I guess I've been complacent. Gun control hadn't been much of an issue recently, but Tucson changed that. First, I do not condone what this assassin did, but I also do not agree that it should spark any new attempts on our rights. As Franklin said, those who trade essential rights for temporary safety deserve neither.
Nor do I agree that the 'incendiary rhetoric' of the right is to blame - go read some of the minutes of Congress from the 19th century - the rhetoric was often more malicious, and occasionally erupted into violence, including canings, duels or threats of lynching.
The Constitution provides the 2nd amendment for several reasons:
1. Defense against our own government – I know what you’re thinking. Another far-right revolutionary. No. Just acknowledge that the founders had revolted against their lawful king, and wanted to preserve the right to do it again, if they felt it necessary.
Of course, they also didn't want a standing military, which they were forced to accept a few years later - idealism didn't pay the bills to re-establish a military every time there was a war. That standing army made a successful armed revolt impossible, as demonstrated by the Civil War. I don’t count the Whiskey Rebellion, because they were a small force, and Andy Jackson intimidated the proponents of Nullification enough to preempt it.
Nor do I agree that the 'incendiary rhetoric' of the right is to blame - go read some of the minutes of Congress from the 19th century - the rhetoric was often more malicious, and occasionally erupted into violence, including canings, duels or threats of lynching.
The Constitution provides the 2nd amendment for several reasons:
1. Defense against our own government – I know what you’re thinking. Another far-right revolutionary. No. Just acknowledge that the founders had revolted against their lawful king, and wanted to preserve the right to do it again, if they felt it necessary.
Of course, they also didn't want a standing military, which they were forced to accept a few years later - idealism didn't pay the bills to re-establish a military every time there was a war. That standing army made a successful armed revolt impossible, as demonstrated by the Civil War. I don’t count the Whiskey Rebellion, because they were a small force, and Andy Jackson intimidated the proponents of Nullification enough to preempt it.
2. Defense of our government against foreign encroachment. As stated above, the founders envisioned a militia, wherein the government stored the major implements of war (cannon, arsenals, etc - never mind the maintenance such gear requires), and each militiaman (every male from 18 on up) would, in time of war, show up with his own gun. This would have, in theory, saved the government the cost of outfitting troops
It wasn't a bad idea, just naive, because a military costs to build and to maintain. If you don't maintain what you have built, you pay a lot more to rebuild it from scratch each time. However, because of this, the 2nd Amendment clearly intends for the militiamen to be able to own and carry weapons equivalent to or superior to the contemporary military small arms.
3. Defense of self or other against crime, animals, etc. This is usually cited as a home invasion scenario, and yes, such things do occur. On the other hand, if anyone besides the assassin had been armed at the gathering in Tucson, he might not have killed or injured nearly as many victims. Colin Goddard, despite your comments, this has and will happen again, and ordinary, armed citizens will again stop armed criminals. It's not a video game scenario, it's reality. Sorry about your experience, but you are wrong.
What most writers forget, though, is defense against animals. When in rural settings, snakes, mountain
lions, bears, wolves, coyotes, and the like can be threats as well. Unlike human antagonists, it's not necessarily clear when an animal considers a human interloper to be trespassing - no signs are posted. Animals don't always react like humans, and can't speak, so it's a bit hard to tell an angry rattler "sorry, didn't mean to intrude. I'm leaving". And yes, I have run into rattlesnakes in urban environments - our cities continue to grow into animal's habitats.
4. Practice - if you don't use a skill, it atrophies. You also need to develop the judgment to use it appropriately.
5. Hunting - a lot smaller portion of today's society NEEDS to hunt to feed their family today than in the 18th century, but it's still a legitimate choice. I feel that trophy hunters should use a camera instead, but it’s still their free choice. It’s not for me to deny them that right.
6. Recreational shooting - it's fun and teaches safety and responsibility.
A large number of people have taken a dislike to guns in modern times, but they fail to understand that the Constitution does not allow them to waive the rights of others, nor do they grasp that it's the wrong approach.
Remember Carry Nation? She didn't like 'demon rum', and decided that nobody else should be allowed to partake either. She and her ilk ram-rodded an ill-conceived amendment to ban alcohol. It didn't work.
Instead, it caused all manner of trouble - speakeasies, bootleggers, bathtub gin, and gangland warfare. The answer was not to ban it, but to punish individuals for irresponsible behavior. Drive drunk, get slammed. Drink responsibly, and be left alone.
Instead of all these proposed 'controls', I suggest the following: In junior high/middle school, teach a full semester course on gun laws/ethics/safety. Just as we don't allow parents to opt out of sex ed course, so we don't allow them to pull their kids from this course - it's not a course in hunter's safety, there's no range time, no shooting.
Instead, whether you like guns or hate them, you will learn safety. If a gun control activist found a pistol in the woods, would they know how to be certain the weapon was safe without destroying any potential evidence in case it had been used in a crime? If you see someone holding a weapon, how should you react? That depends on how they’re holding it. For example, I brought an air pistol to a friend's house once to show it off. I pointed it at the ceiling, with the breech open, to show it was safe, yet another person there saw only a threat and jumped on me to wrestle it out of my hands, which was exactly the wrong reaction. Had it been real and loaded, he could have CAUSED an incident. He never even looked at my body language or looked closely enough to see the open breech. On the other hand, he had had no objections the week before when I showed off a tai chi sword.
If you don't like the current laws, do you really know what they are before crusading for 'stricter laws' or ‘greater freedoms’?
This course is just exposure to the knowledge - this way, kids whose only information comes from movies and TV will see when the celluloid 'heroes' are unsafe, stupid, or abuse their rights. The school course will not be graded, and is purely for informational purposes and to stimulate thinking.
Once a person is an adult, and wishes to purchase a firearm, we then require them to pass a graded version of the course and a hunter's safety course, complete with range time. They can have their background check done while in the course. They can't buy the gun or apply for a concealed carry permit until after they pass with at least a 90%.
Instructors will be taught to listen for inappropriate cues among their students, and steer them towards help if they think there's a problem. This course should focus even more heavily on the ethics of gun use than the school-age course did. Is it right to shoot in the air to stop a fight, as a recent episode of Desperate Housewives showed? Why or why not? Is it okay to bring beer to the tree stand?
Basically, every right should also be treated as a responsibility. To that end, I'd also suggest that gun ownership should automatically enroll the owner in the militia - if you are a gun owner, and not a police officer, EMT, active or reserve military, then in times of disaster, you can be called up and placed under command of National Guard officers to help with humanitarian relief or other peacekeeping.
You'll have to take a 1-2 week course prior to purchase that'll be an abbreviated boot camp, with a 3-5 day refresher every few years, just so you remember what a captain or major is, what different commands mean, etc.
Such militia-men would not deploy, would be instead like really-far back tier Guardsmen. If the Guard and Reserve can't muster enough folks to deal with the disaster - say 9/11, Katrina, or the like, then gun-owning militia get called. Make them take on a new responsibility, albeit one that would have been a part of it 200 years ago. We should never have gotten away from the citizen-soldier having to do his duty to his country and fellow citizens as part of the price of his freedom and rights.
Don't blame the tool, don't blame the person exercising their rights (regardless of the right - no I don't have to have nothing to fear in order to refuse an unwarranted search, nor do I need to believe in Islam to accept a mosque near the site of the twin towers).
Just hold people responsible for their choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment