Message to GBW and TVC about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. (Continuing the discussion already started)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10356/10356e0a7a45e8349d5a8da40d15973fbfe502ae" alt=""
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60d54/60d54b68a01926c5ea06800259149bfc34ba3c49" alt=""
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.