On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 07:22 PM
On guns, where does one draw the line
Ive read the thread by kingschosen in the casual coffeehouse about the skype call on guns. Though it pains me to introduce yet another thread (by myself, no less!) about guns in this section, I think that this question is only fair to ask if this country is having a debate about gun control.

Where do you draw the line?

What I mean is the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the government will not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Yet 1) we never define what is meant by an 'arm' and 2) we all know certain categories of weapons should be restricted from sale to the general public for the following reason.

If we look at the numbers of incarcerated felons in the United States, we find about 3 million bad guys locked up. If we use that number as a yardstick for all the bad apples in the basket, and there are approx 300 million people living in the US, we find that about 1% of the public is bad; As a sidenote, it also means that 99% of the people out there are good. So, if you meet a stranger on the street, armed or not, there's a 99% chance they are friendly.

Anyway, so 99% of the people are good, productive citizens and 1% are bad. So, if they are armed, only 1% are likely to use weapons for evil purposes. It seems trivial, but here's the problem. With the destructive power of some weapons or weapon systems even a mere 1% of the public can cause tremendous carnage and havoc. That 1% equipped with a jet fighter can take out a city block with a laser guided bomb or shoot down a jetliner, killing 200 people. A single person with a thermonuclear weapon can level an entire city and kill 300,000 people in a single strike.

Now there's the other side of the coin on arms control. The Second Amendment was written to arm the public with weapons designed for military purposes. Though our Founders were armed with muskets and cannons and could not imagine the military machinations we have today, it's clear that they wanted the public armed with weapons which can be used for military purposes to serve as a bulwark against government tyranny. This position is also backed up by SCOTUS case US v Miller, which seems to argue the government cannot restrict a type of arm from individual purchase if it has a legitimate use in a militia. Supporters of gun control have, for the past 30 years or so, been quietly introducing the idea into CW that the Second Amendment applies to hunting only and that guns sold to the general public only have 'a legitimate sporting purpose'. I cannot find any reference in the Constitution to this; it's like saying the First Amendment only applies to speech which is non-offensive.

As I mentioned in a previous thread on the Militia , we, the public of the United States have gradually shifted from protecting our national security by armed, non-regulated militias over to large, regulated standing armies (which, incidentally, is unconstitutional) as internal security agencies and police forces. With that being the case, it would seem the militia justification of the Second Amendment is going the way of the dinosaur, despite its potential usefulness.

Like the TTA skype call, there are also a lot of Americans, myself included, who grew up with guns, never broke the law with them, and are baffled why some segments of the public seem to only blame guns for criminal behavior and never the malefactors. Indeed I have observed the most ardent among them seem to consider ANYONE who owns a gun as a criminal and fear people turning into criminals by merely gaining access to a firearm. This attitude also seems to coincide with an attitude of elitist left wing paternalism; Great White Daddy knows what's best for you and he'll keep the sharp objects out of your reach (but he won't hesitate to avail himself of them when he needs them).

I've also made it clear that I support some aspect of gun control with my thread on a proposed IPL . Guns should not be easier to obtain than a cell phone and if you want to buy and own them, I think you should not exhibit dangerous or irresponsible traits, have a criminal record, or suffer from a serious mental disorder.

Since 1935 we seem to have answered the question about what kinds of arms the public can own with the National Firearms Act, with severely restricts the purchase of Machine Guns, short barreled shotgun and rifles, suppressors, other destructive devices and any firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches. I always felt that was a pretty reasonable limitation, provided collectors or enthusiasts could purchase them with additional paperwork. In recent times there seems to be a push towards restricting semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines in the same manner.

If we the people do want all military arms restricted from sale to the general public, I'd suggest a constitutional amendment which modifies or renders null and void the second amendment, shifting all military arms to government agencies and allow the individual states to determine their own policies on gun control. If you can't get a constitutional amendment, then I believe this push toward further restrictions on the sale of certain ypes of firearms should not be pursued.

Thoughts?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
On guns, where does one draw the line - Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver - 30-01-2013 07:22 PM
Forum Jump: