If we can not trust a freeman with his right to keep and bear arms, then how can we trust him with the right to vote. Surely the right of a freeman to vote has a much greater effect on our collective lives than does any individual’s firearm. If one argues that the effect of any one freeman’s vote is minimal, then why allow it in the first place? To be armed is to secure one’s right to representation. -Thomas Mincher
That’s the quote on this page right now. I can’t let it go by without saying bollox. Thomas Mincher is a dick. That quote doesnt even make any sense!
To be armed is to secure one’s right to representation, eh? How about this then: let’s give every single black voter in this country a gun next time the polls open. That should give them a fighting chance against the law enforcement and other official (and unofficial) entities that seem determined, even in the twenty first century, to keep some people from having a voice in this country because of the colour of their skin, especially in the “new, enlightened south” we keep hearing about.
After all, they’ll only be securing their right to representation.
Comments 5
Well, that’s the idea. The country was founded on the idea that the citizens are allowed to be armed to defend themselves against tyranny of the government.
It’s unfortunate that those who are so vocal about people being oppressed are the same ones who argue against an armed public.
(And vice versa. We need both.)
Posted 26 Mar 2006 at 08:35 ¶No reason for guns to be everywhere at all times for any reason in any civilized society. If we need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government…and right now is a perfect example of that…then guns aren’t going to do us any good in that fight anyway, unless they actually flip right the fuck out and send the military after its own citizens. Those kids at Kent State? Now THAT is an instance where I could have supported the right to bear arms. This country needs to learn how to use and respect firearms before we can or should allow everyone from coast to coast to have one.
Every male over the age of 16 in Switzerland has an automatic weapon. Gun deaths there are unbelievably rare. There’s a good reason for that. Intelligence, training, and respect for human life. We have none of those things here. Somehow, I just can’t believe that arming a bunch of hot-headed, belligerent, xenophobic morons is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote that clause.
We need brains and balls before we need firearms. Right now, as a society, we have plenty of firearms, and almost no brains or balls at all. Look how well that’s done for us. No, I’m afraid that the “right to bear arms,” as it is generally interpreted to mean, doesnt really mean dick to me. It’s a waste of the paper that the Constitution is written on. I believe that “right to bear arms” should be interpreted as just that: in case of a government gone mad, we have the right as free citizens to bear arms to defend ourselves and fight back against the government, should it become necessary to do so. I totally reject, and have always rejected, the interpretation that says that everyone should be allowed to own a gun for any reason, although it’s how every gun owner or supporter interprets that amendment. Very convenient, that.
So that we are all on the same page here, I give you now the text of the Second Amendment:
I believe that the interpretation of that amendment is much, much narrower than the gun lobby and their supporters would like to have us believe. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state. This means to me that every citizen of this country has the right to keep and bear arms when necessary to defend themselves against the government. Not at any and all times that they feel like whipping out a piece and blowing someone away. It simply does not make sense for the second amendment to be interpreted as any gun, any reason, any person, any time. That’s a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy simply doesnt work with what they were trying to build. Hell, anarchy doesnt work at all, for any extended period of time, though it definitely has its uses. Giving everyone a gun is a great way to start an anarchic revolution. They weren’t doing that. They were trying to build a government. Anarchy and government are two mutually exclusive concepts, and polar opposites. I think that was probably the very last thing the Founding Fathers had in mind.
This isn’t Chechnya or Bosnia or Iraq. We do not have a king or a dictator that can do with us as he will. Or at least we didnt until Reagan came along, with his administration full of fledgling neocons that started the whole mess we’re in right now, with our current idiot in chief and the dictatorship that pulls his strings.
Yes, I’m vocal about people being oppressed. I’m just as vocal about rejecting an armed public. An armed public shoots first and asks questions later. We need to learn how to think instead of relying on violence to solve every problem.
No, you haven’t convinced me that the population of this country needs to be armed to defend themselves. I can’t even trust the average American citizen to think for him/herself. I’m sure as shit not going to trust them with a fucking gun…especially since you can get one legally with extremely minimal effort, and no training is required before or during your ownership.
We’ve made it far too easy for the lowest common denominator to be increasingly ignorant, and that’s only served to lower the bar instead of raise it. Intelligence and rational thought are mocked in this country, and fanatacism and insanity are the soup du jour. It’s time to go in the other direction. Guns aren’t the answer to that. They are one of the causes.
I utterly reject the idea of an armed public, unless our public begins to prove themselves worthy of being armed. I’m including myself in this. If I went out today and purchased a gun, I’d be just as clueless and stupid as any other idiot with a firearm, and I’d wind up either hurting or killing someone else, or shot dead with my own weapon. It happens all the damn time.
This society is an advocate of anything we want, when we want it, and leave the personal responsibility on the shelf, please. I’m neither an advocate nor a supporter of that mentality, as much as I do admit being guilty of taking advantage of it now and again, though I try not to. Again, look at where it’s gotten us. Our rights and freedoms are being chiseled away bit by bit, but unless it hits someone personally, nobody gives a shit. We are selfish, lazy, stupid, mean, and narrow minded. And you want me to be all right about giving these people guns?
This country was not founded on the right to bear arms any more than it was founded on any religious principles. The right to bear arms is just one of the rights we have, and we have that right for a very specific purpose. We were escaping an abusive, tyrannical government, and trying to start a new, better country where those abuses would be absent…or, because the framers knew what human nature was, such abuses wouldnt have to be tolerated if and when they reared their ugly heads in the future. Our founding documents also state that it is our responsibility as citizens of this country to rise up against the government when it goes bad, yet we see how protestors and anti-war demonstrators and those of us who speak out against our government are treated. We are rounded up and kept in caged pens when the Democratic or Republican convention is in town. We are forcibly “escorted” out of political gatherings for our t-shirts or the bumper stickers on our cars or even just if someone thinks we look like we might belong to the “other side.” We are only Americans outside our own borders. While we dwell on our own soil, we are all divided and there is no common ground anywhere any more. Gun ownership is the very, very least of our problems.
Many of those hallowed gun owners feel that they are perfectly within their rights to invoke the Constitution when they want to go out and buy an AK-47, but then they turn around and accuse political dissenters of being a bunch of unpatriotic traitors. Selective editing? More like ignorance, selfishness, and stupidity. I’m sorry, but I’m just not willing to go along with the interpretations made by those kinds of people, although of course I dont include you personally in that, Scottso, because I know very well you have a brain, and quite a magnificent one, at that.
Then again, youre one of the ones I’d probably “trust” with a gun (my hatred for guns does not allow me to trust them or anyone who is wielding one, for any reason…even if theyre on my side), though I’d not be comfortable or happy with you owning one, because I hate guns with a deep and abiding passion. No, the builders and framers wanted to ensure that we would have recourse should the government go bananas. I’m quite comfortable in my belief that they did not have it in mind to arm everyone so that we’d all have guns with which to shoot anyone we wanted at any time for any reason. If that were so, they would have indicated that in the text.
The drafters left the text of the Constitution just vague enough to allow it to grow with the country…which is why, although some Republican leaders and indeed Justice Scalia himself do not believe this and mock those who say it…the Constitution of the United States is a living, breathing document. But they didnt leave the text so vague as all that. They didnt intend the right to bear arms to be interpreted in such a broad sense. They may have been rich White dudes, but still, they weren’t stupid. They would have recognized what kind of chaos that would cause. That’s why the Second Amendment reads the way it does.
Of course, that’s my own interpretation of it, just like everyone else has their own interpretation…but I’ve looked at both sides and I’ve thought about this for a long time now, and I’ve gotta say that the stance gun advocates take just doesnt make any sense beyond their own self-serving interests. It has no basis in historical context. The Constitution was built to serve all, not some. It was not written to protect narrow interests, but rather to guard against them. The drafters had first hand experience as to the devastation which narrow, self-serving interests wreaked on a populace. That broad, overarching interpretation gun advocates embrace is wrong.
The Second Amendment was put into place to protect us from the tyranny which we had fought so hard to escape, and for no other reason. We should be focusing on the rights we have as American citizens that are actually important, like freedom of speech and privacy, freedom to worship who we want, or no one, freedom to assemble…all rights which, as you know, are being severely threatened and restricted right now by this administration…rather than giving every schmuck who wants one a gun so they can shoot the kid from next door that walks across their lawn one too many times.
Everyone is so busy getting theirs and screw the rest that overall, this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and taking the express elevator to get there. It’s all fun and games while it lasts, but when the elevator finally crash lands in the basement, every one of us will be one big, mingled smashed tomato pie at the end. We need to do something about this, and guns aren’t the answer. I wish we had people who would fight this fiercely and put all this time, money, and effort that the gun lobby and their supporters spend on their right to bear arms into making sure that all Americans are able to receive a really good education instead. We wouldnt even need firearms then. The pen, you see. It’s mightier than the sword. And maybe, just maybe, if we had a well educated populace, our knuckles would finally stop dragging on the ground and we’d know how to speak instead of grunt, point, shoot, and vote Republican.
Yes, I prefer a civilization that has the ability to think straight in order to solve their problems over one that can shoot…straight or otherwise…any day of the week. I will begin to respect gun owners and gun supporters when they begin to respect everyone else but themselves and their own interests, and stop trampling everyone else in their feverish, needless urgency to be allowed to legally own weapons whose only purpose is mayhem and murder.
I love ya, Scottso, but you won’t convince me any time soon that we have any reason whatsoever to defend the right to bear arms when the entire rest of the Constitution is going up in flames. Guns rarely serve any good purpose, and the harm they do on a daily basis far outweighs any benefits. At this point, the right to bear arms is a serious detriment to our society. I’ve seen it proven time and time again that gun ownership serves no good purpose in the vast majority of cases. I’m against an armed public, until that public proves themselves to be worthy of the extremely serious responsibility of owning them. We can’t even trust ourselves to drive our cars in a responsible manner, but we should let everyone have a gun?
No. Just…no.
Posted 26 Mar 2006 at 09:34 ¶Ah, I think you need to go back and re-read The Federalist Papers and the Jefferson/Adams letters.
Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, was very clear in all of his writings that the intent was for every man and woman from age 17 up to own a gun, both for the defense of the country, and personal defense. That is the legal definition of the militia.
This is one of the few things that Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Madison all agreed on.
The idea is that any government that does not trust the people with arms is a tyranny. Period. No exceptions.
On a personal level, I think owning weapons is more than justified. Now, I’m not talking about walking around packing heat. I’m no Bernie Goetz. I’m talking about keeping tools in a safe in case of emergency. Put aside your hatred for guns for a moment, and be practical.
What if the proverbial shit hits the fan? Invasion, natural disaster, nuclear explosion/meltdown, even zombies — the ability for my family to live through it may very well depend on me owning dehydrated food, potable water, iodine, and yes, weapons. Distasteful? Of course, but it’s best to be prepared.
Even in a defense role — if, for instance, someone climbed up my fire escape in the middle of the night and broke a window, they could take my daughter and be gone in about 30 – 45 seconds. The police will not arrive in that time — the only chance for them is for me to own a gun, and be accurate with it.
It would be nice if we didn’t need guns. Unfortunately, we do not live in a utopian society.
Also, if you look around, you’ll see that the places with the most restrictions on gun ownership are the same places with the highest crime rates. People don’t break into houses in Texas.
Besides, you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you like, and which you don’t.
Sorry, babe — you’ll never convince me otherwise. Even in this day and age, guns are necessary to protect a free society.
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 07:46 ¶I agree with many of the points you made, but the more important point to me right now is that I do not trust the populace with firearms. I dont trust the average citizen with that kind of responsiblity, and neither should anyone else.
If policies and procedures were put in place that ensured that anyone who wants to own a firearm had to take regular, mandatory training to make sure they knew how to use them, and if the licensing process were actually built around preventing people who legitimately should not own guns from owning them, then it would go a long way toward assuaging my doubts and fears. As it stands now, no way. No way in hell.
As I said, for what it’s worth, I’d trust you to be responsible for a firearm, at least as far as I’m able. But as things stand right now, today, we’ll have to agree to disagree until the system is reworked to make certain that people who want to practice their right to arm themselves can do so without putting everyone else around them in mortal danger. Training, education, whatever it takes.
I’m not saying that we should do away with the second amendment. I’m saying that we have a resonsibility to make sure it is implemented correctly, and take it more seriously than “youll only get my machine gun away from me if you pry it from cold, dead fingers” bumper stickers on SUVs in the suburbs. Youre not that guy; you never were, and you never would be. Unfortunately, most everyone else is, and you can’t ignore that fact.
Incidentally, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida is known as the “Death Belt.” More crime is committed in those three states than all the rest of the US put together. So yeah, people do break into houses in Texas, to say the very least. Guns dont prevent crime. They are the root cause of most of it.
Guns are bad. A civilized, enlightened society has no need of them. I know that’s an ideal world, and one that we do not live in, but that’s still what I believe to be the truth.
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 11:23 ¶We are at an impasse. :)
“We are at an impasse.”
What!? I DON’T HAVE TO TAKE THAT! /GQUIT!
-grin-
Posted 27 Mar 2006 at 18:21 ¶Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.