Coherent thoughts on guns - a hot topic
Question number one. Do Americans have an unfettered right to own arms?
Some people believe the constitution says that we have an unfettered right to own arms Does every American have the right to own a tank? How about a missile or a 1,000 lb bomb? How about chemical, biological, or nuclear arms?
Well, now, if we accept that we can't own any type of weapon, then we agree that the right is not unfettered.
Therefore argument #1, reasonable people will agree that the constitution does not guarantee the right for Americans to own any weapon.
Now we have only to decide where to place the boundaries. On that, the constitution gives us no guidance.
An argument might be, that since the right is explicit, we should always err toward allowance rather than restriction.
The interpretation that the right to bear arms is explicit in the constitution is a new interpretation. For most of our history the interpretation was that having army, or militia, satisfied the specifics of the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
Question number two. If we establish boundaries, should they be national or regional?
This country is large and there are clear differences between being a rancher in a desolate area and someone who lives in New York City.
I am reminded of the academic couple that were murdered in their home in Dartmouth, Vermont by 2 young men. As it turns out, the 2 men had previously attempted to gain access to different house by knocking on a door of a secluded home saying that their car had broken down and "could they come in and use the phone". The owner of the house, being suspicious because of the late hour, showed the men a gun through a door window and refused. The men left, upgraded their armament and struck 6 month later against older, easier, and less suspicious prey..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dartmouth_College_murders
On the other hand who wants 8 million short tempered New Yorkers in their everyday stress of congested living, running around with guns to settle petty and not so petty arguments.
The argument is, that rules that are not national are ineffective, since arms can be bought in one location and transported to another.
Question number three. Can we define boundaries that are intelligent are meet the needs of the whole country?
My answer would be to try and make this distinction.
Is the armament a weapon of war or a weapon of protection.
100 cartridge magazines are weapons of war. Machine guns are weapons of war. They should require special licenses.
Question number four. Can we define rules about who shall not have the right to own guns?
There is an argument that the existing rules are sufficient and that we should strengthen the control against the mentally ill accessing weapons. My question is "who decides?" Where do you draw the line? What is aberrant behavior?
Question number five. Is there a case for gun tracking?
Gun tracking means that all guns have to be registered and all gun transfers, losses and disposals have to be registered. It establishes that an owner is responsible for his weapon.
A counter argument is that registered guns are easier to confiscate.
Another counter argument is tracking would require an expansion of bureaucracy - manpower, computer systems, procedures, forms etc.
My argument is that guns are not nearly as essential as cars and their main function is killing. If we can accept registration and transfer tracking on cars we can accept it on guns.
Question number six. Is there a case for licensing ?
Should a license be required before someone can own a gun? Should there be testing ad training required?
I think so. Once again the car analogy. A person should show that they can handle a gun safely, and that they know the relevant rules before being able to buy and operate a gun.
A secondary advantage is that the tester, similar to the driving tester, can "fail" people who just seem too erratic.
Question number seven. Do we distrust our government so much that we must stay armed to the teeth in case our system falls apart? Or,does the proliferation of gun in our society make us freer?
Would the holocaust have been any different if the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and all the targets of the Nazis been better armed? I don't think so. The Nazi tactics may have been different; divide and conquer. There may have been more individual resistance but it would have made no difference in the overall big picture against an organized, brutal, and maniacal force.
Question number eight. Are you more likely to be killed if more people have guns, than if fewer people had guns? Meaning are we killing more of ourselves by arming ourselves to protect ourselves than if we didn't arm ourselves and relied on society to protect us?
posted by David Tyme @ 8:19 PM
0 comments
