Gun Control for Dummies
I happened to receive a tube video today titled “gun control for dummies”. The presentation is conducted by a crash test dummy who proceeds to enlighten us as to the intent of the first ten amendments to the Constitution otherwise known as The Bill of Rights. The dummy actually does a decent job of pulling the third amendment into a reinforcement of the need for the second and rolls them into a right of citizens to protect themselves against nefarious and/or oppressive action by the government. What is of note, is that as a federalist, Madison was against any amendments, thinking they would further diminish the strength of the Constitution. He wrote the ten amendments that would become the bill of rights as a compromise and bone-toss to the anti-federalists. Madison did change his mind regarding the amendments (considered a death blow in today’s politics) and ultimately supported the addition of the amendments added to the original document rather than inserted into the body of the text, however in his personally written draft he scribbled in the margin “bill of rights- useful but not essential”.
Clearly the bill of rights including the 2nd and 3rd amendments, were designed to protect individuals (and states to a lesser degree) from an "oppressive government". This was arguably an effective strategy for around seven decades when the only truly effective military strategy was a bunch of guys with guns. One could argue that an armed Militia today isn't really going to do much against an oppressive government since the militia would need tanks, rockets, helicopters, and maybe a fighter jet or two. So, that argument is now moot and simpleminded, thus the dummy doing the explaining. A much better argument would be the intent to protect one’s life, family, and property against criminals. The SCOTUS has upheld this argument and it actually remains germane to the issue. Pretty clear, if some criminal comes in my house with the intent of taking my stuff or hurting my family, I can shoot him. Of course I might just be charged with a crime myself if I fail to prove my life was in eminent danger, but that’s another issue. Never the less, this is basically my current interpretation of my 2nd amendment rights. I have the right to own firearms and use them for my protection. Not one of our founding fathers mentioned or considered hunting in the 2nd amendment, rather, it was for protection.
Since the gun doesn't do the crime or the “crazy mass shooting" (the criminal or crazy shooter does) then it only makes sense to try and keep them from getting the requisite equipment. That way, we responsible gun owners take less heat for what some crazed phyco might do....right? For that reason I would certainly support reasonable back ground checks for firearm purchase. It would not affect me, but maybe serve to keep the blame for senseless violence where it belongs...with the perpetrators.
As is usually the case, the extreme elements on both sides are the problem. Hey, I really do like guns, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in Texas with guys openly carrying sidearms around. We all have the right to buy a car, but you have to get a license to drive it on the highway. I have the right to own a gun for protection of my home and hunting on my own property or in otherwise approved areas, but I sure don't want a bunch of crazy douche bags carrying them around.
Since criminals do the crime and crazies do the mass shootings, it does seem reasonable to try and keep guns out of their hands. A complete background check before a firearm purchase is one step we can take in that direction. But hey, I’m just a simple guy who happens to like shooting the classic Parker Brothers 16 gauge shotgun that me grandfather and father used, and eating the spoils of my effort, however I'm not really sure I (or the citizens of The United States) should have a crash text dummy explaining our rights for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment