Yes, the second amendment to the constitution says that people have the right to own guns. Yes, the gun of choice at the time was a single-shot musket. Yes, the intention of the founders was that people could own guns for all sorts of purposes, including the right to fight tyranny. Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States has reaffirmed the right of people to own guns.
What is not being said, in most cases, is that the world has changed. In addition to the right to own guns, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Federal Government does have a right and a vested interest in regulating arms ownership. It is pretty clear, I think we would all admit, that citizens don't or shouldn't have the right to own a nuclear bomb, nor a fully functioning tank, nor surface-to-air missiles, nor fighter jets and B-1 bombers. I think we'd be in agreement that neither Bill Gates nor the Koch brothers should have the right to build and maintain a battleship sailing our nation's coastal waters.
So what we are REALLY discussing is NOT the absolute right to own any and all armaments that someone wishes to own. We are discussing where to draw the line between what is a military grade weapon, and what is appropriate for individual citizens to own. Am I right? Assuming you are not an anarchist who thinks people should have the right to own ANY weapon, then let's continue on.
At this point, I am likely to lose some who might be reading this, because I am going to start talking about where I think the line should be drawn. I am opposed to private ownership of automatic weapons, plain and simple. I think the average citizen is so out-gunned by the military that any discussion over fighting tyranny in our democratic society is simply a waste of breath. That Bushmaster automatic weapon used in several mass shootings now, is only going to be effective against a very lightly armed opponent. It would be useless against military drones, fighter jets and missiles. I see it only useful as a toy - a murderous toy whose main function is to provide some security to men with small dicks. Sorry guys, just sayin' (Metaphorically, I am referring to people who live their lives in fear, who feel like small people left out of the modern world, and they feel like they need some way to protect themselves from a self-inflicted boogeyman.)
I really do understand why some people enjoy the guns - they like the feeling of power it gives them because not everyone has one. It makes them the Jones family that the poor neighbors next door want to keep up with. "Ooh," says Mr. Smith, "Mr Jones has a bigger gun than I do!" Some also like to blow things up - this, too, gives them a sense of power. For myself, when I get that urge, I buy some bottle rockets.
A compromise on ownership of these automatic rifles might be to allow gun ownership by gun clubs, rather than by individuals. This might be a means of allowing a few of them into society for gun enthusiasts without making them accessible to any crackpot who wants one. But then I'd expect rigorous rules on what constitutes a "gun club."
That's about all I've got to add to the issue today. I've got lots more opinions on this gun control issue, but as I've said - repeatedly in my posts, it's a big, complex issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment