@Ducimus
Thank you for an eloquent and well reasoned response. It took me a while to get started in this particular thread as previous responses made me feel decidedly unwelcome (To be clear, my problem, no one else, and I took what I felt was the necessary action to try to avoid such bad reaction from me in the future), and from its inception was not intended as yet another thread arguing about gun controls rather about Mr Kings written views - which is of no interest to anyone else evidently and that is fair enough. I rather expected it to die quietly after the first few negative replies, as there are plenty more threads on the overarching issue.
Instead, here I am, here you are, exchanging views on gun culture etc. and on that note I would like to elaborate the reason I think this is so.
You mentioned the perceived projection of guilt by anti-gun folks upon pro-gun folks for the terrible crimes committed by criminals. To me this is a very unfortunate manifestation of the polarizing effect of shock and tragedy, and a part of the argument that to my mind is quite detrimental to the gun control advocates cause. The media knows this all too well of course, as do the politicians and we all know that their motivations are often less than honorable. However, and this is a clear point in Mr Kings essay and one I agree with completely - The reason that you kindly describe to me your views whether they be pro or anti-gun (for want of better less monochrome terms) is itself an indication of the fact that you care very deeply about the problems in your society, as I do about mine and this is hope inspiring. Particularly since this is an argument you have been having your whole life while outsiders like me tend to only get involved when we are shocked and saddened by unashamedly sensationalist media coverage. Media is too often a pernicious thing I think, and conscientious gun owners/enthusiasts are in no way responsible for the crimes committed by people with either mental disorders or inferior motives.
That said, I will ramble on a bit if anyone would care to read it, and not necessarily about gun controls. /phew...
I understand your definitive separation of rights and needs, which is why I was careful to imply the personal choice inherent in the lack of needs. I know there are many Americans who do not own guns through choice and yet will not like yourself accept any erosion of their right to do so. I do differ in some rhetorical statements in that I choose an atheistic life as is my right, so 'God given rights' means very little to me (and I hope that this does not make you think worse of me). We could debate the exact meaning of the word 'creator' which I would argue should be 'creation' in your constitution but that is another discussion altogether, and not pertinent to the fact that a right is indeed a right. As I have mentioned before I have huge admiration for your constitution and have found it a singularly fascinating document to analyse.
I wander about the right to life in regard to capital punishment, and the right to the pursuit of happiness in regard to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Obviously some may feel that criminals forfeit these rights entirely upon committing a crime, I personally can't agree with this, because of human subjective judgement of criminality and peoples propensity to make mistakes. There is I believe always a possibility no matter how slight for change in any and every individual. Don't get me wrong, I think someone like Charles Manson should probably remain incarcerated permanently if only for his own safety, regardless of whether or not he is or was capable of any rehabilitation. I guess that since the words describe rights being endowed by mans creator (or creation) that might be construed or even stated as being inviolate or unlimited since no one man or group of men can endow these rights, neither can they take them away. However, society has a duty to try to mitigate the damage to society that is a result of evolved aspects of humanity, those being opportunism, fear, greed, etc. so in actual fact all fundamental rights should be and are limited. Compromise is a word that does not inspire confidence in people and it is certain that some individuals will lose more than they gain in any sense of it, but compromise is I believe essential to the continued functioning of large societies, and is itself simply another evolved aspect of humanity. Above all, criminals and crazies are unavoidably human aspects too and they are not going to go away. My worry when I discuss the US constitution is a sneaking feeling that some regard the rights as their own exclusively, in the case of prepper groups for example, to me seem to be a move towards division, of different interpretations of constitutional declarations and ultimately between groups, peoples and governments, maybe even the military. A fairly rough analogy here would be the Waco siege, those folks were certainly well prepped, and they couldn't be stopped.
So I digress, my thoughts are not yet completely collected on the various sound points you have made, and I shall stop here until such a time as I can efficiently put them into words.
As an aside, your doggie early warning device is a wonderful looking creature
and a very wise precaution that I think all gun owners should consider, along with effective security systems, burglar alarms, etc.
Best regards,
Sam.