"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."
That's it. That's the 2nd Amendment. Does it mean that everyone has the freedom to have guns or does it mean that the military is allowed to have guns? What about the part (you know two out of the first three words) about being "well regulated." How can the framers of the Constitution anticipate the type of guns that are now readily available?
People use those words as the end of any debate. Rational thought? No need when you have the text of the 2nd amendment that ensures the right to "keep and bear Arms. It is hard to have an intelligent conversation about someone when they are stuck on words written 200+ years ago. If you strongly believe in the 2nd amendment then you might just want to stop any and all conversation about the subject. Your mind is made up and nothing can convince you otherwise.
I think that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous and not something that applies (or should apply) to assault weapons. Also, certain types of gun control (waiting periods, background checks, etc) make sense and still should be able to safely fit the qualifications of the 2nd amendment. Just because one might believe in the the 2nd amendment doesn't mean one can't also believe in some forms of gun control. It is both exciting and depressing to read about how we have technology to make safer guns. Why can't we have that conversation? Why do the words quoted at the beginning of the article mean we can't work on technology that makes sure that only the owner of the gun can fire the gun? Nothing in that article suggests to me that the Federal government is going to be taking away your guns.
Also, are Conservatives and gun fanatics ok with mentally ill people to have guns? If you aren't against any gun control at all then you could just as easily use some of the same arguments to say that their rights to bear Arms shouldn't be infringed. Where do you draw the line? Should a 5 year old have a gun? It seems like a ridiculous argument, but then again the NRA president thinks that more guns will help solve the problem of gun violence. Of course. The Onion might have framed the debate best by replacing guns with Gorillas in "Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack." Does that argument make any less sense then some of the NRA's public statements?
I'm not saying that isn't ok to like guns. You can and you can support the 2nd Amendment. You can support as little regulations as possible. However, if you do you are also supporting gun violence. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Just like you can't expect less taxes, a strong defense, no changes to Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and a balanced budget. There isn't a coincidence that the *gun homicide rate per 100,000 in America is 3.2%, while in other countries like Canada (0.1%), Australia (0.1%), Japan (0%) and Norway (0.5%). Americans own more guns and have "no federal regulations banning the semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammo magazines often used in mass shootings."
*Stats are from the January 14th, 2013 Time Magazine.
We have more guns than other countries and we have more gun violence. We have an organization (the NRA) that refuses to have an open conversation about guns and a political party that (Republicans) that will not stand up to them. Also, we have voters that like the access to these type of guns and the very limited regulations. Again, you can think that way, but please stop saying you are "praying for the victims" when something like Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook happens. You are part of the problem. The price to pay to living in a country that is obsessed with protecting the 2nd Amendment are mass murders like this. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at other ways of preventing mass murders, but to take any gun control off the table means we aren't addressing the main problem.
I'm tired of all of it. With M being pregnant, I don't like living in country that allows this violence to happen without any solutions even being discussed. I'm planning on donating money to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and will match any contributions (up to a certain amount) that readers of this blog also make. I'm looking for help and hope that people will no longer turn a blind eye to something that is a fixable problem.
Posts
4 comments:
Loved this post Kevin, couldn't have said it better myself.
Kevin. You're better than this post. You're a much more reasonable person. You're not someone who's going to dismiss people who disagree with him on an issue as being completely incapable of a rational discussion of it, as you do here.
I am a gun owner, a supporter of the right to bear arms as the "ambiguous" 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by people who are charged with doing so, a supporter of limited regulations on firearm ownership and most importantly, a mentally sound, law abiding citizen who considers himself to be left of much of the Democratic Party. And I think you've said some things about people like me that aren't true.
1. I'm not saying that isn't ok to like guns. You can and you can support the 2nd Amendment. You can support as little regulations as possible. However, if you do you are also supporting gun violence.
No, I'm not. I support a number of reasonable steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them for criminal purposes such as background checks, waiting periods, registration of handguns with law enforcement and the mandatory reporting of their loss should that occur. I do not support law abiding citizens being told the type or number of firearm they are allowed to purchase. I don't support law abiding citizens being told the size magazine they may purchase for their legally purchased firearm. None of those things in any way are an endorsement of gun violence. They are, instead an endorsement of the right of law abiding citizens to use their money and leisure time as they see fit. It's not a question of having anything both ways. It is simply a fallacious statement on your part.
2. Also, we have voters that like the access to these type of guns and the very limited regulations. Again, you can think that way, but please stop saying you are "praying for the victims" when something like Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook happens. You are part of the problem.
No. In no way does my position on the ownership of firearms diminish my capacity to feel sympathy for people whose children and/or loved ones are senselessly murdered by deranged people. It's untrue, and furthermore it's offensive that you presume to say such a thing. I'm not sure what "the problem" is, but I am sure that you telling me that because I support and exercise my freedom to own firearms and disagree with you I'm complicit in the acts of lone, crazed gunmen, isn't getting any of us closer to a solution and is on par with your claims about the NRA's inability to have a serious conversation about firearms.
It's not helpful, however implicit you make it, to act as if all gun owners are conservative republican NRA supporters who want to own AR-15s or carry Uzis to the grocery store. Your argument presupposes that we're all the same. It's not true.
I don't think that the NRA's statements regarding armed guards in schools are helpful. I don't share their paranoia that if guns are more well regulated then someday the federal government may take them all away from us.
You also omit some important facts about firearms deaths and ownerships and violence in this country in general.
1. Most gun deaths in this country are suicides. (like 2/3 of them)
2. Most murders in this country that are the result of firearms involve handguns, not "assault weapons."
3. Gun ownership in our country is historically low right now, like as low as it has been in decades.
4. Violent crime in our country is as low as it has been since the Kennedy administration.
I share your concern for the fact that 30,000 people die annually in firearms related deaths. I also share your concern that 1/3 of those are murders. However, I don't think that demonizing people because they disagree with you is going to us arrive at a solution any time sooner.
Liz - Thanks
Buck - You might have disagreed with much of what I wrote, but it really wasn't supposed to be much different than the points you brought up. Below is what I agree with:
1) "I support a number of reasonable steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them for criminal purposes such as background checks, waiting periods, registration of handguns with law enforcement and the mandatory reporting of their loss should that occur."
2) "I don't think that the NRA's statements regarding armed guards in schools are helpful. I don't share their paranoia that if guns are more well regulated then someday the federal government may take them all away from us."
3) Your point on suicides
4) You point on handguns
The intention of the post wasn't to demonize or bring up every single issue on the debate. I don't remember writing anything along the lines of "every gun owner is a crazy Republican" or "if you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun then you are the problem." My main point was some form of gun regulation is needed, and here are some of the reasons why. It sounds pretty similar to what you wrote, and the two main points you disagreed with talked in terms of people that oppose regulation. Since you are don't oppose all regulation then you aren't one of those people I'm writing about.
I'm scared shitless of all of them, and I'm 100% okay with saying that.
-Eric (who actually does have male genitalia)
Post a Comment