That’s the subject of today’s column, which amounts to an executive summary of the majority in the Parker ruling about D.C.‘s gun ban, with some throat-clearing by yours truly in the first few grafs. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I’m sorry the piece is so long, but I didn’t have time to make it shorter.

Pro: What Does Phrase ‘the People’ Mean?

by A. BARTON HINKLE is very well done.  It is, as claimed, an executive summary of ‘Parker’.

Forgot to mention that in my last.

Larry et al -

If “the rest of the world sees us as a bunch of snaggle-toothed dorks” why do we have an immigration quota on every other country and an emigration rate that approaches zero?

The tenacity of folks like you and I and others who debate this issue is only permitted because the USA was founded as a republic - specifically a nation of laws.  Where the law supercedes bureaucratic whim. The specific law that guarantees this debate is as you well know the First Amendment. The First Amendment was considered most important by our founders so it is ranked ahead of the Second.  But the Second is second because it protects the First - against private and public abuse - and the Second goes on to allow the common defense by enabling individual defense (with standard arms of the day).

As another interested party to this debate has mentioned there have been literally about 50 million government murders in recent memory - some more than the well-publicized Jewish holocaust of WW2.

Also personal defense (maintaining one’s life against a criminal who would extinguish it) is as basic as one’s right to life (I’m not bringing up abortion here).

And we’ve read about how DC, Chicago, and NYC - where they have the toughest gun laws - regularly vie for the title of ‘murder capital’ - simply because: 1) folks don’t legally have the means of effective personal self defense and 2) many of them can’t take their disputes to the judicial system for resolution. 

Ending the prohibition of defensive firearms would be a move toward goodness.  This has been researched by the likes of Lott and Kleck and peer reviewed by other researchers.  The conclusion is overwhelming:  Where firearms ownership and possession are least regulated there is less violent crime.

Now as with any other tool I’ve never seen a firearm act independently of a person so we’re not really talking about gun control we’re really debating is ‘person control’. And person control is antithetical to the most fundamental principles of our founders.  We were founded as a union of free men (women and slaves had to be emancipated as the men became enlightened) not as subjects.  That’s the difference between the US and basically the rest of the world.  We are citizens and the rest are pretty much subjects i.e. ‘subject’ to the unrestrained whim of their governments.  That’s why we have an immigration problem.  It is here that folks can legally and freely aspire to fulfilling the American Dream of individual success.

The counterintuitive solution has been determined to be the best one: Guns Save Lives!

Margie,

The “living document” argument is fine when it comes to bestowing inalienable rights to those previously denied, but it is an instrument of repression when used to restrict other rights previously respected.

And the right of all human beings to self defense and self determination is greater than all the constitutions and cultologies combined.

In the end, stripped of all the ideas and words and opinions and beliefs of others, I am my only defense. I am the only one who I can truely count on.

Also there is a whole other positive side to having citizens own guns that isnt ever mentioned.

When crime happens! and it always has, and always will happen.

Modern mass produced guns make it much easier for law enforcement to investigate a crime when a gun is involved.
With serial numbers, ballistics, and powder tracing, murders and robbery are scientificly easier to solve.

If mass produced weapons werent allowed then we would have an arsenal of improvised weapons without any way to identify what caliber, or brand of gun fired the shot.
There would be nothing to trace it back to because the weapons would be made from pipe and household items.

A change in the law banning store bought guns would render all of law enforcements data banks useless.

Also from a medical standpoint, modern handguns are far better to treat the wounded than say a homemade scatter gun with broken glass and nails loaded into it.

If given the choice, I would much rather be shot in the stomach with a nine millimeter pistol, than a blast from a home made pipe gun filled with broken glass,rat poison and lawn fertalizer.

I think the emergency room doctors would rather treat the gun wound over the home made weapon wounds also.

I know that others will say that these side line issues shouldnt be considered when talking about the second admendment.

I say we need to consider every possible side affect from changing our God given rights that we have successfuly been living with for over 200 yrs now.

Banning guns would set us back to barbaric times.

JMO

No one has focused on how valuable guns might be in the event we have a foreign invader.

Any country should think long and hard about invading another nation that has a well armed citizenry.

Just looking at Iraq as an example, it is almost impossible to to take over a nation that have citizens who are well armed.

Yes you may be able to overthrow the government, but it takes decades to put down the will of the people, if it can even be done.

Veitnam is another example.
As long as there is even one person who has the will, and a gun to fight, then an outside force will have to contend with that person.

With the way our government is failing to protect our borders and after seeing the civil unrest and looting that went on after Katrina, I have no doubts that arming every household is the right and moral thing to do.

Oh, and the wishful thinking that goes along with someday we will evolve to the point that violence isnt necessary to settle our differences?

If it hasnt happened over the last 150 million yrs, I wouldnt look for it to happen in our lifetime.

A small reminder from our U.S. history classes…Our rights are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. The Ninth amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

From Charters of Freedom:

The fact that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights to specifically protect Americans’ hard-won rights sparked the most heated debates during the ratification process. To the Federalists, those who favored the Constitution, a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Federal Government was limited in its powers and could not interfere with the rights of the people or the states; also, most states had bills of rights. To the Anti-Federalists, those who opposed the Constitution, the prospect of establishing a strong central government without an explicit list of rights guaranteed to the people was unthinkiable.

  (emphasis mine

Hey Peter, I agree but you may be behind the times…“"although voting and the political process are the most effective means of change”“. Those in power, both parties, have gerrymandered the voting districts to the point that our vote is meaningless. This is a bigger threat to our future than the issue of guns or no guns.

At some point we may need the guns to overthrow the Senate and House Aristocracy.

The 2nd Amendment contains 27 words. The “Controllers” stop at the 13th word. If it is read that way, it sounds as if the state is giving itself the right to bear arms. How ridiculous!

If you look on the Constitution as a living, growing thing, with built-in flexibility for the ages, Larry’s veiw gains credibility.

Many people, such as me, are social evolutionists, who believe that the founders provided the method, via admendments,to make this document viable for changing standards and mores for centuries to come.

Still, messing with the Bill of Rights in any way gives me the heebie-jebbies. While I might argue with hard core conservaties as to what Congress can constitutionally spend tax dollars on, I am grudging in considering the same flexibility to alter precious rights that form the bedrock of who and what we are as Americans.

If the time ever comes that Humans have evolved to the point that violence against each other and the need to guard these rights against the infringement of our own government or anyone elses no longer exists, I would find myself agreeing with him. Being a non-violent person myself, I share his abhorence of it, but not his optimistic view that we need no longer worry about the need for insurection ever beening a real possibility. Till that day comes, leave the Bill or Rights alone.

“I feel its a mistake to equate Guns so closely with Freedom and Independance—as though they are the same thing.“

Hmmm…  I’m wondering what you think allowed the United States to gain the freedom and independence that it has maintained for the past 230 years.  I do not suggest that guns = freedom & independence, but man, it’s a damn close thing.

If the individual citizens of the British colonies were not able to posses their own private firearms, there would never have been any United States of America. 

What continues to secure our freedoms and liberties to this day?  Our beloved and benevolent government, which, after all, has only our best interests at heart (if it has one)?  Why have we not been overrun by British (see war of 1812), Japanese, German or Russian forces in our 230 year history?

It is interesting to me that many today seem to think that they should have the personal liberties and freedoms to travel wherever they want within the U.S., drive whatever they want to drive, wear whatever they want to wear, put whatever substances in their bodies they want to, engage in whatever relationships or acts they want to, say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, get whatever medical or non-medical procedures done whenever they want (and in some cases think the government should pay for it), and are the first to scream loudest whenever any of these supposedly constitutionally protected “rights” - NONE of which are addressed by the Constitution - are in any way infringed; yet mention the word “gun” and the first thing that comes out is “I don’t see why anyone *needs* one of those.“

If we supposedly have all of those freedoms and liberties and are so independent, then why are those freedoms and liberties and independence not broad and inclusive enough to include the freedom and liberty to posses and carry firearms?

Post Your Comments: