After my previous post, the only arguments I got in favor of owning gun to keep tyranny in check were of the abstract “we’ll all recognize it when we see it and have a mass uprising against it” variety. Which is lovely, but not at all convincing.
Frankly, I think if the government were really afraid of armed citizens, all guns and ammunition would already be outlawed. The fact that they aren’t points to a more important idea: it isn’t armed citizens that are standing between us and tyranny, it’s our own laws, our own checks and balances. The darker areas of our government–and the businesses and the wealthy who fund the lobbyists that push for some laws and push against others–are far more concerned about information being in the hands of all citizens than guns.
I generally try to be understanding of other points of view. I try to be generous and give people the benefit of the doubt. But I’ll be blunt: if you think you need to be armed because the government might become a tyranny someday and an armed rebellion will spontaneously and righteously rise up against it, I think you’re being utterly paranoid. And your desire to be armed is not more important than my right to not be shot.
The arguments I see defending the 2nd Amendment as “the right for any and all citizens to be armed with whatever we can get our hands on” invariably become an argument about the rights of the individual versus the rights of the state. What gets lost is the rights of the community. I think a community’s safety is far more important than an individual’s desire for weapons. Never mind what the government is or might possibly maybe someday become. If you live in a community, your individual rights are subservient to the needs of the community when your individual rights threaten the safety, the security, the health, the very lives of other members of the community.
Yes, there are countries where might makes right, where the strongest with the best weapons hold dominance. The US was set up to not be one of those places. If you want to live in a country where your weapons make you stronger and more dominant, feel free to move there. I prefer to live in a country of laws, where differences can be and should be settled peacefully. Yes, sometimes you have to bloody some noses and kill others to defend that society. But that in no way justifies the kinds of lax gun laws we now have in the US. As other countries clearly show, you don’t need lots of guns in the hands of citizens to live a peaceful, democratic life.
So until you can come up with a better argument than “my guns make me safe and keep the government in check” (because they don’t), you’re not going to convince me that stricter gun laws are anything but necessary and justified.
28 Comments
“And your desire to be armed is not more important than my right to not be shot.”
Just to point out that gun ownership is more than a desire, but a right.
There is a saying, attributable to many sources, that goes “Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.” This is the basis for the restrictions placed on many of our individual rights (for instance, we have freedom of speech, but not the right to shout “fire!” in a theater). It’s a common sense approach, one that most people, even most gun owners, agree to.
There are two problems here though. One is that there is a large segment of the population, not a majority, but a large enough minority, that does not believe this. They believe the U.S. was founded on the principle of individual liberty and that the rights of the individual are supreme.
Forget them. They are a loud minority, but they are a minority, and there really is no arguing with people who believe individual rights always trumps community rights. They are zealots. It is like talking to a brick wall.
But the other problem, the really important one, is the disagreement among the majority of people who do agree to this premise. When it comes to gun control, we all believe there should be some gun control, the problem is figuring out where one’s individual rights to bear arms infringes on another individual’s or the community’s rights. I have my ideas of where they are, you have your ideas, and the NRA has their ideas. I honestly don’t know if my ideas are correct, though I’m pretty sure the NRA’s ideas aren’t.
We’ll be a better, safer country if we can somehow cut through the propaganda on both sides of the debate and come to an agreement based on the evidence and not our personal feelings.
Huh?
I just think the second amendment needs to be completely redone. I’ve said before, there is no way the founders/writers could have foreseen the weaponry we have available. We have new technology and the law needs to be rewritten with that in mind. It does not take weapons meant for soldiers in combat for self defense or hunting. Back in that day, soldiers and citizens alike had access to similar firearms.
That said, I also think that banning/outlawing weapons of war is going to just drive them onto the black market. People who want them are going to find a way to get them regardless of legality. Having fully or semi automatic weapons, if they are illegal in the hands of regular citizens, will just add charges to whatever crimes they commit with them.
One last thing – I do think there is a pretty widespread gun fetish, and those who demand gun rights across the board are probably just acting at least in part on that gut level demand.
But what do I know? I am afraid of guns, personally. I do not like them and I do not want them around. I know people who have and want guns, and almost without exception it’s because of a collector’s impulse or a power trip and not for self defense, arming themselves for insurrection, or for hunting.
Think of it this way, should we rewrite the first amendment? How about the 10th? The eighth?
No, because technology is not of issue in those. Freedom of speech and assembly applies regardless of the means, in person or online or in any media. States’ rights have no technological bias. Cruel and unusual punishment is just that regardless of the means used to inflict it.
The second amendment is the only one that makes mention of a specific technology – armaments.
“No, because technology is not of issue in those.”
Ironic, given that you’re posting this on a website.
I will say though that any laws that deal with things that inevitably change over time – money, weapons, transport, medicine, consumer goods – should obviously be revised to stay current. Why not the second amendment? Why is that particular one so untouchable?
Julie, what would you change about the current laws?
Did you not see the clarifications after that statement?
You’re obviously just being contrary.
I’ve said my piece and counted to three. Done with this.
So you can’t tell me what you would want to change about existing gun regulations?
And no, I posted my reply before you posted your clarification.
*geez*
I have a personal bias against guns and am not qualified to legislate. I think they are of no benefit and of great harm to humanity in general. Don’t have time to go into why.
I ask a simple question, and I get a “Geez …”
Then why are we discussing this?
I ought not be posting here – I’m working. My bad.
Carry on.
Eric, you are obviously not interested in discussion as you did not read the post or the well thought out replies. You are trolling. Go away.
Amy, you’re wrong.
Eric, the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to own any kind of gun is a recent interpretation (and one I don’t agree with). Before the 1970s, neither the NRA nor the Supreme Court supported the idea that individual citizens had the right to arm themselves. So when I say desire, I mean it. Individuals in the US may desire to arm themselves, but I don’t believe they have the right, and I’m not the only person who thinks that.
And even if the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right of individuals to arm themselves, I think it’s lost past time that was changed. The Constitution isn’t some holy document, it’s a basic set of principles that are changed when they no longer apply. Women are given the legal right to vote. Slavery is ended. Times change, and we have to change, too.
And no, I don’t think the 1st Amendment needs to be rewritten. Or the 8th or the 10th. People’s lives aren’t endangered by free speech or assembly. (That being said, there are laws on the books regarding assembly that becomes unreasonable or dangerous.) We don’t need to start allowing for cruel or unusual punishment or excessive bail. I don’t see a problem with what the federal or state governments have the right to do. But the lax gun laws in this country, the underfunding of the ATF, and the excessive promotion and lobbying the NRA does to sabotage effective gun legislation in this country is dangerous to people. Things need to change.
And again, while some Americans may want guns and believe they need guns, that’s trumped by the need and the right of communities to be safer than they are right now.
Also, I would appreciate people not getting snippy with each other in these comments. Keep it polite, folks. If someone disagrees with you and you can’t discuss that without personal attacks, then just let it go.
“Individuals in the US may desire to arm themselves, but I don’t believe they have the right, and I’m not the only person who thinks that.”
That’s fine and everything, but it’s literally one opinion against the other. There will be no resolve different than what it is now. There always have been, and always will be, guns.
And if there aren’t guns, there are knives, or drones, or Molotov cocktails, or pipe bombs, or cars. There are countless ways to destroy.
I’m fine to agree to disagree. I know you hate guns, and that’s fine.
I have no problem with background checks. In fact, had there not been better background checks (especially when purchasing ammunition rather than guns), Newtown might have been prevented. When the shooter (I’d rather not dignify his name) tried to purchase ammo, had a background check that flagged him for being unstable sent a message to social services to do a check up on him, perhaps it would have stopped it.
Maybe not. There is no way to know.
Let me state unequivocally; I am not a fan of the NRA.
But I am a fan of logic. I’ve had to process through all of this as well. And after I look at the numbers it basically comes down to this: Something bad happened, and because of that we’re all having a knee-jerk reaction instead of asking why, why, why and digging down until we get to the answer.
I have a family. It is my duty to protect them, by any means necessary. That is my right. I have the right to bear arms (which literally translates to “weapons”), and it *shall not be infringed*.
As an aside, I think Chuck Woolery (Yes, really) has some great points if you’re able to look at them with a logical mind.
That said, I don’t care for his “Liberal Media” label in the video since I remember a media that basically ignored the atrocities of the Bush administration.
Worth a view, and kind of funny, too.
Yes, Eric, there will always be weapons and there will always be violence. And so we create laws to do what we can to lessen this. We’ve made laws regarding cars and driving, and because of those laws, car accidents and other unfortunate results of driving have been lessened.
And it’s not “something bad happened,” it’s bad things have happened and continue to happen. The Sandy Hook shooting isn’t what prompted me to post this stuff. I’ve been advocating for stricter gun control for years. After the Aurora shooting earlier in 2012, people were advocating more loudly for gun control. But that’s also been going on for years. Gun violence is an epidemic and there are things we can do to lessen it, but fervent advocates of “individuals have the right to bear arms” keep shouting it down and fighting against it.
Yes, you have the right to protect your family. So do I. We also have the right and the obligation to protect our communities, and by extension the entire country. This isn’t “you against the world.” And while you have the right to protect your family, that doesn’t mean you have the right to own any guns without any limits. Or to even own guns at all.
As a Canadian friend said, “The gun laws in Canada allow the police to stop and arrest nutjobs before they can kill lots of people. That’s part of the point of our gun laws.” Seems logical and sensible to me.
In Lawrence, last year, there were (continues to be) break-ins around town. One of them wasn’t far from where I live.
Again, back to the logic of your Canadian friend: When there is an intruder in your home, the police aren’t there, the laws aren’t there, it is, quite literally, you against your elements.
And, I still can’t get anyone to tell me what they mean by “gun control.” What does that mean?
And where does it stop?
For example, should alcohol be illegal? By the numbers, it’s horrible. But prohibition didn’t work either. Yet, people use alcohol responsibly all the time.
The media doesn’t report on alcohol-related incidents with as much fervor anymore because guns are the topic of the day. See what I mean?
The US is hardly the only country that has break-ins. Canada has break-ins. The UK has break-ins. But the citizens there don’t seem to need guns to defend themselves. (Plus, statistically, having a gun in your house means you’re more likely to have it used against you in a break-in.)
Personally, I have no problem with people with hunting permits having guns for hunting. I’m not even opposed to people in rural areas having gun to protect themselves. But in denser populations, handguns and assault weapons are, in my opinion, unnecessary. (For the record, I live in Lawrence, KS, and don’t own any guns. I sleep soundly at night. And I have enough anxiety that fear of intruders could probably keep me up at night.) But at the very least, guns should at least be as regulated as cars. All gun transactions should be registered with the government. All gun owners should have to have licences that require testing and regular renewals. Guns that fire multiple rounds in a short amount of time should be illegal.
There are laws against drunk driving. The police enforce those laws pretty fervently. I’d be happy to have gun laws at that same level.
Eric, what solutions do you propose to reduce gun violence in the US?
I only have a shotgun. I have used it to hunt with (but it has been awhile). I have passed a hunter safety course and my gun has a lock on it. It is safely well out of reach of my children.
Assault weapons, as Chuck Woolery rightly (amazingly) points out, is just a made up term. It’s like the sports version of my Corolla. Automatic weapons have been illegal for a very long time.
I have no problem with a license be required to own a gun.
One of the common denominators in the recent mass murders is the mental stability of the shooter. They’re all nuts. Perhaps if we did an overwhelming job of keeping mentally unstable people away from guns, we’d all be better off.
I tried watching that Woolery video. He was spouting a lot of bullshit. Ugh.