And then I saw this:
I think what gets to me is that the "constitutional right" here seems to be incredibly muddy. It has become the right to have whatever gun you want, when you want it, and in the amounts you want, without question. It has become the right to own what are absolutely anti-personnel weapons that you need because government is coming for you. And no dead children or teachers or just people on the street can possibly infringe on your entertainment. That is what this is for most people. Their constitutional right is to be entertained owning and shooting guns.
Never mind that a good bunch of the gun rights people are rabidly anti-government. And nevermind that the loudest mouthpiece for guns is a torture-endorsing GOP machine. We will not possibly infringe on your right to be a crazy, anti-government nutjob for one instance. Because your convenience and your right to play army is your constitutional right, and any other rights are beneath that. Including the right to life, it seems.
We should never mind that a good part of this is anti-tax conservatism trying to privatize security. You want to be safe in your home? Better buy a gun, because we aren't going to pay for good police, or for good community. Better move to a gated community where your gun safe can keep you from the undesirables.
9 comments:
LOL, I say the one from BoingBoing the other day. Funny stuff.
Yep, this all hilarious. Every public shooting is funny. Hilarious.
"I think what gets to me is that the "constitutional right" here seems to be incredibly muddy. It has become the right to have whatever gun you want, when you want it, and in the amounts you want, without question."
Substitute the right to keep and bear arms with some other right. How about the right to not incriminate yourself or the right to free speech. Are you comfortable with limiting that? Don't forget that the right to keep an bear arms is already very limited. Can you imagine if we applied the same rules to other rights? A person that was convicted of a felony would not be entitled to practice a religion or you had to pass a background check and pay a yearly fee if you didn't want your house to be searched by the police.
"It has become the right to own what are absolutely anti-personnel weapons that you need because government is coming for you."
Huh, you mean things like mines, grenades, and bombs? Nope, those are illegal no matter what kind of permit you get.
"And no dead children or teachers or just people on the street can possibly infringe on your entertainment. That is what this is for most people. Their constitutional right is to be entertained owning and shooting guns."
I am sure this is a comfort to the people that have lawfully used a firearm to defend themselves. They just did this for entertainment? You would prefer they were dead or injured at the hands of a criminal? Nice.
Of course we already limit those other rights, as you well know. But what is particularly vexing here is that people don't die because I spout off. They don't die because I have the right to counsel. And they don't die because I have the right for a warrant before you search my house. Nor do they die because the government can't quarter troops in my house, but of course, that one is ridiculous. Only the 2nd is sacrosanct.
By anti-personell, I mean guns that have no other purpose than killing humans. I think that was pretty clear in my writing, as I was not addressing bombs or grenades.
When you defend the right for people to stockpile weapons without questioning, registering, etc., you are doing so for those people who use a weapon to defend themselves. Because they are using military grade rifles to do that, right?
You are ignoring that given the huge numbers of guns sold over the past few decades, we don't have that many cases of people defending themselves successfully.
Yes, I stand by the idea that people who buy an AR15 are playing. They are entertaining themselves. They are play-acting. There are other ways to defend themselves. But we cannot dare intrude on that right to pleasure one's selves with guns. We cannot possibly make it harder for some nutjob to amass enough weapons to take down a school. Why? Because we have some limitations and people still kill with guns. By that logic, we should not have locks on cars or houses. Especially houses. Good grief, people get burglarized all the time. Why do we even try?
What annoys the hell out of me is that I would be fine with gun rights for hunting, and even for self-protection. But don't lie to my face and say that is what this is about? You have already, of course, said that hunting doesn't matter here. But pretending that this is about personal protection?
I don't think that is intellectually honest.
Just chiming in here to say the obvious: the Second Amendment is the only one to also have the words "well-regulated."
Right. It is the only one that has declared purpose.
Well regulated, as I understand it from other references, means well trained. The idea was that people were supposed to maintain some level of proficiency. If you look at that time period, there really weren't any regulations or laws dealing with what people could have.
People certainly die or are hurt because of the 4th amendment. If the gov't could spy on us or search us without a warrant, we would see a huge decrease in crime.
We do tolerate some laws in regards to the other amendments, but courts apply a high level of scrutiny when analyzing them. I have never taken the position that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, but it should be treated the same as the other fundamental liberties.
We don't have that many people defending themselves? That is simply not true. It is a difficult area of research, but I have seen estimates that there are between 75,000 and 200,000 defensive gun uses every year. The vast majority being ones that don't involve shots being fired. John Lott, in his book the Bias Against Guns, shows how these types of stories are routinely ignored by the MSM and typically only get reported in local news outlets.
Why is an AR a poor choice of a defensive weapon? Contrary to what many people believe, it is actually a good choice.
And do we mandate training? Proficiency?
Not that I know.
I have no doubt that there are instances where people actually defend themselves. Not saying that. But those numbers don't match the sheer numbers of guns in our society.
Why do you need and AR for your home? Why is that not a gun simply for shooting people?
I think you are purposefully ignoring the macho element where people want to play with guns. None of your response, btw, addresses stockpiling, nor the very clear fact that gun rights people won't do anything (now) in the face of these school shootings. Joe the Plumber, as I said, was over the top, but his actual words were pretty close to the NRA's position. And frankly, the position of most gun right's people. "Sorry for your dead kids, but don't ask me to sacrifice anything."
Some states do have mandated training for concealed carry holders. A few, such as Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona, don't require a permit to carry. A few that have permits don't require training. Research seems to show that there really isn't any effect on crime or accidents. Given the recent boom in training and instruction, I suspect that many people get training without being mandated.
I agree that the number of guns is not even close to the number of defensive gun uses. I would also note that the number of defensive gun uses seems to vastly outnumber the criminal gun uses. At the risk of sounding cliche, if we greatly restricted the number of guns, I suspect the criminal uses would stay the same and defensive uses would go way down.
As for an AR, if you are getting a gun mostly for home defense, it should be one that will quickly and effectively stop the threat. If you are choosing between a shotgun, rifle, or a handgun, and AR is a good choice for some.
I know that people own guns just for fun. I can understand why some people think that is weird/foolish/stupid. I don't understand why a people collect cars. That being said, if a person is an otherwise law abiding member of society, why shouldn't they be allowed to buy what they want or stockpile ammo? In terms of ammo, with how difficult it has been to get in the last 2 years, a lot of people probably wished they stockpiled it.
Post a Comment