Since [Straight Shooter] has written a couple of 貼文 regarding guns in universities and national parks, I will leave them alone so I won't overkill the subject.

However, yes, there is always a "however"...lol.

Now, the reason I thought you are in the camp of "national health care" was of course, an educated guess/assumption based on your posts and positions from the past.

Just as you would probably think I hate gays/homosexuals. Which I don't, I think homosexual is natural and not a life style choice. but that is a whole other topic.

I will agree with your--"by conservatism we mean respect for tradition and knowledge...those values."

The following is a list of why I think I am a conversative...

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values..even though I am an agnostic) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.

I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.

I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.

I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.

I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country

How is that for an earful...hahahahaha

One more point on the national parks. The reason why national parks were brought up is because each year, around 50 rapes and 250 aggravated assaults occur in national parks. Not to mention the infamous rape and murder of 3 women in Yosemite a couple of years ago.

Did you know that legally, police and park rangers are not obligated to ensure the safety of the tourists? It is written in the common-law and government has used that excuse for their failure to protect its citizens numerous times in the past. One cannot blame the government because there are only 3 police per 1000 US citizens...

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why massive killings almost always happened in schools and federal buildings (i.e. NY immigration center)? That's because they are the ONLY places where law-abiding citizens with government-issued conceal carry weapon permits (CCW) are NOT allowed to bring their sidearms like everywhere else. And the murderous lunatics know that as well !!! Schools are making themselves such easy targets for any monsters wishing to take out maximum number of people. As this comment is being written, Texas among other states has just passed laws to allow any citizen with permit to bring their sidearm to school. We need more practical and realistic solutions like this in this imperfect world.

By the way, not everyone CAN bring guns to school if they want to, legally. Individuals such as 蘇友貞 's teen-age sons with no formal training and justifiable cause would have zero chance obtaining CCW permits from local government. Only responsible and mature ones would have the opportunity.

Errors on the previous post, here again:

>>>What is that you are trying to do/add on top of the currection restrictions? <<<

How about no guns in universities or national parks?

>>Do you really want government to get into every aspect of your life? <<

No, I don't. Therefore I don't see why people want the government to decide who can get married and who cannot.

I also don't see why you are so certain that I am for national health care. Is that again the label-before-argue thing and the assumption that people who don't agree with you, i.e. those liberals, can only group think?

>>Do you really want government to get into every aspect of your life? <<

I don't have any problem calling myself a conservative, if by conservatism we mean respect for tradition and knowledge, "conserving" environment and constitution. Sadly, I don't think people who deem themselves conservatives these days are practicing those values.

How about no guns in universities or national parks?

No, I don't. Therefore I don't see why people want the government to decide who can get married and who cannot.

I also don't see why you are so certain that I am for national health care. Is that again the label-before-argue thing and the assumption that people who don't agree with you, i.e. those liberals, can only group think?

I don't have any problem calling myself a conservative, if by conservatism we mean respect for tradition and knowledge, "conserving" environment and constitution. Sadly, I don't think people who deem themselves conservatives these days are practicing those values.

I just remembered, you put forth the argument below a couple of days ago...

>>>“alcohol is not responsible for drunk-and-drive accidents, people are”<<<

Same argument could apply to;

"smoking and second hand smoking" or

"junk food/fastfood" or whatever else...

Do you really want government to get into every aspect of your life? start regulating everything that you do? I am almost certain that you are for national health care? If so, think about the consequences...the government dictating people's life in order to get treatment..

>>Let’s have the grace and generosity to think the other side is as sincere as we are.<<

Oui, my apologies, if I let off the wrong impression. You as a host, has always been graceful, and as far as I can tell, sincere in your argument.

>>Call me out if I sound self-righteous and all-knowing.<<

Felt a little tiny bitty of mockery there...lol

maybe I'm just overly sensitive, ha ha.

I first owned a gun(without my parents knowing of course...lol) when I turned 21, a .45 Colt., took it to an indoor shooting range, read and learned all the rules regarding how to handle a gun. I fell in love with guns ever since. It is almost time to pass down the tradition...my kids are almost of age.

>>People like me who advocate a moderate and common-sense approach to gun ownership are not out there to take people’s guns away.<<

Okaaay..

So what is it that you are advocating?

Better question is..What is that you are trying to do/add on top of the currection restrictions?

jariel,

You are right. I was mistaken about the age requirement for concealed weapon permit. Currently, the age requirement is 23 in Missouri but efforts are underway to lower it. A quarter of the states in this country, though, set their age at 18.

As I said in my previous post, number is beside the point. It does not change my overall argument that permission of guns in universities is a bad idea or my description of university students, teenagers or not, as “血氣方剛”. I have three sons around that age and I know how immaturely they can be emotionally (Maybe it’s just my children?).

I thank you for correcting me on factual information but your quick accusation of me being deceitful is totally un-called for. The eagerness to cast doubts on the opponent’s motives is what creates the stalemate in this debate. Let’s have the grace and generosity to think the other side is as sincere as we are. At least, that’s the goal I strive for everyday. Call me out if I sound self-righteous and all-knowing.

People like me who advocate a moderate and common-sense approach to gun ownership are not out there to take people’s guns away. That’s what NRA wants everybody to believe. Sadly, this paranoia (or is it deliberate manipulation) makes gun law an either-or and all-or-nothing issue that prohibits any room for compromise or discussion.

蘇友貞 is correct, human are flawed with emotion. So let's take a look at the facts.

FACT: States/Cities with strict "gun control" laws have HIGHER rates of violent crime. Washington D.C. is a good example. During the gun ban there, violent crime steadily rose, even during years where the national measure of crime actually decreased.

FACT: "Assault Weapons" account for less than 1% of firearms-related crime (not limited to homicides). "Assault Weapon" is a made-up name used to describe a certain look of some weapons. ANY weapon can be an "assault weapon" - butter knife, brick, slingshot, automobile, hammer.

FACT: "machine guns" are not available to the general public, despite what some news stories say.

FACT: Most crimes STOPPED by handguns are not reported ... just like most petty thefts are not reported.

FACT: 2 million crime stopped and lives saved each year by law-abiding citizens. Far exceeds lives taken away by criminals mis-using guns.

FACT: Countries that severely restrict gun ownership fall into one of two categories: Those whose violent crime continues, using other methods (Japan, Britain), and those whose governments have absolute control (China, Cuba). Japan has knife and poison-gas attacks. Britain has a (far) higher rate of break-ins to occupied homes and violent attacks than the U.S.

FACT: States without restrictive gun laws have less violent crime. A typical example liberals like to use is Hawaii for its strict gun control and low crime rate. Based on 2003 data (FBI Uniform Crime reports 2003), for example, Vermont had the lowest total violent crime (Per 100,000)at 31.5, while Hawaii was at #19 with 123.8, and Washington D.C. had 792.3, while the national average was 180.0. So while Hawaii had a lower overall violent crime rate than the national average, it still had far more violent crime than the "gun crazy" states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, both Dakotas, Kentucky, and others- each of which had the same or less homicides in 2003.

FACT: The ONLY people who give up their guns when a law is passed requiring them to do so are those people who are NOT a threat to others.

I respect your choice not to use firearms, but i, as a law-abiding citizen, whose weapons ARE registered, and who HAS undergone the appropriate background checks to own and carry particular types of firearms strongly disagree that the government should step in and tell us what "common sense" is.

It is highly illegal to have a gun in Mexico and, well, that has really worked toward the safety and stability of that country.

If you think making guns illegal will get rid of them, please explain to me why so many people drive cars without drivers licenses?

Explain to me why so many people do drug when drugs are banned, outlawed, and illegal? I don’t know any drug users who stopped using drugs because they’re against the law. Do you??

I also found the following on the web...

----------------------------------------------

In addition to the provision to allow concealed weapons on campuses, the bill would also lower the eligibility age for obtaining a concealed carry permit from 23 to 21. Most states set the minimum age at 21.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, that further provides contradictory evidence to your argument which including...

"BTW, the Missouri law is granting teenage students, not the trained teachers, to carry weapons to school."

As well as; "Half of the college students are teenagers -- their ages ranged from 17 to 22.."

Which gives the illusion that a 17 year old can carry a gun to campus.

Those are not only inaccurate but very deceiving statements, and very very damaging to your cause.

>>>People are imperfect beings. Human judgments are flawed, clouded by emotions and impulses.<<<

lol.. ehhh, I wonder what will those "well programed robots would say about that?...lol

Although I myself do not drink, I am a proponent of lowering legal drinking age down to 18.

If we can ask the 18 year olds to fire M16s in the battlefield, they deserve a drink, or two.

One more minor but important detail...

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claimed McLendon "needed the firepower of assault weapons to execute his plan of mass carnage." In a joint statement, five anti-gun groups demanded "an effective federal assault weapons ban," calling the Alabama massacre the latest in "a string of preventable tragedies committed with these military-style weapons." They identified McLendon's weapons as "a Bushmaster AR-15-style assault rifle and an SKS assault rifle," which they described as "military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently."

In truth, neither of these guns is an assault rifle, which by definition is capable of firing automatically. Both of McLendon's rifles, like all the guns covered by "assault weapon" bans, were semiautomatic, firing once per trigger pull.

Gun control groups deliberately foster confusion between "assault weapons," an arbitrary category based mainly on appearances, and machine guns, which are already strictly regulated under federal law. The confusion was apparent in news coverage of McLendon's shooting spree, which erroneously called his guns "automatic weapons" and "high-powered assault rifles."

jariel,

Half of the college students are teenagers -- their ages ranged from 17 to 22. Number is beside the point. The point is that they are not ready to handle guns, no matter how much training they receive. If we set the drinking age at 21, then why should we let people younger than 21 carry weapons? Should we then use the same argument that “alcohol is not responsible for drunk-and-drive accidents, people are” to allow our kids of any age to drink? People are imperfect beings. Human judgments are flawed, clouded by emotions and impulses. The goal of good public policy is to minimize the impact of those human errors.

I am terribly sorry and deeply horrified about your friend's hubby gotten "death threats".

There are always a few rotten apples, no matter in what camp.

However, you can rest assure that I won't be sending you any.

Start with the very name "gun control." Do gun control laws actually control guns? Why would someone who is obviously willing to repeatedly break the laws against murder be unwilling to break gun control laws?

Gun control laws do not control people who are in the business of breaking laws. Gun control simply disarms their potential victims, making crime a safer occupation, and hence one that can be indulged in more widely by more people.

Gun control laws would no more have stopped the Virginia Tech, Columbine, 加州矽谷的高級住宅區到阿拉巴馬州人煙稀少的鄉鎮 or whereever else than they stop innumerable other gun crimes in places with some of the strongest gun control laws in the country. If you are going to look at the record, then empirical studies have already shown that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry concealed weapons tends to produce less violence, not more. Some communities have gone the opposite direction on gun control -- requiring each home owner to have a firearm in the house -- and this has led to fewer burglaries in such communities.

Killings seldom start where someone else is known in advance to be carrying a gun. Have you ever heard of one of these supposedly "senseless" killers opening fire on a gathering of members of the National Rifle Association? They always seem to have better sense than to do that.

One misleading statistics used by gun control advocates include statistics on lower murder rates in selected countries with strong gun control laws, as compared to murder rates in the United States. What these advocates studiously avoid mentioning are higher murder rates than ours in other countries that also have strong gun control laws (Brazil, Russia) -- or lower murder rates in some countries, such as Israel, where guns are more widely available than in the United States.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Weapons matter primarily when the wrong people have them and the right people don't. It is the imbalance in weapons that creates the danger.

I have checked and checked, searched and searched

and then more, searching and checking...

I only found Missouri is allowing "college" students to carry "concealed weapon" and not "teenagers"...you might want to double check on that. Besides, as crazy as I am(I own two 9mm, one .45 cal. and a shotgun)I refused to believe The Srate of Missouri will let "teenagers carrying guns to school...I am pretty...correction*, I am certain that you are mistaken.

Ms Su, if you study American history and culture then you understand why anti gun-control group is so strong.

jariel,

I know very well how controversial this topic is, having been attacked and vilified while trying to engage a rational debate with bloggers on NYT blogsite after the Virginia Tech incident. My friend’s family constantly got death threats when her husband served as the spokesperson for a Missouri gun-control group. For the safety of their young children, he had to resign from that post. It is this kind of intimidation and militarism -- mostly demonstrated by the pro-gun group -- that infuriates me. I do sympathize with the strong stand to defend the 2nd amendment and the principle to protect individual gun-owning right granted by the constitution. But to allow the ownership of powerful automatic weapon whose only purpose is to kill greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time is simply against common sense. Worst of all, the powerful NRA and the radical gun-rightists have so soured the political atmosphere and so bullied the politicians that it has become virtually impossible to have any meaningful debate on this issue. The recent effort to tie credit card regulation and gun control law into the same bill is such a blatant political manipulation.

BTW, the Missouri law is granting teenage students, not the trained teachers, to carry weapons to school.

I first, just wanted to point out they did not pass the law so the students can carry gun to school, it may just be a few trained teachers and securities...please check on that.

Wow, you picked a very very controversial issue here...lol.

Of course I imagine you already know where I stand on that issue..

and of course, you know I will write something about it..

and of course, I know you will disagree...lol.

such is life.