Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » On Guns and Balls

On Guns and Balls

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let me, um, be perfectly clear. Gilbert Arenas is an idiot. And what he did wasn't just stupid, it was criminal. I'm not so much talking about being in Washington D.C. with a gun licensed in Virginia. After all, unless you are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, or you're a statist true believer, you know that the laws in D.C. are unconstitutional, and have snared countless, otherwise law-abiding citizens, in a disgusting trap that is a stain on this country and what it purports to stand for.

What Arenas did was use his weapon to intimidate others when there was no threat to his life. Nothing else matters. That is the crime, and that is what we should be focusing on. It shouldn't matter that he had his gun in the sports arena, or in D.C., or that it was loaded, or whatever other silliness the media has been focused on. This isn't a gun issue. This is a Gilbert Arenas issue.

ESPN was asking whether it was shocking that a survey says 75% of NBA players carry a firearm. It's not shocking, it's common sense. Frankly, I'm shocked about the other 25% but I hope they're just lying. Consider that just in the last couple of years alone, NFL's Sean Taylor was murdered in his home by intruders, NY Giant Steven Smith was robbed in his driveway after being dropped off by a chauffer at his townhome, Oakland's Jevon Walker was robbed and beaten unconscious in Las Vegas, Jacksonville Jaguars Richard Collier was left paralyzed below the waist, and lost his leg after being shot while waiting on the street for his date, just to name a few. The simple fact is it's a dangerous world especially if you are famous.

Those of us who understand that not all conflicts can be swayed with happy talk know how it goes. The fact is that we're all targets for crime. But professional athletes, wildly rich beyond dreams, with an aura of invincibility, provide both an economic and reputational attraction to criminals. After all, it's one thing to be known as the tough guy in the hood, but to be the guy who robbed a professional linebacker is like winning the Nobel for muggers. All the 17 year olds in Brooklyn with .380s in their pockets know exactly what I'm talking about. Lastly, bear in mind that, the Police aren't there to protect you, their job is to enforce the law (which has to be broken first).

So when I heard that Plaxico Burress, another victim of non-constitutional gun control laws, this time in New York, was denied work release, I was very sad. Plax's crime, accidentally shooting himself in a nightclub with a gun he was legally allowed to own in Florida, but not licensed in New York, was stupid, no doubt. But being sentenced to two years is a penalty way out of proportion. He shot himself. I'd be the first to agree that maybe he shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm again, at least without some serious training in appropriate carry methods and gun saftey. But I think it's safe to say he probably wouldn't make this mistake again. And while what he did belied a lack of basic gun training, it wasn't the type of evil criminal behavior Arenas displayed. Yet society will treat both as the same – gun crime. And an otherwise good person, a superbowl hero, with no prior criminal record, sits in jail due to a flawed, liberal notion of government mandated personal insecurity for all, in New York that is.

There will be some who say that Jevon Walker shouldn't have been out on the street that night, or that Burress should not have been in a nightclub where trouble can occur. Why not? Why shouldn't these guys be able to do anything any one of us has the right to do, without being at the mercy of predatory criminals and with no way to protect themselves? And for that matter why shouldn't the rest of us be able to have the right to defend ourselves? The fact is that in over 40 states in this country, we do. It's just in a few states, like New York, Chicago, New Jersey and California, as well as the District of Columbia, where the right to protect oneself is unconstitutionally against the law.

It's no coincidence that all of these states mentioned above are bastions of extremely liberal Democratic rule, and these states also have plenty of crime despite their strict gun control laws. And while even I might support some common sense gun laws, the absurdly restrictive gun laws in these states is a testament of the kind of gun control the left is really after. States rights you say? Sure, EXCEPT for what's defined in the bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not one that should be infringed upon by any state law. Unless of course, like many Democrats, you don't really believe in all that constitutional jazz. Militia you say? Well the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

If you're still not convinced, try this nifty excersize — replace the second ammendment with any of the other amendments in our Bill of Rights and see how the gun control argument sounds. Would it fly if I suggested that our fourth amendment protections from illegal search and seizure apply only to citizens who do not have a history of mental illness? How about being protected from double jeapordy, but only if you've passed a background check first? I actually like the idea of allowing freedom of press, but only after a 5 day waiting period. But seriously, none of this sounds quite like America, does it? Yet we've allowed the left diminish our second amendment constitutional rights in several very highly populated states, as well as create a matrix of byzantine state by state laws and federal restrictions that don't stop crime but do land plenty of good people in jail. Meanwhile, the liberal media has succeeded in creating the impression that gun owners are some unstable fringe group of hunters out in a compound in Utah somewhere. See, the second amendment (notice it's not like, the 8th, it comes right after the freedom of speech) is a crucial element to having freedom. What the founding fathers understood, and what still eludes the left, is that God made man but Colt made them equal.

Yet Liberals, using all manner of dubious statistical numerology, love to claim that owning a gun puts you more at risk. The criminal will just take the gun from you and you'll be even worse off, is the common line. Or you'll accidentally, or in a fit of rage use it against yourself or someone dear. It's better to go along with an attacker, abide by their demands and hopefully they'll leave you alone, this unconventional wisdom goes. Please. From the moment the very first single celled animals tracked their slime across this planet, self defense was not just an option but a survival imperative. Throughout history animals and humans have survived based solely on their ability to protect the one thing that we all hold dear – our very lives. We may have come a long way since life first sprouted on our planet, but things haven't changed that much that we should have no regard for protecting ourselves. While the left touts their surveys, there are plenty of other surveys that show exactly the opposite – that victims of crime who are armed fair better at protecting themselves than those who arent. And you don't have to think too hard about it to realize that one set of statistics is a bit odd and counterintuitive, while the other makes perfect, obvious sense.

While legally, Arenas is guilty of a number of crimes due to the backwards laws in D.C., his only real crime, for which there is both a law, and a victim, is the only one he should face justice for. And he should be penalized fully. But the rest of us shouldn't have our constitutional rights to defend ourselves continuously chipped away because of it, nor have to endure the nonsensical musings of liberal media and their followers determined that we all submit to the criminal element only too happy to take advantage of those who are vulnerable.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Glenn Contrarian

    With all the times I’ve argued with no-gun-control nuts, the statistics haven’t mattered to them. The facts and figures haven’t mattered to them. The fact that guns are used FAR more often to commit a crime than in self-defense doesn’t matter to them.

    What DOES matter to them is…”Don’t take away our toys!”

    It’s all part of the conservative mindset, the absolute certainty that the guv’mint’s comin’ to get our guns/taxes/property/Bibles/whatever.

    yawn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    Can you name one, even ONE modern industrial society that allows free and open ownership of weapons? By ‘free and open ownership’, I mean no requirement of registration, no restriction as to type of weapons owned, no restriction as to where those weapons may be carried?

    No, you can’t.

    In case you’re wondering, both Switzerland and Israel are MUCH more restrictive than America is as a whole when it comes to gun ownership.

    But you know what? I can name several countries that DO meet your apparent requirements for free and open gun ownership – The Sudan, Chad, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe…

    …need I go on?

    But I know that none of this matters to you. As I said in the first reply, statistics, figures, and facts mean nothing to the conservatives when it comes to guns. All that matters is that they get to keep their toys and play with them whenever and wherever you want.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Glenn,

    Are you seriously comparing the US to the Sudan? Please. This line of argument isn’t worth the bytes conveyed over the wire to send it. Neither is the prior comment.

    Americans have been allowed to own guns since the beginning of this great country, yet we’ve managed to not turn into Chad, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, have we? Meanwhile at the same time, we’ve been able to retain our freedom and ability to defend ourselves (which is part and parcel with freedom). So your argument is absurd on it’s face and proves the old saw that guns don’t kill people…

    So what the gun control argument boils down to, as evidenced by the various comments here and in the Racial v Racist thread, is that some people don’t want others to have guns. You don’t think I need a gun. You don’t think I should have this type of gun. You don’t see why it’s necessary. Here is a hint for you though. It really doesn’t matter what you are comfortable with, or what you think I should have. Our constitution demands that this is a right we have, not one to be infringed by the states or by people like you who think you have the right to define what I or others do.

    At the end of the day, if you can take all of the guns off the face of the planet, then I’d be more willing to give up mine. However, so long as even 1 person has a gun, then any form of gun control only takes away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and empowers criminals. After all, criminals already buy illegal guns, and are not at all affected by any of the gun control laws that exist in our country.

  • Baronius

    Very interesting article, OA. I never thought about it like that. My instinct has always been that gun ownership is fine, but if you’re bringing a gun into a club or a locker room, there’s something shady going on.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    An honest reading of the Second Amendment should show anyone that the right to keep and bear arms is unequivocal.

    The Amendment doesn’t state that arms are only for militia use; it merely offers the militia as a principal reason why the people should be armed.

    That said, I think there is a case to be made for the reasonable restriction of arms ownership, in cases where the presence of arms constitutes a danger to the public which outweighs their legitimate purposes (militia service, self-defence, property protection, hobbies, hunting etc).

    The thing is that the 2nd puts no qualifiers on the right to keep and bear arms. I take this to mean that theoretically an American has a perfect right to keep any weapon, up to and including a hydrogen bomb if he or she wants to. But I don’t think anyone in their right mind would argue that private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed or is a good idea. The courts have upheld time and again laws against gun ownership by convicted felons, people with mental illness, children etc for that same reason: the dangers of allowing ownership outweigh the uses and benefits. (Whether the same can be said of more modest armaments such as assault weapons is, as we’ve already seen, debatable!)

    However, since the 2nd neglects to place limitations on arms ownership we then fall back on the 10th, and therefore any laws restricting gun ownership should properly be left to the states. I think that’s a pretty reasonable stance.

    As for Obnox’s argument that gun control laws are useless because they don’t prevent criminals from using guns, that’s spurious. Should we abolish laws against homicide because they don’t prevent people from killing each other?

  • The Obnoxious American

    And in most states it’s illegal to bring a gun into a place that serves alcohol (except for restaurants). I think, if you need to bring a gun into a bar, better not to go to the bar in the first place. Locker rooms on the otherhand, not quite the same in my view. (Unless you’re trying to intimidate your gambling buddies of course)

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc,

    “As for Obnox’s argument that gun control laws are useless because they don’t prevent criminals from using guns, that’s spurious. Should we abolish laws against homicide because they don’t prevent people from killing each other?”

    That’s kind of an absurd rhetorical as owning a gun isn’t a violent crime to be punished, but moreover not at all the point I was making. Read my article a bit closer. Here is the pertinent quote:

    “And while even I might support some common sense gun laws, the absurdly restrictive gun laws in these states [NY, IL, CA, etc] is a testament of the kind of gun control the left is really after. “

    I actually think there should be a driver’s license for guns. Let’s not restrict people’s access to guns, but let’s ensure they are familiar with the basics of safe handling and carry. Most states that allow CCW already do this and most CCW owners take the carry of their weapons very seriously. The left likes to make cartoons of these people (remember Moore’s movie, which actually had cartoons), but I actually know people who own guns and am a gun owner myself. It’s not something anyone takes lightly, mostly out of self preservation.

    This said. We know what the left is really after. The proof is in the laws of the states they control, where it’s extremely difficult to get licensed to own a gun. I’m not going to barter my constitutional rights with people who actually just want to take those rights away completely.

    But to continue on to what you said:

    “However, since the 2nd neglects to place limitations on arms ownership we then fall back on the 10th, and therefore any laws restricting gun ownership should properly be left to the states. I think that’s a pretty reasonable stance.”

    Sounds reasonable, until you really think about it. The 1st ammentment doesn’t provide much guidance either, should the states have a right to further define that? What about the 4th ammendment? Sorry, but I actually cover this in the article as well:

    “States rights you say? Sure, EXCEPT for what’s defined in the bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not one that should be infringed upon by any state law. Unless of course, like many Democrats, you don’t really believe in all that constitutional jazz.

    If you’re still not convinced, try this nifty excersize — replace the second ammendment with any of the other amendments in our Bill of Rights and see how the gun control argument sounds. Would it fly if I suggested that our fourth amendment protections from illegal search and seizure apply only to citizens who do not have a history of mental illness? How about being protected from double jeapordy, but only if you’ve passed a background check first? I actually like the idea of allowing freedom of press, but only after a 5 day waiting period. But seriously, none of this sounds quite like America, does it?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    If you’re still not convinced, try this nifty excersize…

    No, I’m still not convinced. How would abridging the 4th amendment rights of people with a mental illness, to use one of your examples, make any difference to public safety?

    So from my point of view, these states are not infringing the right to bear arms. Not a single one of those state laws says that you can’t own any firearms whatsoever. As to what is ‘absurdly restrictive’, that’s a judgement call.

    I actually disagree with you that the 2nd doesn’t provide much guidance. I think it’s unequivocally clear, and that’s the problem. Absolutely unrestricted access to arms, especially in the modern context, is just not a practical paradigm.

    Impractical laws are ignored or worked around all the time. I don’t see why the Constitution should be exempt from that.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Obnox, I’m actually on your side, more or less. I enjoy shooting and when the UK government panicked after Dunblane and introduced a new set of gun laws which were absurdly impractical in the other direction, I was upset. But coming from a culture in which guns aren’t a part of daily life and aren’t really thought about that much, I find Americans’ preoccupation with them a bit daft!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    You still didn’t answer my question, did you? Name one modern industrialized country that has free and open gun ownership as described above i.e. no requirements for registration, for what kind of firearms can be owned, or for when or where those firearms can be carried.

    Just one example, that’s all I ask.

  • FitzBoodle

    This is funny: “Plax’s crime, accidentally shooting himself in a nightclub with a gun he was legally allowed to own in Florida, but not licensed in New York, was stupid, no doubt.”

    The night club incident proves that Florida was stupid and careless to allow him to own a gun in the first place.

    Every year about 9 law officers are shot and killed by a person carrying a LEGAL CONCEALED pistol.

  • Baronius

    We do place restrictions on the 1st Amendment, like libel and copyright laws, and restrictions on public gatherings. I’m fine with reasonable restrictions on guns.

    It’s a caricature to say that Americans are obsessed with guns. Most of us never think about them. Gun owners typically don’t think about them much, except in matters of gun safety. We do get weirded out when our government gets obsessed with the fact that we have guns, though. It’s like telling strangers that you don’t have herpes: how exactly did you think things were going to proceed so that bit of information would be important?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Glenn,

    You’re arguing with a strawman. In fact doesn’t the article and my comments to Doc (#7) show that this is precisely NOT what I am talking about? If you want to debate the points in the article, the points I’ve made, I’m right here waiting for you.

    Doc/Fitz,

    Very few Americans are preoccupied with guns. I happen to enjoy shooting but I am rare in these parts. But the impractibility you cite really doesn’t make sense.

    The fact is most crimes are committed by criminals. Even to Fitzboodles point that 9 cops get killed by legal guns each year (stats please) the fact is that all of the rest get killed by illegal guns each year. And countless thousands of innocent civillians get killed by criminals each year weilding illegal guns. So allowing citizens to protect themselves isn’t a panacea by any means and if we truly want gun violence to stop then ALL guns must be destroyed along with the tools that make them. Howeveer, that’s never going to happen. And in an imperfect world it’s better to give law abiding civilians the means to protect themselves even if it means that some small fraction of them are going to turn criminal.

    Way more innocent lives are saved every day by law abiding citizens who have guns and protect themselves from criminals than lives ended by law abiding citizens with guns who use them for criminal means. The media never ever reports those stories but they happen ALL the time. And as long as that is true (it will always be true), Americans should be allowed to have guns.

    And regarding Plex, why did FL fail? Because he wasn’t fully versed on the right holsters to use? The fact is Plex isn’t a criminal and the only laws he broke were unconstitutional. 2 years of his life to satisfy the liberal adgenda. Absurd.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The media never ever reports those stories but they happen ALL the time.

    I actually have seen reports in the media about these kinds of incidents, but if they’re not reported as you say, how do you know they happen more often?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    I think you’re missing my point. While I’d dearly love to get rid of all the guns – ALL of them – such just ain’t gonna happen. Pandora’s out of the box and she ain’t gettin’ back in.

    Because of that, as I’ve posted before, if guns were made completely illegal, I’d be first in line to get one – illegally if need be.

    But personally, I’d much rather live in a country where guns are very few and far between – like Japan, or one of my personal favorites, Singapore – or at least one of the countries where there are guns…but not nearly so many as in America. Many, many times more gun crimes are committed than there are instances where firearms are used in self-defense…

    …and the Rabid Right’s fetish for unrestricted gun ownership is a classic case of ideology over pragmatism…and me, I’m an altruistic pragmatist. Do what works, what’s best for all, and not just what’s best for me and mine.

  • pablo

    Obnoxius 12

    “The fact is most crimes are committed by criminals.”

    Hmmm, did you bother reading this sentence before posting it? You might want to amend it to read “The fact is ALL crimes are committed by criminals.” hehehehe ;)

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc,

    There are a number of studys that show this. I hint to the various studies – on the left there is the NCVS survey, which says that guns do not help people protect themselves. Problem is NCVS is carried out by census workers. Most gun owning Americans aren’t going to share any defensive gun use situation to a government census employee, which is the flaw with the NCVS. On the right there are a number of private surveys which show the exact opposite as the NCVS. Look it up actually it’s quite interesting.

    That said, I don’t care what survey’s say. I like the feeling that I could potentially protect my family if I had to. After all, 911 is a joke.

    (Cops arent a joke. Much love and respect to the police who put their lives on the line every day trying to keep society civil. Most of us have no idea the sacrifice they make for their jobs. That said as per the article their job isn’t to protect us, it’s to fight crime.)

    Pablo,

    you better watch it or you’re going to end up as my proof reader ;>

  • pablo

    Obnoxius,

    I notice small details thats all. Interestingly enough me coming from a liberal background, I find myself oftentimes more agreeing with you and Arch than I like!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA #16 –

    This is what I’ve seen conservatives do time and time again. When they’re presented with fact, they call the facts ‘lies’…and present NO proof to back up the accusation.

    Provide the proof that “gun owning Americans aren’t going to share any defensive gun use situation to a government census employee”…because if you can’t provide the proof, then this is just your OPINION.

    Why? Because when someone uses a gun to protect themselves, they generally let EVERYONE know…and so does the NRA.

    PROVE what you say, OA!

    But you won’t…because you can’t. All you can do is claim, “they’re lying!” with NO proof to back up your claim.

  • cannonshop

    9 The United States of America.

    Your question, Glenn, has the same relevance as asking OA to name one modern nation that doesn’t have a legally recognized state religion.

    It could also be turned to naming a single authoritarian dictatorship that allows its subjects to openly and legally own & carry firearms.

    Fact is, Glenn, letting the peasants have that kind of power-even if only symbolically, isn’t and never has been real popular with the rest of the world.

    AS for your statement about “Because of that, as I’ve posted before, if guns were made completely illegal, I’d be first in line to get one – illegally if need be.”

    I call bullshit. I sincerely believe YOU would be the first in line to rat your neighbour out for having one. Your statist positions on nearly every other issue (minus the war) argue strongly that your first reaction is ALWAYS to support the expansion of Central Power over the interests of the individual Citizen.

  • Jim In Houston

    To get good information on gun ownership, along with references to original studies, go to guncite.com. You will find answers to many of the questions posed by folks like contrarian (how about “name one industrialized nation in which individual rights are enshrined in Constitution and law as much as…”.

    For example, I like this section How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?.

    Introduction
    There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.

    Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.

    There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

    Dr. Kleck’s Answer
    Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU’s? Dr. Kleck states, “Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Cannonshop, thanks for the response to Glenn. I’ve decided to stop responding to him and his nonsense strawmen questions. As they say, a strawman is the last refuge of a bad premise.

    Jim,

    Thanks for posting that about Dr. Kleck’s study (which is what I was referring to). I didn’t link to either the NCVS or Kleck, since they are at odds with either other, but I personally agree with Kleck as I mentioned in the article. NCVS makes no sense and is counter intuitive yet Kleck’s study makes perfect sense. Unless youre a liberal who doesn’t get out much beyond starbucks.

  • STM

    Sadly, the 2nd amendment (as interpreted by some Americans) is an anachronism that was probably right 200 years ago but in a developed, modern democracy is probably actually now being abused.

    I can’t believe that the founding fathers so beloved of so many Americans and oft-quoted by the right would even have written it in to the constitution had they had a crystal ball and foreseen the outcome two centuries down the track.

    A few hundred thousand muzzle loaders kept in cupboards in case the British attacked again (and they didn’t … America attacked them) is a lot different to the nearly 300 million LEGAL modern weapons kept in modern America (and because of the easy availability of firearms, God only knows how many illegal ones there are).

    The framers of the constition actually thought Americans would be clever enough to change the constitution as they saw fit, and at least one is on record as saying that they didn’t think they could possibly have got it all right.

    Now, should people be allowed to own guns? Of course they should. Shooting is legitimate pastime and I have used guns too in the past, especially up in the country where farmers absolutely need them.

    But should this ownership be unfettered, and should they be able to own assault weapons, for instance? In a modern society, probably not. For what reason? To protect citizens against their own government? Why would you need to do that in a place like America, which has functioned very nicely thank-you for 200 years not because of its gun totin’ citizens and its therefore frightened politicians, but because it has rule of law.

    Controls aren’t bans. They’ve worked nicely here – no mass shootings since controls were brought in – and the number of guns has actually increased in New South Wales, the state I live in.

    Not a problem … provided that shooters are licensed and they pass the basic tests required by law to own one and continue to behave like law-abiding citizens.

    You have to have driver’s licence here and in the US. What is the difference?

    There isn’t.

    Problem in the US is that gun ownership (legal and illagal) is now so out of control, gun owners actually have a legitimate argument to own one: to protect themselves against gun-owning crims.

    But the ting is, if you’re a law-abiding citizen, why would there be a problem or even an issue applying for and getting a licence and registering your firearms?

    Law-abiding citizen – you know, the type who won’t drive a car without a valid driver’s licence – being the key words here.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I’ve said I favor such controls but when you consider the laws the left has passed, this isn’t about putting controls in place (which btw are already in place) but rather taking the option away all together. It’s about banning. I could give example after example but perhaps you should just do some of your own research on the manner before suggesting the laughable controls aren’t bans. Perhaps not where you are from, but here, when the liberal left is concerned, controls are bans.

    I get the sense you’re not too close to the problems here. It’s not legal gun owners turned insane that are the problem, it’s criminals who buy illegal guns off the black market and use them to commit crime – guns that real gun owners never even buy in the first place.

  • Gil

    “The fact is most crimes are committed by criminals.”

    Actually, T. O. American – all crimes are committed by criminals. All murders are caused by murderers, all theft is caused by theives, etc.

    If the Founding Fathers wanted the 2nd Amendment to be all powerful then they should have worded it like the 1st Amendment. The Founding Father probably didn’t see the need to enshrine recreational use of (fire-)arms in the 2nd Amendment for the same reason they didn’t protect the right to own a horse without interference from the government – a farmer’s rifle was a functional tool just like a horse. The Founders wanted to protect the citizens’ militia force because that’s something a government would try to ban in the late 1700’s. A dictatorship government in the 1700’s wouldn’t have banned the farmers from owning rifles but they would have prevented farmers from ganging up with their rifles to form a militia to overthrow the government. The Founders couldn’t see that gun ownership would change over time like horse ownership – into something that cute and primarily recreational.