The common sense and simple genius of the 2nd Ammendment

[MY T PIMP]

In the wake of the shooting in Arizona some are calling for more firearms restrictions and changes to the 2nd Amendment. I myself find the 2nd Amendment and the right to bare arms to be simple genius and common sense. I have not done a great deal of research in this matter, but I do see why the 2nd Amendment is crucial and necessary to maintaining a good working democracy. Here are a few of my own personal views regarding the matter.

1- An armed population prevents acts of tyranny and dictatorship from any governing bodies who threaten it.

2- This population must have the right and access to buy, own, and carry formidable arms (high capacity semi automatic weapons) to continue as a force that can prevent acts of tyranny and dictatorship.

3- An individual has the right bare and use arms to protect themselves and others from injury and death.

Now aside these three personal concepts of common sense that I believe of the Second Amendment. I would like to add a few other tidbits, personal thoughts, and feelings concerning firearms.

1- There are over 100,000,000 firearms in American households, and with what most gun owners thought to be more firearms restrictions on the arrival of the Obama presidency the gun owners stocked up on more guns and ammunition. In the event the current governing body passes new laws and restrictions on firearms it is inevitable that a present and future criminal body will have weapons to conduct their crimes with and the law abiding majority may be rendered with a disadvantage and defenseless.

2- A criminal most likely will not commit a criminal act if that criminal knows that their chances of being successful in the criminal act are very unlikely due to an armed individual that could prevent them from committing the criminal act. Good examples are Columbine, Trolley Square, and Virginia Tech. Each of these places are minimal to no security gun free zones thus promoting an atmosphere where criminals can successfully kill a lot of people.

3- Society has demonized law abiding concealed firearm carriers, when such behavior should be promoted. Promoting responsible use and baring of arms at an individuals own discretion can and will detour would be criminals from committing crimes. Again if you are a would be criminal, nut job, etc.. and are convinced you cannot be successful in your crime you probably wouldn't try committing the crime.

4- It should be a law anywhere that any property that has been labeled and posted in the manner of not allowing firearms will have proper security(metal detectors and armed guards) to protect the individuals who abide by the law and resort with in the regulations and rules of the property by not carrying firearms on it.

The 2nd Amendment is not flawed, even today it is still as valuable to us as it was when it was written. There is an answer to crime and stopping it, and it's called more responsible armed individual civilians. Though as I stated before society and media demonizes and portrays responsible firearm carriers as evil and a threat. I only wish and hope that others could understand the simplicity, genius, and common sense of the 2nd Amendment as I have. It restricts a ruling body from going to far, and when used by the citizens in the proper matter promotes and insures safety and protection.

[ilanimaka]

I have nothing to add to this.

[bowjunkie]

ditto

[Brian in SLC]

I'd probably have a mix of agree and disagree on what you said above.

Its too bad that the only solution to these types of tragedies is to react with firepower. In all cases, maybe the body count would have been different, but, folks still would have died. I just wonder how they could have been prevented in the first place, so, an armed response wasn't needed.

Hard nut to crack, to be sure.

Well...goin' shootin...what a better rainy day activity?

[ratagonia]

I'd probably have a mix of agree and disagree on what you said above.

Its too bad that the only solution to these types of tragedies is to react with firepower. In all cases, maybe the body count would have been different, but, folks still would have died. I just wonder how they could have been prevented in the first place, so, an armed response wasn't needed.

Hard nut to crack, to be sure.

Well...goin' shootin...what a better rainy day activity?

You might find this interesting:

From Slant... ur, Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Teaser:

Friendly Firearms
Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM ET

Does the Tucson, Ariz., massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him. Look at the 1991 slaughter in Killeen, Texas, where 23 people died in a restaurant while a patron's handgun, thanks to a dumb law, was left outside in her car. Look at the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people died because under the university's na

[jman]

That perspective has always been interesting to me Tom, if everyone is carrying a gun and if they are at bloody scene - it might be a *bit difficult to determine who the shooter is.

[denaliguide]

define "nearly". to me "nearly" would mean that he shot and missed what he was aiming at. turns out mr. zamudio never took his gun out of his pocket. it's really hard to 'nearly' shoot someone if your gun isn't even in your hand. its great that someone like mr. zamudio is willing to run towards the danger and putting himself in harms way rather than run away and wait for the cops to arrive after the fact. good for him.