On Thursday night at 11:30PM, I drove my 16 year-old son and his buddy to a movie theater in Pasadena. They were meeting up with five other friends who earlier in the day had decided to catch the midnight show of the latest Batman movie. They had seven seats reserved in the front row.
What they didn’t know as they took their seats was that one hour earlier at a similar midnight-show in Colorado a gunman, armed to the teeth and protected head-to-toe by body-armor, had entered the theater and opened fire. He targeted the front row with his first bullets. Two days later my community’s Sunday music concert, played on cool grass under great oaks, had the marked presence of extra police. The Colorado shooting was cited as the reason for this show of force.
In the aftermath of that shooting, how many parents in my town feel the same way about letting their children go to a “late-show” or take in a peaceful summer concert? This week in Oak Creek, Wisconsin how many families feel comfortable praying in church?
This, besides the tragedy and mayhem of the actual killings, is the price we, as a nation, pay for our love affair with guns - the pursuit of happiness impinged by a society that shows no inclination towards limiting the distribution and presence of guns. I have little respect for the array of opinions and policies that surround the entire issue of guns in America. They are alternately tortured or solicitous. Simply put, guns have virtually no place in our modern society, and it’s time we really, really absorbed that fact.
The Framers of the Constitution constructed a Bill of Rights and within that a Second Amendment with its statement about bearing arms - 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.
I am not a legal scholar and will resist the temptation to re-analyze every clause and comma of every law that has arisen from interpretations of this Amendment, but neither will I acquiesce to the legal analysis of the mostly conservative minds on the Supreme Court who have crafted such “solutions” to national crises as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Such minds will take us all to the grave grasping our 223 year-old Constitution, intact, but with our common-sense, modern-day lives in a shambles. The Aurora, Colorado massacre is evidence of that. And based on the actions and thoughts of the Supreme Court vis a vis the Second Amendment we can expect more of the same, with no end in sight.
In 18th century America the concept of a national or federal government with the potential power to overwhelm and override the laws, direction and rights of individual states and their citizens was an untested idea, even though that national government was democratically elected and bore almost no resemblance to the Kings, Queens, Emperors and Royal figures who lorded over the bulk of humanity with unchallengeable authority.
Nevertheless, it was considered prudent to ensure that states and their citizenry would have the means and guaranteed right to oppose or resist such domination from the national government in the form of “well regulated militias.” To that end (hence the presence of that very specific term) citizens would be allowed to bear arms. The clause does not preface the right to bear arms with any statement about individual rights of self defense, let’s say to settle a street fight, nor does it mention the right to bear arms in defense of one’s home or the right to bear arms to hunt squirrels or to recreate. No, directly, unambiguously and deliberately it references “a well regulated militia.”
Words are words, and those specific words suggest the setting, framework, concerns, and most of all, the intentions of the Framers - they were worried about the larger and pressing issue of balancing state powers versus federal powers. If they had intended otherwise they would have stated otherwise.
In any event, today, in 2012, the formerly untested form of government known as a Democratic Republic has been in full swing for over two centuries, and judging from the conclusions of many minds, including many conservative ones, America “the greatest country in the world” seems to have mastered the challenge of balancing those powers as well as creating a relatively benign federal authority. And if that is not the case, I would like to ask, especially the jingoistic conservatives among us, to please cite the nation and form of government that has done a better job of this or from whom we can learn?
If that can’t be done, then clearly many of the fears and reasons for ensuring armed and well-regulated state militias have largely disappeared over the centuries rendering the Second Amendment, in the words of Dick Cheney (my favorite conservative thinker), “quaint.”
To be continued.
Check back Sunday for Part II.
Agreed. I am also noting his lack of education on the matter and in fact narrowly siting actual facts and substituting facts for opinions. The federalist papers are a very good place for him to start his education on the matter. Do we think He'll do the research? Has he read the actual definition of "militia"?
Who is proposing that? We are proposing only to eliminate access to that group of weapons (assault-type) and accessories (hi-cap mags) that have NO DEMONSTRABLE UTILITY AS INSTRUMENTS OF HOME OR SELF-DEFENSE, but do have rather well-documented utility as weapons of choice among mass killers of innocents. Those who do not support banning such weapons NECESSARILY enable their possession by irresponible and dangerous citizens (that would be you). Those who seek to ban such weapons (that would be me and the majority of Americans who support Obama's gun policies) would eliminate that possibility. When it happens again w/o such a ban - it's on you and your selfish cohorts.
This blog starts with a no guns graphic and its titled, "Guns no more (part 1) When you say that these weapons have NO DEMONSTRABLE UTILITY AS INSTRUMENTS OF HOME OR SELF-DEFENSE you are again, completely incorrect and in fact ignorant of how they feel and function. There is never any one tool to be applied to all scenarios and if you have done any unbiased research you would know this. I know my words will fall on def ears with you and your kind, you simply choose not to try to see things from a different point of view. Which brings me to my next point. Lets start looking at how many legally owned semi-automatic rifles and 30 round clips there are and then lets compare those numbers with how many illegal instances of use and how many of those were actually done by said legal owner, shall we? you'll find the percentage is very close to, if not zero. Do NOT try and use Lanza as an example as he STOLE those weapons from his mother (he was a bad guy) Finally, I am in fact a responsible citizen that enjoys all of his rights and furthermore, I am the one in the majority, not you and your liberal gun grabbing pals, as is evidenced by the very fact that my 2nd amendment right is still (federally) un-infringed and can be demonstraed in poll after poll.
Now, here's some reading material you should peruse before you attempt to debate thiss issue any further. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html http://factcheck.org/2013/03/rangels-assault-weapons-whopper/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia You see, Robert. I am open minded and IF I thought your little knee-Jerk, feel good solutions MIGHT make a measurable difference for the best, with out having severe back-lash consequences, I would then agree with you. However, I am very well read on the matter and I can say, with 100% certainty that this ban is a waste of time and resources.
A minority of Americans even own guns. All polls supporting assault bans, hi-cap bans, and background checks are in the majority. Assault weapons (as defined by the pending bill) and hi-caps have no DEMONSTRABLE UTILITY as weapons of civilian self-defense. If they do, please provide us the data/incidents. They are, however, the mass killers weapon of choice. That's why Australia banned them and has had NO mass killings by gun since their banning. The massacres are on you and your ilk, and will remain so.
Not as long as I have a gun to stop them!!
Guns for everyone is fine yet, so is education ~ and commas and periods.
Here, Sir are your facts. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all And finally, watch this presentation: http://www.assaultweapon.info
Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives. Insofar as the AR-15 is used in crimes, the rifle's popularity must be considered. Besides the AR-15, James Holmes used a best-selling and arguably more lethal shotgun at the Aurora movie theater shooting.
Nice try. that's like me saying that YOU are responsible for all of the mass killings and injuries that happen by cars, because you own a car. You know what? I don't even OWN a so called "Assault Weapon" but I AM smart enough to see the forest through the trees.
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all
Forty-seven percent of American adults say they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. That’s up from 41 percent a year ago, and the highest percentage since 1993. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/gallup-self-reported-gun-ownership-rises-especially-among-women-dems/#ixzz2OyLfuJNt http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/gun-ownership-up-crime-down.html http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/gallup-self-reported-gun-ownership-rises-especially-among-women-dems/ It would seem someones numbers are flawed.
IF ammo sales are any indicator that guns are in fact "flying off the shelves" (and they are, ask any FFL holder.) I submit this as one of MANY MANY examples. http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemListing.aspx?catid=640 And this, my final link of the day, sums it all up very nicely. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/
the left, is NOT the majority and what little hold it has, is slipping. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/
(1) red lights (2) speeding limits (3) seat belts (4) Stop signs Just a few government, federal or state laws that go along way to reducing the number of deaths on the road. (5) DMVs that require testing to show that you are a responsible driver. Some of these laws are annoying, but they go along way into reducing deaths. So yes, there are way too many deaths by vehicle every year, and we don't ban them. But if we applied the same logic to guns, there might be less gun deaths if we introduced more gun controls without restraining our 2nd amendment right.
... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.. Furthermore, Marcus your post reads like you don't believe there is already laws restricting guns. There are and they are many and are alreading infringing. There are Federal laws as well as state and even municipal laws governing the use, carrry, storage, ownership, education of guns already in place. People without a license to drive or insurance, still drive even though the laws says they cannot. People who are predisposed to breaking the law, will not follow your laws as is evident by the fact there are SO MANY CRIMINALS disobeying SO MANY LAWS. Here is a small sample of Firearms laws in place.: http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map What are your thoughts on the most expedient/cost efficient way to minimize the occurrences and/or limit the damage from mass shootings?
In reading these data sets, there is MUCH confusion. Another statement that concerns me is "we do not consider it to be all-inclusive," and "Mass shootings represent only a sliver of America's overall gun violence." Sorry, SteveB this data is a bit difficult to follow. My thoughts follow closely with the NRA's on guns around schools. I think there should be trained, armed police, military or private security in plain clothes. Heck if it's good enough for the president, then it's good enough for my kids too. I think gun education is a key element. too many people that argue for gun control really have little idea what laws are already in place, what a semi-auto vs. select fire are and what these weapons are actually used for day to day (without incident) The laws we already have in place address most, if not all of these issues but lack the funds and man power to ENFORCE OUR EXISTING LAWS.
Your other point, about existing laws not being enforced - I think it is worth examining why this is the case.
We can send billions overseas in aid and yet allow starvation, mass murder and social programs to fail here on our own shores. our Govmnt is F___ked up. Next q? ps. read about the guard at Columbine for more answers.
I don't know what the solution is, but I DO know what it is not. It is not more legislation that we cannot possible enforce when we cannot even enforce what we have now. Law makers have a job to do, Make Laws! Laws may not (and often do not) provide a satisfatory solution but hey, the law makers have done their job and can now pat eacother on the back. No, here's a solution.. All the far righties and all the far lefties need to pull thier heads out of their arses and start looking at the BIG picture. Start focusing on "the right thing to do" and not weather they are winning at whatever pathetic little game they are playing. My side vs. your side mentality will be the fall of this nation. ::steps off his soap box and sets it aside::