Last week, I debated former National Rifle Association President Sandra Froman on gun control. I was invited to do so by the University of North Dakota School of Law’s chapter of the Federalist Society.
This was not a debate I sought out, but it was an obligation I did not feel I could ignore. The debate was recorded. (Edit: you can now find it here.). However, I have received so many requests for details, that I thought it would be useful to post my opening statement to give people a taste of what’s to come. I do not have a transcript of the debate, so I can’t include Ms. Froman’s response, but the event was covered by the Grand Forks Herald. These comments are lengthier than a blog usually is, but we were given fifteen minutes for a statement and I wanted to make the most of them.
I look forward to hearing your comments and I look forward to posting the whole debate soon..
One comment on “Should we have gun control? An opening statement.”
Got e-mail from a site asking to petition for changes in the US gun debate so I sent them this back .
I like the Canadian laws but the Americans have a different law in there constitution. Look at Switzerland who for 70 years have never been invaded and all young people are required to go to the army afterwards for 2 yrs and then be part of a militia as they don't have a real large standing army. Yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world but everyone( excluding mentally unfit,criminal,physically unfit people) has a registered weapon in the house under lock and key. Israel teachers have guns in the class rooms because of the friendly neighbor countries yet they have a very low rate of school shootings .It's not the weapon that kills its the access to it and people who are criminal or unstable in nature that commit crimes. Even if you ban guns they will turn to edged or blunt weapons. Worst is explosives, poison, cars, trucks and planes as the terrorists use.
Despite man made laws I wish to be peaceful and stay alive. If criminals won't follow the law and you disarm the rest of the population then you leave them without a way to defend themselves. Most 911 calls take 20 mins to respond. A lot can happen in that time. If I leave this Earth then I would rather defend myself than be a helpless victim. To me is the unstable ones under medications that commit the crimes after bad med reactions, not taking the meds or long term side effects. In the past they threw them in a nut farm but that's not allowed now so they medicate them and turn them loose on the population. So we pay the price when they go nuts. So were do we the good citizens benefit against them when we are disarmed. They will never follow the law and get weapons illegally if they have too. The use of kids as a soft spot to change laws is exploiting them for a belief system. If changes are to be made then they should not be pawns. It's the reality of psychedelic meds be handed out like candy in the USA that's the main culprit. Some have long term side effects of paranoid psychosis or uncontrolled anger outbursts as they were stream lined through the FDA with minimal testing because big pharma lobbied the gov't to reduce there costs getting drugs on the market. About 90% or more of the shootings are people on these meds. Fix the meds , background checks, and weapon storage not the weapons themselves. If someone wants to kill they will find a way no matter what. Anyone who thinks otherwise is disconnected from reality and lives in a bubble utopia. Benjamin Franklin said ” those that trade freedom for security deserve neither”. Hugo Black said ” political correctness is the enemy of free speech”. My grandfather said ” live and let live” . One person imposing a belief system on another is not correct. It's forced directly or through subversive means. Human Being's do destroy things they fear with or without understanding it. They force beliefs when others conflict with the main stream belief whether it's right or wrong they do it anyway . At the end of the day there has to be a middle ground…………