Todd,
I've been trying to stay away from this thread as it deals with a subject that I feel strongly about and, being new to TBN, wasn't sure if this was the forum to let my passions loose. My reply above, pointing to the "armed citizen" web page was specifically in response to your
"Now how many lives a year does the average physician save and how many lives a year does the average gun owner save?" line. I don't know if you meant it that way or not, but the inference is that firearms in the hands of an average citizen don't save lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you wanted to delve into the statistics, you'd probably find that armed citizens actually save more lives each year than police. Now, I'm not talking about apprehending someone who has already committed a crime of violence, I'm talking about actually stopping the crime during the commission of the act. The simple truth is that police cannot be expected to stop violent crimes during their commission. They can't see the future and know where to be at the right time. It is up to us to protect ourselves. The fact that the police may eventually apprehend the felon who kills me does nothing to bring me back to life. And it really doesn't matter whether I get shot or beat to death with a ball bat, I'm still dead. It would be ridiculous to expect the police to post an armed officer in front of every doorway in the country to be there when the criminal shows up.
You also say
" Each account says the "citizen was licensed" to carry the gun." I only looked at 1991 (no need to preach to the choir) but I actually see very few where the mention of a "licensed" firearm is made. Any reference to a "legally" owned firearm could simply mean that the gun owner isn't a convicted felon since the Constitution guarantees us that right.
And while I don't feel it's necessary to argue the semantics of "privilege" vs "right", it should be noted that the Framers of the Constitution called it "The Bill of Rights", not "The Bill of Privileges".
And finally,
Since I'd go to war to protect your "right" to have and express your opinion on the matter, I look forward to your response. That "right" I believe is paramount to our country's survival. The right/privilege of carrying a gun, well, I'm a bit softer on that one. I've heard this argument time after time, and not sure I'll ever understand the logic. Once all of the law-abiding citizens are disarmed (you can't disarm the criminal element anymore than making drugs illegal has irradiated them), just what are you planning on protecting the First Amendment with? The usual answer is that in these times, the rise to power of the force necessary to restrict that right isn't possible. I wonder if the people in 1930s Germany felt the same way. And if it isn't possible, then why does the Presidential Oath of Office still contain the words (and this may not be exact) "to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic".
If you really want to be "safe" then restricting the Second Amendment isn't the answer. What you need to do is repeal the Fourth Amendment. (just kidding)
I've come to realize that this issue has great passions on both sides. My passion is to the
entire Constitution, not selected parts. While most people believe (and I sincerely hope) that an attack on our own soil by either a foreign or domestic enemy is not a possibility, rest assured that should a worst case scenario happen, you can head for my house. I'll loan you a firearm to protect your "privileges"./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Hoss
