Posted on 11/17/2004 1:55:47 PM PST by neverdem
The difference is not so in practice in the US. The difference makes the two have different weights when held out to the world. We afford the 2nd Amendment to US citizens - but do not strive to make it a right afforded to all others. For example, while we may have sanctioned a country for suppressing free speech or dissent - we have never sanctioned a country for not allwing private gun ownership.
Anyways, as it stands I don't believe there should be gun control in the US since the Second Amendment prevents that. I feel that other countries should be able to determine whether or not they want their populace armed since the impact on the nature of their democracy has been proven not to be affected either way. Crime statistics aside - one cannot say that lack of the right to own handguns leads to dictatorships without much evidence to the contrary. The crime statistic is the ONLY compelling stat in favor of gun ownership (aside for the 2nd amendment itself).
Lack of guns in the hands of the general populace doesn't cause a dictatorship, it only makes one easier to impose. It is also a FACT that no genocide has ever been perpetrated against an armed populace. Yes, one can find examples of a few armed victims, most of whom perish when fighting against overwhelming odds (e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto uprising), but if 50% of adults in the victim population were armed, no genocide would even be attempted.
...while we may have sanctioned a country for suppressing free speech or dissent - we have never sanctioned a country for not allwing private gun ownership.
I agree that there's a double standard. It has more to do with the elitist, anti-gun mentality of our government in general, and our diplomats in particular. I abhor this, but the fact that some people do something wrong doesn't negate the principle.
Anyways, as it stands I don't believe there should be gun control in the US since the Second Amendment prevents that.
So in other words, if after some terrible tragedy involving guns the Congress passed a Constitutional Amendment which allowed the government to ban guns, and 50.1% of 37 state legislatures agreed, then it would be OK by you? Or, to take another example, what if an amendment passed which required you to register as a churchgoer, and which required that you pass a background check and pay a fee before each trip to church? Would your right to freely worship G-d as (or if) you wanted cease to exist because of the words on a piece of paper? Sorry, that's not the way I look at things. Basic rights are NOT doled out by governments. Governments either abide by those rights, or show themselves for the despotisms they are by infringing on those rights. Regarding weapons, every living thing has the right to defend its life, and that right necessarily includes having the means to do so. Lacking big teeth and claws, or the ability to run away from a threat at 50 MPH, we humans, toolmakers extraordinaire, have made various weapons over time to take the place (and improve upon the effectiveness) of our natural survival tools. The right to defend one's life and freedom, which necessarily involves the keeping and bearing of some type of weapon, pre-dates the Constitution, and it will survive the inevitable fall of this (once-great) Republic. In fact, it predates ALL government, and exists in a state of nature. All that the 2nd Amendment does is to specifically prohibit the Fed.gov from interfering with our pre-existing rights (and, IMHO, the 14th Amendment binds the states and all subdivisions thereof to the same standard, just as the 14th guards us against state/local infringement of other BOR-guaranteed rights).
Remember, the Constitution GRANTS no rights, it merely GUARDS them against governmental infringement.
I'll answer "yes" to all your questions about Constitutional Amendments. However, I believe that there are structural limits in the Amending process for the main reason to prevent Amendments from coming through.
The right to life does not include the right to bear arms. It just is the right not to be killed. Having arms may help that right but it is not essential. I have never owned a handgun, yet I am still alive. There is a severe distinction. Otherwise we should also look at Free Speech in the same way - or self-determination in the same way.
For example, if you and I are in a duel - you have a cheap, but accurate hand-gun. And I have some super expensive laser-guided sniper rifle. You can still kill me. But, if you and I are running for political office, you have $1 Million and I only have a Quarter - my guess is you will be much more effective with getting your message out. My Quarter will not help.
I better stop now as you are making me convince myself that something needs to be done about electoral reform ;P.
I think our difference is that I do not believe that gun ownership is a basic right, while you do. The right to life is a basic right - persoanl gun ownership may make that easier (they may also make it harder), but they are not essential to the right to life which IMHO is a much more basic and important right.
Maybe I believe the distinction is in what we currently possess. I am currently alive, but have no gun. You are also alive, but have a gun (I assume). We are both alive - but we both are not gun owners. We will probably both live out our lives, one with guns and one without. And that main difference will more than likely never impact our quality of life.
bump..
As things stand, you and I have both been lucky enough to have survived, and to live as relatively free human beings, without the need to use a firearm to defend our lives or our freedom. The difference between us on this issue is that I choose not to depend on my continued luck in order to continue to live and be free, whereas you have so far chosen to depend on such luck and to continue to do so in the future. It may be that at the end of my life (hopefully not for a good 50 years or so) I will look back and say "I really didn't need to have any guns," but I'm sure that I'll be glad to have had them nonetheless. It won't be a waste, as I've had both fun shooting them (and I'll continue to do so for as long as I'm physically capable of it) and a sense of security that I wouldn't have without them. Also, I will teach my kids and grandkids to shoot and be responsible gun owners, and ultimately they will get my guns.
I personally hope that you continue to be lucky in this regard, and that if we meet 50 years in the future you can say to me "see, I never needed a gun." Odds are, in fact, that such will be the case. But I choose not to risk even the miniscule chance of needing a weapon for survival and not having it at the time of such need. It is like a fire extinguisher - you may never need it, odds are you won't, but woe unto you if you don't have one when you do need it. The consequences of being on the wrong side of that bet are too awful to contemplate, particularly when you have the ability to stack the odds more in your favor at little expense in time and money.
Regarding both street crime and governmental crimes against the general populace, the mass arming of society has a very large deterrent effect. Crime in all states that have adopted "shall issue" concealed carry statutes has dropped substantially since those laws were passed; evidence of this is ample, with the best example being the work of John Lott. Similarly, an armed population is a deterrent to governments. Every genocide has been committed against a generally disarmed population, with NO exceptions, since it is obvious that the cost of trying to massacre people who have the means to effectively resist is too high for even genocidal maniacs to bear. Similarly, invasions have been deterred by armed populations. The best example is Switzerland during WW2, which was literally surrounded by the Nazis and Italians for 5 years. The Nazis had the motive to invade (control of critical mountain passes and the associated rail lines, plus control of critical precision factories), but the ability of the Swiss to mobilize 850,000 trained marksmen (their national sport is shooting) out of a population of 4.3 million deterred the Germans. Coincidentally John Lott wrote a book on this subject, entitled "Target Switzerland." I recommend it highly. We also benefitted. Admiral Yamamoto once dismissed a suggestion that Japan invade the US with the statement "to invade America is suicide - there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." He knew us well, having lived here for years as a military attache. Since the War of 1812, we have never seriously had to worry about invasion, and our armed population (a.k.a. the Militia) had a big impact in the 2 cases when we did have to fight a foreign power on our own soil.
Perhaps the difference between us is that I'm Jewish, and the historical experience of my people (and, indeed, my family and that of my wife) is, uh, shall we say, one that leads me to have rather little confidence in luck. I also have very little faith in the morality of those who have power, or who want to have power - they tend to use it only for their benefit, usually at the expense of those who cannot resist in any way. To cut to the chase, my wife's uncle was in Auschwitz and 3 other camps. He lost every single person in his family who lived in Europe - parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins...and he carries a gun with him everywhere that he is legally allowed to do so (and, for all I know, even where he isn't allowed to). As for my family, over 100 of my unarmed relatives never saw this side of 1945 (and most of them never saw this side of 1942). To move to the present, right now Jews are being attacked by Moslem fanatics throughout Europe and in Israel, the main difference between the two being that the Israeli ones generally have the ability to fight back and have, in many cases, pre-empted attacks. I don't live in paranoid fear that someone is "out to get me" or anything of the sort, but who knows whether something like that will come to this country? I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. In the interest of "full disclosure," I know lots of Jews (including family) who have the same or similar familial experiences who not only choose not to own a gun, but who are actively anti-gun. I simply cannot understand or explain their thought processes, despite many hours of conversations and analysis.
That being said, I respect your right to choose not to arm yourself for your protection or that of your freedom. I think it is an unwise choice, but it is YOUR choice. I am glad that you at least respect my choice.
Question: why do you choose not to have a gun?
You are absolutely correct.
"He replaces retiring anti-gun "F" rated Senator John Breaux (D). "
I've always wondered about the people who thought Breaux was a moderate. He's a liberal snake.
bump to your well-informed constitutional posts and personal account.
Correct, 2 nd amendment is to ensure that the citizens can be as well armed as the military. How else can we overthrow a tryannical government?
Stop pounding on graf88. he respects our right to own firearms. He just doesn't want one in his house. That is his choice as a free man to make. However, he can not require the rest of us to be unarmed at the same work places, because that takes away our rights. Of course our employer can do so as a condition of employment.
I am pounding no one. We have had a very respectful discussion publicly and privately. Choose your words more carefully.
So folks
If we are truly in the drivers seat, what about this...
Do away with the unconsitutional instant check/waiting period.
Do away with the 86 Machine gun ban.
Reverse the law that prohibits gun ownership for law abiding citizens that may have been convicted of a domestic violence crime 20 years ago, and has never committed a crime since.
Drive a stake in the heart of gun lawsuits. Why don't we take this up soonest?
A concealed weapons permit should be honored in ALL states.
Thank you, Mr. President. BTW, if you'd like some advice concerning firearms policy, I'm available. :>)
Are you aware that Britain's and Australia's violent crime rates skyrocketed after their gun bans?
While I'm on the topic, could you help us in the 3rd District Congressional runoff? If you have a list of 3rd District voters and would be willing to make calls for Billy Tauzin III, it would help us with a very close race.
Bill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.