The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay, what are "arms"? Well, a nuclear weapon is an "arm" right? I believe we had an arms race with the Soviet Union that involved nuclear weapons, it certainly didn't involve handguns. So should we allow anyone who would be so inclined to own a nuclear missile (an arm) to have one? Of course not. Do you want to allow Donald Trump or Bill Gates or some other rogue billionaire to start stockpiling nuclear weapons? No, of course not, so the question then becomes, where do you draw the line?
When the Constitution was written, the most powerful weapon in the world was a cannon. A cannon could fire about 800 yards. Now we have intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. Beyond cannons, in the late 18th century there were muskets, rifles, and pistols, and that's about it. Bearing arms meant you had a rifle, musket, or pistol and could fire maybe 1 round a minute and could be effective at a range of about 50-100 feet.
So when they wrote the Second Amendment, they had these muskets, rifles, and pistols in mind. Plenty enough to defend yourself but not enough to wreak havoc.
The scale of weapons has changed quite a bit in the last 200+ years. Weapons and ammo have advanced to the point where it is relatively easy to acquire an arsenal capable of inflicting massive casualties in a short period of time. This wasn't the case when our founding fathers declared that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Sorry, but the right to own such an arsenal should be infringed upon just a tad bit.
So what do we do? On one hand, I get the argument of the gun rights advocates. All gun laws do is take guns away from those who abide by the law. You disarm the good guys and the bad guys gain a significant firepower advantage. These weapons are out there it's just a question of who ends up with them, the good guys or the bad guys.
But here's where that argument falls apart. There's no reason for assault weapons to be available to the anyone at all. Good guys, bad guys, law abiding citizens, terrorists, nobody. Weapons intended to produce mass casualties should only be in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel. Look, the government already has more firepower than you do. The idea that people should be allowed to have assault weapons to defend themselves against a government gone mad is mad itself. The government has nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, an Air Force and Navy capable of unleashing all manner of wrath on your ass if it wants to. You having an assault weapon is not going to protect you from that. So drop that argument. It's not 1776 anymore, the government, the man, has superior firepower over you and can squash any rebellion it wants, no matter how justified it may ever be. So arguing that the Second Amendment protects citizens rights against a belligerent government no longer holds water.
So what about the rights of citizens, law abiding ones, to arm themselves to protect themselves and others against bad guys? Not such an easy question. If we allow law enforcement and the military to have such weapons, and therefore these weapons continue to exist, then these weapons will also fall into the hands of the bad guys. To me, it's all the more reason to just ban them altogether. Fuck trying to figure out who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. Tough shit, nobody gets them. End of story.
I don't want your handguns, I want you to have them. If you know how to use them, I want you packing and ready to protect yourself and myself and others. I don't want your rifles. But I want your assault rifles, your mass casualty producing weapons that no person has any productive use for. You collect them? Tough shit...collect stamps instead. You need it for protection from the government? Give me a fucking break, the government has plenty of ways to kill your ass that your assault weapon is useless against, so give that shit up too.
There's one more aspect of gun control to address, and it's a legit one. It's the slippery slope argument. Take our assault weapons today, and you're just gonna come back after my rifles and pistols tomorrow. For that, frankly, I have no answer. For me, personally, getting assault weapons out of the hands of everyone is all the farther I would ever go, I can't promise that the anti-gun faction wont just use that as the beginning of a massive gun-snatching movement. But I'm a huge advocate of individual rights and I admit that it is a legitimate concern.
The Constitution, as I said, is a brilliant document but it is not flawless and timeless. This is why the framers of the Constitution included the provision to amend it. The original Constitution allowed slavery and counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person, and denied them and women the right to vote. We amended the Constitution to correct these provisions when we found that they no longer suited our attitudes and the realities of the times. Times change, technology changes, societies enlightenment changes and the Constitution in its brilliance allows for that through the process of amendment. It is a living document that was always meant to be changed as necessary to adapt to the circumstances of the times.
Okay Rick. I see your point, but here is my rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Founders referred to “Arms”, they were speaking of “firearms”, so let’s just let the nuclear weapons thing go. I’m with you there.
“Where do you draw the line?” This is where the “slippery slope” comes into play. The first problem is that these weapons were ever made available to the public in the first place. As you know, I am a hunter and I have plenty of guns. I always felt that I would never own a gun for any purpose other than hunting or self defense. I’m not going to use an AR for self defense. I’ll use a pistol or a shotgun if someone breaks into my house, but a few years back I started thinking that I would like an AR with the same sights as my M-16 / M-4 to take out prior to going to the range so that I could get used to those sights again and qualify better at the range. I never thought that when I was in the Active Army because I carried my weapon way more often than I did in the Guard. Even then though, I kept putting off purchasing one because of the cost. When President Obama was re-elected, I went out within about a week and bought an AR because I knew that he was going to try and reinstitute the “assault weapons” ban. I bought my AR with the intention of using it to hunt prairie dogs and coyotes. I’ve also seen pictures of younger kids using them to hunt deer. I’ve also seen them used to hunt hogs. You can customize the AR to shoot a 300 blackout round for deer or buy an AR 10 in a .308 for deer, hogs, elk, etc. The reason that these guns make sense for younger hunters is the lack of recoil. My daughter hunts and I bought her a bolt action 7mm-08 to use to hunt deer or elk. The recoil is still too much for her and she is almost afraid to shoot it. I’m not saying that I’m going to go out and buy her an AR 10 or fit mine for 300 blackout, but it would solve the recoil problem for her if I did.
Now, I will go back to the initial problem of these weapons being offered to the public. First problem with an all out confiscation is that, as the picture on your blog indicates, only the law abiding citizens will give up their guns if the Government makes them illegal and even a lot of them may refuse. What is currently being proposed is to stop the sale / manufacture of them now, but the ones already out there will still remain in the hands of the public. How in the world are you going to get “assault weapons out of the hands of everyone”? There is no way that you can do that. As I’ve said, there are practical applications for the AR or even the SKS in the private sector.
(Cont.)
Now for the big question: what is the definition of an “assault weapon”? They can’t really define them other than to describe certain characteristics. I was talking to a guy yesterday that said his friends who are police are most afraid of 22 caliber rifles because they are so slow moving that once they penetrate the body, they stay in the body and can cause more harm than a higher caliber rifle or pistol. Many 22 caliber rifles are also semi-automatic, so they can send many rounds down range quickly. They also have next to no recoil, so the shooter wouldn’t become less accurate with more shots as they may with a high powered rifle. There are also high powered rifles and shotguns that come in semi-automatic. So what, do we outlaw all semi-automatics as “assault weapons”? You can buy a Ruger 10/22 in semi-automatic with large capacity magazines and inflict just as much damage as you can with an “assault weapon”. Next they want to ban “high capacity” magazines. Define what “high capacity” is. New York seems to think that it’s anything over 7 rounds. I don’t know if you remember the shooting in Luby’s Restaurant outside of Fort Hood in the early 90’s, but I recently watched a video of a woman testifying before Congress about that incident and she said that no one could rush the shooter between magazines as he could change them too quickly and start firing again. Her father tried and was shot to death as a result. So if I’m a criminal intent on conducting a mass shooting and you limit me to 7 round magazines, I can still buy 10 of them and have 70 rounds for each particular gun and no one can get to me between magazines. What good does it do to ban the “high capacity” magazines? Where I will concede is that no one needs a drum for an AR that holds 100 rounds, so ban them or make it so that people have to have a class 3 license or something to obtain them. I do not believe that a 30 round magazine for an AR is a “high capacity” magazine because I will rest on it if I’m firing in the prone. I could go and get a bipod though and wouldn’t really need a 30 round mag. I could get by with a 10 round magazine because I intend to use mine for hunting and if I can’t hit and kill an animal in 10 rounds or less, I should not have shot at it in the first place. However, if I was using it for self defense, I would want the 30 rounds because it can be hard to hit a moving target, especially in the dark.
ReplyDelete(Cont.)
As you can see, there are many problems with the gun ban side of the argument. Even if you only outlaw the “assault weapons”, there can still be mass shootings. If they can’t shoot up a place, they can switch to a different tactic and us a bomb or gas or an airplane. If someone is determined, there is a way out there that they can inflict mass casualties. I like the idea of armed guards at all schools. Most high schools in Colorado already have an officer assigned to them, so why not offer that protection to all schools? Gun free zones are a problem. Most mass casualty shootings happen in gun free zones. This allows the criminal to feel safe. The other issue with most mass casualty shootings is that the perpetrator doesn’t usually plan to survive the event. They will either commit suicide or commit suicide by cop. These people are so disturbed that you can’t reason with them or stop them. When you no longer value your own life, you don’t care and will do whatever you want to do unless someone physically stops you. This is why people need to report these unstable people to the authorities if they suspect that they are planning some type of mass shooting. There are always signs prior to these events, but most times it is the loved ones of the perpetrator that see the signs but give them the benefit of the doubt and don’t believe they are serious or will follow through. Those people need to take the signs seriously.
ReplyDeleteWell, that’s all I have to say. I hope it makes sense to you. I just don’t see how any new gun control laws will work. Supposedly President Obama said in one of his 23 Executive Orders that anyone who has ever been diagnosed with ADD, ADHD or PTSD cannot own a firearm. So what he’s done is make it illegal to own a gun for a member of the Armed Forces who got PTSD after a deployment defending this nation, but they can still carry one into combat. That makes no sense at all. I understand that he’s trying to address the mental health issue, but ADD, ADHD and PTSD aren’t the conditions that need to be addressed. Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you have to say about what I have said.
Holy shitballs...you should start a blog lol. I would say that most if not all of the points you make are valid. That's why this issue is as complicated as it is.
ReplyDeleteFirst, yeah I agree it would be difficult if not impossible to wave some magic wand or otherwise get every assault weapon out of the hands of the public. There's also the issue that, since they were legal when purchased, legal owners should be allowed to keep them. I agree with your premise that they should have never been manufactured for sale to the public in the first place, but there's nothing that can be done about that now.
Yes, the definition of "assault weapon" needs to be identified. I don't have an exact one other than weapons that can produce mass casualties. I'm not enough of a weapons expert to offer much more detail than that.
I'm right with you on the Gun Free zones and the armed guards at schools. Gun free zones are fucking stupid. Has any wacko ever gone to one intending to open fire and kill people, seen the "Gun Free Zone" sign and said "Aww, fuck, well there goes that plan"? Of course they do prevent law abiding citizens who could otherwise stop the wacko from being able to do so.
I read through Obama's 23 point proposal and don't recall him saying anything about ADD or PTSD, but I could be wrong. And I'm too lazy to look it up right now lol. What I recall from it was that it has a lot to do with streamlining and expanding the process of background checks in general, and allowing for doctors and caregivers to ask patients about gun ownership. I'm not saying I agree with all or any of his proposals, and frankly I don't see where any of them would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook.
My main point is that there are some weapons that are completely unneccessary for people to have and can lead to tragedies when they fall into the wrong hands. No, it's not the weapons fault. But I don't buy the argument that if they can't use weapons they'll use bombs or whatever else. Just because some wackos will use other means to carry out their evil doesn't mean we shouldn't take away their preferred option.
Finally, I think we should be funneling just as much time and energy into finding the root causes of these types of shootings so that we can prevent future incidents. Frankly it's probably more important and would ultimately be more effective than any gun ban. I also think the gun debate itself needs to be more civilized and intelligent, just like we're having here. Like I said in an earlier blog, this country has forgotten how to have intelligent and rational conversations about controversial issues.
I've only seen the ADD and PTSD stuff on Facebook from friends who will do the research. I haven't done it either. That's why I said supposedly. I agree with your final point. We need to put the time and energy into finding the root causes and not punish law abiding citizens by over reacting. Even if you disagree with my point about using bombs and stuff, like I said, they could go get a semi-automatic 22 rifle and a couple semi-auto pistols and still cause mass casualties. That's where the slippery slope issue comes in. Good debate and glad we could have an intelligent and rational conversation without resorting to name calling. LOL. Take care bro and you'll have to let me know how to access your blogs. Maybe I should start one. That way I won't write the long stuff on facebook.
ReplyDeleteRick, I posted here earlier today, but its gone, so let's see...
ReplyDeleteThe main differences in your run of the mill semi-automatic rifle and say, the AR-15 are recoil, and outer appearance. You and I are experienced with the M-16 military version, and I am sure you are experienced with the AR-15 military version of these so called "assault" weapons. The main difference in the military versions and the civilian versions are: yep you guessed it, FULL-AUTO! Of course, the civilian versions can be altered to go full-auto, but that is illegal. I do not own an "assault" weapon at all, but could this ban lead to more bans?
The biggest thing to watch for is the so called "slippery-slope". No way to know for sure at this time, but it is a very real possibility!
Mental illness should be the focus, because anybody who goes out to shoot a bunch of people is fucking crazy! Or suicidal...
P.S.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're a member, but here is all your info for every argument you can think of.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/stop-the-gun-ban.aspx