'Can of worms' is freedom

'Can of worms' is freedom

There are 14 comments on the Akron Beacon Journal story from Feb 5, 2008, titled 'Can of worms' is freedom. In it, Akron Beacon Journal reports that:

In her Jan. 16 letter headlined ''Second Amendment opened can of worms,'' Donna L. Russo wrote that weapons kill thousands of people each year in this country.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Akron Beacon Journal.

“Ignorance=a curable condition.”

Since: Jan 08

London, KY

#1 Feb 6, 2008
"As Thomas Jefferson said:''Laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature that they disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.''"

And you'd hope that, oh, 230 years later, we'd have progressed beyond that point.

God bless his insights and all, but he was also a slave owner who concubined the females.

Never see anyone rallying around that bit of "wisdom."

“Get a job and quit whining.”

Since: Feb 08

Ohio

#2 Feb 6, 2008
one_of_u_liberals wrote:
And you'd hope that, oh, 230 years later, we'd have progressed beyond that point.
You would have hoped that there wouldn't be a need for such protection so many years later, but alas, a__holes are still roaming the earth. When there are no more a__holes that wish to cause harm (bodily or otherwise), I will put down my weapon.
Use Common Sense

Kent, OH

#3 Feb 6, 2008
I keep four guns, loaded and located in different parts of my house. They haven't killed anyone yet and I doubt if they will. Now if someone breaks into my home I certainly won't hesitate to use them.

“Ignorance=a curable condition.”

Since: Jan 08

London, KY

#4 Feb 6, 2008
Sense4U wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have hoped that there wouldn't be a need for such protection so many years later, but alas, a__holes are still roaming the earth. When there are no more a__holes that wish to cause harm (bodily or otherwise), I will put down my weapon.
There are plenty of places on this earth that don't do the gun thing and don't have the gun crime issues, either.

And it's a right/responsibility that everyone wants - until the guns get stolen and are used to commit the crimes you need protecting from.

Even better, what about those gun shops that sell guns that obviously are to be sent across state lines? They've been after dozens of them here in Ohio for just that. Many of those guns have been tracked to NYC and felony crimes.

If you serve beer to a friend who later, unbeknown to you, drives home and is in a accident, you have responsibility for those acts - you served the alcohol.

Why not so with guns?

“Get a job and quit whining.”

Since: Feb 08

Ohio

#7 Feb 6, 2008
Yahweh on Rye wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention the biggest reason for the 2nd Amendment: ensuring no government monopoly on force.
That's one that most people don't think about but is absolutely one of the most important reasons behind the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't just for hunters and self-defense. There may come a time once again that the citizens of the U.S. will need to rise up and take OUR country back from those in power.
Local

Lorain, OH

#8 Feb 7, 2008
In every place that tyranny has run rampant the common denominator has been the disarming of the people, bar none. One of the things the Founders feared most was a run away tyrannical government. They lived it and fought and died to break free from it. Do you think the Russian people, the Chinese, Iraqis, Cubans, Sudanese, N. Koreans, Germans, etc, etc, etc., are or would have been subjected to the whims of their dictators had the people been armed? Maybe, but not without one heck of a fight.
Even today, the U.N. is working tirelessly to disarm people throughout the world. This will result in what, peace? No, it will result in the majority of people being victims to the whims of power hungry leaders and thugs. This is what happens in every place the people have been disarmed.
Check the crime stats in the UK and Australia since they have disarmed the populace. Violent crime has risen beyond any and all fears or expectations. Law Enforcement tries, but they cannot be everywhere, all the time. Unless you have a cop in every home and on every street corner, you will be on your own to protect yourself and your family. Just read the headlines across America and you will see the truth of it loud and clear.
Paul

Akron, OH

#9 Feb 7, 2008
Okay, here are the actual crime rates for Australia (and not from The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia):
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national...

See page 7 - there has been no change in the gradual increase of homicides in the UK since gun laws went into affect (excluding the London bombing). There was 50 shooting victims between '05&'06 compared to '03&'04:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0...
Local

Lorain, OH

#10 Feb 7, 2008
Check out the rate of home invasions, robberies and gun related crimes committed against those who voluntarily disarmed at the governments orders....
Use Common Sense

Cleveland, OH

#11 Feb 7, 2008
I lived in Italy for three years, it has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. I was a member of the Army's trap / skeet team and knew first hand about the tough gun laws since I had to follow the rules to go to the matches.
Prior to my arrival in Italy one of the American General's was kidnapped by armed terrorists. Also while I was there, I do know know that there was a group of people who attacked the Rome Airport with macnine guns and grenades. It doesn't sound like gun laws can prevent criminals from performing their crimes even in a country with tough laws.

“Ignorance=a curable condition.”

Since: Jan 08

London, KY

#12 Feb 8, 2008
Sense4U wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one that most people don't think about but is absolutely one of the most important reasons behind the 2nd amendment. Guns aren't just for hunters and self-defense. There may come a time once again that the citizens of the U.S. will need to rise up and take OUR country back from those in power.
Like the guy who just killed the cop at the city council meeting over zoning regulations?

This is the ultimate strawman for gun rights, and seems to come from those who think gunplay is something romantic or quixotic.

In those days of yore, guys were shooting at each other with muskets - and it was many the case that the local's had better weapons, more suited for the terrain and times. The playing field was level and militia could train and function as a public service.

Now, George the Lesser has your "militia" (the National Guard) serving doubles in Iraq, and it has been shown that this has made the Guard unprepared for many of their core tasks.

Nowadays, the field isn't level. True armies employ automatic weapons with advanced sighting systems (think our A-4 with an ACOG) for just the average ground troop. To think that an untrained rabble with hunting guns and pistols could mount an effective defense of anything is naive, at best.

Where I shoot, all the wannabe's with the pretty AR-15's are major posers - they'd crap themselves the first time someone pointed a real gun at them or they watched their Bud-buddies head turn into a pink cloud.

You couldn't organize like back then, either - your neighbor would rat you out in a nanosecond to save his own butt. You've already acquiesced to Dick Chehey listening in on your phone calls and reading your Email, too.

Sounds real nice until you really think it thru.
D OG

Cleveland, OH

#13 Feb 8, 2008
one_of_u_liberals wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the guy who just killed the cop at the city council meeting over zoning regulations?
This is the ultimate strawman for gun rights, and seems to come from those who think gunplay is something romantic or quixotic.
In those days of yore, guys were shooting at each other with muskets - and it was many the case that the local's had better weapons, more suited for the terrain and times. The playing field was level and militia could train and function as a public service.
Now, George the Lesser has your "militia" (the National Guard) serving doubles in Iraq, and it has been shown that this has made the Guard unprepared for many of their core tasks.
Nowadays, the field isn't level. True armies employ automatic weapons with advanced sighting systems (think our A-4 with an ACOG) for just the average ground troop. To think that an untrained rabble with hunting guns and pistols could mount an effective defense of anything is naive, at best.
Where I shoot, all the wannabe's with the pretty AR-15's are major posers - they'd crap themselves the first time someone pointed a real gun at them or they watched their Bud-buddies head turn into a pink cloud.
You couldn't organize like back then, either - your neighbor would rat you out in a nanosecond to save his own butt. You've already acquiesced to Dick Chehey listening in on your phone calls and reading your Email, too.
Sounds real nice until you really think it thru.
You are an expert on this aren't you. I mean how could a bunch of untrained cowards with hunting guns ward off a real army. Gee, I don't know maybe George Washington could help you with your answer.

“Ignorance=a curable condition.”

Since: Jan 08

London, KY

#14 Feb 9, 2008
D OG wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an expert on this aren't you. I mean how could a bunch of untrained cowards with hunting guns ward off a real army. Gee, I don't know maybe George Washington could help you with your answer.
You missed the entire point. 1776 and 2008 are very different places.

It was musket versus musket, and the muskets used by the the militia were, for the most part, personal hunting rifles with superior accuracy and range compared to the British design, which was useful for short ranges and the European method of battle - lines of soldiers advancing across open fields.

The militia were able to assemble and train in relative secure environments - "tapping" communications in those days was near impossible and secrecy was easily achievable.

Neither of those conditions exist today, and you are beyond naive to think you and your hunting buddies could survive an encounter with a Marine platoon. It would be horror movie stuff, and, I'm sorry - almost comical if it was a movie.

And I never said anything about cowards - those are your words - and I don't claim to be an expert at anything, just a student of history and a gun owning veteran.

If the entire gun debate was based on current facts and not swagger and bravado maybe a consensus could be reached. But the argument keeps moving from one strawman to another.

BTW - I'd take George Washington over George Bush any day. At least the cause I'd be looking at dying for would be a righteous and just one.
Local

Cleveland, OH

#15 Feb 9, 2008
oneofusliberals,
You can give in and give up your guns if you want. You claim to be a gun owning vet and if that is the case, you should know better. You must be drinking too much of the kool-aid.
You can claim the debate moves from one strawman to another, but one fact remains.

The best security against tyranny is an armed populace. That is the plain, simple truth of it. Regardless of time and circumstances.

Why do you think the UN and its weenies continue their push to disarm people? They don't care about people, other than to control every aspect of their lives. When they control all the weapons, they control everything.
D OG

Cleveland, OH

#16 Feb 9, 2008
one_of_u_liberals wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the entire point. 1776 and 2008 are very different places.
It was musket versus musket, and the muskets used by the the militia were, for the most part, personal hunting rifles with superior accuracy and range compared to the British design, which was useful for short ranges and the European method of battle - lines of soldiers advancing across open fields.
The militia were able to assemble and train in relative secure environments - "tapping" communications in those days was near impossible and secrecy was easily achievable.

I'd take Washington over Bush also. Actually I'd take just about any former president over the DEcider. But I still disagree that the hunters wouldn't have a chance. Would it be easy, no
Neither of those conditions exist today, and you are beyond naive to think you and your hunting buddies could survive an encounter with a Marine platoon. It would be horror movie stuff, and, I'm sorry - almost comical if it was a movie.
And I never said anything about cowards - those are your words - and I don't claim to be an expert at anything, just a student of history and a gun owning veteran.
If the entire gun debate was based on current facts and not swagger and bravado maybe a consensus could be reached. But the argument keeps moving from one strawman to another.
BTW - I'd take George Washington over George Bush any day. At least the cause I'd be looking at dying for would be a righteous and just one.
I agree on the Washington over Bush comment. I didn't vote for Bush either time. However, the British had cannons and war ships, did you forget? They were the best army in the world at the time and still lost to a rag tag pieced together Militia. Granted that army had well trianed, educated leaders like Washington. But do you really believe that if there was a reveolution no members of the military, or former military members, wouldn't be part of the rebellion? Those members combined with the desire for freedom, and the availability of weapons that we have would make it a formidable fighting force. It is this possiblity that helps preserve our freedoms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man Spits on Police Officers, Claims to Have H.... (Feb '10) Thu Hatedbymany 33
Vacant Fairlawn Mansion Vandalized - Nine Juven... Jul 27 InquiringMindsWan... 1
News Akron moving ahead with plan to demolish Rollin... Jul 26 Walkin Boss 1
Corrupt - Judge Carol Dezso, Summit County DR C... (Jan '16) Jul 25 Denise Dimengo 5
News 100 greatest summer concerts in Cleveland history May '16 Annie 1
Water conservation taxes assessed? (Sep '15) Sep '15 Grateful Dave 1
very kinky beastiality (Nov '14) Nov '14 p1xfri9gg 2

Richfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richfield Mortgages