First off, welcome to Chris as the second contributor to the blog! I am sure he will have many great revelations for us and will help to tame my hard right leaning tendencies. I am currently looking for one more contributor to add a left side point of view on things, more on that to come. And now, a little more on gun control.
Chris and I have both mentioned various statistics in our discussions on gun control, both on this blog in other conversations amongst ourselves and other colleagues. We have all pretty much concluded that the statistics are relatively meaningless (at least right now). Depending on what statistics are used and how they are intrepreted, a wide variance of conclusions can be drawn. These conclusions are invariably affected by the biases of the persons doing the interpreting. The end result is that one really cannot prove or disprove the effectivenes of an armed population as a deterrent to crime. I would however argue that common sense tells us that an armed and trained individual is less likely to become a victim of violent crime than the converse. Again, this is a matter of opinion and won’t solve the issue. For these reasons, I have decided to focus my discussions on the roots and history of firearm ownership in this country vice the current debate.
The majority of the people in the anti-gun crowd really do not grasp the basic issue at hand and continually make statements such as ”Why do you need to have a gun?” or “The reasons the Second Ammendment was inserted just are not relevant anymore”. In response, I have a question for all of those people who feel the need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country – “Why do you feel the need to take our guns away?” Yes, I know, nobody wants to take the guns away right? Wrong.
“Senator, If I could have banned them all- ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ -I would have!” Diane Fienstein 1995
In that statement, Senator Fienstein vocalizes the emotion that many of our elected leaders share – Fear, irrational fear. I simply cannot believe the excuse that their desire to take away the right to bear arms is driven by a desire to lower crime. Absolutley nothing backs that up. We already have a plethora of laws and agencies designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have shown that they cannot be trusted. I must then conclude that this actually a fear of the citizens having the means to revolt against the tyranny that they would like to impose. That sounds a bit harsh. I do not believe that anyone currently in any meaningful position of power intends to impose an outright tyrannical system in this country. I cannot say that for those who will come in later generations though. History has shown us that once we surrender a liberty to the government, we lose it forever.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson
Here is where the “Thats just not relevant anymore” argument always comes up. Those who use this quote (or any of the dozens of other Founding Father quotes that say the same thing) are labeled as fear mongers and anarchists. As I said before, I don’t think the current sate of our government will result in tyranny, but what of 50 years from now? 100 years? Does it really matter how long it will take? I believe we owe it to our children and grand-children to preserve for them the ability to prevent just such a thing from happening.
I know that I said earlier we could not trust statistics, and I still stick to that statement for the most part. I do want to leave you with this interesting tidbit though: In New York City, Mayor Bloombergs push to rid the streets of illegal guns was widley hailed in liberal circles as a success. In fact, the number of guns recovered from crime scenes did drop by 13% and the number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008. The only problem with this whole line of thought is that from 2007 to 2008, the OVERALL murder rate in NYC increased due to an increase in knife related homicide. Sounds like a murder problem and not a gun problem to me.
Rich
4 Comments
I agree with much of what you say and I agree with the Founding Father in principle, but they could not perceive of the advancements in ordinance and armaments that we have today. Some limitations must be imposed, and some people, regardless of how well intentioned should not be allowed to possess firearms of any type.
I believe in the right to bear arms, but I believe that the accidental shooting of any individual is a tragedy that could be avoided if people are properly trained. Some will still occur but every individual seeking to possess a handgun should be required to jump through a few hoops to receive a license and the same goes for rifles and shotguns and the like. And I still believe that there is no basis for a private citizen to be allowed an assault rifle, fully automatic weapon or any heavier ordinance, and you have made no substantive argument to suggest otherwise.
Limitations have been imposed. People who have shown they can not be trusted are not allowed to own handguns and in most cases are limited from long guns as well. The Second Ammendment was placed in the Constitution primarily because the Founding Fathers knew what life under a tyrant was like and that the best way to guard against that in the future was to have a strong Constitution and the means to protect that document.
The vast majority of shall-issue states do require training to get a concealed carry license. As for requiring training just to buy a gun, I believe that is best decided by the individual sates. I do agree that at a minimum, a hunter safety course should be required for rifles and shotguns.
As for your argument against “assault” weapons, you can not provide any argument against them other than the fact that you do not see any reason for them. That in and of itself is reason enough to not ban them. A so called “assault” weapon is no more or less lethal than any other semi-auto rifle chambered for the same caliber. Or do you propose we ban all semi-auto weapons and go back to single shots and revolvers?
As far as automatic weapons and “heavier” ordanance (whatever that is) these are already virually impossible for the average citizen to obtain.
“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.” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED say it with me SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
You can shout it from the roof tops Mike but it doesn’t change the fact that the Founding Fathers could not conceive of the armaments used today. Again, this Amendment has it’s origins in someone else’s work, “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” George Mason
The lack of common sense restrictions has led to some tragedies and the imposition of unnecessary restrictions can probably be attributed to the cause of others. The Founding Fathers did not want the Federal Government to be able to infringe on our rights, but a State can infringe on them as it is for the State’s protection that this right is listed.
Post a Comment