Comments by jchick

John Chick's picture

That just proves they are human.

I think the founders would be both amazed and discouraged with where we are today.

If you spend much time reading the debates from the founding era, there is one thing that they all agreed on; that any government where men were involved was an accident waiting to happen. Yes, they all made mistakes. What is interesting with Adams and Jefferson is that they started out as great friends and co-patriots, then became bitter political enemies, and then in their twilight years, patched things up. They both died on the same day within hours of each other, July 4th, 1826.

The one idea they did get right was the distribution of power, and not just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well. Our main problem today is we have drifted away from the original design, and the federal government has usurped authority it was never meant to have.

The reason for quoting the founders is because most people have no clue what the founding generation intended when they created our system of government. Their words are much more eloquent than mine, and I find they can explain it much better than I can.

John Chick's picture

Not so different

We face the same dangers in our day as they did in theirs.

It is a disservice to our society to think otherwise. The point Adams was trying to make is that he is ultimately responsible for his own safety. "Perhaps" in this sentence means "I doubt I could give it up even if I wanted to." His point is that the Right to self defense is unalienable, i.e. not something that can be relinquished or transfered to someone else.

You miss Jefferson's point. It is not that we can be sure of who the criminals are. The point he is trying to make is you don't solve the violence problem by disarming the good guys, all you do is take away their ability to defend themselves from violent criminals.

And that is why gun-control is so immoral.

Right up until the 1960's the only gun-control laws on the books were a bunch of "Jim Crow" laws that were enacted in the south to prevent black folks from owning firearms. If gun-control works, why do the cities with the strictest gun-control also have the largest number of gun related homicides?

John Chick's picture

Really?

First of all, Rights are not granted by the Constitution or by the government. Rights are retained by The People and enumerated in the Bill of Rights in order to underscore the fact that the government that is created by the Constitution exists to ensure the Rights of The People are protected.

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."

An unalienable right is a right that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Are you saying that no one has an absolute right to their Life? I find it interesting that the people who say there are no absolute rights use that statement to justity infringing on the rights of their fellow citizens.

The government has no authority to limit free speach because someone might yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Nor does the government have the authority to prevent me from using my hands because I might make a fist and strike someone.

There were three different studies performed before, during and after the last so-called "assault weapons" ban, and they all came to the same conclusion; that the ban had no measurable effect on crime.

John Chick's picture

Change <> Results

Gun-control bills do nothing to change the behavior of criminals. They do have a tendency to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

I challenge anyone to name a single gun control law that prevented a criminal from acquiring a firearm and using it to commit a crime.

We do not have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Every single shooter in these incidents has been using prescribed psychopathic medication and/or has a history of mental illness. That should be where our attention is focused, not on disarming America.

John Chick's picture

There have been many studies...

There have been many studies that have tried to estimate the number of times guns are used defensively, and the numbers vary. The fact remains that people DO use them to defend themselves daily, but those statistics are generally overlooked.

It is rather a moot point to throw statistics around. The fact remains, the supreme law of the land says the the people have a right to keep and bear arms. A right that is protected by the 2nd Amendment. A right that existed prior to the formation of this government.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

John Chick's picture

You need to read the Constitution

We are a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, not public opinion polls. It doesn't matter if 99% of the people in the United States are in favor of gun-control, it would still be against the law.

John Chick's picture

All options should at least be explored.

Yes, Colombine had an armed security guard. He was on his lunch break when the shooting started. He exchanged fire and drove them back into the school building, then waited for the police to arrive.

Unfortunately, both the security guard and the police officers were trained to try to contain the shooters and wait for SWAT to arrive before engaging an active shooter. Policies and procedures were revamped after Columbine to address the mistakes that were made. Now the policy is as soon as there are two officers, they are to engage the active shooter. If there is only one available officer, he is to engage the active shooter in an attempt to draw the shooters attention away from the civilians.

There have been many instances where an armed guard, school administrator, even students have engaged an active shooter and stopped an attack. Pearl Mississippi comes to mind. The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and detained the 16 year old shooter until the police arrived. Just recently an armed guard in Atlanta stopped a teen who shot at a couple of classmates.

Your reasoning about the abilities of teachers and/or volunteers does not hold up to close scrutiny. Especially since I just demonstrated that a faculty member in Pearl Mississippi was able to thwart a shooter. And need I remind you that it was essentially volunteers who won the American Revolution.

I am always amused at people who think that the military and police are somehow more qualified to defend themselves and others than other citizens. As others have said, anyone who has undergone training to obtain a concealed carry permit (and I mean classroom AND range time) is pretty much qualified.

Personally, I think this should be up to the local school systems and the parrents, not the State and Federal government. Like another reader said, when you start mandating thins, especially with budget restraints and other difficulties, you leave room for sloppy implimentation, and that's the last thing we need.

John Chick's picture

Enjoy it while you have it.

As others have commented, Dianne Feinstein and company will not stop until the american public is disarmed. It may not be this time around, nor the next, but many of them have already stated as such. That lever action 30-30, at one time, was a state of the art battle rifle. Not to mention the fact that the 30-30 cartridge is more powerful than either of the rounds used by the AK-47 or the AR-15.

Either we all stand together, Al, or.... well, you get the idea.

John Chick's picture

That is not what I said.

Admittedly, there are probably a lot of laws on the books that should be thrown out, but that is NOT what I said.

But since we are on the subject, perhaps Mr. Jefferson carries more weight than I do:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

I suppose my desire to see that people get the help they need is audacious, especially in this political climate where everyone wants to point fingers at the "other side" rather than work together as Americans to resolve these issues in a civilized matter. So be it. Call me audacious.

It is obvious that people who commit such atrocities are not in their right mind. Placing the focus on the object used to commit such crimes does not help the perpetrator or the victim(s).

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you just don't like guns, especially scarey looking ones?

John Chick's picture

Our Legislators...

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right."

Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.