Posted on 08/04/2007 10:30:58 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
In the aftermath of the Petit family slayings in Cheshire, we all reached for explanations: How do human beings sink this low? How could this tragedy have been prevented? Why? There are so many nagging questions. They all need to be asked. And maybe some old arguments need to be hashed out again.
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
Can't we do a better job of predicting -- figuring out which non-violent criminals are about to turn violent?
Are home alarms really effective?
How about dogs?
But somehow all of these ideas pale before the barbarity of this particular crime.
That is why one old question is worth asking again. It is this: What if the Second Amendment is for real? Is it possible that it should it be revered, just like the First Amendment?
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Might the Second Amendment matter almost as much as the First?
I think the answer is yes.
And just like the First, the Second is practical, newly relevant, and far wiser than the watered-down alternatives.
I don't think George Bush wants to impose martial law on his fellow citizens. But he has diluted habeas corpus. And he has enlarged Big Brother. You have to stop and think about a government that wants to control the thoughts and behavior of its people.
Should such a government be permitted to disarm them as well?
And whereas the reform of the criminal justice system along some of the lines suggested above (a real "three strikes" law and faster trials for violent offenders) would not have saved the lives of Jennifer, and Hayley, and Michaela Petit, a gun might have.
I don't say it would have.
I say it might have.
Had Dr. William Petit had access to a gun and known how to use it, he might have been able to dispatch the two perpetrators, who were armed with only an air gun and ropes.
Moreover, the three victims here were women.
What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders? Or when she was forced to take one captor to the bank to fetch him money?
It's worth thinking about.
Women and children are now the major targets of predators in our society. Government is not protecting them very well. Many professional women who work in cities know this and take courses in self-defense. A gun may be the only realistic self-defense against the sort of criminals we are talking about here.
And if a few women took care of a few thugs in cases like this; if a few stories like this one ended in a different way -- with a woman blowing one of these brutes to kingdom come -- it might be a deterrent. Lives upon lives might be spared.
A friend of mine said: "The gun nuts are back."
They are.
And they are right.
Mind you, we are talking about arming people who are trained and know how to use a weapon.
No one should have a gun who has not been trained.
Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun. (The National Rifle Association maintains an extensive national network of programs in firearms training and education.)
And, obviously, no one would be forced to own a gun.
A second caveat: Encouraging citizens to arm themselves is no "answer" to crimes like the Petit murders.
An "answer" does not exist.
But it is one of several remedies when we are faced with palpable evil.
All possible remedies should be on the table:
-- Various reforms of the justice system, like a real three-strike-law for predatory offenders.
-- Better psychological treatment for troubled youth.
-- Religious training, in both love and self-restraint, especially when people are young.
-- Prison programs that both retain the hard core and educate the educable.
-- More and better home alarm systems.
-- More cops visible in more neighborhoods.
-- Dobermans.
All of these approaches have merit.
So does self-defense.
None of these options "fix" a society that can produce human beings who torture and kill the defenseless for sport.
No one step or program can plug every hole in America's justice system, or its soul.
But there are times when a gun in the hands of a potential victim may save a life.
Let's admit -- since the murderers, and druggies, and psychos, and thieves already have guns -- that arming the peaceful, law-abiding, decent, and productive people, whether in a school, or a private home, or on the way to a parked car, is an option that also has merit.
--------
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.
“Just as one gets training in handling a boat, motorcycle, or car, one must learn how to use and safely store a gun.”
Umm....no they don’t. For cars/motorcycles you just take tests (paper & driving). For boats, many states do not require training or testing to use a boat/pwc unless you are under a certain age.
BOO! :) :) :)
“How’s the pheasant hunting in your area? (kansas?)”
I have no idea. I live in the burbs, right outside of KC. I only hunt RINOs in my neck of the woods.
That is clearly nonsense, given that some states had official government religions; if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Plus, the first amendment starts out, "Congress shall make no law ...". It says nothing about the states making no law.
The second and third amendments don't apply to the states even today. Neither does the seventh. Neither does the Grand Jury indictment clause of the fifth.
Nonsense, indeed.
I shall honor you with my new tagline.....
Aw h***. Now that is called, reach out and touch someone!!!
“They’re starting to wake up in CT!!! I think that this crime has made it perfectly clear to people in CT that evil does exist and it needs to be stopped - with ALL available tools - including guns.”
____________________________________________________________
Purely unscientific poll here. This CT citizen sat down and asked my wife how many people we know here in CT who have a firearm in their home. We made up a list of almost 75 homes. Our list says that over 70% of the people we know have firearms in their homes. Don’t forget CT is home of Colt, Ruger, Winchester, Marlin, Remington, Charter Arms, PTR and a few others....
The 10th Amendment specifies that some powers are prohibited to States by the US Constitution. The power to infringe on our right to own and carry arms is prohibited by the 2nd.
Beware the man who uses 'majority rule' rhetoric to claim that State/local gov't can ignore that Amendment.
That is clearly nonsense,
Read the 1st. It is not "nonsense".
given that some states had official government religions;
Sure, some States had government established religions, and Congress could make no laws respecting those establishments. -- Nor could they, or any official in any State or local government [read Article VI] ignore the supremacy of our Constitution and its Amendments, "-- amy Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Yep, and it also protected our rights to free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress; -- from federal, state or local infringements.
As does the 2nd.
Why do you disagree on these basic constitutional principles and call them nonsense?
Do you support the clear nonsense that the 2nd does not apply to state or local governments?
You ought to quote the more important part of that discussion - where the Cruikshank Court states that the right to bear arms is not dependant upon the Constitution for it’s existence.
That is “fundamental, individual right” language - and it is also still good law today.
Oh, and you ought to post a disclaimer that you are a collective rights guy, instead of the misleading stuff you post regarding the second amendment.
The claim was made, among other things, that the First Amendment, when written, always applied to all levels of government. I stated that was nonsense.
The First Amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a government religion. It does not forbid states from doing so. Unless you want to argue that the First Amendment "applied" to the states in that it protected their own government-established religions from the federal government, I don't see how it can be considered to have been applicable to states.
Rather than quoting the most important part, I chose instead to quote the most relevant.
"Oh, and you ought to post a disclaimer that you are a collective rights guy, instead of the misleading stuff you post regarding the second amendment."
In 1792, did the second amendment protect the RKBA of all individuals in the United States? I rest my case.
And you're going to lecture me that it's a “fundamental, individual right”?
No, their intended purpose is to kill things. The attendant fear is merely a beneficial side effect.
I’m stealin’ that for my tagline.
if anything, the First Amendment protected those state religions from the federal government.
Yep, and it also protected our rights to free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, and redress; -- from federal, state or local infringements. As does the 2nd.
Why do you disagree on these basic constitutional principles and call them nonsense?
The claim was made, among other things, that the First Amendment, when written, always applied to all levels of government. I stated that was nonsense.
The fact that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not mean that our other individual rights can be ignored by levels of government other than Congress.
The First Amendment forbids the federal government from establishing a government religion.
You are simply misunderstanding that clause. "-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" forbids the feds from making laws respecting existing State religions, - or any others.
It does not forbid states from doing so.
Wrong. Utah tried to enter the Union for forty years with an established 'state religion'. -- Congress forbid Utah's statehood on that basis.
Try reading some history.
I'll ask again, - do you support the clear nonsense that the 2nd does not apply to state or local governments?
It isn’t really necessary to post a disclaimer about being a collective rights type, — as the claim being made, - [that only white males of militia age had that right in 1792] is well established as a bit of modern socialistic agitprop.
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.