“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed” – Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, about President Bush’s response to the slaughter of students by a gunman at Virginia Tech today.
The President is correct that Americans have a right to bear arms -– under the Second Amendment to our Constitution -– but that right should be repealed. And true, changing the Supreme Law of the Land provides no guarantee that the new laws will be followed, any more than the current laws, but anything that reduces the number of guns and rifles at large is a good thing.
It is also true that people, not guns, pull the trigger. But if the gunman at Virginia Tech had been armed with a knife, fewer people would have been killed.
Repealing the Second Amendment would not mean that all law-abiding citizens would have to turn over their weapons to the government. It would mean, however, that more stringent laws could be enacted to reduce the flow of guns, and these laws could be vigorously enforced without coming into conflict with the Constitution.
The gun from the moment of its invention was a revolutionary, unprecedented weapon. For more than three centuries, the Japanese samurai rejected as dishonorable the assaulting of someone from a distance.
Unlike knives, which can used to cut food as well as people, the gun and rifle have only one purpose: to wound or kill. True, this can be a good thing if we are using the gun to stop someone else with a gun, but wouldn’t we all be better off if there were fewer of these weapons around to begin with?
We have a long road ahead whatever we do. But I would like to see police guns replaced by non-fatal weapons such as tasers, hunters limited to guns they rent and use only in designated hunting areas, and guns on the street reduced in all ways possible. We don’t need to repeal the Second Amendment to do this, but repealing the Second Amendment would make it legal.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - timp
All that will do is disarm law abiding citizens. I doubt anyone can say they have run gang members through a backround check so they could purchase their guns...
2 - Dave Nalle
The flaw in your lovely proposal is that repealing the second amendment will only result in disarming law-abiding citizens while the criminals and crazies will still have access to illegal weapons of all sorts, some of them a hell of a lot worse than guns.
To put this issue in perspective, I suggest you (Paul and anyone else) read my article from last year on a similar incident where a more sensible culture dealt with this sort of situation in a more intelligent way.
Hiding our heads in the sand and giving up essential liberties to the government only make us into greater victims. They don't solve the problems of crime and violence.
Dave
3 - Paul Levinson
timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?
Dave - Sorry, but I don't agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.
4 - Big Gay Al
Why should the 2nd Amendment be repealed? This shooting happened in a "Gun Free Zone." By LAW, the students and faculty are not allowed to have guns in that area. Lot of good that did them, didn't it.
According to an article published in 1999, there are on average 1,500 accidental deaths (all age groups) due to firearms.
There are also in excess of 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors.
Maybe we should ban doctors, and not guns?
5 - Benjamin Cossel
Paul,
As Dave and timp have suggested, all you would do would be to unarm law abiding citizens. People killed in their homes because of a gun owner, children? While a horrible, horrible tragedy, I think there should be repercussions for those found negligent, it was and is ultimately the fault of that gun owner. To borrow the cliche, with awesome power comes awesome responsibility.
Now, I'm no survivalist, no gun nut, hell I don't even own one, though a member of the U.S. Military and having grown up with guns most of my childhood. Fact of the matter is, the reason the 2nd amendment exists is in the event of an overzealous, overareaching government and a citizens ability to redress, through whatever means neccessary. Don't take that away
6 - Paul Levinson
Benjamin - I understand your argument. But if our government did start, insanely, directing the military to attack American citizens, would a "well armed militia" really be able to stand up against that?
7 - Benjamin Cossel
And do you really think, that the US Military, the all volunteer, good ole American Boys and Girls force, would stand for that? I mean come on. No, I don't think it's the military you have to worry about them. The 2nd amendment is that final check, it the check and balance scheme, that says don't fuck with us too bad, we are armed.
Take away a civil liberty - it's shocking at first, but we settle into it, get used to it and it becomes easier and easier to strip 'em away, one by one. You don't kill a frog by dropping him in boiling water.
8 - Benjamin Cossel
And frankly to me, this shouldn't even be an issue of gun control or the 2nd amendment, it should be about WTF happened in those two hours inbetween. You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.
9 - Dave Nalle
timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?
On a population basis the number of accidental shootings are almost statistically meaningless. They may get a lot of press coverage when they happen, but they are actually so rare these days that they can't even be meaningfully analyzed statistically.
Dave - Sorry, but I don't agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.
This is exactly what's wrong with the left in America today. You are starting from the assumption that every citizen is potentially dangerous to others, rather from the more reasonable and sensible assumption that most people exist to do good rather than evil. Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it's still freakishly uncommon.
What you seek to do is punish the ENTIRE population by taking away their right to bear arms in order to protect us against a minority of crazies so small it can't even be measured as a percentage of the population.
The sensible way to deal with this threat - and this is why I linked to that article - is to have armed and trained citizens - even if only a small number - who can respond to such a threat in kind and bring an end to it.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.
Benjamin, this is why I linked to my article on Whitman, because in that case one of the ways the killer was 'locked down' was through the support of armed citizens.
If, as Big Al suggests, this was a 'gun free zone', that's at the heart of the problem.
Dave
11 - DustoneGT
People who say we do not need the second amendment because the military is so powerful that a militia could never stand up to it should think of one thing....Iraq.
If a few crazies with guns can keep the military from getting complete control in Iraq that will work here if they ever decided to do something we didn't like.
The founding fathers were geniuses. Let's not tinker with their work. Should we get rid of the first amendment? Fifth? Didn't think so.
Liberals should quit picking and choosing which fundamental constitutional rights they like.
12 - Clavos
We're not very good at controlling things in our country. Perhaps it's due to the openness of the society, as permitted by our Bill of Rights, or maybe it can be attributed to our long-standing veneration of the individualistic, self-reliant, lone wolf who has long been an iconic mixture of our myth and history in literature and film.
Whatever the reason, both the early twentieth century Prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of drugs did not, and have not succeeded, even minimally.
One assumption everyone who advocates making guns illegal (or, in this case, repealing the Second Amendment) makes is that repeal or outlawing will magically make all currently legal guns (the NRA says there are 300 million privately owned guns in the US) disappear. That idea seems naive in the extreme.
A far better and more effective policy would be to rigorously enforce all laws already on the books which escalate the punishment of crimes committed with the use of a gun.
13 - Paul Levinson
Big Al: No, we shouldn't ban doctors, because they do some good, in addition to making mistakes. What good do guns do?
Dave - I understand why you linked to the article, but as I said, I disagree with your solution: There's no guarantee that one of the well-trained and well-armed citizens won't have a nervous breakdown and go ballistic - well-armed and well-trained.
Benj: No, in fact I don't think the US military would be likely to attack Americans (thank goodness, nothing like that has happened since Kent State and other tragedies like that in the 1970s). But, if that's the case, we lose an argument in favor of a well-armed citizenry, don't we.
But I do agree that repealing any part of the Constitution, let alone the Second Amendment, is a very serious matter, and I don't advocate it lightly.
14 - Victor Lana
If we look at what a great job we did with something like Prohibition, I am sure that one gets the idea that guns will only become more popular with any kind of legislation banning them.
All the gun control rules have done nothing for a place like Washington, DC, or England for that matter. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, while law-abiding citizen will be defending themselves with utensils.
15 - troll
(don't ban guns...ban humans
what good are they - ?)
16 - Paul Levinson
speak for yourself, troll ... in my case, I know quite a lot of humans who do a lot of good...
17 - Paul Levinson
Dave wrote: Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it's still freakishly uncommon.
I would think that even if this happened once, it would be more than enough.
18 - troll
and you'd be what Paul...human - ?
figures
19 - Dawn
I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it's pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn't have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.
When I first talked to EO about this on the phone today I said "I'll bet it was some student of an "ethnic" background who either went crazy because a) he got a bad grade and freaked or b) a domestic situation with a girl.
Weird. Those engineering students are wound too tight. I wonder what his motivation for killing 32 people will be.
20 - JJ
Regardless of how people feel about the second amendment, it would have been nice if Bush and the white house simply offered their prayers and sorrow for the families of those killed and left it at that. We all know that Bush is pro-bare arms, amid the worst shooting in US history is not the time to remind us. The loss of human life should take precedence over his politics.
21 - J.J. Hunsecker
Unless you are going to repeal people from going crazy, you have no solution. The genie is already out of the bottle, so you can't just click your heels and wish guns would go away. I don't own them, nor do I care for them, but what is making them illegal actually going to accomplish? Drugs, child porn, drunk driving, all still around.
22 - JamesMacklin
These mass killings happen because the victims are unarmed and following an unconstitutional "gun free" zone law. If any other gun had been present at any of the mass killings that do happen, the killer might have been stopped before anyone was dead. But "gun laws" make some people feel good, so the logic of cops with guns good and citizens with guns bad doesn't strike thenm as completely illogical.
23 - Paul Levinson
Dawn wrote, I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it's pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn't have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.
But I don't think it's about complete or perfect solutions, or anything remotely close to that.
It's about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.
24 - Daniel DiRito
A Symptom of our "Chain Letter Society"?
Read an analysis of the influences in our "Chain Letter Society" that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth...
25 - Clavos
Paul comments:
It's about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.
As in any human endeavor, the cost has to be measured against the benefit.
Taking away everyone's right to own a gun is much too high a cost for what is certain to be a minimal level of benefit, IMO.