"Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in
very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?"
That's pretty much all that need be said right there. But then he muddies it up with this:
"Carrying a gun in public, however, entails even greater responsibility than keeping one at home, and in most states the laws reflect this. Like many gun-control advocates, I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens walk around armed.[
2] Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon. A scuffle that exposes a gun in a person’s waistband, for instance, can quickly become a fight to the death—where the first person to get his hands on the weapon may feel justified using it in “self-defense.” Most people seem unaware that knives present a similar liability. According to Gallup, 16 percent of American men carry knives for personal protection. I am quite sure that most of those men have not thought through the legal, ethical, and game-theoretical implications of drawing a blade in a moment of conflict. It is true that brandishing a weapon (whether a gun or a knife) sometimes preempts further violence. But, emotions being what they are, it often doesn’t—and the owner of the weapon can find himself resorting to deadly force in a circumstance that would not otherwise have called for it."
He seems to be saying, "Hey, no problem with having a gun at home, but leave that puppy AT home whenever you're out in public." Well, why does he
now seem to be turning his back on his principle that, "...a world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive"? Does he think the odds of being assaulted by thugs
on the street isn't anywhere near as high as it is when one is inside his own home??? On top of that he opines: "I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens (!!!) walk around armed." Oh, really! Well, The Founders obviously
didn't, and I side with them.
The bottom line is this:
The Second Amendment says congress shall pass NO LAW infringing on the right of the people to keep & bear arms. Period. NO LAW. We have
the right to carry concealed, in the open, at home, in public - where ever we happen to be. The Founders didn't restrict that. And nowhere in the 2nd Amend did The Founders give congress the authority to dictate
which "
arms" the American people
could and could not "keep and bear". If they HAD granted that authority to govt, it would be in there somewhere. It isn't. Therefore Congress doesn't have it. So, Dianne's goofy "assault weapon" ban is completely unconstitutional. (If BANNING a particular gun
isn't an infringement on one's right to keep and bear it, I don't know what is.)
This stuff isn't rocket science, folks. Really, it isn't.