Clearly, firearms should not be made available freely and openly, no questions asked, to anyone wishing to purchase one.
Why not?
And "reasonable measures"? Who gets to decide that?
Perhaps the author could include an end note to show where authority for such infringements is delegated? What in his own research makes him think such edicts slow the monsters among us down one bit, and why did he not see fit to recognize government usurping such undelegated powers as a primary reason for needing an armed citizenry?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. What I'm trying to do is stimulate a discussion. How do you protect "shall not be infringed" for the rational, mature and whole among us?
I've said before that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. That's true, but the freedoms in our society--or perhaps the misapplication of them?--guarantee there are some among us who can't be trusted with matches and butter knives.
So what do we do? Cede that permissions and prior restraints are reasonable? Or cede that one of the costs of freedom is that some will abuse it at times, and at times with terrible results?
My own thought is that the more free society is, the better protected it will be, and the more incentives will be in place to address problem individuals. But I admit my hypothetical ideal is not the society we are currently living in.
What are your thoughts?
[Via Mindful Musings]
10 comments:
"Reasonable controls" is short hand for a 'Deus Ex Machina' type of magical solution. They don't generally have any specifics, and if they do the specifics always fail to solve the problem but never fail to punish the people who aren't part of the problem.
Setting aside the 'rights' argument for a moment, would it be reasonable to require background checks and medical histories prior to issuing drivers licenses or selling cars? I mean the 'auto sales loophole' could be putting people with histories of alcoholism behind the wheel.
'Reasonable' seems to mean over-regulate somebody else. If the same controls were applied to you then they are no longer reasonable.
I don't think that gun control advocates can ever understand that an armed responsible citizen is never the problem but rather the occasional solution.
It is amazing. The fact that we just assume everyone is competent enough to handle automobiles reveals the true nature of "gun control." I could imagine (and have seen) many destructive scenarios utilizing a truck. As long as we allow people to purchase vehicles and use them "on the street" it doesn't make any sense to have all these gun laws. Or rocket launcher laws for that matter.
Liberty is not for the totally risk averse. Let them leave, let them shut up, or let them hide, but do not let them decide the terms upon which others will live.
I would like firearms to be available to all. Period.
If you can't be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be trusted with anything, like a car or matches, or a computer.
Steady on, folks. Don't assume that just because I advocate a few qualifiers that I'm a gun control loon. I'm currently advocating expansion of gun rights in ways that make Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama cringe.
The simple fact is this. If guns are made as easy to obtain as milk, eggs and toilet paper, gun deaths will almost assuredly go up. The measures that we have in place do prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from arming themselves. Not all of them - that's what the black market is for. But it does provide a means to stop or at least slow criminal possession.
As for the freedom aspects of it, I haven't heard anyone complain about needing a pilot's license, a broadcast license, a driver's license, or a truck license. What is the difference?
And don't try to tell me that the right to free travel is not constitutional, because you open the door for the government to prohibit free travel without violating the constitution that way. That's what the 9th and 10th amendments are there for.
Dave,
Personally I have a major problem with the government being in the licensing business. Sadly, as drivers licenses are not proscribed in the Constitution many people are unable to extrapolate that such are unconsitutional.
The thing is, prior to 1968 guns WERE as easily acquired as milk, eggs, nails screws, etc... Thus, if your hypothesis is correct, then we should have seen a marked decrease in gun deaths.
(Though, could you please tell me why a fatality caused by a firearm is more heinous thna one caused by say an axe?)
To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that supports your hypothesis.
Dave -
Gregg sort of beat me to it, but just because none of your freedom-fearful buddies have the acumen to question drivers' licenses doesn't mean NOBODY does. Don't project.
So, to answer your question, there ISN'T a difference. The constitution doesn't give the government the authority to license EITHER behavior.
In 1961, my father was a pilot with North American-Rockwell Aviation. We lived in Culver City, CA, and my dad wanted to buy a new Ruger .44 Magnum Super Blackhawk.
They were unavailable in our area, at any price. Period.
So, the next time he flew the Sabreliner to New England, he was fortunate enough to be able to make a stop in Connecticut, where he walked into the Ruger plant, spoke with Bill Ruger himself, and Bill sold him the Super Blackhawk personally.
That's the kind of guy Bill Ruger was. That's the kind of law we had then.
How is it "better" now? How has all the licensure and malum prohibitum infringment helped?
I keep telling people that gun laws are only used to punish the law-abiding, and that the solution to gun crime is for every man to take responsibility for his home and community and kill the gun-wielding criminal at the first opportunity, just like we did in the first 180 years of this nation.
Dead perp, no recidivisim, no problem.
"The simple fact is this. If guns are made as easy to obtain as milk, eggs and toilet paper, gun deaths will almost assuredly go up."
Proof, please.
"The measures that we have in place do prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from arming themselves."
You must live in a different world than I do; it is much easier to obtain a black-market gun than a legal one.
"But it does provide a means to stop or at least slow criminal possession."
I have yet to see any proof of that; if it slows it down, why is it the most restrictive areas have the most crimes committed with guns?
The simple fact is this. If guns are made as easy to obtain as milk, eggs and toilet paper, gun deaths will almost assuredly go up.
Sounds VERY familiar, just like what the anti's were saying about Florida's CCW laws, "Castle Doctrine", Florida's and Georgia's new laws about keeping guns in cars in publicly-accessible parking lots, etc., etc. Remember all the comments about how the "streets will run red with blood!" each and every time gun laws were relaxed - and it has never come true.
The measures that we have in place do prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from arming themselves.
No they don't. Criminals and mentally unstable can, and do, get access to weapons OF ALL KINDS, including military TANKS (San Diego). The black market is there for guns, and knives are all over the place. If they can already get them NOW, just why would they do it later if there are less restrictions for the law-abiding?
Just because someone CAN get something, it doesn't mean they WILL. Laws ONLY affect those willing to follow them, and they have NO effect on those who choose to ignore them or are simply unaware of them.
Post a Comment