Well, I got a real education this week, from a reader here and gun enthusiast.
I had no idea that these people equate the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.
At least this one did--and let me be clear, I'm not mocking him, either. These people apparently assume that since there should be no limits to Free Speech, as called for by the Constitution in the First Amendment, that there also should be absolutely no limits to "the right to bear arms", either, as called for by the Second Amendment. Their both Amendments, right? So shouldn't they be "equal"?
When I learned this, I was stunned. And by stunned, I mean shocked.
While, as I explained to him, I do believe the old saw that "the pen is mightier than the sword", I also don't know of any instance where someone's pen, writing, book or video--any kind of media--actually hurt or killed anyone, do you? So equating unlimited free speech with unlimited rounds of ammunition in a gun--because that's where this conversation started--seems just completely disconnected to me, if not insane.
Weapons in this country have become rather like nuclear arms in the world.
By that, I mean we all know there are more than enough nuclear missiles in the world, no matter who owns them, to destroy the world several times over.
The same with guns in America. If the big fear for Second Amendment supporters is that they have to be ready to "fight the government" (good luck with that, by the way, should it ever--God forbid--come about), heaven knows these people have oodles and boodles of guns in their homes, so many of them.
A week or so ago, during the RNC debate for the next Chairman post, Ann Wagner, for instance, said her family had 16 different weapons in their home. That got her kudos all around, naturally. She won the "gun tally" that night.
See, there's no limit on the amount of guns we can own and no one--I repeat, no one--is, right now or in the recent past, talking about making any limits or of adding any type of gun control. The NRA is much too powerful to even think of that. Literally. That and our representatives are too cowardly.
What I did bring up, however, by way of a quote earlier this week, was the idea that maybe having guns--handguns and rifles both--with smaller numbers of rounds in them so people with schizophrenia or whatever, can't shoot so many people, all at once, so quickly, as the shooter in Arizona did this past weekend.
It was then that this reader responded with the idea of equating the First and Second Amendments.
My response was shock, then, and it is shock to this day.
I've said for some time that these people--the NRA, their followers and others--want "all guns, all the time".
I had no idea how insanely correct I was.
Link: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/01/ladies_and_gentlemen_your_rnc.php
Posts
Clay Chastain Pledges Return To Make Kansas City Great Again
47 minutes ago
15 comments:
Interesting. Mostly agreeable. Yup. That's why they call em 'gun nuts' The hard part is separating the guns from the nuts.
I'd take slight issue with you in your assertion that the pen doesn't kill anyone. Technically, you're probably right. But words definately GET people killed. By their own hands, or others because words too can be explosive.
Words can certainly incite and stimulate, etc., as we've seen lately in America but they don't "kill" anyone, in the end. The person's hands, or knife, or gun or whatever ends up doing that. That's what I mean.
What does the second amendment protect? I do think it is equal to the rest of the bill of rights, even though it has not been treated as such.
I don't personally care about 30 round magazines--I have no need for them. (they are legal to own in my state, but illegal to use--a very silly distinction)
But 'need' isn't the issue. Gun rights have had a problem of infringement by slices. Each individual slice isn't that critical, but taken together add up to significant infringement. Magazine restrictions are one of these slices. The 1994 Assault weapons ban was another, the 1968 Gun Control act, various local bans on various configurations of guns, losing gun rights over misdemeanor offenses.
Assuming a law abiding US citizen, which arms are actually protected by the second amendment, and which are subject to strict regulation or bans? Which other constitutional rights are subject to similar restrictions and regulations?
What does the second amendment protect? This is a really vital question in understanding most of us. The idea that it is less than equal to the rest of the constitution is astounding and frightening to me.
I don't believe that the second amendment forbids absolutely all restrictions on guns--but I do believe that like the first amendment, the government needs a clear and compelling interest, and that all restrictions should be looked at with strict scrutiny. We already have many restrictions (mostly at the state and local level) that do not pass this test.
The problem that I have is infringement by slices--by itself individual restrictions aren't a major problem, but taken together they make a serious infringement. Current gun laws are complicated and often senseless, based on whatever news story was current when they were passed. Minor or even accidental violations are generally felonies. Not only are the laws themselves a problem, but the chilling effects of the penalties for unintentional violations further restrict the law abiding.
Many of us believe that the second amendment intends to protect the right of common citizens to be armed at least as well as, and similarly to the common infantry soldier. I believe that it is dangerous to slice away at rights without actually amending the constitution. If we set a precedent that the second amendment can be sliced away with the excuse that guns are dangerous (no kidding, that's why the authors felt it necessary to protect them...) what is to prevent laws to restrict political speech or press that might be interpreted as advocating or triggering violence towards incumbent politicians?
If it is constitutionally acceptable to ban magazines over 10 rounds, is it OK to reduce that to 8, or 6, or 3? Why is one number acceptable, but the one below it isn't? It is OK for a nut to shoot 10 people, but 11 is unacceptable?
Politicians are talking about gun control-in particular, re-instituting an expanded version the idiotic 1994 Assault Weapons ban.
I'm not at all impressed by politicians who use an inventory of guns as a political tool--there have been plenty who support ownership of their kind of guns, but not scary looking ones.
The Second Amendment clearly supports our individual right to "bear arms". In my mind, that says we can all have weapons, certainly--and who can argue with that--but it doesn't necessarily protect our right to bear arms as in this example, that can load 30 rounds. Nor does it support, in my mind, our ability to keep and maintain semi-automatic and/or automatic weapons, and for the same reasons as I've stated above--they serve no other good purpose but to mow people down. They certainly aren't for hunting.
But plenty of people in America would and do disagree, for sure.
The fact that anyone, you and "gun enthusiasts" especially, would equate the Free Speech clause with this Second Amendment to "bear arms" is a) new to me and b) as I also said above, astounding, astonishing and even shocking. You compare the two as though they are automobiles or some other tangible and one is greater than the other.
Well, rights are not tangibles, certainly and unlimited Free Speech and unlimited access to any and all weapons are two radically different things and one, again, is for dispersing ideas (Free Speech) while one could and frequently, sadly is, only about killing and possibly, potentially, about killing large quantities of people. And innocent people, at that, as the case in Tuscon so quickly and easily showed.
I would agree with your statement that "the government needs a clear and compelling interest, and that all restrictions should be looked at with strict scrutiny" but I can tell you, too many of your NRA brothers and sisters would heartily disagree--and fight for the right for unlimited weapons and ammunition and for the government to not scrutinize virtually any weapon or ammunition. An example there would be armor piercing bullets which, by the way, police agencies all across the country are against while the NRA supports.
Continued in next box...
Continued...
In your statement here: "Many of us believe that the second amendment intends to protect the right of common citizens to be armed at least as well as, and similarly to the common infantry soldier..." you bring up the real crux of the issue because, face it, we cannot and will not ever be as well-armed as the common infantry soldier if for no other reasons but that, first, the government will always have far more money to appropriate weapons than the average household; second, because their job is, ostensibly, to protect us against foreign countries and their armies and so, third, they will have access to bazookas, rocket launchers, tanks, bombs and other weaponry we can never realistically possess. Surely that's clear, is it not?
With your question "If it is constitutionally acceptable to ban magazines over 10 rounds, is it OK to reduce that to 8, or 6, or 3?" you start to really merely "split hairs", so to speak. Is it a concern? Sure, but it will always be. When it comes to legislating and government--and face it, you need legislation and government when you're dealing with more than 300 million citizens in the country as their must be rules we go by to co-exist--there will always be these issues of finding the "magic line" where one thing is accepted while another is not. It's the nature of the world.
What you call the "idiotic 1994 Assault Weapons Ban", a lot of us--me included, call intelligence and common sense. The average schmoe on the street does not need and patently should not have an "assault weapon". We've seen the results of these again and again across the country. You and I will never agree about that so let's let it stand there. We're on opposite sides of the street on that and likely will be forever.
If the government would say 'we will allow you to speak, but only on the subjects we accept', that would be clearly unacceptable. Why is it OK for the government to say 'we will allow you to be armed, but only with what we allow, only guns invented before 1890"? This is effectively what you are promoting--bans on semiautomatics eliminate virtually every gun invented in the last 120 years.
Combined with your previous objection to .38 special guns, your proposed restrictions eliminate 90% of current handguns from consideration.
Infringement by slices.
Can you honestly and with a straight face explain how any of the restrictions of the 94 Assault Weapons Ban other than magazine limits could relate to crime or misuse? Even one of them? This is a serious question, I'm hoping for an answer. This is also where people often fall back on the 'not an expert' excuse--but did we really have a problem with people being able to adjust the way their gun fits? A rash of bayonet crime? The reality is that the features of the ban are entirely cosmetic--the ones that make the guns look more frightening than a hunting rifle, not features that make them more dangerous.
Infringement by slices.
Too often we are basing laws on sensationalist reporting rather than actual experience and statistics. This is not limited to gun laws, unfortunately.
I thought I both answered your/this question and I thought you got that already.
Here's why it's "OK for the government to say 'we will allow you to be armed, but only with what we allow'": precisely to avoid massacres and the kind of things we just got out of Arizona, where 6 people were quickly killed and 14 were quickly wounded.
That's why.
I'll say again: the .38 was only made for killing people at close range. That's all it's good for and gun experts agree on that one. It helps lead to why we have more than 10,000 Americans be killed each year. That's why getting rid of it should only make things tougher for criminals. I think that would be a good idea.
I'd nearly be willing to bet you neither own nor want a .38. They just don't serve a good purpose. They're clearly not even good for target practice, with that short barrel.
As for your question "Can you honestly and with a straight face explain how any of the restrictions of the 94 Assault Weapons Ban other than magazine limits could relate to crime or misuse?", surely you know my answer is a bonafide "yes".
Any semi-automatic or automatic weapon, again, serves no good purpose for hunting or anything else other than shooting, at least, if not killing large quantities of people in a short period of time. That's why. It's why the police are against them. I'd think it should be obvious.
There's nothing sensationalist about any of these arguments I put above or in the police and law enforcement response to weapons and ammunition in the US.
I do own a .38 special, and if I could only have one handgun, that is probably what I would keep. Guns that fire .38 Special are the most common revolvers made, probably accounting for half or more of all revolvers in existence. Before police switched to semiautomatics in the 80's and 90's, almost all of them carried guns that fire the .38 special.
So by slices, you are essentially calling for the elimination of all common handguns--but to you, that isn't a violation of 2nd amendment rights.
I think what you may be objecting to is short barreled revolvers in general, rather than a particular caliber. They are much harder to aim accurately, but they are accurate enough for self defense. The .38 cartridge itself is inherently accurate, and very common in target guns.
So we can't have any handgun commonly carried by police. We can't have semiautomatic rifles. Can we have scoped 'sniper rifles'?
Oh, wow, here you go. You keep going back to that "by slices..." thing. Really, come on. That is sad. It is nowhere near anything I've said.
"So by slices, you are essentially calling for the elimination of all common handguns..."
Hogwash.
Nonsense.
There is nothing of that in anything I've said.
Handguns that are, in fact, good for target shooting, with a longer barrel--quite unlike the .38--are worthwhile.
You have good data, at times, at your fingertips but far too frequently you make these unfair and unreasonable attempts at putting words in my mouth. It's beneath you.
Another example of that is the fact that I have only and specifically said anything negative about the .38 and you say " think what you may be objecting to is short barreled revolvers in general, rather than a particular caliber."
Again, hogwash and nonsense. I have been nothing but very specific and only mentioned the .38's reputation for being both widely distributed and known for killing in close range shootings.
If you'll stop trying to pick a fight and putting words in my mouth, we'll have a much better, fairer, more intelligent and less time-wasting conversation.
The .38 is very commonly used in target shooting, and versions are available with multiple barrel lengths. I have no idea where you got the idea that .38 only has a short barrel, or that it isn't used in target shooting.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to figure out where or how you got your belief that the .38 is somehow evil compared to other handgun calibers, or that it is unsuitable for legitimate purposes.
Even Barny Fife's single bullet was a .38--How could Barny's bullet be so bad?
The 'by slices' that I keep repeating is based on the same sort of thing you are doing here--claiming that I have a right to own guns, but any gun I would actually want, any gun useful for something other than hunting is sliced off, and eliminated from second amendment protection. By slicing off semiautomatics and .38's, you have eliminated every gun I currently own, and every handgun I would want to own.
What guns should the police be allowed to have?
Okay, clearly you like this "slicing off" imagery so have at it but the fact is, there are weapons like this Glock Loughner used with 30 rounds in it and lots of other semi-automatic and automatic weapons that have no use in shooting or society other than to mow people down in great quantities and yes, I and a lot of people out here think it's a patently bad idea to have great quantities of them for sale and floating around in our society, precisely because, again, of what happened in Tuscon last week and Columbine and lots of other places. Yes, semi-automatics and automatics should be limited, if not unavailable in my view and, again, more people's views, like police departments and law enforcement arenas. You'll have to get used to that, just as I have to get used to the idea that there are individuals and groups out there like you and the NRA, respectively, who think they're a good idea somehow and part of their "rights", for whatever reason.
Should the police have guns that ordinary law abiding, non-crazy citizens can't?
If the ordinary law abiding, non-crazy citizens can't, then, no. That's simplistic and hopeful but logical and true and right. It won't happen but it should.
The police routinely carry handguns with 15-17 round magazines in 9mm. Generally they are limited only by the number that will fit in a standard flush magazine, so larger calibers have lower capacity.
Police (primarily SWAT teams, but some departments issue patrol rifles) also commonly carry rifles with 30 round magazines, standard military equipment adopted for police use.
Post a Comment