Gun lovers’ 2nd Amendment position ends with vigilante justice

From my letter to the editor last week, Aug 8, 2012, I have learned, via The Citizen website comments, and I feel that at least 80 percent of all Fayette Countians are gun owners.

My main question last week was “why the need to own a semi-automatic assault rifle?” I had used the word “automatic” by mistake, but whatever, why the need for a assault rifle? No one really answered that question, but almost all replies would leave one to believe that they will never give up any of their guns.

I have found, also through those comments, that one individual took his daughter to The Batman movie, and packed his loaded pistol along also. “Loaded for any deranged person”? (my words, not his)

Imagine this scenario: Suppose there had been a deranged copy-cat in the theater; lights go out, movie starts, and deranged person gets out his/her weapon, a firecracker, and it explodes.

The deranged individual could have been shot, and most would say they got what they deserved. And hip hip hooray for the dad with the gun! Hip hip hooray for the dad who tried, in an unofficial way, to prevent a crime.

Do a reverse look-up for the word that describes the previous sentence, and you will get “vigilante.”

This is all well and good for stopping a crime in action; the police are not there, so some brave individual took control of the situation, and then the police came, the bad person was arrested. End of story? Perhaps.

The criminals would soon learn that they “do not know ‘whom’ they are dealing with; the deranged person(s) may begin to have second thoughts. End of story?

Let’s explore a phase of this scenario that, so far, has been lucky enough not to have been mentioned. Suppose something goes wrong, and an innocent person or persons is injured or killed. The vigilante may gets arrested, but then the jury refuses to convict him; but he would have to live with the (scenario) fact that an innocent person(s) has died, (on his watch).

Are we headed in the direction that, the only safe place to be, in a crowd of people, is 30,000 feet up in a commercial airline flight, where perhaps the only individual with a gun (you hope) is a sky marshall?

I can understand why neither presidential candidate is mentioning the “guns” subject. They both surely realize that most of this country’s private homes are fortresses of individual family protection (Takes too long for the police to get there ... We have to protect ourselves from burglars or any potential foreign invaders ... The Second Amendment allows me to own these weapons).

The latter part of my Aug. 8 letter to the editor asked for suggestions for ways to identify and stop deranged individuals from buying weapons. Not one person offered any suggestion.

Neither have I, but The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence may be the place to start.

Hugh Buchanan

Peachtree City, Ga.

yeahwhatever
yeahwhatever's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2008
Are you serious?

Reading your letter brings to mind the saying, "Well, there's 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back." What a ridiculous bunch of hoohaa. Imagine a scenario? You forgot to throw in aliens and time travel. Please, stop wasting our time with emotional, sentimental drivel! (Typing this is another 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back.)

bopeep
bopeep's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Second that amendment

After the Aurora Col. shootings, the news media was questioning why the average citizen would have a need for a high powered assault type rifle. All I was doing was to continue asking that question.

I know; "it's because the Second Amendment says I can have one."

Hugh Buchanan

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Mr. Buchanan you can apply that to well just about...

....anything.

Why do we need a Car that can go faster then the highest posted speed limit?

Why do we need a sandwich that by itself exceeds the caloric intake of a full day?

Why do we need a product that has been proven to destroy more lives and kill more people then those guns you speak of...?

It's called free choice. I have the freedom to choose. When Government starts to limit your choices, for whatever reasons they are beginning to infringe on our Liberties.
If a product is legal meaning Society in general has determined they want that product freely then Government has no role in resticting that product from the public.

It's called Liberty Mr. Buchanan, it's a concept we have lived under for a long time.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Buchanan & Gun Violence

When you figure out how to outlaw mental illness and just plain ignorant humans or religious fanaticism and make it stick, come back to see us!

ltc.dan
ltc.dan's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2012
Fayette County gun owner

All, I'd just like to say that, because every court case brought against a police department in the U.S. for failing, in one way or another, to protect the citizens from a known hazard has been decided in the police department's favor. There is no legal requirement for the police to protect the citizenry. So, unless and until that changes, it is my responsibility.

Liferfrom65
Liferfrom65's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2007
Don't let facts cloud your judgement
The Citizen wrote:

I have found, also through those comments, that one individual took his daughter to The Batman movie, and packed his loaded pistol along also. “Loaded for any deranged person”? (my words, not his)

Imagine this scenario: Suppose there had been a deranged copy-cat in the theater; lights go out, movie starts, and deranged person gets out his/her weapon, a firecracker, and it explodes.

Make that two people. I took my wife and daughter to that movie and I too was armed. If someone lit a fire cracker in the theater I would not have shot them. The only time an armed citizen would draw a weapon is when there is a direct threat against them. Your fantasy is meaningless.

You will never get it and facts will never sway you. I think you should move to one of those civilized countries you mention and leave the rest of us alone.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Mr Buchanan-There you go again

As Ronald Regan would say "There you go again!". Your way of making your point is to make up a scenario that fits your point and say what if one bad thing happens? In your last post I thought you actually wanted an adult discussion on guns so I posted not based on a one story could have happened but a whole picture based on statics and facts. You ignored that post. Or maybe you just missed it. So here it is again!

Quote:

The problem with the discussion on gun control is that there will always be stories like those told here by Mr Buchanan and more from the other side about lives being saved by people carrying weapons. The discussion has to move to a higher level, more of what's best for the majority. After all cars kill many more people than guns do every year. But instead of trying to ban cars we spend time trying to teach people how to use cars safely. I think that is what Mr Garlock was attempting to do with his guns and kids.
If we take time to look at the effects of guns on society you must look at places like Kennesaw, GA. Since they passed the law requiring each household to have a gun crime has dropped even as the population has increased. Since 1982 when this law was passed there has been 4 gun related murders in Kennesaw. And 3 of those were committed in "gun free" zones. And studies indicate that Kennesaw is the rule not the exception.
Criminals look for easy targets. If you look at where the mass murders have happened lately you'll see several schools, a military base that is a training base and the soldiers were unarmed, and a movie theater that had a no weapons allowed sign on the front door. Basically all were "gun free" zones. Guns can not be prohibited. We tried that with drugs and alcohol and we all know how that worked. At the end of WW2 a Japanese General was asked why they didn't attempt an invasion of the main land US after their success at Pearl Harbor. His response was because there is a gun behind every blade of grass there. I.E. they feared an armed populace. The police do the best that they can. But if you get a good response of 5-6 minutes after calling 911 who protects your family during that time? Bottom line is that a gun is the hands of a law abiding citizen that knows how to use it is the best deterrent we have against crime.

Come on Mr Buchanan lets stop playing what if and have a real discussion.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Mr Buchanan

Your letters over the past weeks have done what you intended (hopefully), and that is to generate a dialog. Yes, this county's population likely at least 80% gun owners, of which I'm proud to be one. Your right to object to that will certainly not be infringed upon by me, and I doubt seriously that any of the eighty percent would either.

I will admit that the goal of stopping gun violence is an endeavor worthy of the effort required to make it happen. I would offer that stricter gun control is simply not the answer due to the sheer numbers of weapons publicly owned currently. I believe the answer lies in the efforts of those individuals who take the time to educate their family members of the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Perhaps you and I might agree that having voluntary marksmanship competition in cooperation with law enforcement or other civic organizations would help in this education process.

I'm sure you realize that not all citizens can obtain a weapon legally, and that reputable gun dealers go out of their way to insure background checks are passed before making a transaction. Hopefully, regarding assault weapons, you do not get all wrapped around the axle on defining them because one of the most prolific sporting weapons ever made is the shotgun which is the preeminent assault weapon at close range. You really don't think you can stop sportsmen, now do you?

My point, sir, is that guns do serve a purpose whether for protection or sport. They are only a tool which when applied correctly at an appropriate time can benefit us both.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Logic Check

Mr. King writes:

"I would offer that stricter gun control is simply not the answer due to the sheer numbers of weapons publicly owned currently."

Could we apply that logic broadly? There are many criminals out there; we should adjust to them rather than arrest them. There are so many carcinogens in the atmosphere; we should breathe more shallowly.

Perhaps you should stick to the 2nd Amendment argument ("It's my right, dammit, so live with it."). At least it is consistent.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Here's a reality check for you

There are over 200 Million privately held firearms in America some estimates there are over 300 Million.. so tell me STF how is a gun ban, mag cap ban or any other useless ban going to work.. By the very definition of the word CRIMINAL they will NOT comply so how would that work exactly without confiscation?

Did the 1994 "Scary" gun ban stop anyone from using a gun to kill another.. Did the Brady bill mag cap ban stop one death?

The answer to both is NO.. and it never will.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Check your argument

Why do you want it both ways? If you think you have the "right" to own as many guns as you want (whether or not you plan to join the militia), just say that you want your guns. You cloud the issue when you say that nothing can be done because there are too many guns in circulation. Of course, many things can be done, but that isn't the NRA logic which is to broaden gun rights.

America can do anything if everyone joins together with a political will. (End WWII, go to the moon, etc.) The issue is that a sizable portion of the population believes fervently that they have the right to own firearms. Argue that. Don't suggest that American is handcuffed because we are too weak to rid ourselves of guns if that is the political will.

I'm not really arguing against your right, I'm merely suggesting that you weaken your argument when you make the "too many guns" point.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
STF really?

No STF I am simply pointing out the futility of trying bans. They don't work period.

I have argued quiet successfully my Right to own guns of any caliber and any type except those banned by law...i.e.. Automatic weapons.

http://thecitizen.com/node/12133

Right know every advocate for any type of anti-gun mag cap ban is on every stump they can find preaching that we need another ban for this or that..

I am simply pointing out that no matter what has set that knee in motion it is still just a knee jerk nevertheless.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Mr. Lindsey - Just stick to the positive argument

If you have the RIGHT to own an arsenal, stop your argument there.

There is no need to disparage the American people as being too weak and incompetent to solve the problem of proliferation of arms. If the American people chose to either revoke or redefine the 2nd Amendment, many possibilities would arise that have never been attempted because they are illegal under the current interpretation of the Constitution. Throwing up one's hands and saying nothing could ever work is an indefensible position and demeans the proficiency of our Republic.

If you say no gun control has ever worked under the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that suggests that arms are the right of the citizenry whether in a militia or not, that is a true statement, but it is only compelling to people who believe as do you. It will not convince the other side. Perhaps you are only interested in preaching to the choir.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wow just WOW

STF what the heck are you talking about?

So if I say it's pointless for Government to spend Billions of dollars for aquatic passenger vehicles to travel to Atlantis a city under the sea..then using your logic I am disparaging the American people?

There is no city under the sea so building that car is in fact pointless.. and that was MY POINT.

You will NEVER get enough Americans to say Guns are illegal and give them up.. NEVER and that is a prediction I would be willing to bet you anything on including my Arsenal.

That's not saying if in some mythical far flung future a gun manufacture comes up with a working Phaser now I just might give up my AR for that one...

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
The examples are not analogous

Mr. Lindsey - The examples we cite are not analogous. Atlantis does not exist in this world, but strict weapon control laws exist everywhere in the world, and in many communities in the United States. It isn't a fantasy that Americans could look at the cost/benefits of gun freedom from a practical standpoint and make additional limitations.

My point (yet again) is that you have a very positive strategy to present gun rights as a Constitutionally protected freedom. There is no need to goad opponents by telling them how powerless they are (even if you are correct). The "Steve Brown pugilistic, quoting of statistics and daring anyone to disagree" method of argument never persuades the other side; it merely inflames opposition.

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
Wow just WOW

S.Lindsey,
You and I both know that many people like STF, when given the choice between Liberty and Government Regulations, choose Government Regulations every time. They think of themselves as intellectuals, you know, the "smartest people in the room" type guys or gals. In reality they are the stupidest of the stupid for not protecting Liberty. But I have found that you cannot reason with many of them. Know this, that when the Govt, comes to get our guns, sheeple like STF will have already surrendered.

Molon Labe-Come and Get 'Em.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Talk about knee-jerk!

TTM - Slow down. I never suggested for a moment that anyone should surrender their weapons. I made a strong point about the indications and contraindications of gaining a hearing from opponents when presenting one's arguments positively or negatively.

Perhaps you need to consult a doctor immediately to treat that jerking knee problem.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
STF, blame yourself, my man, you . . .

. . . got down deep in the weeds. Well, deeper than most bloggers are willing to go, because, with a nod to your avatar, deep thought is HARD.

But I understand what you are saying, I think, that opposing sides get invested in their position and the art of winning the argument, and sometimes we forget to slice the issues with the scalpel they deserve to be precise, not careful enough to be intellectually honest because that requires openness and vulnerability. And I don't think it will happen publicly where some are always spring-loaded to pounce at the AH-HA! moment.

Some time if you're game perhaps I could buy you a cup of coffee and we could talk over the issue, defenses down, not that we would solve anything but sometimes the exercise is worthwhile if it can be done with mutual respect and curiosity as opposed to a game that must be won.

Terry Garlock

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Thanks Terry

Thanks for your reasoned words and for at least reading my comments thoroughly before responding. I have not always agreed with your opinions; however, you consistently comment with reasoned logic instead of emotion. I certainly respect that!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dup

*

bopeep
bopeep's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mr King

The main reason for my writing the first letter was the picture of a twelve year-old child learning to fire a semi-automatic rifle, and Mr Garlock's comment about the "beauty" in a gun. But I have found, in reading the 80+ comments, that people have different ideas about beauty of the gun, and most certainly different ideas about how to teach their children about gun safety, and respect for the weapon.

I grew up in a family of no guns, but, as a teenager, I did have a 16 gauge shotgun. One day I shot a quail, took it home, not at all noticing the beauty of the bird, cleaned the bird, cooked and consumed as part of my evening meal. One Thanksgiving day I went hunting with an older boy. I had my shotgun, and he had a 22 rifle. After over two hours of no game to shoot at, we stopped by the town lake. My friend spotted a duck in the middle of the lake, aimed, and shot the duck. His dog, "Bullet", swam out to the duck, took one 'sniff', and came back without the duck. My friend and his dog then departed for home. I waited for the duck to float ashore, took it home, and had to clean/cook it over an open fire in the back yard, since my mother would not allow the bird in the house.

No, I have nothing against deer rifles, shotguns, all hunting rifles, etc. And I should have done a search of what constitutes a assault rifle; Most of the definitions favor the word "automatic" as part of the description.

Vigilante type justice may seem to be a solution of violence, and most certainly could make a criminal or deranged person have second thoughts. But there will always be one or two within the woodwork that will go through with their plan anyway. And should the vigilante happen to be near, Murphy's Law will forever be in the equation for justice.

Hugh Buchanan

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Mr. Buchanan while I agree on the theory...

...of the dime story cowboy and I know first hand the spray and pray philosophy of a lot of gun owners, but, I would still rather have guns in the hands of the citizens then just the Criminals.

Mr. Buchannan the genie is out of the bottle. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of semi-automatic military "styled" rifles out there and unless the Government intends to confiscate all guns you will never get rid of those guns.

If you favor then confiscation well let's just say revolutions have started for less.

Now I don't advocate what type of car you drive, that's your choice. So why is it you seem to want to determine what choice of guns I own?

Why do I have a Spikes Tactical AR-15? Because I can. Why do I NEED it? Because I want to and that sir is that.

Why do you drink Makers Mark when Jim Beam is available..? It's a choice and in America we have that right to do so.

Mr. Buchanon I understand your feelings I really do. You look out at the rest of the World and we look like Cowboys compared to the "sophistry" of Europe, but the fact is we are Cowboys and we have changed the World for the better many, many times.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
SL, didn't Europe...

...prior to their late 'sophistry' period spend the better part of the last 600 yrs. or so butchering each other in countless wars/fights/battles, no to mention the last 2 big ones that sucked in a good part of the whole world? The good 'ol USA has only been around a little over 200 (ok, add a few years for the Colonial period) - give us a chance to catch up to their level of sophistication!

BTW, for the price I belived Gentleman Jack to be better than Makers Mark; MM has always had a sort of odd aftertaste to me. Cheers!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Actually I am more of a Wild Geese type

or a good Laphroaig my self.. but... in all fairness been known to have a few conversations with Jack from time to time....

Yes, KC Europe had a lot to teach us and still does.. Especially Greece and Spain, Italy ,France yada, yada, yada....

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
KCCA, SL, & Adult Beverages

You guys make a hell of a good ad for Bushmill's!!

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mike . . .

. . . well said.

Terry Garlock

Recent Comments