Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As I have said, this issue cannot be settled. But...find those places now and throughout history where law-abiding peoples have disarmed, and you find despots and democide. To paraphrase Eddie Izzard, when murders number in the single or low double digits, we're outraged; when they rise into the millions, apparently we're fine with it. Where is the outrage among all of you for Darfur? The government disarmed its black citizens and, in effect, told the non-black citizens to go amuse themselves. Five hundred thousand gun murders later, with hardly a blink and no interference by the antigun UN, where is the outrage? Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Lew Schwartz" <lew1716 at gmail.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Subject: [Leica] OT Gun Violence Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 10:07 am Mark, the ideas you have stated (I acknowledge that they are not yours personally) are fallacious and morally reprehensible. It's extremely troublesome to have to read them repeated, as they frequently are, in the context of this atrocity. I am a former teacher, and, among some moments of weeping and nausea, I also feel obligated to respond. I hope the following isn't too strong and that you have the patience to read through to the end. I break down your remarks as follows: >> Criminals will break the law .... A tautology, it adds nothing to the argument. The idea that people such as myself who oppose gun ownership are naively or unrealistically asking for world without crime is patronizing at best. It's really just an attempt to change focus away from this issue. >> We cannot be Pollyanna's and magically make guns or the Second Amendment disappear. There's no magic here at all. The Second Amendment was made by men and should be changed by men. Why would getting rid it, changing it, or reinterpreting it be any more or less Pollyanna-ish than any other constitutional change or addition? The United States was founded on the idea that unjust, inhuman laws can and should be opposed and/or changed. The underlying assumption that the amendment was made by "real men" and that supporting it, because it is part of the constitution, is a gregarious, flag waving, patriotic obligation of all citizens is pure bs. The same argument was used to support slavery. If the founding fathers thought this is an inalienable right, they would have attempted to put it into the main body of their document. They didn't. It was a right that served a purpose when it was given, but that purpose has long since passed. A real man (read true citizen) has an obligation to see wrongs and set them right. Nothing could be more clear in this case. There's also an intimidation factor that runs through this rhetoric, namely that (falsely) patriotic gun owners, "honest," criminal and insane alike will band together in militia-like, lead slinging preservation of their rights. Further, that the "honest" gun owners will be innocently aided by these latter two groups because we all know how unaccountable they are. It seems to me that a true patriot should accept the idea that self sacrifice is necessary to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. >> Face it guns are a part of our society...like it or not. More rhetoric. "Face it" means doing something about it, not passively accepting it. The idea that we are a society and, therefore, must respect * all* of each others rights and wishes, including guns, is despicable and complacent; it presumes on our friendliness and good nature. You know very well what you can do to make sure another massacre never takes place. Will you? >> Will these few ideas end gun crime? No. If a criminal or an mentally ill person is going to use a gun to commit a crime, they will find a gun...just maybe these ideas will make it a bit harder and discourage the opportunist. Just because you admit that these half measures won't work 100% doesn't mean we should consider them out of deference to your dubious rights, or because this is a world of shades of grey, not blacks and whites. Would you be willing to face those 40 parents in Connecticut and offer to make their grief "a bit" less? Again, sorry if I'm coming on strong. I'm hearing this stuff from more than one source, and I felt I had to put my thoughts down where everyone can read them. -- -Lew Schwartz _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information