7.30.2007
Gun Control: Some Bullet Points
Talking about guns in the United States is a tricky thing. The Constitution is quoted by both sides of the gun control debate as a defense for either restricting the use of guns or keeping the government out of gun sale regulations. Should the government have the power to ban guns, assuming that the Constitution is too vague to be a sole authority? I don't know, but here's how I look at it.
I take as an assumption that this country is very big and that there are a few firearms laying around already. Even if we were able to pass a law restricting gun sales, disarming the public at large is definitely something the Constitution would prohibit, not to mention that it would be completely implausible. I also take as a given that, like prohibition, restriction of firearms federally would serve to expand the already quite large black market for guns so that buying across the border or from local smugglers would still be the thriving industry it already is. Moreover, while criminals would still have access to guns, the law-abiding populace would not. The notion of this puts me in an awkward position mentally.
There is the added consideration that police are not primarily designed to stop crime. There just aren't enough police officers to be around when every violent crime occurs. The foundational occupation of the police force is to respond to crime and bring the perpetrators to justice. While I'm glad that they're around, they will not be there while the actual crime is being committed, and as such it is possible for me to get assaulted or killed without police intervention. So who is charged with your defense at the time a crime is being committed? You, of course. If that is true, and (like myself) some people have a delicate constitution, shouldn't we be able to use such tools as we can (a rock, a loose brick, our hands, etc.) to fend off an individual that wants to harm us? Wouldn't a gun be a very helpful weapon in a situation like that? I'm inclined to say that yes, a gun would be helpful, and that yes, people have every right to defend themselves with the best weapons they happen to have at their disposal.
Still, philosophical musings don't appear to me to be decreasing the number of violent crimes, or the number of guns that are stolen out of homes after being obtained legally. The fact remains that people do kill people, and when they do, it's typically a gun they're using to do it. That notion also puts me in an awkward position mentally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good post. Also, guns rights are important for protection against government (the worst criminals and killers of all). A gun rights case, Wonschik v. U.S., was before the U.S. Supreme Court and it expressed many of the points made by the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets).
The National Socialist German Workers' Party (under the swastika flag) killed ~20 million; the People's Republic of China killed ~50 million; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics killed ~60 million. Lawyers represent people facing the death penalty for murder. Lawyers never defend anyone as murderous as governments and government officials. Self-defense against socialist mass slaughter is a reason for not infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms (including homemade machine guns as alleged in Wonschik's Commerce Clause argument). for more details on the case see http://rexcurry.net/pledgewonschik.html
The violent aftermath of the Gobitas Pledge of Allegiance case is the reason for not infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms (including homemade machine guns as alleged in Wonschik's Commerce Clause argument): self-defense against mob violence inspired by government schools, by the Pledge of Allegiance, and by cases such as the Gobitis case, and by the socialist dogma of Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy. See http://rexcurry.net/pledgewonschik.html
The criminal charge in Wonschik had no allegation of violence and is a classic example of how the federal government is taking over criminal prosecutions from states and doing so by manufacturing jurisdiction with charges that do not address any actual act(s) of violence, nor any acts that are the actual origin of the case, but do so by criminalizing non-violent aspects in ways that arguably violate the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms (and the Commerce Clause), instead of leaving the state to pursue the intelligent charges involving any actual violence. The federal criminal charge in Wonschik involves the non-violent act of possession of gun parts. If the government’s antidisestablishmentarianism does not end, then we will be living in an even bigger police state.
When the hell are you going to post something new VSS?
Post a Comment