the restrictions we have compared to the 1st, and the threats that are still being spoken about.

    A well regulated Militia’s true purpose is to defend the nation from foreign invasion (something that really hasn’t happened on a military scale), or to overthrow a tyrannical government (I’m not a huge fan of how lots of things are going right now, but the votes are still being counted, and true tyranny doesn’t seem apparent) But does that mean this is how things will always be?

    Your answer should be a very resolute “NO!”

    Obviously right now I keep guns for my hobby, my recreation, and to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones in the event that the police are not readily available to save my life. But if votes aren’t being counted….or groups of people are being rounded up on box cars, or buried in mass graves, or the 1st Amendment becomes null-and-void, or any other common example of government tyranny shows its ugly head, the people will still have the power to rise up.

    Once this is taken away, it is VERY hard to get it back.

  8. mikeb302000 Says:

    Thanks Weer’d for the comment. Not to argue your side of it, but one thing I read that stuck with me was that a government acting in a tyrannical manner has happened in our own lifetime,and more than once.

    Still, I find that talk of an armed militia totally archaic.

    I hope we hear back from the other commenter.

  9. Weer'd Beard Says:

    “Still, I find that talk of an armed militia totally archaic.”

    Much like farming your own food, or bartering with goods rather than currency, or having no police force for public safety.

    Yet all these things can become the norm if certain bad events happen. Some are more common (LA riots, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Andrew, Chicago Riots, The Great Blackout, 9-11, all resulted in loss of law, order, power, and basic services)

    There is always a possibility of a foreign invasion on US Soil, and not all of us will have US Soldiers to hide behind. And the great tyrants of the world all came to the people they murdered as a bringer of a golden age.

    it IS an Archaic idea, and it is TOTALLY useless in these current situations….as are my home defense guns, as I’m not currently under attack, but I see it as VERY foolish to think it isn’t a possibility.


  10. […] about Guns I’ve written about guns before, here and here. Plus, in the comments of this post, which wasn’t specifically about guns, there […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: