Guns in America

7:18 AM Posted by Felix

Alot of news coverage following recent shooting incidents has generated a bit of an anti gun sentiment in the media. The actions perpetrated by these individuals led to terrible tragedies that have been rightly condemned by these news stories, but there seems to be an undertone of anti gun ownership for even law biding Americans. Three of the more recent shootings were perpetrated by individuals that had obtained their licence to carry firearms legally, and as happens often after tragedies of this nature gun control arguments have started to pop up across both the traditional media and the blogosphere.

There is a particular argument raised by some individuals and groups that certain types of weapons should not be available to citizens (fully automatic or assault rifles) because of their intended purpose of being built as anti personnel weapons rather as hunting or hobby purposes. While I can understand this point of view being put forth, I must disagree when taking a closer look at our constitution. The second amendment states: 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. This means that the right to bear arms is not just for the purposes of gaming or personal defense. The right to bear arms is one of our fundamental rights to ensure that every American citizen can be prepared to take up arms in a militia in the event that the United States comes under a major attack.

Many that would make the previously stated argument may think that this notion is antiquated and not relevant to modern day society, but many empirical and imperialist powers throughout history have fallen because of comfortable complacency and idea that their society is invincible. The fall of Rome comes to mind as it was a surprise to many roman citizens. It would be foolish to disregard the history of human civilization and assume that our society is somehow immune or different. I don't contest that such an event is more likely these days compared to the past when it isn't, but having this level of preparation was extremely important to our founding fathers. Hell, this is the second thing that they thought of. The founders of our nation recognized the great importance of being able to draw up armed militias from the civilian population.

In an era where people are more and more willing to give up constitutional rights in the name of security, I can't think of a more important right to preserve. Touching back on individuals that may abuse their second amendment rights to perpetrate crime or harm others in their communities, limiting what types of guns people can get or banning firearms completely in my opinion would not prevent these things from happening. The funny thing about cliches is that they stand the test of time for a reason. That reason is there usually being at least a degree of truth to them.there is a cliche that is very appropriate when talking about second amendment issues, and you have undoubtedly seen it on a bumper sticker, T-shirt, or shouted at an NRA rally: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

This issue is always very divisive and incendiary, so I am especially interested in getting thoughts and insights from all sides of the political spectrum. Agree? Disagree? Weigh in and let me know where you stand!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 Response to "Guns in America"

  1. lumps Said,

    I agree with you, but for different reasons, which I will explain. I don't believe there should be another Assault Weapons Ban.

    Many NRA junkies would want to string me up for what I am about to say. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Let me explain.

    As the normal argument goes for people with that position, the "arms" back in 1789 were flint-lock muzzle-loaders that took one minute to reload one shot at record pace. They were not terribly accurate and were only effective in war if you were shooting at a crowd, because you were guaranteed to hit something. Guns were not often used in crimes because of the fire-reload rate and inaccuracy. Compare that gun to even semi-automatics, and the semi-automatic would be a WMD.

    But that argument has been touted before, and it bores me and I'm sure it does you. Not only that, but it can be easily refuted with the "revolution" cause for the 2nd Amendment. But even that, I tell you, is obsolete. Modern warfare extends way past the use of simple arms and guns, but rather high explosives and projectile explosives which put the old wick-bombs and cannons to shame. If the government did become tyrannical and decided to purge itself of a resistance, military arms and AR-15s will be their last resort. They will throw a rocket at your house, not send police to your door so you can shoot them. Our military is touted as being the most advanced and the most effective in world history, and these wannabe revolutionaries think they can take down their tyrannical government with merely automatic arms and weapons.

    Then you might ask me how the American Revolutionaries were able to do it. Well, the government had the same weapons they did. They didn't have laser-guided rockets and tactical nukes. The British government had muzzle-loading flint-locks with some cannons. The American militia had muzzle-loading flint-locks, and didn't need cannons for real guerilla warfare. Our founding fathers would probably have a heart-attack if they could see the kind of mass-killing weapons we have today, from the M-16 to the Nuclear Bomb. We would not want these weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, and I'm certain the founding fathers would not either.

    However, this does not mean we should change the 2nd Amendment. Just because the 3rd Amendment carries little relevance in today's society doesn't mean we should start quartering troops in houses. It is still the law of the land and should still be upheld. However, I don't think the 2nd Amendment should be a shield for every little pro-gun argument. It makes most pro-gunners look like they are hiding behind it rather than arguing for the issue.

    My reason for opposing any ban on guns is a practical one. It doesn't work and criminals don't regard legality. They will get guns regardless of whether they are legal, and as the cliche goes, the law-abiding populace would be disarmed. It is impractical. Also, most of the shootings, assassinations, workplace, school, or just random shootings aren't carried out with assault weapons. Most are carried out with handguns, or in the case of assassinations, high-velocity rifles. It is just impractical to ban them, and will not work to lower gun crimes.

    Posted on May 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM

     

Post a Comment