(Continuing the discussion already started)
I think there's a lot of validity in what you say, but you go too far, in my humble opinion. It seems to me that you are clouding the issue, GBW, by getting ensnarled in the rights question. I'm willing to agree that in the 2nd Amendment there is some right for the citizenry to bear arms. But, you jump from that to claiming a God-given right, or a civil right, not just a legal right. You even call it a human right. I don't think it's all of those things. Sparty makes an explanation of this in his comment, and I think he's correct. You also claim that the right extends to firearms, not just arms. The courts have agreed with you, even though the Constitution doesn't say firearms. The courts do not go so far as you seem to, and include just any weapon that comes along. Lots of weapons are not allowed. Clearly there are legal limits. Whether God agrees with these limits, I don't know, and I don't concede you the authority to speak for him.
There is such a huge difference between the killing power of guns as compared to other "tools" like knives, that lumping them together isn't helpful. I have seen a study somewhere that concluded that usually when people attack other people with knives and cudgels like baseball bats, they are not commonly intending to kill them, whereas when people shoot other people, they are. Guns are an especial problem because they can be used at a distance and they are very 'final'.
So, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says, and I don't think it implies, and I don't think it has been interpreted as meaning that the right of everyone to keep and bear arms is an unrestricted one.
In her comment, Marsha says that the gun folks have distorted what the founding fathers had in mind and made " ...a willful misreading of their intentions." I thought this was a very astute reflection of what the unrestricted gun folks have done with the 2nd Amendment.
Clearly, there need to be more restrictions than there are. Society is groaning under the burden of all those guns going off. All those guns no longer protect "the security of a free state," they threaten it.
I think that all legal handguns should be capable of firing only one round without being reloaded. That would be a good start. The right of the people to keep arms would be preserved, history would be happy because that's what was meant when the law was written, and we would all have a running chance to escape with our lives.
Or do you think God meant everyone has a right to a six-shooter? A full-automatic? A machine gun? A surface-to-surface missile? Wait, you can't speak for God.
I have to add that I agree with almost all of what Scot sw said. His point about this being a matter of public policy rather than a matter of untouchable rights is important.
8 comments:
Ok, let's talk about the public policy of gun control. It seems to me that the mainstream gun-control movement has two goals:
1. reduce the number of guns in circulation
2. reduce the effectiveness of the guns that are in circulation
There are a lot of guns already in the hands of American gun owners. Decent quality guns are likely to survive generations, and don't generally wear out with normal use. So it's clear to me that even if all gun production stopped today, the number of guns would decrease very slowly over many decades as they are gradually lost to theft and house fires. Obviously, a faster solution would be to somehow take the guns from gun owners. This can be done with a financial incentive, as in a "buy-back", or the guns can be banned and confiscated by force (this brings up other Constitutional issues, of course). I am just a single data point, but I would be reluctant, to put it nicely, to hand over my guns in either scenario, and I would be inclined to obstruct the effort using all measures at my disposal. Probably others feel the same as I do.
Regardless of the success of the reduction in the number of guns, how do we make guns less effective? We can follow the meatiest part of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" and limit magazine capacity. The actual limit on magazine capacity will necessarily be arbitrary, and we must acknowledge that even a single-shot can kill effectively. Beyond magazine capacity, I'm sure caliber restrictions and forthcoming technology could further diminish the effectiveness of guns to the point that they will be as safe as toddler toys. The question is whether pre-existing guns get grandfathered in, or if they are banned and confiscated. Again, any confiscation plan has Constitutional and logistical issues to address.
In my view, the reduction in gun numbers and in gun effectiveness are nearly impossible tasks that will certainly require draconian measures to enforce. I don't know how the various Euro-utopias managed to virtually eliminate guns from their societies, but I suspect that the same measures wouldn't be as easily accepted here. I can say with some confidence that the seemingly unyielding position of many gun owners is only made more resolute by efforts to further restrict gun rights.
TVC, who I know is Jim, you raise some hard questions I'm not sure how to answer. The problem of the persistence of guns is a good one. I think they'll deplete faster than you think because millions of people will turn them in and more will fall to the police when crimes are committed with them.
Confiscation is a really tough question for me. I used to think, why not? Just make them illegal and confiscate them. But this approach could lead to all sorts of problems, and Jim described some of them to me in a former debate. People will resist confiscation and the cops will wind up with search warrants and digging up yards and various intrusions that will make for a lot of hostility and possible abuse.
So, I'm not sure how that would work, but I think we have to make a start. First we have to stop making and selling all those guns. The 2nd Amendment needs to be made more realistic.
TVC, who I know is Jim, you raise some hard questions I'm not sure how to answer. The problem of the persistence of guns is a good one. I think they'll deplete faster than you think because millions of people will turn them in and more will fall to the police when crimes are committed with them.
Confiscation is a really tough question for me. I used to think, why not? Just make them illegal and confiscate them. But this approach could lead to all sorts of problems, and Jim described some of them to me in a former debate. People will resist confiscation and the cops will wind up with search warrants and digging up yards and various intrusions that will make for a lot of hostility and possible abuse.
So, I'm not sure how that would work, but I think we have to make a start. First we have to stop making and selling all those guns. The 2nd Amendment needs to be made more realistic.
I'm going to attempt to remove emotion and philosophy from this post, and just stick to my understanding of the law, and of pragmatism.
"I used to think, why not? Just make them illegal and confiscate them."
I dunno Bud. You have claimed to have respect for Democracy. But this business about issuing such a decree and confiscating personal property on a national scale sounds more like a project for a dictator, who happens to be in agreement with you. You may be violating the 2nd Amendment, but you are most certainly violating the 4th, 5th, and probably the 6th Amendment (or what is left of them). The closest thing we have in this country to what you describe is the taking of property through eminent domain. But even then, the state is obligated to provide fair market value compensation for the property it takes. A lot of these gun buy-backs offer $50, which is pretty low compared to typical fair market value. Is the state prepared to pay fair market value (hundreds or thousands of dollars each) for the 200 million guns that exist within its borders? With that kind of money, we could have a war! Priorities, man!
"I think they'll deplete faster than you think because millions of people will turn them in and more will fall to the police when crimes are committed with them."
It's possible that I overestimate the backbone of America's gun owners, and how they will resist gun confiscation efforts. Who are the millions who will turn them in? The mothers who feel concern for their children with their husbands' gun in the house? Or the lifelong collectors and hunters who have each accumulated 20 or 50 or even hundreds of guns? Maybe the former, but probably not the latter. My sense is that the latter type owns the lion's share of the guns in America. Who else will turn them in? Those who wish to dispose of a murder weapon, no questions asked, perhaps. Or those who've made a career out of home burglary and the lucrative market that the federal government provides through its gun-stealing subsidy, maybe. How many guns are confiscated every year in connection with a crime? My guess is 100,000, and I'd bet that I'm off by less than an order of magnitude. Do that for 500 years, and you'll make a 25% dent in the number of guns that we own right now. Of course, a lot of those crime-connected guns have probably been reported stolen at some point. By rights, the recovered property should be returned to its owner (or the owner should be compensated for the item's fair market value).
So if I understand what TVC is saying, is his point that gun owners are generally the type of people who only obey the law when they agree with it?
Is he saying that if the law treated guns as contraband -- just as nuclear materials, narcotics, marijuana, live military ordnance, etc. are contraband -- that millions of gun owners would simply disregard the democratically-passed laws of our country?
Yikes. That's good to know.
Is it legitimate to use force to protect the supposed right to bear large-caliber firearms? Is it legitimate to use force to protect other rights, such as the right to vote, or the right to a peacably assemble?
"Ok, let's talk about the public policy of gun control. It seems to me that the mainstream gun-control movement has two goals:
1. reduce the number of guns in circulation
2. reduce the effectiveness of the guns that are in circulation"
I think you're missing the point. The primary goal is to reduce the number of murders, as our murder rate is many times the rate of other successful democracies. One key difference between us and them is the prevalence and ease of acquiring firearms.
"The primary goal is to reduce the number of murders, as our murder rate is many times the rate of other successful democracies."
Yes, but your proposed public policy vehicle is gun control. I believe it was you Scot who suggested we discuss this as a public policy issue. Shall we go back to talking about philosophy and broad ideals?
Regarding your earlier comment regarding gun owners' civil disobedience:
I can't speak for all gun owners, but there is a strong contingent of "they're out to get us" and "we are the last line of defense". Some of us may find those beliefs to be a bit hysterical and dramatic, but they are nonetheless widely held. I'm surprised that you'd find this surprising.
Post a Comment