Letters to the Editor
-
The USA loves death and destruction.
Face it, Mr. Shapiro: the United States is a surly and selfish adolescent nation which thinks blowing up things and wasting the bad guys (whoever they might be) is cool.
Maybe in a few hundred years, if we haven't destroyed the world, we'll have attained the wisdom to live a less violent life. Until then, just keep your eyes open and be prepared to flee. Homicidally pissed off Americans are everywhere, and they come in all shapes and sizes and ages and colors.
-
just shooting off my mouth
I'm a lifetime NRA member. Do I still get to be a progressive and/or liberal? I'm pleased by the comments we see on articles like this from others like me who mix and match our opinions from various political persuasions. The 'branding' of political stances, so we choose between the blue stack of opinions or the red one, is dishonest and damaging.
Admitted, I feel the NRA is incredibly silly to insist at all costs that firearms MUST remain completely unregulated. It's funny how the people I've met that have taken the time and money to join the NRA all fall on the extra-scrupulous and safety conscious end of the spectrum. Ironic, since I do believe that a lot of what the NRA does helps to expand the number of less conscientious gun owners.
The NRA's paranoia about allowing ANY gun control at all is best compared to the paranoia about outlawing abortion (yes, I am aware that the personal ramifications of being allowed a safe abortion or not are usually far more serious--I'm saying the response to the threat is similar). For good or ill, it behooves the Pepsi vs. Coke mentality of American politics to keeps those political footballs in play. If the republicans actually DO outlaw abortions, they'll have to think up a whole new set of fliers to mail out to get the base energized. Not likely.
I also appreciate the angle introduced by one poster that I would think many readers of this magazine would be on board with--especially during this ugly stretch of American history, I'll hang on to my tools for overthrowing a wayward government, thanks. Do they realize they're also letting us leftist wackjobs stay armed?
-
It Should Be Done
First and foremost, repealing the second amendment does not mean that people cannot own guns; it only means that they can be directly regulated. In fact, one take on the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez is that without express language in the amendment Congress might not have absolute authority to regulate guns.
Additionally, the Second Amendment does not protect liberty lovers any more than any other amendment to the Constitution. If it comes to the point that the body politic must rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government, then it is likely that such a government has already abrogated the constitution. It is not as though you could say to a dictator who has taken away every other constitutional protection, "Ah yes, but the second amendment says that we get to keep our guns in case we want to put your back on the wall." Nor is it the case that a potentially tyrannical government will be scared by people with handguns and hunting rifles; they have tanks and planes. One might say that we have the same thing in Iraq and look at the insurgents, and the counter to that is we are fighting with kid gloves. If we wanted to, we could really put some hurt on any civilian population. Don't take that as some neo-conservative chest thumping, it is meant to illustrate the point that a modern military, willing to wage total war, could make fairly short work of a population armed with firearms. The fact is that if it ever comes to the body politic having to put down a tyrannnical government then no constitutional amendment will make it any easier - though it may vindicate the freedom fighters - it would take a willingness to risk it all and face extreme sacrifice, much like the founders of this country. Guns do not preserve liberty, the will to live free preserves liberty.
Ultimately it comes down a balancing of harms. We are not living in a where the weapons are bought on a black market and smuggled into the country, and then used in crimes. The evidence is clear that the vast majority of guns used in crimes were at one time purchased legally. In this way the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals proves too much. Take a hypothetical set of facts: if there are 1,000,000 legally held guns and 10% will ultimatley be used to commit crimes, then 100,000 of those guns will be used to commit a crime. If you reduce the number of legally held guns to 100,000 and the percentage used to commit crimes remains constant, then only 10,000 will be used to commit crimes. Thus by reducing the number of guns total, you reduce the number that may potentially be used to commit crimes.
Arguably, a black market would rise and criminals would have easier access to guns, but there are two checks that make it unlikely that despite a ban gun crime would remain constant: 1) increased costs, and 2) decreased access. The cost increases because to have the gun is illegal, meaning that anyone who wants to own a gun runs the risk of prosecution, a risk that is not present today. Second, access is reduced because in order to find a gun, one must have criminal contacts. If the cost of illegal ownership and dealing is high - and guns are much less fungible than drugs - then it will be the case that gun runners will not sell to just anyone and those that they do sell to must pay a premium to compenstate the gun runners for both the scarcity of the gun and the risk. This would also, reduce the number of guns available for crimes of opporunity or crimes of passion. Scarcity reduces the number of potential owners and means that people cannot acquire them quickly enough to act on passion; for instance a normally law abiding person like the Tennessee preacher's wife who is on trial for murder, could not just grab a gun that is in the house and shoot her husband.
Ultimately, decreasing the number of guns decreases the risk of harm but does not change the body politic's ability to rise against a tyrant.