Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country. I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years. Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.
The Second Amendment is a very concise Amendment. “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.” http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow. However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection?
The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation. Don’t they?
The second amendment allows gun ownership, but it does not guarantee the freedom to fire the gun.
It also specifies a minimal amount of power and lead, but does not guarantee the right to any more than that.
It also specifies the reason for ownership as directly related to the formation, by the government of militia to protect the community or nation. That is not the same thing as being able to pack a weapon, in a peaceful setting, to make one feel good about one’s self.
Try that on the literalists like Scalia and see what happens.
At some point the Supremes are going to have to make a determination of whether the right to own a gun is greater or lesser than the right for citizens to be safe from being frightened, intimidated, and murdered either directly or, like the 9 year old yesterday, as collateral damage to some sort of sick political assassination.
Otteray Scribe 1, January 8, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I have a question for those who want to outlaw private ownership of guns. Given the number of guns in this country, and the fact that ownership is a visceral issue for most of the owners, how do you plan to implement the kind of gun control you advocate?
I would like to see your game plan for going into the hills and hollers of Appalachia to tell the folks there you have come to take their guns from them. Would you be willing to go there yourself to be the “gun confiscator?” Who would you send, considering most law enforcement officers in the area would support the gun owners. Do you see yourself going up a narrow dirt road up in the hills to take guns from the residents there?
There is idealism, and then there is practicality.
————————————————————–
Otteray Scribe,
First of all, I am in no position what so ever to suggest the outlawing of private ownership of guns, but, I have a few ideas that as a non-lawyer and non-politician will bring howls of condemnation. So be it. I also know that there are three things Americans are passionate about. Sex, guns and money. (not always in that order)(and sometimes drugs)
1. Leave the second amendment alone. This is the most valuable tool that any politician in the country can have in his/her arsenal… You see we are all politely disagreeing with one another about its benefits and pitfalls. During the course of our discussions not one of us has brought up the fact that there probably is close to 20 per cent of the population unemployed. We never spoke of the housing crisis, nor health care nor the Wall Street robbers. So politically, keep it intact so we will be fighting with one another. It works very well to keep our minds off other important issues.
However,
2. If ammunition is not considered a weapon by definition under the second amendment, then ban any future sales of ammunition (to non military/police organizations)(or at least control it in some way). I know one bullet will still kill. That transition would take many years.
3. As a pilot, we must pass medicals once or twice a year depending on our licenses and ratings etc. Anyone that owns a gun could be compelled to visit a doctor for a physical and general discussion as to a persons ability to have a firearm. You know and I know that either of us could lose our pilot’s licenses in a New York second if we don’t meet all the health standards all the time. It seems prudent that gun owners meet some standard as well.
4. Make all gun owners responsible… How? With insurance payable to Uncle Sam. I have no idea how many millions or billions of dollars are sought after in courts every year for damages resulting from firearm lawsuits. But, by forcing gun owners to purchase 1 or 2 million dollars worth of liability insurance (like cars) depending on the number of weapons and/or skills and the gun owners past history would establish a premium. Make every gun owner qualify and take an annual or semi annual course to ensure safe practices. Bring every gun you have to your course, because if you fail any of the requirements you will lose your guns and your license on the spot.
Does this answer your question? Probably… It just doesn’t answer it very well.
Proper balance is the only answer.
Sorry, but I totally forgot how the sex and drugs was to work into my discussion.
Greatest respect to all.
rafflaw,
I wonder whose “emotion of the moment” Bob was referring to???
*****
Blouise,
We had a delicious dinner at the restaurant where my daughter had her wedding reception.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html The ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire in 2004. Lawmakers are readying new bill which include new bans.
Rafflaw: “I know that automatic weapons are much different, but the issue to me is how much damage can be done. A semi-automatic weapon is also very dangerous.”
Sharp sticks can also be very dangerous Rafflaw. Surely you can appreciate the need for precision when discussing the source and type of danger per the laws to be promulgated regarding such.
Rafflaw: “I still don’t understand where the machine gun issue came from.”
An automatic weapon, as in the term used in your query, is in fact none other than a machine gun. That type of gun has been subject to an entirely different set of legislation since 1934.
Rafflaw: “Bob, for the record, I was not attempting to use a rhetorical device here. I was merely trying to get people to talk about what I saw as an important issue.”
I understand; but did you really expect a clear and thoughtful debate in the midst of all the emotion of the moment?
Blouise: “I, too, await his response for the experiences of a life long shooter and gun owner would be helpful in separating that which is logical from that which is merely emotional.”
Blouise,
What point was I making when I said I was a life long shooter and gun owner? It couldn’t be that I was making a sarcastic remark regarding the common knowledge regarding laws against machine guns; could it?
Let’s see:
“As a life long shooter & “gun owner” I’ve always been aware of the ‘laws’ against (what I always referred to as) machine guns (i.e. fully automatic weapons).”
Whadda ya know.
You don’t suppose that in a debate regarding whether it’s time to ban all automatic weapons someone might mention the laws already on the books effectively banning them already; do you?
Like I said; engine without a drive train; spinning endlessly and going nowhere.
“You’re (Bob,Esq.,) the one who made the complaint about the discussion on this thread. I simply–in good faith–asked if you could provide facts in order to help ground the debate and to make it a more meaningful one. It seems you have chosen to avoid providing facts that would be pertinent to the discussion and prefer to question me instead.
What is “my” side in this debate? I didn’t know I had made an argument. I didn’t know that there was a set procedure for blog discussions. Please pardon my ignorance of such.” (Elaine)
=======================================================
Bob,Esq., -“life long shooter & “gun owner”
“I think in regard to some gun enthusiasts–there’s never a “good” time to discuss gun control.” (Elaine)
Perhaps his being a life long shooter & gun owner has something to do with it … does that sound logical?
Enjoy dinner.
I, too, await his response for the experiences of a life long shooter and gun owner would be helpful in separating that which is logical from that which is merely emotional.
Thanks Blouise.
“I was merely trying to get people to talk about what I saw as an important issue.” (rafflaw)
============================================
and it worked … and then some 🙂
Jason,
I never implied that improving on our restrictions on guns would be easy, but it seems obvious to me that too many people with issues or health problems are getting their hands on guns. The only place to start is at the beginning. I do not agree with you that crime has gone down since the Assault Weapon ban expired. Please provide a link to the site that backs up that claim. Thanks.
Bob,Esq.
I know that automatic weapons are much different, but the issue to me is how much damage can be done. A semi-automatic weapon is also very dangerous. I still don’t understand where the machine gun issue came from. Bob, for the record, I was not attempting to use a rhetorical device here. I was merely trying to get people to talk about what I saw as an important issue.
Jason…great post @ 5:48p.
PatricPara:
Your comments are disturbing. Why would Tomcats be attacking citizens? If that happened, there would be every reason to attack government.
It is impossible for government to be good if it doesn’t ultimately fear the people.
Bob,Esq.,
You wrote:
“The ‘fact’ is Elaine that you haven’t clarified any ‘argument’ on your part due in no small part to your inattention to facts.
One fact you ignored from the get go was that my post focused on procedure and took no side in this debate whatsoever.”
*****
You’re the one who made the complaint about the discussion on this thread. I simply–in good faith–asked if you could provide facts in order to help ground the debate and to make it a more meaningful one. It seems you have chosen to avoid providing facts that would be pertinent to the discussion and prefer to question me instead.
What is “my” side in this debate? I didn’t know I had made an argument. I didn’t know that there was a set procedure for blog discussions. Please pardon my ignorance of such.
Have a nice evening. My husband and I are taking my daughter and her husband out to dinner. I’ll be back later to check to see if you have some more questions for this little old lady who is inattentive to facts.
😉
Carlyle Moulton-
“At the time that the 2nd amendment was passed, the height of small arms technology was the muzzle loading musket. Imagine a single deranged individual trying to conduct a massacre with muzzle loading weapons, the idea is absurd.”
Equally absurd is the notion that the founding fathers thought that firearms technology would be locked in place for eternity. They weren’t stupid. They saw significant advances in the technology in their lifetimes, and well under 50 years after many of them were still alive, practical and reliable repeating weapons were in use. The logical evolution of firearms would be that they get smaller, more powerful, and faster.
“The idea that citizens armed with small arms are able to prevent the takeover of government by totalitarians is laughable.”
This argument is also laughable and tired.
“Governments as well as armies of well trained infantry better able to use their small arms than can untrained citizens also have heavy weapons, tanks and air forces capable of obliterating the dissenting citizens with fuel air bombs.”
No one who thinks of defending himself from his government imagines taking potshots at main battle tanks with his deer rifle. The idea behind an armed populace is insurgency. Two psychos with a single rifle terrorized the entire D.C. region. Imagine if it was 10,000 people with rifles nationwide.
I must say that fighting my government is the reason farthest down the list for my owning a gun as the probability of such an event is too low to calculate (though not zero).
“You Americans are not going to get rid of your permissive attitude to guns that enable lone persons to commit sizable massacres until someone does you the favour of committing one that is big enough.”
That train has left the station. We had our largest gun massacre ever at Virginia Tech, and the only significant calls for change were keeping guns from the mentally ill (something we all support, but that is hugely impractical), and closing the so-called gun show loophole, even though the perpetrator didn’t get his guns at a gun show. Surveys show that the national view on gun control is going the opposite way.
“It would seem to me that the 2nd amendment should be restated to allow citizens access to any small arms technology that was widely available in the eighteenth century and to carry no more than one piece of it at a time.”
What good would that do? Do you think someone looking to kill people would follow such a rule?
“That should be enough for those wanting to blow away burglars or the occasional deer.”
It would not be enough. I do not wish to blow up any living thing, I wish to have the means to defend myself, my wife, and my child in the unlikely event that it is necessary.
rafflaw-
“This latest tragedy is just one of many over the past few years and eventually people need to discuss the idea that gun control might need to be increased or improved.”
I’m all for improving screening. How can we do it? Also, the national trend over the last 20 years has been to loosen restrictions. Shall-issue concealed carry has spread from barely half the states to where now 42 states allow normal people to carry. The “Assault Weapons” ban expired. And during that time, gun crime plummeted. I do not think that the loosening of gun control laws is responsible for the drop in crime, but it seems reasonable to question the more guns=more crime equation.
Chris-
“One of the topics discussed at length was the increasing popularity of video games where the main character is a first person shooter, and how such games desensitize youth to killing. The author argues that these games are a large contributor to situations such as this one in Arizona and others such as Columbine.”
On Killing is, to put it mildly, controversial among the relevant fields. And anyone who is familiar with the mechanics behind the Columbine event knows that at least in that case, the hypothesis is idiotic.
C.Everett
They (the different groups) still have the same culture/values: Western. The small size is a good point, though their form of government/constitution is modeled after our own!
But they have avoided war for about 200 years (the opposite of what we do). It seems our leaders are the source of the violence in America.
They have a very low crime rate though fully armed. Amazing.
They took a good track years ago and built bomb shelters everywhere (took about 30 years to do it). They did that instead of investing in nukes and such.
Rafflaw,
Automatic weapons are INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT from other guns; thus the reason they’ve been treated differently since the early 1930’s.
Further, it’s always time to discuss this issue; discussing it now merely focuses attention to appeals to emotion. I think Lottakatz discussed this as being an ‘acceptable’ rhetorical device; but it’s far from principle centered.
For the record, I don’t own, nor care to own, hand guns or machine guns and I do think that the laws in effect regarding such weapons (in New York) are more than satisfactory.
Elaine: “Now that’s what I’d call adding a lot of factual information to the debate. You asked me a lot of questions–but failed to provide the facts that I requested. Why is that?”
The ‘fact’ is Elaine that you haven’t clarified any ‘argument’ on your part due in no small part to your inattention to facts.
One fact you ignored from the get go was that my post focused on procedure and took no side in this debate whatsoever.
Elaine: “Did I state anywhere in my comments on this thread that I think guns should be outlawed?”
If I’m discussing procedure, rather than taking a side, why would I care?
Unless you consider my pointing out that justifying appeals to emotion instead of discussing some relevant facts, as alluded to in my general questions, does somehow constitute taking a side…?
Elaine: “Did you read this earlier comment that I addressed to savaship?”
Yep. And I read your other posts too.
Elaine: “BTW, I did know what an automatic weapon was before the debate began.”
So then you’re generally familiar with the current laws that make them effectively inaccessible to consumers. And the reason you couldn’t so much as allude to those ‘facts’ was… what? You had to wait for me to bring them up? If you knew what an automatic weapon was, then why didn’t you clarify that such a weapon had nothing to do with the shooting in Arizona? My job again? Argumentation via waiting for the phone to ring?
Elaine: “After reading your comment to me, I’d say you’re the one who’s getting agitated/emotional about the subject.”
Yes, guilty as charged. I do in fact have a low threshold tolerance for bullshit. However the ‘subject’ has nothing to do with my annoyance at a complete disregard for clarity of debate for measly sake of expressing emotion.
Elaine M.
1, January 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Blouise,
Must I remind you that some people’s opinions are based on logic–while some people’s are based on emotion.
Maybe you and I should hire a logician to tutor us in the art of “non-emotional” debating.
🙂
=====================================================
I noticed a whole lot of transference going on but that was probably emotional … or logical … or testosterone run amuck.
I wrote earlier that I debated with myself after writing the initial post as to whether or not to hit “post comment” … not because I didn’t believe in what I had written but because I didn’t know if I wanted to spend the time answering all the wailing that I knew would be coming. Some things are just plain predictable. 🙂
Great discussion. I like Buddha’s arguments the most, now back to football.
“On the other hand, I find it almost – but not quite – hilarious, that those of survivalist bent envision themselves actually defending their rights by shooting it out with a dastardly SEAL team. In the darkest of times, can’t you just imagine you & your righteous neighbors firing away at an F-14 Tomcat?
We ain’t the Taliban, folks, and how many of your friends are willing to hunker down in a cave in a protracted, 10-year war with the U.S Marines? I mean, minus our flat screen TVs and all.” (PatricParamedic)
========================================================
And that my dear is where I and the Second Amendment just don’t see eye to eye. A foreign power trying to billet their redcoated buddies in my house then and a contingent of Marines bent on capturing my house now. There I stand with my trusty six-shooter when out of nowhere a drone zaps me and my house.
Or I could pull a Ruby Ridge and end up with a dead spouse, dead kids and sitting in jail talking to my buckskin lawyer.
Somehow the Second Amendment just doesn’t do it for me.