Skip to main content

View Diary: What you may not know about gun violence in Chicago (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You misstate my position (0+ / 0-)

    I will refrain from speculating on whether this is by intent or through careless reading - then again, perhaps I am not making myself clear.

    No, I dont believe people should (or will) just start shooting whenever they please. Some will, to be sure, but the majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners will not support this. McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising. Instead, it precipitated revulsion, as was proper.

    The oppressive actions of Waco and Ruby Ridge which led McVeigh to attempt to initiate his uprising precipitated revulsion and an awakening as well. The "Patriot Movement" went underground at that point, which is dangerous. I am very open about my position.

    I am not against most background checks. I believe it is appropriate that we attempt to keep guns from felons and those who are mentally unstable. My position is that there are so many guns in America that this is an impossibility without draconian controls - i.e., totalitarianism - and this would spur violent revolution.

    So, more effectively we should look at the causes of most gun violence. Among others, the lack of opportunity brought on by the economic fascism of both parties and the "war on drugs" is, I think, the primary cause of gun violence. We would be much more effective to address these, as well as having an effective mental health policy, than we would by enacting more "people control" disguised as "gun control".

    And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.

    •  You're turning it on its head. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Cartoon Peril

      The idea that we have to allow people to arm because they are dangerous is exactly backwards.

      And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.
      Actually, I'll never be proven wrong.  I'll be disagreed with by someone with a gun who thinks that they finally see a tyrannical government appear.  Maybe they will have gotten the idea that an assault weapons ban is that point.  Maybe they already think it with the ban on fully automatics.  The point being, when people like you pretend that the individual has a right to determine when tyranny has begun, and that they can use deadly force to overthrow it, you condone their use of violence.    

      You, in other words, don't have the right to revulsion at  McVeigh's act.  You don't get to dare pretend to.

      McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising.
      So he was wrong about what it would precipitate.  Bad call in strategic terms, but within his second amendment right as you see it.

      Final word: we have guns too, so all the Blackstones and their constitutional theories should think less about what Tench Coxe said and more about what happens to ebels and traitors.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:40:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site