Gun Laws
As a Democrat, here is where I really get into trouble with the party. (hopefully, someone will finally respond!)
The Democrats tend to line up against the gun laws, and the NRA. I tend to line up against the Democrats on this one. I know that guns are extremely harmful. I personnally don't own a gun. The only gun that I ever fired besides a squirt gun and BB gun, is a black powder gun. A friend made it from a kit, and we took it to a shooting range one day to test out the accuracy. That was about 15 years ago.
I look at the 2nd amendment in the nature in which it was written by the founding fathers, and now, more than ever, those original thoughts apply.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
When I read this amendment, I find only the rights of citizens to arm themselves. I find the beginning part about a well regulated Militia, is only a comment. Therefore, for WHATEVER REASON, you have the right to arm yourself!
Currently, our right of Habeus Corpus has been taken from us. The fear that our government can do more harm to us than the terrorists can is a very real problem. Should we arm ourselves against our own government? That is for you to decide on an individual basis. But, I would not make a law taking that right away from you. Therefore, I had to agree with the NRA and gun lobbyist that they have the right to have guns. It is their decision.
Quite frankly, I see it the same way as the abortion arguement of women who don't want the government to have control over their own bodies, and decisions. I have always been for choice, so, I am not changing now!
Now, many of the reasons given against the 2nd amendment have to do with how dangerous guns are to humans. I will agree that guns AND humans kill! I tend to beleive that the main part of that equation is humans. Quite frankly, if humans didn't have guns, they would have other ways of killing each other. Before guns, they had knives. No one is running around saying we shouldn't have knives anymore, is that because guns have become more dangerous? But the arguement that guns are too dangerous, seems silly to me. Of course they are dangerous. So are knives! Regardless of how dangerous they are, the 2nd amendment allows you the right to have them and arm yourself regardless of the above cited reasons!
Finally, there are those out there who say, ok...maybe shot guns, but why do you need an AK-47? We should outlaw the assault rifles, they claim, because they are way too dangerous. My question is what is the difference? They can both kill you, as well as a knife! But, more to the point, if you have to arm yourself against your own government, which would you rather have - a knife, or an assault rifle? And if that becomes a decision you have to make, wouldn't you want to be able to make that decision!
Maybe I have been in the South too long, but, I must confess, I have felt this way, even when I lived in San Francisco! It comes down to everyone's personal decision! That, I believe, is everyone's right, whether I agree with them or not. Whether I believe they have the faculties to make good decision or not, is not up to me! It is not up to anyone else, but the individual making the decision.
The Democrats tend to line up against the gun laws, and the NRA. I tend to line up against the Democrats on this one. I know that guns are extremely harmful. I personnally don't own a gun. The only gun that I ever fired besides a squirt gun and BB gun, is a black powder gun. A friend made it from a kit, and we took it to a shooting range one day to test out the accuracy. That was about 15 years ago.
I look at the 2nd amendment in the nature in which it was written by the founding fathers, and now, more than ever, those original thoughts apply.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
When I read this amendment, I find only the rights of citizens to arm themselves. I find the beginning part about a well regulated Militia, is only a comment. Therefore, for WHATEVER REASON, you have the right to arm yourself!
Currently, our right of Habeus Corpus has been taken from us. The fear that our government can do more harm to us than the terrorists can is a very real problem. Should we arm ourselves against our own government? That is for you to decide on an individual basis. But, I would not make a law taking that right away from you. Therefore, I had to agree with the NRA and gun lobbyist that they have the right to have guns. It is their decision.
Quite frankly, I see it the same way as the abortion arguement of women who don't want the government to have control over their own bodies, and decisions. I have always been for choice, so, I am not changing now!
Now, many of the reasons given against the 2nd amendment have to do with how dangerous guns are to humans. I will agree that guns AND humans kill! I tend to beleive that the main part of that equation is humans. Quite frankly, if humans didn't have guns, they would have other ways of killing each other. Before guns, they had knives. No one is running around saying we shouldn't have knives anymore, is that because guns have become more dangerous? But the arguement that guns are too dangerous, seems silly to me. Of course they are dangerous. So are knives! Regardless of how dangerous they are, the 2nd amendment allows you the right to have them and arm yourself regardless of the above cited reasons!
Finally, there are those out there who say, ok...maybe shot guns, but why do you need an AK-47? We should outlaw the assault rifles, they claim, because they are way too dangerous. My question is what is the difference? They can both kill you, as well as a knife! But, more to the point, if you have to arm yourself against your own government, which would you rather have - a knife, or an assault rifle? And if that becomes a decision you have to make, wouldn't you want to be able to make that decision!
Maybe I have been in the South too long, but, I must confess, I have felt this way, even when I lived in San Francisco! It comes down to everyone's personal decision! That, I believe, is everyone's right, whether I agree with them or not. Whether I believe they have the faculties to make good decision or not, is not up to me! It is not up to anyone else, but the individual making the decision.
posted by Crazy East Coast Uncle at 8:28 AM
11 Comments:
Bullshit.
There are many, many well-read legal scholars that disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There are strong arguments that it was never a protection for an individual right to bear arms.
Also, you can't seriously compare guns to knives. This is a slippery slope argument that doesn't really work. The thing is, knives serve useful purposes other than to kill. Knives are good for carving, cutting up meat, threatening bullies and small hogs, etc. Further, knives do not carry the same capacity to be lethal that guns do. You have to try harder with a knife.
Guns, on the other hand, have little socially useful value other than for sport. But guns kill people all the time. If we implemented serious gun control, we would be trading off some people's choice in leisure activity for the sake of saving thousands of lives per year.
Google-Fu some stats regarding countries that have gun control. You will find that where guns are illegal, murder rates go down.
I seem to remember having a big comment war on this issue -- either over at my place or on Sadie's... I don't remember.
Needless to say, I totally disagree with you. But now I know what to get CECC for Christmas.
Hey, Sadie, I think I just got Lex back for that anonymous Reagan comment :) Of course, now, she will never admit she did it!
hehehehehehehe
I just wanted to get a rise out of her! I have talked with Lex on the phone about this issue, so, I already knew she would blow a gasket over this issue!
hehehehehehehe
The comment war wasn't with me.
Lex, you really sound like you are pro-life! Insert abortion for gun, in your sentence..."If we implemented serious gun/abortion control, we would be trading off some people's choice in leisure activity for the sake of saving thousands of lives per year!"
It is about choice!
hehehehehehehe Sadie...I got a whopper on the line...setting the hook now!
N I C E!!! :)
Yea, the comment war was on Lex's, and it started with Prefects arguement "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my eraser"
Prefect loved the point made about the abortion issue.
Now I feel bad, instigating and all.
Sadie, I think Lex must hate it when I used her own words against her! I just love to have a good debate!
Come on Lex, I am waiting! :) I don't care what well-read scholars think. This is my interpretation!
Sadie is right - there's a post called "Argument Deconstruction" over on my blog that went over gun control ad naseum.
What I will say quickly is that you are really, really bad about insisting on comparing apples to oranges. Guns and abortion? Seriously? Come on. The answer is much the same as the knive/gun illusion: it looks like a good comparison superficially, but adding any depth to the comparison reveals just how different the two issues are.
First, for your argument to work, I would have to believe that there is a life in existence at conecption. I don't. I think you need to develop a brain and thoughts before there is a "life" to lose. Second, denying abortion would not only save lives - like gun control would. Denying abortion creates a whole host of side-issues: unwanted children; children who are the by-product of rape/incenst; unwanted financial responsibilties etc. It's one thing to tell a person they can't have a gun for recreation. It's another thing completely to force a woman to become an incubator for nine months because you believe a tiny group of cells should be preserved and called a life.
Finally, I didn't make the Nony Reagan comment... I bet it was GRM.
Honestly, I could go on. But it really is like running circles with you so often CECU. I feel like you are much more satisfied with attempts at word-twisting than actually entering intelligent discussion.
I left a list of reasons in favor of gun control, and rather than attempt to refute those assertions - you put the word "abortion" into one of my sentences and
Lex, I am not sure what happened to the end of your post, but, it seems you got cut off. Please finish if you will.
Lex, I think you miss my point completely! To me, it is the principle of the matter, the choice.
As much as we agree on the abortion issue, due to choice, you argue with me when I claim that same choice regarding gun control. As I said in the original, I do not own a gun, but, I don't think it is appropriate to take that right away from someone. It is a right that I see in the 2nd amendment. It is the right to choose!
Now then, after people have made their choice, that is were most of the problems come in. Hopefully, only humor will come from a bad choice. Dee Dee Dee is a perfect example! Think of Dick Cheney hunting! :) In reality, that situation is just not funny, but, how many jokes did you hear about, regarding Cheney shooting his "friend" in the face. That was a bad choice! But he had the right to make that mistake! (and we had the right to laugh.)
Choice is one of those inaleinable rights. We have the right to make choices, whether or not they are correct, or are viewed as being correct, we have the right to make the choice.
The governement doesn't just give people the right to "choose" whatever they want. Everything is regulated. Do you think that it shouldn't be? Should drug companies have the choice to pedal whatever they want without having to jump through hoops to ensure safety? Should car manufacturers be free from silly expensive little procedures that are meant to ensure passenger safety? Should people be allowed to sell heroin? Chase down teenagers on the internet?
Freedom of choice on its own isn't a strong enough argument to support anything. That's why we have government - to regulate the members of society so that they don't hurt eachother (theoretically, anyhow). Again, there's just not enough pros to justify the violence created by guns.
"The governement doesn't just give people the right to "choose" whatever they want."
Lex, while I agree with this statement, explain why the framers of the constitution, those wonderful folks who created our government, gave us the right to arm ourselves!? All of your examples are nice, but, this specific issue was dealt with directly by the authors of the Bill of Rights! They gave us the choice to partake of guns - or not to partake. By saying we have a right to arm ourselves, it implies that we have a choice to do so. It didn't say that we must arm ourselves, just that we had the right to do so.
No slippery slope here, just a simple - Why? Why did they include the right to arm oneself? And, please, the issue of the militia, is an aside to the main arguement of the right to arm oneself.
The right to a well regulated militia is not a side-issue. It is a huge issue. I believe that the intent was that the people would retain the right to create an armed militia in the event they needed to take their government down. There was never a guarantee of a right to own firearms for any other reason (ie: sport). And there was certainly never any right to have super-guns like those available today.
You have to keep in mind the difference between the state of the union then (and the type of guns in existence then) and the state of the union now (and the type of guns in existence now). I don't think the Framers had the current gun law situation in mind...
More importantly, even if you're right and the 2nd amendment IS an individual gun guarantee - does that mean that we necessarily have to follow it today? The Framers left the Constitution intentionally vague in many respects - leaving open avenues to change the government as needed with the times. I think many, if not most, of the Framers would view gun control in this century as a necessity in order to protect the citizens of this country.
You must stop approaching the Constitution as though it were a flawlessly perfect document. You're starting to sound like a Christian getting all nutso with the Bible. The Constitution, after all, permitted slavery. Mentioned it THREE times. Made blacks count as 3/5 of a person. Banned the government from legislating the Atlantic slave trade for 20 years. Included a fugitive slave clause. The Framers failed to give the right to vote to people like me, being female and all. Now, in light of all this, can you really lodge your argument for the right to own a gun in "that's what the Framers intended"?
OK...I have to post on this again. After the Xian comment, oh boy...no I do not think the constitution is the inerrand word of the founding fathers! It is not perfect.
However, you hit the nail on the head when you said about the militia "in the event they needed to take their government down."
I hear your reasoning on the horror these weapons impose on society, and I am not trying to ignore that point!
My point is choice. I believe that everyone has the right to arm themselves against "any" government! Including ours. Currently, I am not too happy with the administration in Wash. D.C. at the moment!
When I lose Habias Corpus to a mythological War on Terror, something is wrong in D.C.
As for the constitution, I agree that it is vague, and meant to be that way to accomodate the changing ebb and flow of society!
If society is changing to the point that we don't need guns to defend ourselves from ANY governemt including our government, especially the current administration, then I will agree with you.
When will I be getting my Habias Corpus back!?
Side note: I believe the founding fathers came to a horrible compromise on slavery. They agreed to revisit the issue 100 years after the signing. Unfortunately, the ebb and flow of our country changed quicker than 100 years, and we had a Civil War! And by the way, Jesus believed in slavery! And, yes, that is in the bible! No wonder the south is the new bible belt!
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel that people are not careful enough to be given access to guns without meaningful gun control in place. You feel that giving people the choice is the paramount concern. I weigh the safety of others as far more important than one individual's "right" to own a gun.
If there weren't so many people getting killed every year in America by guns, I might feel differently. But again (and for the last time) I don't feel that the trade-off is worth it at all. At all.
Now go ahead, make the last comment on this issue. I know you want to. You can't help it.
BTW - nice Jesus burn.
Post a Comment
<< Home