And lets be clear on one point here before we begin. If you think that the "assault weapons" ban or "high capacity magazine" ban is a good idea because it saves lives, but that you don't support a "total firearm ban" or the abolition of the 2nd Amendment, then you need to examine exactly what you believe. These weapons and magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment that you think you support. The politicians who want these bans don't want to ban assault rifles. They want to ban all firearms. If they tell you otherwise, they are lying so that they don't lose votes. The irony is that you already know they're lying. If you think its OK to have firearms, but not assault rifles, then you need to educate yourself on exactly what firearms do. They're all dangerous in the wrong hands. All of them. Every single one. If you think we need to ban assault rifles, then your logical conclusion will have to be that we need to ban all firearms and repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment. Coming to a different conclusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of both firearms and the law.
Lets look at The Constitution and Bill of Rights. For those who slept through civics in high school, the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to our constitution. The Constitution is a document that defines how we run our country. Laws have to abide by the rules of the constitution in order to be deemed "constitutional".
Here's The Constitution in text format so I don't have to print it here.
So, lets focus first on The Constitution.
Part of Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution focuses on the role of the federal government as it pertains to trade between states.
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
So, basically, the federal government has the right to create laws where goods from one state are shipped/sold/purchased/etc... in another. This could give the federal government the right to prevent any arms trafficking (selling of firearms) between states and force each state to manufacture their own firearms. It can't, however, prevent a state from manufacturing firearms. Only the state can do that.
Article 5 states that the house and senate can amend The Constitution. So the framework can be changed as long as there's enough votes. This isn't passing a law as such, this is modifying the framework for the law. For example, if the constitution was modified to allow homosexual marriage, then laws would be written concerning any issues that may arise from this protection. I bring this up because, if those who would remove our firearms were honest (rather than using smoke and mirrors to accomplish their goals), they could repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment and remove our right to bear arms.
Now lets move on to the most quoted amendment these days; the 2nd Amendment. I also wish to quote a passage from The Declaration of Independence that, I believe, is the precursor to the 2nd Amendment.
- Declaration of Independence: ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
- Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
- 2nd Amendment: 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.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's pretty important. Does my owning a firearm infringe on someone else's right to those unalienable rights? Does my carrying a firearm infringe upon your right to life when I don't actually take or threaten your life? Does my ownership of firearms infringe on your pursuit of happiness because you're not happy as long as firearms exist?
Our Founding Fathers also recognized that our own government may someday become so corrupt that we may need to rise up against it; that a vote would no longer change the course of this corruption. In this eventuality, The People would need to be armed at least as well as the government (in their view). Now, nobody is advocating nuclear weapons or tanks being sold at Wal-Mart, but the intent of The Founding Fathers is clear - we must be prepared and we must remain vigilant.
In 1934 The National Firearms Act infringed on the 2nd Amendment. It passed because the type of weaponry available to the public was pretty bad stuff and the federal government said that it put too many people at risk. Mobsters with machine guns, sawed off shotguns, etc... were shootin' up big cities. Bonnie and Clyde were robbing banks. The act included, not just sawed off shotguns and machine guns, but poison gas, grenades, bombs... really bad stuff; the first incarnations of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Do I personally agree with it this law? No. Does that matter? No. The Supreme Court has upheld the infringement as being in the best interest of public safety. I believe it actually flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment because it weakens our ability to protect ourselves from a government that is armed with these weapons. But my opinion is only that; my opinion.
Today, there is lots of data supporting both sides of the argument. There aren't many studies because the government is prohibited from funding studies concerning "gun safety". There's a reason for this. The people who want the studies want to ban guns and there is not enough data on the subject to come to a conclusion that isn't heavily weighted in the favor of those who wish to ban guns. For example, I have a friend who has needed a firearm to protect himself, his property, and his family, on three separate occasions. No shots were fired, and the police weren't called. If he had been unarmed, he would not have been able to defend himself against multiple perpetrators and the story may have ended differently; he might have become a statistic in the "victim of violent crime" column. So since there was no record of the event, how can it be taken into account when doing a study on "gun safety" and the value of firearms for citizens? Short answer, it can't.
There is, however, a lot of data concerning "violent crime". In the U.S., violent crime includes a lot of crime with guns - and a lot without. People who would feel safer if we were unarmed aren't interested in this data though. They're interested in what they see on the news. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc... They're interested in those criminals who have guns and what it means to their feeling of safety and security when those criminals are shooting other people. The argument goes that if we confiscate guns, then nobody will be able to shoot anybody else; they will feel safer.
This is the problem with the debate. People cloak themselves in the data sets of their choosing to support their feeling of safety - whether that safety is to carry a firearm or to ban them. For example, roughly 30,000 people will be killed by firearms this year in the U.S. That is a scary number.... no matter how you look at it. It makes you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives! However, half of those are suicides. Does it make you feel safer to ban guns to prevent suicide? That makes no sense. If you're trying to save lives, then treat the victim before he/she is suicidal. Preventing someone from killing themselves with a weapon won't make you safer, unless you're contemplating suicide, then maybe you should seek help rather than pull the trigger... or swallow the pills... or jump off that bridge; my point being that lumping suicides into the "gun violence" metric is disingenuous. So how many lives are saved each year with firearms. We don't know. Maybe its none. Maybe its 2,000,000. If the number of lives saved is greater than the number of lives lost, then shouldn't we be armed? The question itself can't be answered because there is not enough data to support the hypothesis either way.
Since there is no complete and reliable method of accounting, any data used to prove the point either way will be incomplete and therefore the conclusion will be flawed. Either way. So, baring actual data that supports either stance, what is our course of action? Some would say that because they would feel safer without guns, that all guns should be banned. However, feeling safer and being safer are not always the same thing. Think of the child hiding in a closet during a house fire. Or the child who's afraid of the monster under the bed. In both cases the feeling of fear and security are completely misplaced.
Since we cannot rely on our feeling of security to protect us, we will rely on the law. Currently, the law is that, supported by The Constitution, we may keep and bear arms. There is a massive effort to make firearms illegal. This is led by people who are afraid of the monster under the bed; that somehow, if we get rid of the bed, the monster will be effectively dealt with. One could argue that those who carry weapons are like the child hiding in the closet during a house fire; that they feel protected when in fact they are in great danger.
My point in all this is simple. This debate is all about fear and feelings; not about facts.
It will do no good to attempt to argue a gun owner into believing that they will be safer without a firearm. It will do no good to attempt to argue an anti-gun advocate into believing that they will be safer with a gun (or in the proximity of someone with a gun). The only way to convince people is to educate the fear from them. In my case, its to take my anti-gun friends to the range and teach them. Let them see that firearms are tools and not inherently evil. Teach them that there is a safe way to handle, store, and use firearms. Teach them that criminals want soft targets; people who will not oppose or threaten them. Teach them that criminals don't care if the victim lives or dies. Teach them that they are responsible for their own safety. If they choose to be a soft target, that this is their choice. If I choose to defend myself, that it is my choice.
Because The Constitution says that I have the right to keep and bear arms, then I have that right regardless of others' feelings until such time as the criminals win and have these firearms banned. After all, who stands to gain the most from a ban? Those who would take advantage from the defenseless.
No comments:
Post a Comment