Posted on 07/28/2023 8:32:06 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Most of us drive cars or small trucks or motorcycles. To enjoy this privilege, we must do numerous things, some of which cost money. We need to be of a responsible age, get training and earn a license. We also must register our vehicles with their serial numbers and display license plates that identify us.
Why? Because motor vehicles are inherently dangerous and a major cause of death and injury. Accordingly, certain restrictions are deemed necessary to minimize harm. The restrictions include prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and enforcement of applicable laws have dramatically reduced death and injury over the past half century.
Additionally, there are restrictions on the type of vehicles allowed to civilians: We are not allowed to own or drive tanks or heavy military vehicles, and semitrucks are carefully regulated. No significant group appears to have issues with these restrictions, or with the courts and law enforcement authorities that enforce them. This is common sense.
But when it comes to firearms, common sense seems to go out the window, particularly with ill-informed legislators who bemoan the threat to our supposedly sacrosanct and holy Second Amendment. They have managed to force stupid open-carry or stand-your-ground laws in multiple states, with the equally stupid argument that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
I assume that the good guys will be the ones in the white hats? Otherwise, who can tell which is the good guy?
What we need are rules and regulations like those we apply to motor vehicles: minimum age limits, effective training and licensing, uniform registration and licensing of firearms, along with laws requiring their proper safe storage. Improper use, handling or storage of guns (including the threat of bodily harm to others) would be subject to confiscation and possible legal action against the owner.
Obviously, anyone who harms or kills another with a firearm without a valid self-defense argument is subject to criminal prosecution.
As for assault weapons such as the AR-15 and 50-caliber guns, these have no legitimate use in the civilian world, any more than tanks do. They need to be restricted to the military alone.
Some have argued that vehicles are not protected by the Constitution, whereas firearms are. This is a bogus argument. Just as the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the ubiquity of motor vehicles, neither did they anticipate the technological revolution in firearms that makes mass shootings so much a part of our reality today.
John Paul Stevens, a former Supreme Court justice, argued in 2018 that we should repeal the Second Amendment with these words:
“Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
“That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that ‘a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
It is worth noting that a “well-regulated militia” is what we today call the National Guard. The so-called militias that claim that title are unregulated and rabidly political, contrary to the tradition that the military or militia be above partisanship.
The solution? It’s easy, both in Kansas and the United States. Elected officials from both parties should embrace commonsense gun reform, the same way they support basic traffic safety measures.
Doug McGaw is a military veteran of Vietnam with a Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Combat Infantry Badge. He is a former professor of sociology at Emporia State University
Hey dougee......🖕
You cannot repeal a right.
You can only violate it.
He’s got a good point.
“We also must register our vehicles with their serial numbers and display license plates that identify us.”
We have freedom to assemble (and therefore travel) in the constitution. We should do away with registration of vehicles, too.
Retired academic yep stupid burns
Yes, he has it backwards.
In truth, there is a natural right to movement. To traverse as wished.
Just as there is a natural right to defense.
Put on a dress and swish around for us.
“We also must register our vehicles with their serial numbers and display license plates that identify us.”
I don’t believe that’s actually true in all circumstances. Depending on local law, all that isn’t needed if the vehicle is kept off public property.
I’m sure that sentiment is shared by the vast majority of Kansans.
Just as I’m sure that wide open borders are important to the legal residents of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
The “learned” professor doth draw a false analogy!
You see very few Democrats call for the repeal of the Second Amendment simply because calling for its repeal means that you agree that it confers the right to civilian firearm ownership.
you agree that it confers the right to civilian firearm ownership.
The 2nd does no such thing. It protects our unalienable right.
I wonder if McGaw’s mother had any children who aren’t stupid?
Fine, I’m OK with them advocating for repeal of part of teh Bill of Rights.
First of all - it makes them honest about who and what they are.
Second, since they need 2/3 of each House of Congress, and 3/4 of the States to agree, there’s no chance they will get what they want.
So - it looks like a win/win.
With criminal gangs like MS-13 armed with AK's, HK-416's and the like, civilians need to be able to match their firepower just as they did in the days when they were threatened by bandits and Indians armed with black powder weapons.
Let’s start there, and see if a lot of problems don’t go away.
An amazingly stupid beginning to an amazingly stupid article. And I don't give a damn about his credentials. He embarrassed himself with this.
Brain injury?
We got guns out here in the sticks. You aint never taking them. End of discussion because, well, you’re and idiot.
Maybe in Wichita but Dont Try That Sh!t in a Small Town.
there was some old guy in Cali who argued this, iirc he sued everyone he could think of including Schwarzenegger.
they did not want the case to go to court so they told cops to make exception for him, much like Kroger has done for me when it comes to scanning my drivers licence
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.