Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Andrew, Texas on February 16, 2009:

Thank you. Without a doubt, one of the best essays on gun rights I've read in quite some time.

Posted by Bob - Clermont, FL on February 16, 2009:

As an NRA life member, I must say I basically agree with your explanation, Randy. Also, your sidebar explanation of why the NRA reacts as they do also agrees with my perception of their motives. It's no secret that most societies that have never had, or have given up, gun ownership freedoms are paying the price for it in many ways, not the least of which is loss of personal safety in their own homes. Now, the new administration is beginning to introduce bills to restrict the types of weapons that may be owned (primarily the never well-defined "assault rifles"). This, in my estimation, is simply another attempt to institute gun control by misdirection, just as your analogy of banning smoking by passing a few "common sense" laws was. I think that your reasonable approach to explaining the issue is the one that should prevail, but there are no "reasonable" zealots out there.

---

I agree there are no reasonable zealots. But there are plenty of people who are reasonable, yet have never understood the facts on either side. This is just one brief attempt to shine some light on the subject without resorting to emotion, since we're all better off with more actual information. -rc

Posted by Walt, Towaco, NJ on February 16, 2009:

A very balanced and reasonable essay on American gun ownership and gun control. You got the NRA reasoning dead on. I'm with you.

Posted by Tena, WA state on February 16, 2009:

You did just fine with this essay. It is violence that's the main problem, as criminals try to hurt you, and they have better access to guns, even if they are illegal in places. I will never give up my guns, and recently have been contemplating getting a CCW cert. The elevated number of senseless attacks on groups of defenseless people is getting too scary to ignore.

Posted by Shaun, Dublin, CA on February 16, 2009:

Imagine that! What would happen if we actually ENFORCED the thousands of laws already on the books instead of passing dozens more restricting the rights of law abiding citizens? Thanks, Randy for trying to put a logical, non-hysterical viewpoint on the issue.

Posted by Scott, in Killeen, TX on February 16, 2009:

You said:

> And, of course, if the government gets too cocky, "The People" will fight them, too.

The government is made up of people; it is SOME of the people in (or who work for as contractors or whatever) the government who are getting "cocky", not the entire government as a whole, although I grant that there may be emergent phenomena (the group acts in a way that is not predictable from the way that the individuals act).

On another issue, I often read articles saying that people are safer when there are fewer guns, and other articles saying the opposite. Can you provide some clear facts on this?

---

No, the irony of "The People" fighting "The Government of, by, and for The People" doesn't escape me.

As far as your question: if readers have useful links, please send them to me and I'll amend this comment with the most useful ones. -rc

Posted by Melodie, Tumwater WA on February 16, 2009:

Good job on the essay. I want to comment on what might seem like a minor point - the ACLU supporting the teacher. For some reason, the ACLU has gotten a reputation as extreme liberals - commie & anti-God. In reality, they are attempting to protect the rights given in the Bill of Rights. So yes, they defend speech I find offensive as well as the right to use quote the Bible. They regularly defend people from all points on the political spectrum but only a few cases get significant press.

Randy, I know you know this but I think it bears repeating in this context - a right isn't right unless it's extended to EVERYONE - not just the people I agree with!

---

Well sure, you understand that! :-) But yes, I expanded on the ACLU in the blog entry I linked to at the end; I just couldn't cover everything in one place. But I loved baiting readers with that previous ACLU story.... -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 16, 2009:

Scott says that government is just people, and some of the people may get "cocky". But when "some" of those people are in control of entire agencies that have well-financed and manpowered equipment to levy upon the citizenry, then for all intents & purposes, they ARE the government. Witness the gun-snatching by the police from homeowners in New Orleans during the Katrina aftermath. BATF was formerly part of the Treasury Dept. Their primary function was the collection of taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Now they're the BATFE (Explosives) and are part of the Justice Dept whose purpose is to control crime. As with most federal agencies, the Dept can institute regulations that have the full impact of law, which stand until a lawsuit challenges their Constitutionality. Until then, a lot of rights can get trampled. It's no consolation to someone who's served a few years in prison that he was right all along.

Posted by Randall in New York on February 16, 2009:

I have to admit that when I clicked the link in your newsletter to read this, I was expecting a very different essay. Growing up in New York, I've always been against people having guns. Now I'm not sure. I have to think about it. Your essay and the two "guns" pages you linked to at the very top have taken me over an hour to read, and are very thought provoking. You are correct that I have not been exposed to these ideas before, and will have to do some research after I've slept on this. But meanwhile, while there are surely some "gun nuts" out there, I'm no longer sure, as I used to be, that everyone with a gun is a nut. And that's a big step for me already. Thank you for making me think about this issue, as it's an important one.

---

Yes, it is an important issue, and whatever your conclusion, I'm gratified that I've had a hand in helping you think about it. -rc

Posted by Deborah Ford, San Jose on February 16, 2009:

Randy, I think you're right on with many things concerning guns. Of course, you omitted the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the Second Amendment, but you may have thought it wasn't necessary to mention it. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment ensured the individual's right to keep and bear arms. You also omitted to mention that many Americans hunt for food, not just for sport.

There have actually been a couple of places that "liberalized" their gun laws and found that crime rates lowered appreciably. Now the criminals are leery of their former victims!

Lastly, I do have a link for you concerning Gun Facts. It's http://www.gunfacts.info. The author has a book you can download for free.

Keep on keepin' on!!

---

I know I omitted a lot of details, but this wasn't meant to be an exhaustive survey. I did start to talk about the Supreme Court decision, but then went on a bit of a tangent and didn't get back to it. And I'm going to hit the sack for the night, so didn't have a chance to review the site you mentioned, but I will. -rc