the background:
CHESHIRE, Conn., Aug. 6 — Dr. William A. Petit Jr., his head bloodied and legs bound, stumbled out of a rear basement door of his two-story home here into a pouring rain, calling the name of a neighbor for help.

The scene at the Petits’ home on July 23, after two intruders set a gasoline fire before trying to escape.
The neighbor heard the shouting, but so did the two men inside the house, who peeked outside from an upstairs window. They were both serial burglars with drug habits, having racked up numerous convictions for stealing car keys and pocketbooks.

This time, they took something far more precious.

The men, the authorities say, had already strangled Dr. Petit’s wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and in short order would also kill the couple’s two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. The elder suspect, Steven J. Hayes, 44, had poured gasoline on the girls and their mother, according to a lawyer and a law enforcement official involved in the case, in hopes of concealing DNA evidence of sexual assault. He had raped Ms. Hawke-Petit, and his partner, Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, had sexually assaulted Michaela.

Moments after Dr. Petit escaped, as the house was being surrounded by police officers, the men lighted the gasoline. The girls were tied to their beds but alive when the gas Mr. Hayes had spread around the house was set aflame.
the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Stowe,%20Stacey

_____
the issue:
By Keith C. Burris
story here: http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberal-newspaper-editor-time-to-admit.html

In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why?

There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.

Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."

Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.

Can't we better monitor the probation process?

Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?

Are home alarms really effective?

How about dogs?

But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.

That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?

Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.

Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?

Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.

Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?

I think the answer is yes.

And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.

I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.

Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?

And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.

I don't say it would have.

I say it might have.

Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.

Moreover, the three victims here were women.

What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?

It's worth thinking about.

Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.

And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.

A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."

They are.

And they are right.

Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.

No one should have a gun who has not been trained.

Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)

And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.

A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.

An "answer" does not exist.

But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.

All possible remedies should be on the table:

-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.

-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.

-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.

-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.

-- More and better home alarm systems.

-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.

-- Dobermans.

All of these approaches have merit.

So does self-defense.

None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.

No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.

But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.

Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.

--------

Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.
_____
my take: we should have the right to protect ourselves....Keep in mind that the government, including this administration is working very hard to nullify the 2nd amendment...we should all be concerned...

i usually cover up my arms they are kinda flabby

Nice.

not really i gotta start working out

I remember reading something years ago about a town in Georgia (I think) that made it a municipal law to own a handgun. Not that it was so strictly enforced that if you didn't have you were fined or anything though. However the crime rate did drop considerably. Including crimes committed with firearms.

Scum have no problem getting guns off the street leaving law abiding citizens powerless.

My HS teacher told us that story - one town - no handguns allowed, next town, handguns required (and if you couldn't afford one, they'd give you one - and if you didn't know how to use it, they'd train you) GUESS which town had a lower crime rate?

So, a hearty AMEN here!

100% agree!!

I live in a state with some of the most liberal gun laws in the country and a large percentage of people here per capita own firearms of some sort. Coincidence that we also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the US? I think not. Criminals will always have access to weapons, and they think twice before barging into someone's home knowing they may be looking down the end of a double barrel shotgun.

Hunting is a valued tradition here and young kids, boys and girls, are taught from an early age how to respect and use firearms, the importance of gun safety, etc. Ignorance is deadly, as demonstrated by the tale above. Education is key in this issue.

Our right to bear arms should be protected at all costs for to lose it, we shall all become victims. And yes I do believe the government will take my guns over my dead body.

that town remains with this law. Yes the crime rate indeed dropped.

FYI ....I dont own a gun....

I would like to comment, but not being an American, I'll just go back to some other thread...

Davinci...I agree with most of what you say..but to say this administration is trying to dissolve the second admendment is just too much. The Liberal Democrats have been pushing tougher gun laws on us for years and the result is ..criminals have the guns and the law abiding citizens don't. Every state with the toughest gun restrictions end up having the worst violent crime rates because of this. When I visited a friend in Arizona, I noticed so many people had hand guns tucked into their waists and they have very little violent crime....who is going to walk into a store and rob it at gun point when they know more then half the people in there also have guns? Also these same people (liberals and the ACLU) who want tougher gun laws have also made are prisons into "luxury" resorts, providing them with Gyms comparable to Bally's,Premuim cable T.V. shows, More sport activities, more liberal "visitation" rights to spend weekends with their "partners" and the list goes on....there is no incentive to stay out of these type prisons where the inmates get better health care, dental and 3 square meals a day then they would on the streets. It's time to bring back the prisons of old, San Quenton, Attica and make thes people do "hard time" , no T.V. no recreation, no nothing...make it so damn tough they will never want to go back!!! You could have less time served (freeing up space) but make that time so harsh you would have less repeat offenders. All said and done..we need to arm the Good people, stop thinking we can "rehabilitate" violent criminals,and stop wasting taxpayer money on admitted killers spending 40,000 dollars a year to keep them in prison and just execute them within a week of their sentence. Our justice system is a joke...but I doubt any of these changes will take place...just too many bleeding heart liberals who care too much about criminals rights and not about what victims of these crimes deal with.

Serchin...I should have been more specific...I meant this legistature....both repubs & dem's...I see no difference....the latest from what I hear is the effort to declare returning Vets as "half crazed" to prevent them from being able to have their own weapons...
Dont see this as a liberal issue entirely anymore...they are all in the same leaky boat...

Davinci..yes I agree to some extent...but I think the Bigger problem is the individual state legistatures that are the problem. I guess if at the Fed level, they protected the second admendment whereby they say NO state can infringe on anyones right to bear arms and all citizens should have unfettered access to guns, this would keep these states with very restrictive laws from infringing on our rights, and your right both parties have been sleeping on the job on this issue to some extent...but the Dems and liberals have done much more damage in their vilification of the NRA and the promotion of stricter gunlaws then anyone else.

FYI I do.

fyi i also own one


but i do believe in mandatory gun control


everyone over 21 and not convicted of a crime

nor been diagnosed with mental issues

should have to own a gun and keep it

with them at all times

guns don't kill people husbands that come home early do

that'll be the day i am forced to own a gun.hatem

husbands don't kill people cheating wives do

why is it that the cities in the U.S. with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates? Anybody see a parallel here?