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?
Swarthmore mom: “Polls show women generally favor stricter laws regarding gun ownership.”
—
Women think differently about dispute resolution and maintaining alliances than men. They have over millennia developed different strategies for goal realization. It comes I’m sure from (in the main) being cut out of the power structure for those same millennia. I would venture to guess that resorting to gunplay is about last on the list for most women as an effective method to accomplish anything.
And then there’s that whole ‘mourning their dead children and husbands’ killed indiscriminately and in wars thing. Killed by guns since the day after guns were invented. Maybe they’re just quicker on the uptake.
Otteray Scribe,
“Problems are solved by using logic, not emotion. Some examples of problem solving by emotion brought us the Patriot Act and the TSA body gropes.”
I wish all our problems could be solved by using logic. Unfortunately, drunks will drive cars and mentally unbalanced people will own and use guns–and all the logic in the world won’t stop them. That’s a fact of life.
“Blouise, no your argument is based on emotion and not logic.” (Otteray Scribe)
==================================================
Horrors upon horrors … no logic … well, I guess it’s okay then … sorry kid … guns rule … can’t let the nuts ruin things for the rest of us. Yeah … that’s sound logic.
Blouise,
You know you are one of our all-time favorites here and you will always be that to me. We understand your thoughts. However, please read and reflect upon what Otteray Scribe wrote. He stated the context better thus far than all of us before him combined..
Blouise-
I can link you to the story of an elderly Illinois woman who was raped in her home. She did everything right, reported the crime, provided the police with plenty of details, etc. One week later, despite extra patrols around her house, her rapist returned. She called 911, but despite rapid response by the police, her attacker was breaking down the door separating them. She killed him with a shotgun.
I’ll ask you to tell her about how horrible guns are. And you might have a chance to do so, since unlike in your maudlin appeal to emotion, this woman is alive, probably because she used a gun.
So now we are even in emotional anecdotes. Where do we go from here?
Blouise,
Then you are truly letting your emotions control you.
The 2nd Amendment has consequences, not all of them good, but would you rather live in a country where the government has the only guns and therefore the ability to repress the people free from challenge?
Yes, the Founders didn’t anticipate fully automatic weapons, but they did anticipate something we are seeing play out across the news every day: every increasing tyranny.
I’m as angry and sad about that little girl’s death as anyone but her relatives, but the alternatives to gun ownership in this fading and torn democracy are far worse.
Blouise: I am with you. Why is it always about HIS rights? Remember Scarecrow and HIS rights to have five wives?
Is it time to ban all automatic weapons? No, not in my opinion. It is bullets that kill people, not the guns. lol. 🙂
Buddha,
I’m not advocating anything … I’m standing up for the 9 year old child that died today. She was killed by a bullet from a gun. The man shooting the gun didn’t even have to aim at her … she got “sprayed” while waiting to talk to her Congresswoman … or maybe even while talking to her Congresswoman. Who protected her from the man exercising his Constitutional right to own and thus shoot a gun?
Yeah team!
raff,
As a sidebar:
Excellent topic choice to stir the conversational pot. Good show. The Prof. choose you wisely.
+1 Otteray
Seconded.
Blouise, no your argument is based on emotion and not logic. I am a logician by training. The little girl–and her mother–in that car crash are just as dead as those in Arizona today. Your appeal to ask the dead child (rhetorical) questions can as easily be asked of that dead little girl in Putnam County about drunk drivers being allowed to drive cars.
Neither of those appeals solves anything. They are specious argument to emotion rather than logic. Problems are solved by using logic, not emotion. Some examples of problem solving by emotion brought us the Patriot Act and the TSA body gropes.
Millions of people own and use firearms without incident. A handful of criminals use them in criminal ways. The odds of being shot while out in public by a terrorist or criminal on a crime spree is very remote. Consider that out in Tucson, practically every household has at least one gun. One mentally unstable individual targets a politician. Now all gun owners in Tucson are now suspect.
“Conspiracy to oppress the free exercise of any right secured by the constitution.” (savaship)
=================================================
Is that what happened to the 9 year old girl?
Blouise,
What would you suggest? Banning all gun ownership?
1) That’s unconstitutional.
2) Gun ownership is truly the last line of defense from state sponsored tyranny. As ugly and unpleasant as that is, it is the truth.
3) It’s like putting toothpaste back into a tube. If you round up legal guns, what’s going to happen to those not gathered? You think illegal drugs created a hot black market, it’s nothing compared to what outlawing guns would do.
Have you ever wondered why I, a person with a stated preference for non-violent solutions, takes the middle road on the 2nd Amendment?
Those would be the reasons why.
Savaship, An argument based on pathos is valid. It may or may not be persuasive but it is a valid argument type and effective when arguing many subjects that touch on the Bill of Rights for instance. An argument regarding slavery for instance based entirely on logic and economics would be (IMO) un-winnable and frankly, beneath contempt. I though make many pathetic appeals/ arguments because I feel the way I feel and haven’t found any logical argument I trust enough to change my view so I give them validity even if I disagree. An argument based on pathos isn’t stupid, just a different lens with which to view the situation.
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
“… Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader’s emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience’s emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.”
Blouise
The other driver wasn’t drunk… she was “distracted” but driving very legally up until the stop light. I also gave a factual account on something that I could argue is not being legally restricted enough. Because I am talking about a normal woman driver, my strawman argument is laughable, but because it is easy to demonize guns, I guess your strawman wins!
Swarthmore mom.. I would argue people who answer those polls calling for stronger gun control are recording their violation of Title 18 USC section 241, Conspiracy to oppress the free exercise of any right secured by the constitution.
What is the purpose of a car?
What is the purpose of a gun?
Just asking.
“Arguing for seizing arms from citizens faced with a rogue, dangerous, warmongering government is almost unfathomable.” (puzzling)
================================
See above answer to Robert
“Bad things do happen. Especially when good people aren’t willing or able to stop it.” (Robert)
=======================================================
Maybe, if the 9 year old had a gun and knew how to use it, she could have saved herself! There you go … problem solved … Constitution secure!!