Sorry all, long post. Shouldn't have started to post when real tired.
Fscot,
What would you call those little things that happened before the invention of firearms??? I suppose according to your definition there was no such thing as "war". Perhaps you should tell that to those folks who were involved in minor disturbances like the crusades.
TAC and Sandman,
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. None here are saying you may not say what you wish. If they did no doubt you would be up and enraged saying that your "right" to speak is being infringed. How dare anyone tell you what to do or say or think, correct?
Why do you feel you have the "right" to impose your personal phobias on others? I have not seen anything in your posts saying you have a power of omniscience that grants you the honor of telling others how to live.
Why do I say these thing? Simple. You rail against those who have done nothing to harm another with their belongings. There are many laws in this country to be used for those who do harm to others. If one person harms another that person should be punished under the law. That does not mean the others in the same area of the community should also suffer penalties for the transgressions of another. To punish those who have not violated any laws, caused no harm to another (unlawfully) and are simply living as they see fit under the precepts of the constitution is not an exercise of freedom. It is an exercise of tyranny.
Earlier in the last century this country embarked on a crusade to legislate morality and see that the populace lived a "proper" life according to a few who felt they knew better. It is more commonly known as prohibition. Now the consumption of alcohol is rarely necessary for health or life. There are certainly more efficacious items to consume to gain the benefits of health. For that matter, with the exception of using alcohol for sterilization or as a gasoline additive (potential substitute) there is little real "need" to have it around. Yet this experiment in legislation made more felons of the out of the population of America than any other situation to date. It gave us a nation of scofflaws, organized crime and a massive legal fit trying to comply with the ramifications of the effects of prohibition. After a while this was seen for the idiocy it was and prohibition was ended.
We do have a carry over from this same kind of situation. It is called "the war on drugs". I seldom see a week go by that I see some "learned" person or prison inmate railing against this war. They call for an end to criminalization of drugs. They say it is a farce that there is a plethora of drugs in the U.S. and that the war is a failure. Now why should we stop? There is no real therapeutic use for heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines (in "recreational uses") and for that matter to a lesser extent, smoked marijuana. (THC can be isolated and used in pill form for cancer patients). These substances have a known and lengthy record of causing harm to the users, their families and those who happen to be in the area when the users have a reaction or problem while under the influence. The users of these substances range in age from the aged (old hippies?) to the young in elementary school. In dealing with this kind of person I have asked them why they use such a thing as heroin. Their response was that they liked it and wanted to continue using it.
Why do I bring this up? Simple. This is a type of "thing" that has no real useful purpose, has caused no end of hardship and heartache and has been medically proven to be injurious and or lethal. In short, there is absolutely no rational reason to have them available for the population to use as "recreation". Yet there are many calling for the laws banning these items to be taken out of the system and to make them readily available, even governmentally licensed for use.
Why is it OK to call for the legalization of substances, many of which are known to be lethal and have no purpose for benefiting people other than to "let them feel good" and to ban firearms which can and do have a purpose?
I have carried a firearm most of my adult life, it was a part of my career. I have seen what they can do when misused. I have not harmed another with any of my firearms. I have also dealt with others that had weapons, some of which were not using them for legal purposes.
I have also seen what the misuse of drugs, alcohol, automobiles even bicycles can do. Should they all be banned as well? I have been injured more than once by a person misusing a car and have a disability thanks to a negligent driver. In one of those situations it was a drunk driver that hit me. I have personal experience in trying to enforce laws governing the use these items. I do not advocate the legalization of drugs. I will speak out against it because of my experiences.
In regards to the other items I listed, I do not feel that those who do not misuse them should be penalized simply because I was harmed by someone who did. Only those who do cause harm with them should be punished.
A final note. One of the people advocating firearm banishment indicated he likes swords. A fellow Army Officer (My CO in my last unit) had to help his son recover from a near fatal stabbing from a sword. This happened at the local university and was an unprovoked act. Perhaps people who own swords and other large bladed weapons should have them confiscated. There is no justifiable reason for anyone to own one in today's society. Is there?
Mav
