It's an Amendment, not a Commandment
People are not unreasonably frightened of others with weapons. Understandably many would equate their ability to maintain their freedom with their right to bear arms. They know that prohibition does not work. It is not only that if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns. They know there are unscrupulous or simply incompetent legal bearers of arms in service institutions as well. Yet, if it comes to a gunfight there are always opponents with better weapons and/or skill. There are plenty of people who want no part of owning weapons that want their rights respected as well. They want a structure in which they can feel safe from weapon-bearing neighbors. It would be better to openly discuss these problems, differing views, possible options, than to heatedly snipe from behind barricades of fixed opinions.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 11
Sorry, just trying to head off the unreasonable yahoo arguments before they appear.
Actually, according to the Institute oO Justice, the research arm of the Department Of Justice, only 1% of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows or flea markets. A greater number, 12% are secured using straw purchasers. Since the 4473, the form required by law to be filed out to purchase a firearms from a licensed dealer; asks the question if the gun is being purchased for another person (Answer Yes or NO) and a straw purchaser lies and answers "No" just how are we going to regulate that? Background checks won't stop it. Waiting periods won't stop it. We are dealing with criminals who are willing to break the law to get what they want. How do we stop that from happening?
The whole problem with the idea of gun control, is that you can control criminal behavior by passing laws that regulate that behavior. It's nonsensical. Criminals are by definition, people who break the law. If their intent is to break the law, why should we think that a law is going to keep them from doing that?
Not to be rude, but this ain't kindergarten. Making rules for people to play nice together won't cut it, because some people are not interested in playing nice. They don't care. They want what the want when they want it and will go to any means to get it. Making laws that are binding only against those who follow them because they want to "play nice" does nothing to address those who simply refuse to follow the rules. And binding those wiling to "play nice" only rewards the bad behavior of those who won't.
Now, the same study conducted by the IOJ also revealed that the government only prosecutes about 2% of the caes where someone fails the NISC background check. So who is not doing their job???
Want a link to the study?
The list is very long, and it hasn't solved crime problem yet. Perhaps that suggests there is more to the crime problem than firearms availability.
When abortion is outlawed, only criminals will perform abortions. That doesn't make illegality of abortion in the third trimester unenforceable, now.
When dog ownership is outlawed, only criminals will have dogs. That doesn't mean dogs can't be required to be licensed, now.
When sleeping under bridges is outlawed, the homeless will still sleep under bridges. Let's clean those laws off the books, and see what happens to the bridges.
There no reason why background checks at gun shows can't be enforced, now.
Since it is obvious that passing a background check does not preclude a tendancy for violent behavior, just what law would you suggest that we enact to keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane?
It would be nice to have a reasonable discussion on the issue but Guy just pointed out the slippery slope factor doesn't even merit inclusion. The history of city/state gun control points out that actually its very relevant. If you start making such preconditions, where does one start? What constitutes reasonable restrictions for instance? The cold fact is that both sides are pretty entrenched on the issue and like abortion the passions are intense.
One side regards the right to own and use them for protection, hunting, plinking or whatever as a right enshrined alongside with the other individual rights in the Bill. The other feels that this right is malleable though listed right after freedom of religion and speech. Its going to be very hard to find a middle ground there.
Before you go suggesting that we "control" on the right to arms, why not think about what effects the "control" might have on our other rights. Would you be OK if it were required that your computer, keyboard and ISP number wre registered with teh police befoer you could take it home and use it? Would yo be OK if you had to submit to the police a copy of what you wanted to post for thier approval before it could be posted?
You are correct, it is an amendment, to the founding document of this nation. It is one of 10 Amendments that wee called the Bill of Rights. These rights are spoken of as natural rights that exist beyond the governments power to control. They include many rights, one of which is even the right to change our government. We do that through voting. Would you give up that right? Would you give control of yoru vote to a government offical? Would you allow someone to tell you who you could vote for for? Or that if you registered to vote for one party, that you could not change your mind about that?
I'm sure that it is difficult to equate the right to own arms with the right ot free speech, religion, to be free of unwarranted search and seizure, etc. but the right to arms is the equivilent in every way to those rights. That one chooses not to exercise that right, is a matter of personal choice, no one makes another own or use a firearm. You can choose not to speak or attend any kind of religious service or as many as you like for that matter.
There is a method laid out in the Constitution for amending the Constituiton. The problem is that the 2nd amendment only protects a pre existing right from usurption by the government. That is true for our other rights as well. That being the case, even removing the 2nd won't remove the right.
Go here, www.usconstitution.net