Quote Originally Posted by reaper239 View Post
but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.
Curious that you drew the conclusion I called you a criminal. I'd encourage you to point that out to me with a direct quote. As of now, you're interpreting my words the same way you interpret the "right to bear arms." And that is--as I see it, mind you--falsely.

That aside, this is exactly where we get into the rub. What is a right? What are the rights of citizens? What are the rights of gun owners? What are the rights of humans? I encourage you to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While I may not be in agreeance with the UN or all that it stands for, I believe in the charter of human rights at its core. Article 3 states

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
You have the right to security, as do I. I feel that someone standing behind me in the checkout with a pistol is as much a threat to my personal security as the drug dealer standing outside with the pistol in his pocket. Now, to be completely clear: This does NOT equate the average gun owner with the average drug dealer. What that means is the person standing in front of me has as much potential to harm me with that pistol as the person standing outside. I don't want him to have a gun any more or less than I want the person standing in front of me to.

I think there is room to improve gun laws, and I think there is room to improve the consequences of breaking those laws. They are far too lenient.

As for arguing that "law abiding" gun owners differ from "criminal" gun owners, you can't really make that argument without raising the questions of mental stability of individuals. Saying that the guy you go shooting with every weekend isn't going to snap on Tuesday morning when he comes home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour. It doesn't go very far in defence of that argument when the guns and ammunition used in Aurora were purchased legally. Or Colorado, again legal acquisition. This is the area that needs the work. Who can buy, as well as what they can buy. You can argue now that, "Well, the drug dealers have assault rifles, so we should be able to have them, too," and I'll tell you, "No, that's both near-sighted, and short-sighted." The fact that they are made available is the reason they are on the streets.

I can tell you for a fact, the guy at the Pho restaurant down the road selling guns gets them from a local gun store, not Colombian warlords. It is too easy to get things that are not needed--rather, shouldn't be--in a first world country. As far as your support of the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill me people--as evident by the statistics you've thrown out--I say that simply isn't true. People with guns kill people. There is no evidence to support your thesis that carrying weapons prevent violent crimes. That's a myth, plain and simple. I could say, "More guns being available equates to higher incidences of gun related fatalities," and I would be correct, because the numbers add up.

As far as your politics, that's your own business. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other, as it isn't applicable to the fundamental issue: who is violating whose rights, and which is more important? How do you separate them? Are you arbitrarily assigning a greater value to one simply because it conflicts with something you feel you shouldn't have to give up? What right is worth more in the grand scheme of things, and which is fitting more fitting for an advanced, intelligent civilization that we seem to be striving for?