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?
Lottakatz
1, January 8, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Blouise, your point is impossible to reconcile with an ideological position. I have analogies with which to make an argument but why bother? For that child, no argument can ever be good enough.
======================================================
Exactly … I wanted to take the discussion out of all that ideological bull crap and put it smack dab where it belongs!
Blouise,
Perhaps if more of the citizens gathered had been armed Loughner would have been stopped before the 9 year old was shot. Laws will be as effective for guns are they are for drugs.
Thousands of children die every year in auto accidents. Should cars be electronically governed to not go over 45 MPH in order that thousands can be saved? Why not? At our hands thousands of unseen children have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, although sometimes we simply call them insurgents and pretend we are a force for great good in the world.
Arguing for seizing arms from citizens faced with a rogue, dangerous, warmongering government is almost unfathomable.
Let us all remember that this issue wells up a great deal of emotion to which none of us is immune—pro or con.
No.
When I read the headline “automatic weapons” I anticipated that accuracy was not a priority and may have been inherited from other careless reporting. Personally, I am very disappointed the Left doesn’t embrace the freedom to protect oneself from violence – with a gun if necessary. Of all the liberties championed, this one is intentionally neglected. There are times when such force is necessary and beneficial to the welfare of many.
For all of the just accusations of sensationalism leveled at the Republicans, gun rights are an area which similarly affects the Democrats.
A reason the Ft. Hood shooting was so bad was that, ironically, the base was a gun free zone and no-one could immediately respond in kind. Regarding the gun used by Laughner in Arizona, the people officially responsible for the security of Rep. Giffords and the others would have had a very similar gun as an issue sidearm.
Bad things do happen. Especially when good people aren’t willing or able to stop it.
Jason,
I don’t know … what would you say to someone who had to kill another human being? Good job?!
Otteray Scribe
1, January 8, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Blouise:
Sorry, but that is a strawman argument. ….
==========================================================
I wrote those words and then debated for approx. 5 minutes whether or not to click “Post Comment” for I knew that at least one of the responses would be “strawman arguement”.
I did not post an argument … I did not posit a hypothetical … I gave a factual accounting of an event that took place this morning involving a 9 year old girl and a 22 year old man both living under the Constitution and enjoying the rights that Constitution gives.
Tonight the girl is dead. Don’t insult my intelligence with a story about a drunk!
Polls show women generally favor stricter laws regarding gun ownership.
Blouise-
What would you say to someone who used a firearm to save their life or the life of a loved one?
Unfortunately, the piece of data we need isn’t tracked by the DOJ. They track handguns, “other” guns, knives, blunt instruments and “other weapons”. If they have the raw data on fully automatic assault weapon attacks, they are sitting on it.
Blouise: Your argument was very logical.
This is a very good discussion folks. Keep the posts flowing forth.
Blouise, your point is impossible to reconcile with an ideological position. I have analogies with which to make an argument but why bother? For that child, no argument can ever be good enough.
Blouise,
That was a highly emotional, but terribly illogical argument. Ask a dead victim? Should I ask my dead friend why distracted soccer mom’s are allowed to drive, because that’s how he died? Should I become so emotionally tied up that I argue that because HE got killed by a person, that no person should be allowed to drive? Should I make a media campaign and call minivans “Assault Vans” and request they be restricted based on the number of passengers they can hold or what they look like? No, because all of that would be extremely stupid, make a real argument please!
Blouise:
Sorry, but that is a strawman argument. Lets look at it from another angle. In our community, a drunk crossed the center line and killed a mother and her eight year old child. Perhaps we could say that automobiles should be outlawed until we can keep them out of the hands of drunks. Of course, my argument is ridiculous, but it is the logical equivalent of the one you make. All I did was change “gun” to drunk in an automobile.
There are some things that are not workable in practice. It would be a wonderful world if we could outlaw mental illness, crime and the need for firearms. But not gonna happen in any instance.
As for Raff’s proposition that automatic weapons be outlawed: Frankly, I have been in this business for four decades and have never heard of a crime committed anywhere around here where somebody was shot by a fully automatic weapon. I do know of a few cases where an Uzi or Tech9 was brandished, but not fired.
“Is it Time to Ban All Automatic Weapons?”
—
No.
I have no citations for that and it does not rely on any legal argument. While I dislike guns viscerally since their purpose can be none other than killing I advocate their dispersal throughout the citizenry.
When I was fairly young I read an interview with a Russian defector. This was during the cold war and the defector was, as I recall a real ‘catch’ for the USA in that he was a pretty high ranking official of the government, perhaps KGB. He was asked about the prospect of war with the US from the Soviet point of view and specifically invasion of the US. He said that would never happen, the only war would be one of total destruction, never occupation. Why? Too many guns in America.
Also, as a baby boomer the second world war was a thing I grew up hearing about from the people that were there, family and their friends that saw action in many theaters. It was a topic of conversation. One question that was posed routinely was what would have happened if the Jews had been armed, if the French and the Poles had been armed? These were not to my knowledge serious questions. They were wistful. But they came up in conversations I heard often. I also suspected later they were talking about handguns, not long guns because many people in Europe did have long guns. ‘If every person could take out one nazi when they came to their door…’ I heard that also.
I thought about these things for about 10 years, from the mid 60’s to the mid to late 70’s along with the various other arguments made in the wider culture regarding gun control. I was also reading about the pogroms in Russia and China at that time. The Gulags and first Cultural Revolution.
I decided that the only good reason to have guns was possibly personal protection (but really,who carried a gun?) but absolutely in case your government went mad and you needed to resist. As long as there were governments the citizenry needed to be armed. Nothing I read about Iran, Argentina, the Philippines, Cambodia, El Salvador etc. in the 70’s and later persuaded me that my decision had been wrong.
Now, I see our own government virtually at war against the Bill of Rights and all of the tools to become as repressive as any of those named countries have been put into place and given a veneer of legality. I see how black and brown people and dissidents are treated under color of law and/or the war on drugs. That all worries me so I want a well armed citizenry, automatic weapons included.
It’s strange to take that position on a day like today.
A 9 year old girl decided to visit her Congresswoman today outside her neighborhood grocery store and a 22 year old man shot her dead with his semi-automatic pistol complete with extended clip. She wasn’t his target … she was collateral damage.
You all want to explain to her why it was so important that that 22 year old man be permitted to own that gun? Tell her about a well regulated militia. Talk to her about the Constitution. Inform her as to the joys of hunting. Educate her as to what the Germans did to the Jews … and tyranny.
Go ahead … I dare you!
Let me know how she responds.
It was not an automatic weapon, it was a semi-automatic weapon, but its a moot point, it only takes a single shot weapon for a deranged human being to kill another human being.
I do not advocate banning all weapons, just figure out a way to ban deranged criminals and deranged extremists.
Canada has much stricter gun laws and far fewer shooting deaths per capita. I grew up in Detroit and saw guns all the time then I lived in Canada for over a quarter century…I prefer the Canadian approach.
Thanks Puzzling! This might be a question for Professor Turley, but how come no one has prosecuted members of the Supreme Court, Congress, or even members of their state governments that have denied them any of their rights under USC Title 18 Sections 241-242? I used to live in Illinois, and would have loved to see my mis-representatives imprisoned for denying me the right to “bear arms”.
AnonY,
Yours is a good way of stating a main issue/concern I have.
Swarthmore mom,
I know that you do not know me and this is very likely an unfair question. However, do you think that I am a gun nut simply because I oppose “a ban on all automatic weapons”?