"Look Ma, no bullets!"
Posted on 02/16/2003 12:44:49 AM PST by Pat Bateman
perspective
Right to bear arms is not absolute
Gun control: Should we attach some strings?
By State Sen. Ken Gordon
Sunday, February 16, 2003 - As an elected official, I often find myself engaging in polite conversations with people with whom I disagree. Some of these discussions inevitably involve a member of the gun lobby asking me what I think the words "shall not be infringed" - which are found in the Second Amendment - mean. The question is asked with an air of confidence, as if it is unanswerable and therefore, once and for all, concludes a difficult and complex argument.
I have a response. I ask them if they think people should be able to carry guns on airplanes.
I usually win at least a draw with this answer, depending on the audience.
Both the question and answer involve the issue of whether the right to bear arms is absolute. Members of the gun lobby say that the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights indicates their importance. This allows them to say that, after speech, the right to bear arms is paramount.
But even speech is not absolutely protected. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to free speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
There are also laws against libel and slander, fighting words, and pornography. Permissible restrictions on firearms are the equivalent.
The gun issues currently pending in the legislature are concealed weapons and pre-emption of local ordinances.
Proponents of concealed carry talk in terms of "rights," but there is no "right" to carry a hidden gun in Colorado. The state Constitution, after setting forth our right to bear arms, continues: "... but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Nevertheless, although concealed carry is not a right, it is still a fair question as to whether it can be justified as a policy.
In any discussion of concealed carry, statistics compete. Proponents cite a study by John R. Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," as proof that more guns equal less crime.
Opponents question his methodology and point to increases in murder in states that allow the practice.
My view is that the statistical argument is a wash. I don't believe that people who get permits commit very many crimes, and I don't believe that they stop very many. The philosophical argument, however, is profound.
Proponents feel that the world is a dangerous place and the organized legal community cannot protect them, that an individual can only depend on himself. Opponents feel that people carrying concealed weapons help to make the world more dangerous and that our best hope for safety is in the hands of a sane and just community. Since I have always felt that the solutions to our problems will result from us working together, I have never been tempted by the concealed-carry argument.
The two concealed-carry bills - Senate Bill 63 by Doug Lamborn and SB 24 by Ken Chlouber - vary. Lamborn feels that anyone who can own a gun should be able to get a permit to carry it concealed anywhere. Chlouber's bill requires training, bans on carrying weapons in schools and allows some limited discretion for local sheriffs.
Chlouber's bill is supported by the NRA, and Lamborn's bill is supported by the Gun Owners of America (a group that does the impossible, by making the NRA look moderate). Both bills do away with local control.
The pre-emption bill, SB 25 sponsored by Jim Dyer, will overturn local ordinances regulating guns. He argues that we need statewide uniformity. I don't see why. After 1993's "summer of violence," Denver passed ordinances that law enforcement feels helped deal with gang violence. These ordinances might not be necessary or desirable in Rifle, Leadville or Gunnison, but if we go to one-size-fits-all, these places might be over-regulated or, more likely - and this is what the gun lobby would prefer - Denver will be under-regulated.
Certainly, Americans have a right to bear arms. But what does that mean? Did it mean one thing in 1791 when a frontier nation won a revolution using muskets and another in 2003 when drug gangs use handguns? When the U.S. Constitution protects a specific right, it's clear that this is important and that the individual has some protection against the majority. It does not mean that the right is absolute.
After all, an absolute right for one is the end of rights for others.
Sen. Ken Gordon, a Democrat from Denver, represents District 35, which encompasses Southeast Denver, plus the Arapahoe County enclaves of Glendale and Holly Hills. He can be reached at 303-866-4875 or ken.gordon.senate@state.co.us.
I have a question for both of you. "How many airliners were hijacked prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968 that is so dear to the hearts of Ali Bubba Bush and Charleton Heston was enacted?"
The correct answer is "NONE"! It was LEGAL prior to the passage of GCA-68 for ANYBODY to fly on commercial airliners while armed. I did it myself,flying with a loaded WW-2 German Luger in my carry on briefcase in 1967. I was just a young GI,not any type of police officer,either state or federal.
Now ask yourself this,if gun control has made us "safer",why did the hijackings only start after GCA-68 was enacted?
Let's not forget all the lives that could have been saved if any of the teachers or other adults at that high school had been legally allowed to be armed. They could have stopped the rampage early,merely by shooting the bad guys at the start. Or even have prevented it from happening at all because the two murderers would have known there would have been armed people there who could have stopped them. Did you notice they didn't start their killing spree at a gun club or a police station? They didn't because they wanted a easy target where there was nobody in a position to fight back or stop them.
As for guns not stopping crime,when was the last time you heard of a uniformed cop being mugged or raped?
I am not a single issue kind of guy. I support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker Freeper Status
Unfortunately, there are many who share your opinion who want to, and in fact are trying to force it on the rest of us at the point of the state's gun ... and that will lead to a very serious and bad situation.
There is no better place with more freedoms, propserity or general good naturedness and a spirit of giving, sharing and openess than the United States. That is my observation from experience ... and is not meant to say that those nations or peoples are bad. They just do not enjoy the freedom or prosperity to the degree that exists in this nation.
No matter where you are, including here in the states, any inner city or large metropolitan area has less of those things and presents a generally more troubled and crime ridden environment.
Again, you are free to do as you please ... have the opinions you want ... move to where you want ... etc. And bully for you and all of us over it too.
But do not ignore the clear message of history. A disarmed populace, even in a Republic, is at great risk for mass murder and genocide from either other nations, or their own government gone bad. I will fight to avoid that condition for myself and my family andf friends at all costs.
In the words of Sophocles from 23 centuries ago :
Far-stretching, endless TimeThis is not something new.
Brings forth all hidden things,
And buries that which once did shine.
The firm resolve falters, the sacred oath is shattered;
And let none say, "It cannot happen here".
Fregards.
"Look Ma, no bullets!"
And Holmes was incorrect.
You do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Especially if there actually is a fire. Then you're a hero.
It's just that one must bear the consequences of such words in the event there is no fire.
To frame the idea of consequence of action as basis for restrictions of rights subverts the very idea of self-governance and consitutional liberties. It's the shibboleth of those yearning for the nanny state - "nanny" to be charitable. And I don't chalk up Holmes' use of the word "allow" to imprecise language. Not when a Supreme Court Justice says it.
To apply the author's notion (regarding the Second Amendment) more precisely to the First Amendment, we'd have to cut out tongues preemptively, just so that "fire" could not be yelled in said crowded theater.
Have you read anything about it in the last ten years?
"Is," and "will a lot more."
"Do some Google research on the increase in armed crimes in your prospective new homes.I don't need to, I've used to live in Australia for several years, and I generally feel safer there than many places in the USA.
Feelings are not research. Nor are they facts.
Bwaahahaahaha! That was a good one.
I don't need to, I've used to live in Australia for several years, and I generally feel safer there than many places in the USA.
Non answer. There are country clubs in Colombia where you would "feel safer" than in "many places in the USA."
Fact is, street crime, mugging, rape, and hot home invasion robbery has soared to levels PAST the USA since the UK and Oz virtually banned firearms ownership by law abiding citizens.
The fact you must grasp is that violent criminals like rapists and muggers and killers LOVE GUN CONTROL. They LOVE having a disarmed world of victims to plunder at will. They don't give a CRAP ONE about breaking a paper firearms law, when they have already decided to rape or rob or kill.
Isn't it amazing that lefties will march against the military and war, but have no problem giving 100% of the guns in the world to a central government, trusting them to never ever in the future simply march them onto trucks and trains at government gun point for a trip to the gas chamber or the mass grave?
The NRA IS moderate. His own statemtn confirms it...that there are more passionate groups out there.
It's hard to take anything this guy says seriously when he reveals how skewed his perspective is at every turn.
My take? Yes guns concealed carry should be allowed on planes. All questions of RKBA can be refernced back to the purpose...what a militia man might do with a firearm.
ie a militia man WOULD carry an "assault" rifle. a militia man would NOT carry artillery, nukes, fighters, or tanks.
No,it's not. The FAA are the ones who decide this. Just like they are the ones who decided there would be no smoking on ANY flights.
At one time, (before 1918) England averaged less than 5 armed robberies per year and murder was extremely uncommon. At the same time they allowed citizens an almost total freedom to own any firearm they wanted including cannons, machine guns etc.
Now with just about a total ban on citizen ownership, of everthing except shotguns, the overall crime rate is much higher than the US and even murder is increasing so fast that pretty soon they will surpass us in that area too.
Australia just banned a large number of guns but it has been too recent to know what effect it will have but I have seen reports that theirs has risen also.
Deep thinking like that goes a long ways towards explaining why your screen mame reminds you of who you are.
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.