I'm still not sure what to say. I suppose that's the horror of tragedies like that in Newtown--it sort of consumes everything, pulling it into itself, coloring everything remotely connected to it. This probably isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, if we didn't look at certain issues through the lenses of something like this, we might potentially make a grievous mistake. Then again, decisions made in the midst of emotional turmoil are rarely sound ones.
On the one hand, I agree with the people that say that, in the aftermath of this tragedy, it is important that we make sure nothing like it ever happens again...and to accomplish that goal, we have to make sure that people don't possess things that could kill other people. On the other hand, I also agree with those who remind us that a disarmed populace can never protect its liberty, that a nation of people that gives up its means of defense is open to both tyranny from within and conquest from without.
The answer to tragedies like this and the prevention of future ones is not to remove means of defense from law-abiding citizens. To those who would say that taking semi-automatic weapons from regular citizens would keep them from those who break the law, I would offer exhibits A and B: the drug war and Prohibition. Have fun. The answer is not removing a sovereign right from the American people. Lord knows we've had enough of those taken away through the PATRIOT act and like pieces of legislation. No matter how you interpret the second amendment, no matter if you err towards what the Founders meant or what it should mean to us now, no matter if you believe in controls or not, I believe you should at least acknowledge that.
I can't say I know precisely what the answer should be. I'm not connected to any of these tragedies in any way, and I have no desire to be. I'd rather not lose any of my friends. But I don't think, at this point, that taking away weapons is at all the answer. Disarming those who abide by the laws does not stop those who do not; it simply puts the former even more at the mercy of the latter.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Senseless Tragedy
I'm not quite sure what to say. I feel that I should say something, even if nobody cares to read, if only because it will make me feel better, might help my mind make sense of things.
Yet what sense is there to be found in a situation like this? Twenty children are dead, along with seven adults. Another ordinary person suddenly went berserk and slaughtered dozens of people, only to shoot himself afterward.
I suppose we could focus on the fact that guns allow people an easy way to kill many people. We could reflect upon the fact that loss of life suddenly becomes important once it's our schoolchildren being killed, while those in power don't give a damn when it's schoolchildren in Pakistan or Afghanistan being slaughtered by our drones. We could. And I think that in the coming days those are definitely questions and aspects of this that should be addressed. We cannot ignore the fact that crazy people can easily get hold of weapons that can kill many people; nor should we ignore the fact that hypocrisy runs deep in our national psyche and that the lives of children should be sacred no matter what color their skin, the religion they adhere to, or the nationality they hold.
But to do so today, as this tragedy is so fresh, seems cheap to me. It turns these deaths, this senseless tragedy, into a political play. Whether you are on the side of gun-control or not, whether you find it mildly interesting that a rash of shootings has suddenly cropped up as efforts to instate meaningful gun control laws in the US are ongoing, or whether you really don't care either way, please don't let this incident, this tragedy, be so easily covered up and used for the gain of one side or the other.
We must talk about it, of course. As someone on Tumblr pointed out, when is the 'right time' to talk about such things--after Columbine, or VT, or Aurora? Why not now? But give time for families to grieve. We will have time to discuss the politics. For now, it is enough that this happened, and that it is horrible. We will consider, reflect, mourn, and then we can discuss the meaning of it.
Yet what sense is there to be found in a situation like this? Twenty children are dead, along with seven adults. Another ordinary person suddenly went berserk and slaughtered dozens of people, only to shoot himself afterward.
I suppose we could focus on the fact that guns allow people an easy way to kill many people. We could reflect upon the fact that loss of life suddenly becomes important once it's our schoolchildren being killed, while those in power don't give a damn when it's schoolchildren in Pakistan or Afghanistan being slaughtered by our drones. We could. And I think that in the coming days those are definitely questions and aspects of this that should be addressed. We cannot ignore the fact that crazy people can easily get hold of weapons that can kill many people; nor should we ignore the fact that hypocrisy runs deep in our national psyche and that the lives of children should be sacred no matter what color their skin, the religion they adhere to, or the nationality they hold.
But to do so today, as this tragedy is so fresh, seems cheap to me. It turns these deaths, this senseless tragedy, into a political play. Whether you are on the side of gun-control or not, whether you find it mildly interesting that a rash of shootings has suddenly cropped up as efforts to instate meaningful gun control laws in the US are ongoing, or whether you really don't care either way, please don't let this incident, this tragedy, be so easily covered up and used for the gain of one side or the other.
We must talk about it, of course. As someone on Tumblr pointed out, when is the 'right time' to talk about such things--after Columbine, or VT, or Aurora? Why not now? But give time for families to grieve. We will have time to discuss the politics. For now, it is enough that this happened, and that it is horrible. We will consider, reflect, mourn, and then we can discuss the meaning of it.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Right of the People to Bear Arms...
Gun rights. Do the American people have the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution? Are guns dangerous? Is the second amendment outdated? Are guns needed now, in the twenty-first century?
Yes. No. Yes.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United 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. [Emphasis mine]
This amendment states, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Constitutionally, the American people are granted the right to own and carry guns. Yes, this amendment also mentions a militia. But at the time this was written, every man (males 14 and older) who could tote a gun were considered the 'militia'. Women were also counted into the 'militia' if some catastrophe happened and there were no able bodied men left.
Hence, the American people can carry guns anytime they please. This right cannot be infringed. Infringed means violated, encroached. Things like gun laws are, in my opinion, infringing the right to carry a gun, as it adds unnecessary legal process and bureaucracy to the simple act of owning a gun.
"But the Constitution is outdated!"
An argument I have heard manymany times- more times than I would like to count. So, our system of government is outdated. Our Congressional election style is outdated? Our Presidential veto is outdated? Our government for the people, by the people is outdated?
Okay.
"But guns are....dangerous!"
Yeah. That's what makes them so fun!
No, not really. In experienced, practiced hands that have been trained in the use of a firearm, they aren't all that dangerous. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes, some people have gotten killed by accidental discharge.
But when handled properly, guns are no more dangerous than a glass of water. I know of a family who has guns. Many guns. They had young children, and now grandchildren. Their guns stay out. The kids know not to touch the guns, because they have been trained that guns are dangerous, since before they were old enough to understand. It is no problem.
"Guns kill people!"
No. People kill people. If guns kill people, why don't we put the gun in jail?
If someone wants to kill another, they will do it. They don't need a gun. In your household, you have plenty of items that could potentially kill someone.
Scissors.
Knives.
Pillows.
Blankets.
Rocks.
Bricks.
Books.
Glass.
Pens.
Pencils.
Cars.
Swimming pool.
And oh yeah, what was that other one...oh yeah- Humans!!
The list of items that can be used to kill someone goes on. And on. And on and on and on. There is no end to it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, regardless of if they have a gun or not.
"Without strict gun laws, the criminals will get guns."
They get guns anyway. The only thing gun laws do is deprive law abiding citizens of protection they are legally allowed to have, making them more susceptible to a homicide or a robbery in which a gun is used.
"But guns are just fundamentally bad. There isn't any real reason we should have them."
The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. Go read it, it will do you good.
The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. That means that any gun laws that prohibit or hamper the keeping of firearms are unconstitutional. (Side note- that does not mean I think that every citizen should have a tank in their backyard. Those are military weapons, which I am not sure about. There may be some other hamper to that. I don't know.)
The Constitutional Bill of Rights was intended to make sure that the people's rights were not infringed. That means that the entirety of the Constitution is intended to keep the government in check.
Using this line of reasoning, we can conclude that the reason the American people are allowed to keep guns is to keep the government in check.
Governments have a history of going astray. England did it. Spain did it. Rome did it. Every single government in the history of the world has slipped up and started going the wrong way- becoming more totalitarian, etc. This kind of government is the polar opposite of a democratic republic.
So, the founders instituted some very interesting clauses in the Constitution. For starters, the representatives are, in a rather indirect way (at that time), elected by the people. If the people do not, for some reason, like the job their congressman is doing, they can recall him with various processes that are outlined in the states, and then elect another.
The next is contained in the first amendment- we the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Unfortunately, our current government has stopped listening to such petitions, as We The People and other organizations have discovered.
From there, we go on to guns. The entire idea of keeping and bearing arms was to have them in case of an emergency. An emergency would include the idea of a non-responsive government. (Note- I am not advocating going and assassinating all the members of Congress. That would be wrong. Nor am I advocating assassinating President Obama. That, too would be wrong.)
But we do have the right to keep and bear arms.
Yes. No. Yes.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United 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. [Emphasis mine]
This amendment states, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Constitutionally, the American people are granted the right to own and carry guns. Yes, this amendment also mentions a militia. But at the time this was written, every man (males 14 and older) who could tote a gun were considered the 'militia'. Women were also counted into the 'militia' if some catastrophe happened and there were no able bodied men left.
Hence, the American people can carry guns anytime they please. This right cannot be infringed. Infringed means violated, encroached. Things like gun laws are, in my opinion, infringing the right to carry a gun, as it adds unnecessary legal process and bureaucracy to the simple act of owning a gun.
"But the Constitution is outdated!"
An argument I have heard manymany times- more times than I would like to count. So, our system of government is outdated. Our Congressional election style is outdated? Our Presidential veto is outdated? Our government for the people, by the people is outdated?
Okay.
"But guns are....dangerous!"
Yeah. That's what makes them so fun!
No, not really. In experienced, practiced hands that have been trained in the use of a firearm, they aren't all that dangerous. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes, some people have gotten killed by accidental discharge.
But when handled properly, guns are no more dangerous than a glass of water. I know of a family who has guns. Many guns. They had young children, and now grandchildren. Their guns stay out. The kids know not to touch the guns, because they have been trained that guns are dangerous, since before they were old enough to understand. It is no problem.
"Guns kill people!"
No. People kill people. If guns kill people, why don't we put the gun in jail?
If someone wants to kill another, they will do it. They don't need a gun. In your household, you have plenty of items that could potentially kill someone.
Scissors.
Knives.
Pillows.
Blankets.
Rocks.
Bricks.
Books.
Glass.
Pens.
Pencils.
Cars.
Swimming pool.
And oh yeah, what was that other one...oh yeah- Humans!!
The list of items that can be used to kill someone goes on. And on. And on and on and on. There is no end to it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, regardless of if they have a gun or not.
"Without strict gun laws, the criminals will get guns."
They get guns anyway. The only thing gun laws do is deprive law abiding citizens of protection they are legally allowed to have, making them more susceptible to a homicide or a robbery in which a gun is used.
"But guns are just fundamentally bad. There isn't any real reason we should have them."
The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. Go read it, it will do you good.
The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. That means that any gun laws that prohibit or hamper the keeping of firearms are unconstitutional. (Side note- that does not mean I think that every citizen should have a tank in their backyard. Those are military weapons, which I am not sure about. There may be some other hamper to that. I don't know.)
The Constitutional Bill of Rights was intended to make sure that the people's rights were not infringed. That means that the entirety of the Constitution is intended to keep the government in check.
Using this line of reasoning, we can conclude that the reason the American people are allowed to keep guns is to keep the government in check.
Governments have a history of going astray. England did it. Spain did it. Rome did it. Every single government in the history of the world has slipped up and started going the wrong way- becoming more totalitarian, etc. This kind of government is the polar opposite of a democratic republic.
So, the founders instituted some very interesting clauses in the Constitution. For starters, the representatives are, in a rather indirect way (at that time), elected by the people. If the people do not, for some reason, like the job their congressman is doing, they can recall him with various processes that are outlined in the states, and then elect another.
The next is contained in the first amendment- we the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Unfortunately, our current government has stopped listening to such petitions, as We The People and other organizations have discovered.
From there, we go on to guns. The entire idea of keeping and bearing arms was to have them in case of an emergency. An emergency would include the idea of a non-responsive government. (Note- I am not advocating going and assassinating all the members of Congress. That would be wrong. Nor am I advocating assassinating President Obama. That, too would be wrong.)
But we do have the right to keep and bear arms.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Up in arms over Guns
Did you know that there is a loophole in the NY gun laws that allow for the possession (without a license) of an 'antique' firearm? There is. Antique is defined as any gun that has to be loaded in a multi-step process- powder, then ball, and the whole thing rammed home with a rod.
Michael Littlejohn has one such gun that he requested from a blacksmith. But now, the Bloomberg administration is trying to seize the gun...as well as Mr. Littlejohn's gun rights.
I think they missed that passage in the Constitution- y'know, the second amendment. "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed...' all that?
The NYPD are trying to force him to get a license- despite the fact that, under the law, he can keep a gun. Besides, who cares? He claims he doesn't have ammunition. And even if he did, his rights under the Constitution are clearly spelled out.
Unfortunately, the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. Somebody needs to send them (and the maker of the gun laws in this country) a copy of the second amendment.
Michael Littlejohn has one such gun that he requested from a blacksmith. But now, the Bloomberg administration is trying to seize the gun...as well as Mr. Littlejohn's gun rights.
I think they missed that passage in the Constitution- y'know, the second amendment. "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed...' all that?
The NYPD are trying to force him to get a license- despite the fact that, under the law, he can keep a gun. Besides, who cares? He claims he doesn't have ammunition. And even if he did, his rights under the Constitution are clearly spelled out.
Unfortunately, the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. Somebody needs to send them (and the maker of the gun laws in this country) a copy of the second amendment.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gun Bill Passed
I know you're all tired of gloom-and-doom me, so here's some good news!
The House passed a bill yesterday that will allow gun owners to carry concealed, loaded guns into national parks. It passed 279-147, with the support of the Republicans (of course), and some Democrats.
The only bad thing? It was added as some twisted sort of pork into the credit card bill.
Beef to get unwilling senators to vote 'aye'.
So, there's some good news, and a little bit of doom-gloom at the end, just to show that I'm still here. ;)
Read the original story here.
The House passed a bill yesterday that will allow gun owners to carry concealed, loaded guns into national parks. It passed 279-147, with the support of the Republicans (of course), and some Democrats.
The only bad thing? It was added as some twisted sort of pork into the credit card bill.
Beef to get unwilling senators to vote 'aye'.
So, there's some good news, and a little bit of doom-gloom at the end, just to show that I'm still here. ;)
Read the original story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
