I wrote the following as a comment on my last post, then I thought I'd just post it since it clearly states my thoughts on the 2nd amendment.
There are several points of view on the second amendment. However, since many states and localities, and even the federal government, have enacted rather strict controls over some types of guns without having those controls overruled by the Supreme Court, I would say the law of the land allows gun controls.
Also, "militia" is a totally outdated concept that may have had a place in a circa 1800 United States with hardly any standing army, but the term has no meaning now. Although some people believe that Iraq shows armed civilians can effectively fight a military, the bad guys have only been successful killing unarmed civilians and have never won a battle against our troops (IED's are nasty and deadly, but they don't secure territory). The idea that a "militia" could save America from a rogue U.S. military is the fantasy of warrier wannabies.
But, if we really bought into the "militia" idea, then perhaps we should allow civilians the option of stockpiling rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, low yield atomic mines, and, of course, basement-based cruise missiles with larger hydrogen warheads. Any fight with our military should be a "fair fight" from the get-go. Glocks and AK-47's? Fuggetaboutit.
The one area that I do have real trepidation about is the "search" problem (authorizing police to frisk for illegal guns without a warrant). On the one hand, we got a lot of dingbats running around with heat under their shirt, and in this town they use it way too often to maintain their drug territories and do small time bank heists. They need to be controlled. On the other hand, we don't want the fuzz to confiscate our little stash so they can smoke it. We don't want to be controlled. What to do?
At the end of the day, I suppose the search is the right answer. There's no use having a law forbidding a gun if the only time it comes into play is when there's a body on the ground. That's just a little too late for my taste. Maybe the law can exempt the stash or anything else found in a pure gun patdown.
If the Bush administration adopts American Crusader's version of the second amendment, I want first dibs on the atomic mines. I think they are very cool and effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This issue of "what is a gun" sounds so abstract but is so real. There is a real difference between a gun that takes 2 minutes to reload and shoots bullets stopped by a wooden post and a gun that shoots 200 bullets per second, bullets that cut through armor.
"If the Bush administration adopts American Crusader's version of the second amendment, I want first dibs on the atomic mines. I think they are very cool and effective."
First of all...that's ridiculous. As with the 1st Amendment (religion and expression...just in case you needed to look it up) there are limits. No one has ever suggested individuals should maintain their own nuclear devices in case of rebellion. Claiming that I do is disingenuous.
Now, as an officer, didn't you swear to protect and uphold the Constitution?
Did you take that to mean only the parts you agree with?
Isn't that oath still binding?
Article 5 provides two methods for changing the Constitution. Abolishing Amendments because they are "outdated" is not one of them.
The 7th Amendment could also be considered archaic with its $20 limit in reference to jury trials.
"However, since many states and localities, and even the federal government, have enacted rather strict controls over some types of guns without having those controls overruled by the Supreme Court, I would say the law of the land allows gun controls."
None of these laws, including the Brady Law, in any way stops law abiding citizens from purchasing and keeping firearms. These laws have been passed to prevent felons and those deemed mentally unfit from obtaining guns. If they had, the Supreme Court would have struck them down.
This should be an interesting case in point.
Finally...there have been laws passed by states, localities and the federal government limiting "free speech". Hate speech legislation is gaining momentum throughout the country with sweeping laws already passed in several states. Does this mean we can now abrogate the 1st Amendment as well?
Ron..although used in a completely different matter (pornography), Justice Potter Stewart's pronouncement fits here as well:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
Of course though...one man's commonsense is another man's idiocy.
Dear Mr. Crusader:
I know you don't support atomic weapons in the home. I was just using a little hyperbole to illustrate where the idea of a militia fighting our military might logically go.
More seriously, I believe the federal government bans civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons. I would propose expanding that ban to include the almost-as-dangerous class of high powered semi-autos like AK-47's, Tec-9's, and Glock 19's. I don't see where a civilian needs a semi-auto with a 33 round clip. These are people-killers, pure and simple, as we found out so graphically at VA Tech. I'm also no fan of the single shot 50 cal. rifle - the sniper's dream gun.
That said, I still agree with you that properly trained and screened adults should be able to own and carry guns.
The problem is that way too many illegal "carry" weapons are out there, and we don't have a good way to find them until there's a body on the ground. Maybe searching for these is not so unreasonable, given the stakes.
Post a Comment