Liko81, are you in the Brady Camp? Your comments sound an awful lot like trolling.
No, I am not in the Brady Camp. I like my handguns as much as the next person and I do not believe guns are the cause of violent crime, or that banning them will make America into Utopia. I do not however advocate a "they're wrong because they're antis" position on every anti-gun statement made, as many on this board do. Those who are anti-gun are not unintelligent, knowledgeable, or otherwise unqualified mentally to speak on the subject. To say so is an insult to the majority of the people in this country, who either do not support gun rights, or who support them much the same as they support gay rights; You can do it, they just don't want to see it. If you think an argument's wrong, PROVE IT. Deconstruct the argument and refute the claims instead of resorting to put-downs.
I don't argue against the RKBA; I argue against ignorance, and gun nuts can be just as guilty as antis. I also argue for rights other than, as well as including, the RKBA. The irresistible force meets the immovable object every day in political discourse, especially concerning the BoR. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE. The laws you oppose, and the Brady Bunch itself, exist so that infamous heinous crimes can never happen again, and thus peaceful, law-abiding citizens much like yourselves who DON'T feel the need to carry have a good likelihood of living out their lives having never been proved wrong. I'm sure you, even though you carry, have the same sentiment; if you died of natural causes having never had to fire a shot in anger, that would be your ideal situation. The same drive gave us Son of Sam laws (profits from criminal activity are forfeited to victims), Amber Alerts (immediate nationwide alerts on every TV and highway sign for child abductions), Jessica's Law (tough punishments for sex offenders including making rape of a child under 12 a capital offense), and Teri's Law (domestic abusers are held without bail). The Brady Bunch has the same drive to make murders using firearms, unarguably an attractive mix of ease, range, shock value, and repetitiveness, a thing of the past. That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.
Therefore the Brady Bunch is wrong only in that they focus on guns and not criminals. However, if you will not entertain the fact that the Brady Bunch might have a point, even though they follow it to the wrong conclusion, then all you're doing when you dismissively insult the arguments and those who raise them is patting yourself on the back, and quite frankly making yourselves sound very much like the stereotypical survivalist civil libertarian "i don't need no government" gun nuts that the Bradys use to show "civilized people" that pro-gun arguments come from the fringes of society. It's unintelligent-sounding, insulting to the majority of Americans, and self-defeating.
The RKBA is not a globally-recognized right. Citizens of many countries, including our own, look at the RKBA as an antiquated remnant of an unorganized, "frontier-law" nation. The assault weapons you wish to protect possession of and free access to appear all the time in the hands of terrorists, religious extremists, murderers, drug lords, dictators, and the forces loyal to the above. When an M4 or an AK-47 appears on the streets of a U.S. city, no matter whose hands it is in, s*** is hitting the fan. They are icons of all that is hated by peaceful law-abiding citizens. To defend them sounds to an anti a lot like "rationalizing the irrational". To argue against permits for concealed carry, while at the same time recognizing that having a permit shows you have demonstrated sufficient proficiency and situational knowledge to safely carry a handgun in public, sounds a lot like implying that you do not think such proficiency or knowledge is necessary. To argue against "gun-free zones", trumping a property owner's right to control said property with the all-important RKBA, sounds a lot like "I want to be Gary Cooper". Using the philosophy of "anything can be a weapon" to attempt to reduce gun control arguments to absurdity sounds a lot like "I don't know the difference between a gun, whose primary purpose is to kill things and break stuff, and a kitchen knife whose primary purpose is to chop vegetables".
I support the RKBA. But I realize that the RKBA is the SECOND AMENDMENT. It was neither included in the original document, nor did it trump the list of the freedoms our Founders guaranteed. There are more important things on that document than to give you the right to have a gun wherever and whenever you want, with no restrictions as to type, size, caliber, ammo capacity, muzzle energy or the explosive or armor-piercing capability of the bullet. For example, how about the very first sentence appearing on the Constitution, the reason it was written and the basis for EVERYTHING ELSE on that parchment. You're too busy "providing for the common Defense" and "securing the blessings of Liberty" to realize that the government must also "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". The government must balance ALL FOUR THINGS, in addition to forming "a more perfect Union" and "establishing Justice".
Let's pretend for a minute. Any firearm of any type and caliber in production is legal to own and carry; you can own anything you want, can carry it anywhere you want, whenever you want, however you want. In addition, thanks to your blessings of the Fourth Amendment, you cannot be stopped or searched unless the police have reasonable suspicion you have or will commit a crime. You have that right, and so do criminals, whether convicted or otherwise, because unless the officer knows a criminal personally or see them doing something wrong, they can do nothing but assume that a person walking down the road with an M4 has broken and is breaking no laws of any kind. Until they start emptying those 30-round mags out the muzzle of an MP5. The police are the local authority; they have a mandate to protect the general welfare, and that means they must be able to overcome criminals. If the police have to have the same armament as the 4th Light Cavalry Brigade to do their job, it is impossible for them to fulfill their general mandate of ensuring tranquility and promoting welfare; a tank rolling down your street on the way to the ghetto is neither tranquil nor a sign of your good welfare. If you then say, 'ok, I then need a machine gun for my own defense against criminals', what about two at a time? Or ten? Or twenty? Do you then form a posse and take these criminals out? You are now talking about turning the streets of East Detroit into Fallujah, armed civilian brigades against criminal gangs. And believe me, as bad as the gang problem is there, a battle fought between dozens or even hundreds of civilians armed with automatic weapons, with a lot of heart but no military training, would be like nothing any U.S. city has seen since the 1870's. It is untenable; you most certainly would not want to live in a world where the Second Amendment was the supreme law of the land.
If you want pro-gun words out of my mouth, chew on these: Guns are equalizers. It is limits on guns that MAKE them equalizers. If Auntie Sue sleeps with a .357 under her pillow she can aquit herself well against one or two robbers, even if they have guns of their own, but not against one or two robbers with automatic weapons. If automatic weapons are legal to own, they WILL be owned, they WILL be stolen, and they WILL be used by criminals against law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding gun owners. Assault rifles have a very distinctive profile; they are the icon, as I said, of military and paramilitary regimes past and present, and one seen in a public place in suburban America is disturbing even to many gun owners. THEY can be owned, THEY can be stolen, and THEY can be used against someone whose personal firepower pales in comparison. To ban them at least limits their proliferation amongst criminals even though it does the same to law-abiding citizens. That levels the playing field; you have a handgun, so does the criminal. You are on equal footing, no matter if you're 4'11 95lb Auntie Sue or 6'4 300lb Vinnie the Cargo Van. Limits or restrictions on type, caliber, power, firing rate, and ammo increase the odds that your average armed civilian isn't outgunned by a criminal, because the weapons a criminal can get easily are the ones a lawful citizen can get, and forepower exceeding that of what is lawfully available is difficult, even if possible. By contrast, allowing them everywhere sets off an arms race that may have no limit; if it's legal to own an M60, somebody probably will. And so will a criminal, having stolen it from a law-abiding citizen. And that bodes ill for someone who, like Auntie Sue, cannot afford, cannot feed, cannot control, and/or cannot see the need to own an M60 and thus just sleeps with a .357 under her pillow. If a good night's sleep is only bought with superior firepower, only Number 1 is going to sleep soundly in his bed, surrounded by armed guards with The Button on his bedside table.
wow... 