Letters to the Editor
-
Shapiro Willfully Ignores the Point
Shapiro really fails to touch on the one thing that's really on most gun owners' minds, if not always their primary concern. We own guns because the government does too. In other words, history has shown that disarming a population is consistently a first step toward their oppression. The United States of America has a Constitution, a nice little letter on a piece of paper outlining how things ought to work, what our rights are. The ideology may be more sturdy, but laws can be broken and the ol' US of A isn't necessarily immune to unrest or upheaval.
In the Sudan, governing Arab leaders selectively disarmed the nation's black population while encouraging gun ownership for certain Arab communities. Now, the Janjaweed militias are slaughtering the recently disarmed. American stability is a luxury we're pretty comfortable with, but it's as fragile as anywhere else. So if gun owners sound ridiculous with our "cold dead hands" speeches, it's for good reason. Our arms are the only thing that will ensure our personal freedom if other liberties begin to erode, and when it comes to that point, the Constitution won't be worth the paper it's written on.
Call it apocalyptic rhetoric if you like, but the apocalypse is happening right now in many parts of the world - Somaliland, Darfur, Palestine, Chechnya, not to mention the numerous conflicts in West and Central Africa - been to the DRC/Uganda border lately? As a nation who could do a whole lot more to prevent these things, we are acutely and willfully ignorant of anything but the surreal existence of these problems, somewhere. So I suppose it should stand to reason that we refuse to give any clout to the idea that our government can quite simply kill us. We call it an extremist position because nothing so bad has happened here in recent memory. But as they say, ignorance is nine-tenths of the law and posession is no excuse.
-
Shapiro frames his case very well, but...
...since when has the typical NRA member or gun seller ever listened to any kind of rational discussion involving the 2nd Ammendment(or antything else for that matter)? Have any of you ever had to deal on a daily basis with someone who's life or portion of income revolves around gun shows or proliferation of weapons? Let me tell you, that's exactly what guns are to them;Thier life. These folks by thier very nature are largely reactionary and the idea of having thier right sacrificed for the greater good of all is likely something that would trigger one of them to violent outburst against anyone they perceived as taking action against them. They don't care about what might be for the collective good of the society because they don't believe in the collective good of society, but live by the motto of "Every man for himself". That's why you don't see them at the PTA meetings or the blood center drives.
If pro-gun idiots wouldn't stop to reconsider when even former Reagan aide Jim Brady pleaded for measures to be taken after having his life literally blown apart on tape with undeniable consequences to his health and welfare, there's absolutely no sensible reason any Democratic Rep or candidate should even bother to take this up. The best hope for progress might just be if families of the victims band together similar to the "Jersey Girls" after the government's unnaceptable performance in investigating what could have been done to perhaps stop the 9/11 attacks.
Of course, maybe they wouldn't want to endure the insult of Ann Coulter spitting out pathetic trash about how they were "glad at what happened to thier kids". I wouldn't put it past someone as disgusting and repugnant as her to say it just like I wouldn't put it past another gun nut to wring his hands the next time an atrocity of this scale happens. Let's face it, there's always a next time with innocent people being ambushed by some angry outcast with a gun. I'm not so sure that it's a right to bear arms issue any more. This is starting to look more like a "Right to sell any loser a gun at any time or any place regardless of the circumstances whenever I feel like it if I can make easy money without the government knowing to who or how much I sold it for" issue at it's core. At some point, the argument needs to be brought that individual rights weren't intended to trample over the public's right to safety.
-
No longer any need for US citizen militias
This seems to be a reoccurring point in many posts (not only in reply to this article), but I'd point out that by law the National Guard and the various State Guards are militias.
-
A Persistent and Pernicious Myth
Does no one actually read the US Constitution? The first phrase of the second amendment, the part that the NRA carefully avoids mentioning, reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms under military command and discipline, as several Supreme Court rulings have stated, and refers exclusively to the right of states to maintain the National Guard. The right of individual citizens to own firearms is the most persistent and pernicious myth of American culture, with no legal basis.
-
No
Here's a point that came to mind the other day: The 2d Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear "arms". Not "firearms", not "any arms". Swords count as arms, as do clubs and slingshots. We could, theoretically, ban any weapon that uses explosive power.
The US Constitution is not a smart document. That 2nd Amendment is the actual system of checks and balances upon Government control.
Yes Government Control. Capitalism is not proscribed. Nothing is proscribed except the lack of being manipulated, conned, controlled, taxed, cheated, persecuted, etc. OK, it is archaic but that's what worked at the time and they were prepared to employ it again.
Unfortunately the 2nd amendment has been inadequate. It is about as effective as a selfdestruct button. But it could be repealed none the less with some sort of satisfactory replacement. One that is better than guns.