tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post2916413033508115832..comments2023-07-15T03:28:32.284-04:00Comments on Tom Rogan Thinks...: Newtown and the second amendmentTom Roganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03828110854474035382noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-17000425785559603342013-02-05T23:27:51.043-05:002013-02-05T23:27:51.043-05:00Thanks for your comment Doug. I worry that those s...Thanks for your comment Doug. I worry that those suggestions (while well intentioned) would enforce excessive government regulation on the basic right to firearms ownership. BUT I personally think that all gun owners should take steps similar to those you suggest. For me, universal background checks offer a reasonable middle ground that the government could take.Tom Roganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03828110854474035382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-42035539065086329972013-02-05T10:26:39.419-05:002013-02-05T10:26:39.419-05:00I believe that the 2nd Amendment speaks clearly to...I believe that the 2nd Amendment speaks clearly to the framers intent for our nation. Given that, there should be reasonable education and experience standards for the purchase of firearms, similar to other dangerous sports, i.e. scuba certification process. I recommend different certification levels for ownership that include required classes and range time (with exceptions for active and ex-police and military). For example, citizens wanting to own a handgun must first take the NRA FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation, and Home Firearm Safety Course. Similar with rifles. For assault weapons, citizens must have logged x number of hours in range time, and taken the appropriate classes. This will separate us responsible owners from the posers and wackos.Doug Wileynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-60023518921301122692012-12-21T21:26:23.395-05:002012-12-21T21:26:23.395-05:00We have a problem. The Connecticut massacre like p...We have a problem. The Connecticut massacre like previous massacres was planned. It was not the work of a lone nut. Australia had Port Arthur and Martin Bryant is in jail without a trial and no coronial enquiry. Wake up folks. The anti gun lobby must be exposed.<br />The second ammendment provides for the private ownership of guns and for these people to provide a militia in a time of need. It does not say the militia will own the guns. It was not intended that the militia hand out the guns in a time of need. Folks, the guns are not the problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-62593449221272629842012-12-18T11:49:25.452-05:002012-12-18T11:49:25.452-05:00Unfortunately Tom, you do.
Unfortunately Tom, you do.<br /><br />Niallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-40545022749087149002012-12-18T11:45:24.724-05:002012-12-18T11:45:24.724-05:00Offensive, unconvincing and ruffling. To you. But ...Offensive, unconvincing and ruffling. To you. But not to the majority of Americans. I appreciate logical counter-points but not emotionally vested ranting. Fortunately you do not vote in the United Stated.Tom Roganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03828110854474035382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-73710722718204749872012-12-18T11:22:40.663-05:002012-12-18T11:22:40.663-05:00Hi Tom
This is more of an ad hominem attack than ...Hi Tom<br /><br />This is more of an ad hominem attack than a reasoned response, if I’m being honest. <br /><br />You make some rather bald assumptions about me, so allow me to reply in kind. I think that you believe strongly in a person’s right to bear arms. It’s ingrained in your ethos, but there’s no reason for it. Perhaps this is cultural, though I suspect there are many more Americans who wouldn’t share your enthusiasm for firearms.<br /><br />In this piece above, you’ve tried to rationalize these beliefs, rather than explain them. In doing so, you’ve produced three excuses, the same ones that gun-lobbyists tend to wheel out after every <br />gun-related tragedy, and they’re unconvincing. In the light of last week’s atrocity, they’re damned offensive.<br /><br />So sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but this kind of dangerous rhetoric really ruffles mine too. And if you don’t want ‘Europeans’ commenting on your blog I suggest you stop linking to it on the Guardian’s comment section.<br />Niallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-35736468436729299722012-12-18T08:58:13.337-05:002012-12-18T08:58:13.337-05:001) Really? It's my opinion that good governmen...1) Really? It's my opinion that good government should never be taken for granted. If there's a lesson from history - that's a pretty good one.<br /><br />2)Stupid comment. Home owners have a right to defend themselves and their property.<br /><br />3) You are imposing your cultural understandings onto others. I thought you were a European? Respect for others.<br /><br />I have thought about it. But sometimes the natural superiority complex of the European mind fails to understand the complexities of cultural differentials.Tom Roganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03828110854474035382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-14138116301073137872012-12-18T04:21:55.773-05:002012-12-18T04:21:55.773-05:00Tom,
With regard to your three-pronged reasons, t...Tom,<br /><br />With regard to your three-pronged reasons, the first describes a scenario so unlikely it may as well read protection against Zombie attack or Alien invasion.<br /><br />Your second comes from a place routed in fear, and seems to say it's okay to make individual citizens jury and executioner over someone who might trespass on their property, or look at them funny while wearing a hoodie. <br /><br />The final reason, hunting and decoration, could exist without access to automatic weapons--the only things people hunt with them is other people--and in the latter case without ammunition, which doesn't look so nice on the wall.<br /><br />You say you've thought about this. But i wonder if you really have Tom. I wonder if you've dug deep and asked yourself the tough questions. Because if you think the lives of 20 children is an acceptable price to pay so that you can protect yourself again some Orwellian dystopia, the boogeyman and hang pretty guns on your wall, then you haven't thought at all.<br />Niallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-67921076000816546322012-12-16T12:36:47.446-05:002012-12-16T12:36:47.446-05:00Thanks for your comment Liam. I feel that because ...Thanks for your comment Liam. I feel that because of the 2nd amendment, a popular uprising would possess un-restrainable power. Combined with the large element of the US Military that would stand with the people, the odds (even with small arms as the insurgents primary weapon) would be heavily weighted against a despotic government. Though, I of course believe that it is exceptionally unlikely the US will ever be subjected to a dictatorship etc. Our system of government, subservience of the US Military to the rule of law etc. means that we are in good shape. But... I also feel we should be complacent about our freedoms. Thanks for your comment.Tom Roganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03828110854474035382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-605460144438715912012-12-16T09:52:20.079-05:002012-12-16T09:52:20.079-05:00Very much agree with the above coment [from 'T...Very much agree with the above coment [from 'The Texan'] re: the continued relevance of your First reason for supporting 2nd Amendment arms rights (i.e. the ability of citizenry to throw-off government if needed). Even with the large number of arms in the private hands of U.S. citizens, would these small-arms really stack-up against the full military capability of the U.S. armed forces? <br /><br />Perhaps when the military technology gap b/w Government and private citizens was less significant (i.e. when the citizens and government-controlled forces both were 'packing' similar fire-power in the form of small-arms), it would be more realistic to speak of the citizenry "throwing-off" government via use of their small arms. These days, I question whether this is actually viable in light of the technological advantage the government has over private citizens (although I like to think if push-came-to-shove, the citizenry could "get it done").Liam McClurenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-279890984740178056.post-73776006422236778732012-12-15T12:42:32.929-05:002012-12-15T12:42:32.929-05:00Persuasive - I think the 'check on tyranny'...Persuasive - I think the 'check on tyranny' argument is a better explanation of the history of the right to bear arms than it is a reason for allowing it now. At first I thought it was a good argument, but I'm not sure that bearing arms in this conventional sense provides much protection from tyranny today. For American society, a situation where one might have to battle a tyrannical government would be apocalyptic. I think the realist would say that we have to construct policy ignoring this eventuality because the eventuality would be so bad whether or not you had guns.The Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04123094584652412635noreply@blogger.com