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?
Sure.
Michelle:
Can you please cite case law where the right to bear bullets is not guaranteed?
No bullets, no dead or injured victims that fateful day. Right to bear arms is not a problem for me, there is not, however, a right to bear bullets, at least according to United States laws. Ex., a side-arm is nothing to do with bullets. Sorry James M.
michellefrommadison,
No one is confused about your position. You seem to be confused about how the Supreme Court would approach your idea to ban bullets.
Hobart Thorenson,
Thank you for your contributions to this topic. Reasonable people need exposure to all sides and all aspects of the issues surrounding “guns and ammo” and/or “Arms.”
For those still confused, if the shooter had no bullets that fateful day, those victims may not be injured or dead right now, at least from my perspective.
Why you, Hobart, would just accept more casualties without a care is something that makes no sense to me. I want people to be protected and to not be harmed, or killed by anyone; crazy or not. I know you think that is “crazy” concept in-itself, but I believe people have rights and people should not be harmed or killed just because they may go into the public. Brandish all the powder and rifle-ballss you want, but I believe bullets would be superior to that approach even though no one to guaranteed the right to possess them. Good luck to you if you ever end up in a fire-fight trying to protect someone or yourself.
Mike S.,
I understand that it would be difficult, and maybe impossible to prevent one more mentally ill person from acquiring a gun to use against innocents, but I refuse the notion that we should not attempt to find that prevention tool. To not try is to give in to the fear spread by the NRA and others that Obama is going to take away your guns and that we need to exercise “our second amendment remedies”. It is only a futile if we do not try to take reasonable and educated measures to control excessive guns or firepower.
Blouise and Elaine, you are right about the Palmetto State Armory story!. Very sad, but it is going on all over the country. I wonder why? How were gun sales before the 2000 and 2004 election cycles? Were the same fear tactics used then to gin up sales of guns?
Michelle:
I think what he did is beyond words; it is outside the boundaries of a civilized, rational human being. He was a lunatic and there were multiple opportunities to send him for psychiatric evaluation. The system failed as it did with the Virginia Tech shooting.
The clerk at the first Wal Mart he went to did not sell him ammo. The clerk should have called the cops. He scared people at his school, he was kicked out. There were many occasions for this man to have been sent to jail or for evaluation.
The sheriff didn’t do his job but it is the fault of ammunition? I don’t think so; it is the fault of a system that refuses to make people accountable for their actions. The perps and the elected and appointed people who are responsible for our safety are not held accountable.
These deaths are an indictment of our current system of law and order. No wonder people don’t feel safe and want to carry a weapon for self protection.
Maybe we ought to outlaw lawyers and other bleeding hearts? Seems more rational than outlawing guns and ammo.
michellefrommadison,
But, to allow “crazy people” to possess the ability to harm or kill innocent people at-will is something I don’t believe is correct Hobart.
You’re confusing what you think the law should be, with what the law actually is.
michellefrommadison,
No one can “imply” Law, at least not in the United States.
No one can “imply” a law, but laws do have clear implications.
They also didn’t say muskets and black powder and lead balls. They said arms. They knew about muskets and they knew about the Kentucky Rifle so they were aware of the changes in weapon technology and would have said specifically what they meant if they were not looking into the future.
They said arms, they did not say Kentucky long rifle and powder and .50 cal rifle balls.
Your interpretation does not comport.
Everyone has the right to bear arms, most have two already before the issue of guns is even in the picture. I have no problem with that. But, to allow “crazy people” to possess the ability to harm or kill innocent people at-will is something I don’t believe is correct Hobart. Why you believe it is OK for people like this shooter to do what he did is something beyond the focus of minimizing these such tragedies in the future.
michelle:
what are “Arms” then? The right to bear arms includes the right to powder and shot. Else the weapon is a club and of no real use against someone who is armed.
Are you serious? If the founders meant guns they would have specifiec pistols and rifles but they said “Arms” which is a catch all phrase.
Hell, they were so smart they may have anticipated lasers and death rays.
Old James probably thought “we better say arms or someone named Michellefrommadison is going to say bullets (she doesnt know the difference between brass and lead, although cartridges havent been invented yet but nevertheless) arent included and she would be wrong.”
Powder and shot is something I am fine with. Bullets for everyone? Nope.
No one can “imply” Law, at least not in the United States. And, as far as I can interpret, there is no right to bear ammunition, at least according to the current Laws.
Michelle:
you must think our founders were a bunch of dumb asses. The right to bear arms, they didnt say guns. They said arms. Arms would include powder and shot (bullets, etc.). See how smart they are, they even anticipated you.
Your reading may as well be taken as we all have the right to bear arms as in the big furry animal with teeth.
Michellefrommadison:
good tack on trying to cut back on gun violence through making bullets harder to get.
It doesnt wash legally. The right to own a gun being primary and all would imply the legality of owning “bullets”. The proper term for “educated” 🙂 people is cartridges.
Everyone, psychologically impaired or not, is capable of killing under the right conditions and circumstances. Now what?
Mike S.,
“In the end I think that until science discovers a sure way to identify/isolate these psychopathic killers, then all the legislation trying to prevent this kind of incident is futile.”
I agree completely.
Is there any kind of low-cost, basic, reliable, psychological test that could be used to effectively weed out those who have a high potential to use a firearm in an unlawful manner?