I read an article by Mr. Edgar Allen Beem concerning Harry Reid's not putting the assault rifle ban before the senate (Read full article here). I responded with the following to the author. As of this writing, I'm including it here for your review. I have not had a response.
-----------------------------------------------
I read your article carefully and found it lacking in both logic and understanding.
I commend you for not misusing the word "clip" as so many of your fellow journalists do. I completely understand your position, though I do not agree with it (your position being that guns themselves should be banned for all except, I'm assuming, law enforcement and military).
What I don't understand, is why a journalist who is paid to think, write down those thoughts, then share that writing with others in an attempt to convey news and/or ideas, would be so haphazard when it came to law, example, history, and process.
Take for example the nefarious politicos who thwart attempts at campaign reform - they're the ones who write the laws that they create *to be thwarted*. One cannot compare that to a an arms manufacturer that obeys the law, even if the outcome of their compliance is different than the intent of the law - that just speaks to either a) poor legislation or b) nefarious politicos who take money from whatever industry to create laws in that industry's favor. Its actually a function of the corrupt political process rather than the industry targeted by journalists (banking, firearms, insurance, whatever).
Lets also address the 2nd amendment. It actually does, in and of itself, mean that one can own military hardware. That's exactly what civilians owned when it was written. Times have changed and the SCOTUS has said that the amendment can be infringed when the general public safety is at risk, such as public ownership of bombs, fully auto firearms, gas, etc... (1934). There is precedent to support a ban on other weapons (such as banning all semi-auto firearms), but I believe that this would create a true infringement for the 2nd amendment that goes against the spirit of the law that SCOTUS would not support.
As to Mr. Reid not putting it to a vote - I agree with you. Just because something *won't* pass, doesn't mean it shouldn't be voted on. I would suggest we have a vote to repeal the National Firearms Act - it would never pass but it would be nice to piss off the liberals. Does that sound like an effective use of our gridlocked congress? Its one thing to be upset that your law isn't voted on, its another entirely to suggest that it should be voted on solely for the purpose of giving the finger to a segment of the population.
Now, lets consider how the pro-gun folks dealt with the anti-gun rage at "assault rifles". They defended the anti-gun attack specifically on "assault rifles" because the bullets that assault rifles fire are, for all intents and purposes, the same bullets that any other gun fires. If the anti-gun folks are going to target a type of weapon, one *should* expect that those in support of that weapon will defend it based on the merits of the argument (of which there were few). Since assault rifles have actually contributed very little to the overall gun violence deaths in the US, and the anti-gun folks target that weapon, then it stands to reason that deaths from other weapons (including non-firearm) is less significant and those who die from them are less important. By targeting only assault rifles, the anti-gun people are minimizing the importance of violence in our country in favor of mass killings.
I commend you for not misusing the word "clip" as so many of your fellow journalists do. I completely understand your position, though I do not agree with it (your position being that guns themselves should be banned for all except, I'm assuming, law enforcement and military).
What I don't understand, is why a journalist who is paid to think, write down those thoughts, then share that writing with others in an attempt to convey news and/or ideas, would be so haphazard when it came to law, example, history, and process.
Take for example the nefarious politicos who thwart attempts at campaign reform - they're the ones who write the laws that they create *to be thwarted*. One cannot compare that to a an arms manufacturer that obeys the law, even if the outcome of their compliance is different than the intent of the law - that just speaks to either a) poor legislation or b) nefarious politicos who take money from whatever industry to create laws in that industry's favor. Its actually a function of the corrupt political process rather than the industry targeted by journalists (banking, firearms, insurance, whatever).
Lets also address the 2nd amendment. It actually does, in and of itself, mean that one can own military hardware. That's exactly what civilians owned when it was written. Times have changed and the SCOTUS has said that the amendment can be infringed when the general public safety is at risk, such as public ownership of bombs, fully auto firearms, gas, etc... (1934). There is precedent to support a ban on other weapons (such as banning all semi-auto firearms), but I believe that this would create a true infringement for the 2nd amendment that goes against the spirit of the law that SCOTUS would not support.
As to Mr. Reid not putting it to a vote - I agree with you. Just because something *won't* pass, doesn't mean it shouldn't be voted on. I would suggest we have a vote to repeal the National Firearms Act - it would never pass but it would be nice to piss off the liberals. Does that sound like an effective use of our gridlocked congress? Its one thing to be upset that your law isn't voted on, its another entirely to suggest that it should be voted on solely for the purpose of giving the finger to a segment of the population.
Now, lets consider how the pro-gun folks dealt with the anti-gun rage at "assault rifles". They defended the anti-gun attack specifically on "assault rifles" because the bullets that assault rifles fire are, for all intents and purposes, the same bullets that any other gun fires. If the anti-gun folks are going to target a type of weapon, one *should* expect that those in support of that weapon will defend it based on the merits of the argument (of which there were few). Since assault rifles have actually contributed very little to the overall gun violence deaths in the US, and the anti-gun folks target that weapon, then it stands to reason that deaths from other weapons (including non-firearm) is less significant and those who die from them are less important. By targeting only assault rifles, the anti-gun people are minimizing the importance of violence in our country in favor of mass killings.
Also, the size of the magazine is largely unimportant for the purposes of a perpetrator. Its been proven over and over that someone who goes on a spree will bring whatever ammo and/or magazines that they need to accomplish their goal. Reloading is too fast and easy to make magazine size a deterrent of any type. However, it will prevent someone who *could* stop a bad guy from doing so because, as a rule, those who have legal weapons (and carry them legally) don't know if or when they'll be in a firefight, nor the scale of that fight. They can only prepare for what *they* believe is reasonable.
Now - here's where it gets ugly
To pass a law that makes one "feel better", but that flies in the face of The Constitution (pick your amendment), is to (by definition) reduce our freedoms and liberties with no discernible positive result. Lets not quibble about laws that are already on the books, about how they currently aren't being enforced as they should be, about how repeat violent offenders are let back into society, the list goes on. But lets be clear about passing laws that "feel good" that are potentially unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to limit the power of government. Any time you infringe on it, we give up more rights to the government. History has proven that this can be detrimental and should only be done with absolute surety that the law is in the people's best interest *and* can be objectively quantified. "Feel good" does not pass that litmus test.
Here's the sickness in America. Its that people believe that they can commit a crime, get slapped on the wrist, and go do it again. Its that the mentally ill are free to roam and kill at will without any reliable method of intervention and/or treatment. Its that an old guy like me *needs* to be armed because young thugs will harm me (its happened). Its that women need protection from rapists. Its because we cannot depend on the government to protect us.
Until we address the issue of violence in America, the issue of "gun violence" is completely moot.
Now - here's where it gets ugly
To pass a law that makes one "feel better", but that flies in the face of The Constitution (pick your amendment), is to (by definition) reduce our freedoms and liberties with no discernible positive result. Lets not quibble about laws that are already on the books, about how they currently aren't being enforced as they should be, about how repeat violent offenders are let back into society, the list goes on. But lets be clear about passing laws that "feel good" that are potentially unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to limit the power of government. Any time you infringe on it, we give up more rights to the government. History has proven that this can be detrimental and should only be done with absolute surety that the law is in the people's best interest *and* can be objectively quantified. "Feel good" does not pass that litmus test.
Here's the sickness in America. Its that people believe that they can commit a crime, get slapped on the wrist, and go do it again. Its that the mentally ill are free to roam and kill at will without any reliable method of intervention and/or treatment. Its that an old guy like me *needs* to be armed because young thugs will harm me (its happened). Its that women need protection from rapists. Its because we cannot depend on the government to protect us.
Until we address the issue of violence in America, the issue of "gun violence" is completely moot.
No comments:
Post a Comment