![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I saw this question in Rhi's LJ, and it made me think... and I think I'm going to piss off a lot of people. ::G::
"If you could go back and take 'the right to bear arms' out of the American Constitution back when it was written, would you?"
No.
I realize that improper use of firearms has caused problems. However, I think that the gentlemen who wrote the Bill of Rights had *very* good reasons for putting that one in. Among other things, according to various papers published at the time, they intended it as a last-resort means of the people to protect themselves from the government, should said government ever become too intolerable to them.
I realize that improper use of firearms has caused a considerable amount of trouble. I do not attempt to dispute this in any way. However, I will point out that this has been the *improper* use. I'm sure there *are* instances where a firearm being used properly has caused wrongful injury/death, but off hand I can't think of a single one that I've heard of up to now.
Unfortunately, I no longer recall the names of the two towns, but I remember coming across a study several years ago which looked at two towns, approximately 3 miles apart. Same size towns, same region -- except Town A has a statute requiring that each household have at least one working firearm. The difference in the crime levels between the cities is significant -- Town B's crime levels are several times higher than those of Town A.
Rather than removing the 2nd Amendment, or trying to remove all the guns from the hands of the criminals (like *that's* going to work!), I'd be more inclined to require every able-bodied adult, male *and* female, to do at least one 2-year term of military service, during the course of which they would (of course) be taught proper use and care of personal weaponry. If they are honorably discharged, they are entitled (not sure about *required*, I'll have to think more on that one) to keep a firearm in their home or on their person. If they are dishonorably discharged, it becomes illegal for them to own or carry a firearm.
Would it solve all the problems? No. It wouldn't get guns out of the hands of criminals, nor would it prevent some idiot from turning his brains to mush via his favorite chemical substance and doing something stupid.
On the other hand, how often do you think you would see someone walk into a bank and pull out a gun to rob the place, if he knew every other person in the bank was going to pull out their own weapons and point them at him?
(Yes, this really happened. Some genius pulled a gun in a Federal Savings & Loan in DC, just around the corner from the FBI office, at noon on payday. The place was full of agents. He apparently pulled his gun and announded that this was a stickup, and the rest of them drew theirs and informed him that no, as a matter of fact, it wasn't!)
As much as I hate to say it, to a certain extent I do have to agree with the old adage about an armed society being a polite society.
I would say this has been my .02 worth, but I think I passed that mark quite some time ago. ::G::
"If you could go back and take 'the right to bear arms' out of the American Constitution back when it was written, would you?"
No.
I realize that improper use of firearms has caused problems. However, I think that the gentlemen who wrote the Bill of Rights had *very* good reasons for putting that one in. Among other things, according to various papers published at the time, they intended it as a last-resort means of the people to protect themselves from the government, should said government ever become too intolerable to them.
I realize that improper use of firearms has caused a considerable amount of trouble. I do not attempt to dispute this in any way. However, I will point out that this has been the *improper* use. I'm sure there *are* instances where a firearm being used properly has caused wrongful injury/death, but off hand I can't think of a single one that I've heard of up to now.
Unfortunately, I no longer recall the names of the two towns, but I remember coming across a study several years ago which looked at two towns, approximately 3 miles apart. Same size towns, same region -- except Town A has a statute requiring that each household have at least one working firearm. The difference in the crime levels between the cities is significant -- Town B's crime levels are several times higher than those of Town A.
Rather than removing the 2nd Amendment, or trying to remove all the guns from the hands of the criminals (like *that's* going to work!), I'd be more inclined to require every able-bodied adult, male *and* female, to do at least one 2-year term of military service, during the course of which they would (of course) be taught proper use and care of personal weaponry. If they are honorably discharged, they are entitled (not sure about *required*, I'll have to think more on that one) to keep a firearm in their home or on their person. If they are dishonorably discharged, it becomes illegal for them to own or carry a firearm.
Would it solve all the problems? No. It wouldn't get guns out of the hands of criminals, nor would it prevent some idiot from turning his brains to mush via his favorite chemical substance and doing something stupid.
On the other hand, how often do you think you would see someone walk into a bank and pull out a gun to rob the place, if he knew every other person in the bank was going to pull out their own weapons and point them at him?
(Yes, this really happened. Some genius pulled a gun in a Federal Savings & Loan in DC, just around the corner from the FBI office, at noon on payday. The place was full of agents. He apparently pulled his gun and announded that this was a stickup, and the rest of them drew theirs and informed him that no, as a matter of fact, it wasn't!)
As much as I hate to say it, to a certain extent I do have to agree with the old adage about an armed society being a polite society.
I would say this has been my .02 worth, but I think I passed that mark quite some time ago. ::G::
Tags:
Re: Garsoc Asks
Yes, but I believe it should be limited in scope to whether or not the person has been convicted of a violent crime, or have certain mental disorders.
How do I propose to stop criminals from acquiring guns illegally?
I don't. What I propose is arming the citizens against the illegally-armed criminals.
Why can't we impeach Bush?
First, Clinton was never impeached, nor do I think extramarital activities are an impeachable offense. Lying under oath, on the other hand, I consider a completely separate matter.
As for Bush, it's not that we *can't* impeach him, it's that we *haven't*. It amazes me (and apparently several news folk around the world) that no one has seriously taken him to task. Blair has been placed well and truly on the hot seat -- why hasn't Bush?
Given that my policy on guns is supported by these blithering idiots, does that affect my opinion of this policy?
No. I have no idea how they arrived at the positions they support, only how I arrived at mine. The fact that I disagree with them on so many things does not mean that I feel I should change those few positions on which we do agree. It would make as much sense to change all my other positions to match theirs, simply because they agreed with my position on firearms.
Technically...
This bit of Constitutional trivia brought to you by the letter "M" for no other reason than it's in the middle of the alphabet. :)