It seems that the second amendment is the one right that isn't quite a right.
I was born and raised in New York City. All throughout my childhood I wanted a gun. When I was very little, I had a cowboy gun that shot caps. As I got a little older, I graduated to BB guns, and eventually paint ball.
I finally decided to go through the process of applying for a firearms permit. This process involved meeting with my local police department, going through a background check, psych check, getting fingerprinted, etc and so on. Months later, the Police called me and told me I could pick up my license.
I went from the police station to the gun store and immediately purchased 2 beautiful hand guns. One is a Kimber Gold Match II 1911 45 ACP, the other is a SIG P232 .380, both in shiny stainless steel. These are not just guns, these are highly refined machines, works of art.
The Kimber Gold Match
I was nervous my first time at the range, especially because someone near me was shooting a magnum which is really loud. Each time it would go off, I would jump. But I calmed down and after pumping out 300 rounds between my two guns I started to feel more comfortable.
Since obtaining my license and guns, I am starting to become aware of the many gun control laws that exist, as well as those they are trying to now pass. While there are many rights afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights, it seems that the second amendment is the one right that isn't quite a right.
Imagine if the media needed to go through a background check in order to publish the news? Or if to celebrate Christmas, you needed to first obtain a permit from your local police captain. Would it really be a "right" against illegal search and seizure if in order to qualify, you must never have been in a psychiatric hospital?
However, the second amendment in no uncertain terms guarantees the people of this great country the right to keep and bear arms, yet this "right" is subject to substantive regulation by the government. Further, it is the target of ever increasing regulation by the gun control lobby.
As I stated earlier, I grew up in New York City. I bring this up for two reasons: It is a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country, possibly the world. Secondly, it is a city with a great many people hurt or killed by guns each year.
Throughout my life, I was told that it's near impossible to get a license for a gun, and a CCW (carry license), is impossible unless you are a cop. Yet growing up on the gritty city streets, many of my friends had obtained guns, all illegally. One friend would carry a Tec-9 (a type of machine gun) disassembled in his hipsack. Another sold guns illegally, and had brought with him to work on occasion a 45 semi, .380, and a Tec-22 (similar to the Tec-9 but shooting 22 caliber - smaller and quieter). I've been around people shooting 25 caliber semis in the basements of apartment buildings for target practice, and I've even been shot at once in Bushwick Brooklyn (thankfully they missed).
I could have bought my guns illegally via one of the many channels that are readily available to anyone so inclined. However, I am an upstanding citizen, and I want to abide by the laws. But when it comes to gun laws, I really have to start wondering who the target of those laws are?
In any given state at this moment, there are attempts to limit the number of guns that you can buy or to classify more guns as assault weapons, or to reduce the bullet capacity of magazines even further. Interestingly, none of the friends from my old neighborhood care about the enactment of any such laws, nor will they be affected by them.
My guns came with spent shell casings, which are on file with the government. Should my gun ever be used in a crime, the police can pretty quickly identify where the bullet came from. My fingerprints are on file, as is my picture, address, etc. I keep my guns locked up and safe, and when I take them out, I follow all of the safety rules, NRA, range rules, etc. Many of my gun toting friends from the old hood slept with guns under their pillow. Ask them about NRA Rules and they might ask back, "What are those?"
Does it help the average citizen to face such impediments to owning a gun, even though criminals have absolutely no problem obtaining one for themselves? Did the teens who murdered those four students in Newark, NJ earlier this summer go through the process of obtaining a license for the murder weapons they used? And might those NJ teens still be alive if just one of them happened to have a gun?
Independent studies repeatedly show that victims who are armed and resist crime fair better both in terms of harm received and property lost than victims who are unarmed and do not resist. Is that really a surprise? Anti-Gun nuts (my term for people who think I am a "gun nut" for owning a gun) widely cite the census bureau NCVS study, which is at odds with these numbers. But who is seriously testifying to a government employee, with the ability to arrest you, that you used your gun to resist a crime?
Some say that the idea of a militia has come and gone, and that the power of the American military renders the second amendment obsolete. Without getting into the word game that seems to dominate much anti-gun rhetoric, let me say that the second amendment mentions both Militias (which at the time was meant to empower everyday citizens), and The People (which means all Americans, i.e. We the People...).
Others are quick to point out that were the government to let loose the dogs of war against the American people, we wouldn't stand a chance against them. As evidenced by our current Iraq imbroglio, an armed populace isn't so easy for an all powerful military to contain, at least without a full on massacre. Although I don't expect the next Tienanmen Square to happen here in the US, I have to wonder whether it would have occurred at all in China were the people there armed.
Sure, we would all prefer to live in a world without guns, but we live on Earth. The framers of our constitution did not make the decision to add the second amendment in haste. They did so based on a history of weapon control in Europe, which was almost always succeeded by a government power grab and tyranny. As such, our forefathers explicitly guaranteed the citizens of this great land the right to bear arms. We can continue to disarm the people in violation of the 2nd Amendment, but be clear that criminals will always get guns one way or another. In my opinion, the best kind of gun control is when you use both hands.…
Article comments
126 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
Irony sounds good on a blog post, but it does not change the reality that these attacks are extremely rare.
127 - Dr Dreadful
Compared to most other countries, they're not that rare...
However, I was simply remarking on the timing.
128 - The Obnoxious American
Really? What kind of statistics to back that up?
But I've once again fallen into the trap of arguing guns versus people. Let me remind you, I own guns, I plan on buying more. But this would not make me any more inclined to kill anyone. In fact the idea of actually shooting a person, knowing what I know about the destructiveness of guns has made me less likely to use it on someone, unless my life actually depended on it.
Moreover, given that my country has trusted me with the right to bear arms, I am actually more law abiding, because I want to be worthy of that trust, and I don't want to break a law that would take away my rights.
This sentiment isn't specific to me. STM may have boiled all of us gun toting Americans into charicatures, but I go to the ranges and gun shops, I know other gun owners. These people feel the same way I do. They hate criminals and hate crime. They aren't about to step into a mall and kill a bunch of innocent people. But if they witnessed such an event and had a gun handy, you could be sure that they would do everything in their power to stop it.
129 - Deano
Yes BUT.....
When you have a society with relatively easy access to cheap high-powered firearms + a high level of income disparity it makes it more likely that you will get a higher level of gun-related crimes.
So you have several choices - reduce income and social disparity through programs and services (maybe monetary-related or maybe educational/work), thus alleviating somewhat (not altogether) the likelihood of criminal activity or limit the access to high powered weaponry. Or do both in sync, which would seem to be the most sensible. Obviously in the US this won't happen.
I'll note that there certainly isn't any program that will eliminate crime altogether - no matter the income disparity you will always have some level of criminal activity - however you can reduce the level and likelihood of criminal activity by providing economic and educational alternatives to hanging around the corner selling drugs and popping a cap in somebody's ass.
I think this debate is a relatively pointless one as I can't see America giving up it's bang-bang anytime soon, it is ingrained into the popular culture and embedded into the political infrastructure with such depth that for the most part it can't even be debated on its pros and cons in a remotely sensible manner (as evidenced by much of this thread). Guns are now the "third rail" of American politics (i.e. the rail that electrocutes you if you touch it).
130 - The Obnoxious American
"So you have several choices - reduce income and social disparity through programs and services (maybe monetary-related or maybe educational/work), thus alleviating somewhat (not altogether) the likelihood of criminal activity or limit the access to high powered weaponry."
Maybe I should hold a primer on America, "America 101" Oh, wait I write this column...
Let's get something perfectly clear here. Government cannot fix social disparity problems, nor should it. Believe it or not, the US is already brimming with many government programs that help with work training as well as well established programs that allow for access to education and funds for such. I'm sure I don't have to remind you about pell grants and student aid loans that are available to all Americans based on their income and ability to pay for education. And I'm not even talking about other aid programs such as HEAP (heat and electicity), food stamps, welfare, etc etc.
Deano, for you to suggest that "Obviously in the US this won't happen" shows an absolute lack of knowledge about what happens here in this country. It's just so off base and completely false that I cannot believe you would suggest such a thing.
Moreover, your premise amounts to a form of social ransom. You are tacitly approving of crime if the criminal happens to come from poor origins. That is very anti american, anti capitalist, anti society. Take a look at the relvatism of the French and how this type of mindset has been working out for them and their economy.
As I've said before I grew up poor. It instilled in me values of hard work and a drive to make something better for myself. No government programs could have done for me what I did for myself. And as has been proven by what Clinton did for welfare during his presidency, government programs are better when the focus is to get people OFF of them.
I can suggest a program for eliminating or greatly reducing crime altogether. Better parenting, teaching kids basic moral values and giving them a good education, and good law enforcement. Giving the law abiding citizenry guns won't hurt either.
And your last paragraph is just so nuts and baseless, I can't even respond other than to say that considering that I needed to write this article is just further testament that you do not know what you are talking about.
131 - zingzing
"Last I checked, there wasn't a columbine style massacre happening every week. In fact, if it consistently happened more than once a year I'd be surprised."
ok, so st. louis yesterday, baton rouge today...
132 - zingzing
"And your last paragraph is just so nuts and baseless, I can't even respond other than to say that considering that I needed to write this article is just further testament that you do not know what you are talking about."
ha! oh my. that's a good one. this article has been written 100 times on blogcritics, and it always produces the same pointless, cyclical argument. gun nuts like their guns too much. anti-gun nuts hate guns too much.
just so you know, as proved by the "debate" growing like a cresting turd from the sphincter of your pointless article, deano is absolutely right: this article has been written before, it will be written again; this argument has been had before, and it will be had again. it's so pointless. deano's also right that guns are a part of our culture, like it or not. and gun control is a hot button political and social issue.
133 - The Obnoxious American
I never claimed to have written the first and only ever article on gun rights. Nor do I understand why that would matter. I hope that perhaps this article states the argument in a way that might help people see the other side of the argument.
I agree completely that guns are a part of our culture - I will take it a step further and say that it's a part of our culture we should learn to celebrate rather than admonish. Our 2nd ammendment rights are one of the clearest examples of the freedoms of living in America. It is a form of oppression to suggest that because of the acts of a few mentally troubled people, I should have to give up those rights.
134 - STM
You have completely missed the point of my posts, OA.
No, I don't hate America ... far from it. I've been there many times, had the opportunity to live there, and have friends there. So I wouldn't say my views are coloured by anything more than personal observations made over a period of time.
But that said, I don't have to like every bit of bullsh.t that comes out of the place - and there IS a fair bit.
If you can't see that your arguments on gun rights/gun control are tantamount to hogwash, there's no point in me bashing my head against a brick wall trying to convince you.
I don't advocate a gun ban anyway. I grew up around firearms, like most Australians of my generation, and think they fulfil a need and have their place. But need and want are two different things.
And mate, there ARE mass shootings regularly in the US, whether you want to admit it or not. Do the homework. Most of these are committed by people who acquired their firearms through legal channels.
All I'm saying is that since the assault-style weapons ban was implemented here, there haven't been any of those shootings. And mate, seriously, Columbine wasn't the last mass shooting in the US. Maybe not on that scale, but there have been dozens since then.
As for the laws in the US, I don't really give a rat's except from the point of view of an intersted outsider who thinks it's insane and indicative of the mad stuff that goes on in the US and by which the US judged around the world.
135 - STM
Although I must say, I don't like OBNOXIOUS Americans. Or obnoxious anyones for that matter, including Australians.
I think what pisses me off most about blokes like you, with respect of course, is that you are willing to argue the toss on this stuff when you just don't know much about anywhere else (pointing to articles on the internet isn't knowing). Which is why I have said repeatedly on this thread that there's no point making comparisons.
But no it doesn't burn me up to have a government that supports US policy, as I agree with most of it. It's just the (at least) 300 million legal guns floating around in an otherwise civilised community I don't agree with, and a minimum wage people can't survive on, let alone live on (both of which might be a bit of pointer to reasons behind the huge crime rate of the US).
It'd be absurd to think the US is perfect. It ain't. And it'd also be unbelievably arrogant to think it doesn't have anything to learn from anyone else, while it's so willing to export its brand of learning to everyone else.
136 - Clavos
"I'll note that there certainly isn't any program that will eliminate crime altogether - no matter the income disparity you will always have some level of criminal activity - however you can reduce the level and likelihood of criminal activity by providing economic and educational alternatives to hanging around the corner selling drugs and popping a cap in somebody's ass."
You could make every American a billionaire and ensure that they would never want for anything; eliminate every gun in the country and still people would find reasons to kill each other (jealousy, rages, adultery, etc.), AND they would still embezzle, cheat each other, steal and rob; rape would still be a problem, as would be assaults, white collar crime; in short every crime the inherently larcenous and evil mind of humanity (not just Americans) can devise.
The liberal dream of a peaceful, crime-free world where everyone prospers and lives in harmony is just that; a dream. It fails to take into account that humanity as a whole is NOT good, however good any given individual may be (and there are tens of millions who are, all over the world), there are also a great number of inherently evil people in the world who are sociopaths.
These people will always be among us, and will always prey on the weak and unwary.
We have only to look to history for proof.
137 - Clavos
"a minimum wage people can't survive on, let alone live on (both of which might be a bit of pointer to reasons behind the huge crime rate of the US)."
Except Stan, as has been pointed out on these threads numerous times by me and others, practically no one outside of a very few entry level, short term jobs is actually paid the minimum wage. Even burger flippers at Mickey D's are paid more, as are the teenage baby sitters my sister hires to mind her kids when she and her husband go out at night.
Even most of the illegals make more than minimum wage.
138 - STM
Still, Clav, it doesn't look good when you see it on paper. It has barely been increased I believe for about 9 years ... is that right? The lastest interest is just marginal if I'm not mistaken.
It just doesn't seem right that in a country as wealthy as the US, you can have a minimum wage of $5.85 an hour, and the highest set by a state is around $8 an hour.
I thought ours was bad at around $14 an hour. I know a couple of young people earning that (actually they are getting $15) and they really are struggling. You know my position on this politically though Clav ... I am a believer in a slightly more equitable distribution of wealth as part of what I regard as community, rather than socialism, which is a much more radical thing.
No doubts I'd be voting for the Democrats if I lived over there :)
139 - Clavos
Point taken, Stan.
Because most make more is, I suppose, reason enough to raise it, though I think to do so would be mostly symbolic.
140 - troll
get government out of the way and let 'class struggle' establish the division of wealth...have a little faith in a real 'free market'
141 - STM
It hasn't worked up to this point troll...
142 - troll
mere market distortions - no big deal
as I've said before: all that's required is a birth of wonder and good will...simple
143 - STM
Now mate, that IS going to be a tough ask
144 - troll
yes and no...(while it appears unrealistic to place ultimate and real world responsibility on individuals) exploitation like corruption war and other criminal behavior is a matter of free choice - we can each 'just say no' at any time
145 - STM
And OA, why would you assume that I don't understand the reasons Americans were allowed to bear arms under their constitutuion. I understand perfectly well.
I just don't believe it applies 200 years later. It's a piece of legislation that seemed like a good idea at the time, but over the years has seen America descend into a sad parody of a shooting gallery with human beings as the targets.
And no matter what you say, it IS the proliferation of guns in America that puts so many in the hands of criminals.
146 - Ace
And OA, why would you assume that I don't understand the reasons Americans were allowed to bear arms under their constitutuion. I understand perfectly well.
I just don't believe it applies 200 years later. It's a piece of legislation that seemed like a good idea at the time, but over the years has seen America descend into a sad parody of a shooting gallery with human beings as the targets.
Wow. I hadn't even considered that. It was a good idea at the time but no longer.
STM is right. We should do away with the 2nd Amendment and come up with something better. Silly Founding Fathers.
Anything else we should fix about America, STM?
147 - bliffle
Up here in the SF Bay Area, in Oakland, we have the sad case of a 10 yr. old kid at his piano lesson who was struck by a stray bullet from a holdup across the street at a gas station.
He may be paralyzed and spend the rest of his days in a wheelchair. Sad, sad, sad.
It's sad that his negigent parents didn't equip him with a proper weapon and training.
And it's his own fault for not carrying an AK47 to his piano lesson, just as any American is entitled to do. Then, at the first sign of gunfire he could have stepped out on the street and mowed down those miscreants before they could really get started.
I blame his parents for not equipping the kid with his 2nd amendment rights and providing him with proper gun use training and a proper weapon.
And what's this 'piano' stuff? Everybody knows that you should play a violin because you can carry a Thompson sub-machine gun in the case!
Shirkers!
Some people!
148 - Ace
Well put, bliffle.
Again, things I didn't consider.
In hindsight, why did we even come up with the 2nd Amendment?
If British gun control laws have made that country safe from gun violence, why did WE even fight the Revolutionary War? Why did we even bother becoming our own country when, under British rule, we would now not have gun-toting persons shooting up schools and piano lessons?
Thanks for clearing that up.
149 - abraXXIous
Lol, did you know that in an extensive sutdy carried out in the early 90's (can be found on the 'net) that the average IQ in Australia was 7 points higher than in the US. In around 2000 or so (again, its been a while since I read the article, so please feel free to look it up), this gap had widened to 9...
Are we 'getting smarter' or are yanks just 'getting dumber' - if thats possible... :)
The point I am attempting to make is thus - I have serious doubts about the intelligence of an Australian citizen who is actually ATTEMPTING to insinuate the 'mighty US' (lol) is anything from perfect.... to a yank! :)
'There is nothing so stubborn, so ignorant, or so blinkard as a yank when in mindless patriotic mode.'
You will NEVER convince ANY yank that there country is anything put the pinnacle (again, lol) of the planet. So why bother? I lived there for 6 years, but found my tolerance for their brand of yankie doo dah crap had worn so thin, that it was either move to a more civilised country, or go on a shooting spree myself.
Just be sure to appreciate the wonderful country you live in and thank the lord you dont wake up every morning in a country where the average IQ is less than a glass of water...
P.S. - I am a licenced gun owner with 27 REGISTERED firearms. Why so many? I enjoy collecting them. I dont carry them, rarely use them, and they are kept under lock and key at all times.
The guns laws didnt stop me owning as many guns as a want (including semi automatics, pummp action shotguns and hand guns), but I guess thats because Im not a crim...
150 - Chrissy
You are an idiot to compare Christmas and publishing news to carrying firearms. Celebrating Christmas and publishing news isn't going to kill anyone. Guns kill people- Big difference!
151 - The Obnoxious American
Chrissy,
I've never seen a gun kill anyone. I've seen people weilding guns who have killed people. But I'm sure you'd blame the Pre-traumatic stress syndrome caused by the gun on the gun-owner's actions. BTW, thanks for calling me an idiot.
Regards
OA
152 - zingzing
oa--that's like saying you've never seen heroin kill anyone.
and you've seen people killed? (i have as well... well, one. wasn't pretty.)
153 - STM
I forgot about this thread ... this is where OA and I first butted heads.
What OA didn't understyand at the time is that I don't believe in banning guns.
I believe in licensing and control, neither of which appear to breach anything mentioned in the 2nd amendment, which also doesn't mention that America, 200 years from now, will have the developed world's highest rate of gun crime and will become a giant shooting gallery.
There's a big difference between ban and control.
As for Ace's question: "Anything else we should fix about America, STM?"
Where do I start, ace??
Mate, we'd be here forever ...
There's a big difference.
154 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
Poor choice of words on my part. I've seen someone die but not from a gunshot (and I agree that it's not fun).
But you get my point. Even heroin does not kill anyone. It's the person's choice to shoot that junk in their veins. Heroin addicts are killing themselves - it's not the substance or the needle or anything like that. It's slightly different than the guns don't kill people cliche, because heroin addicts, but who shoots heroin without knowing that?
This is a fundamental difference between the right or the left. The left believes in regulating things. They don't get that there is free will at play, and if you really want to solve a problem you have to address the underlying thought process. I guess in some respects, the right is guilty of this too (notably the war on drugs). In either case, it's wrong headed. Deal with the mentality, not the inatimate object.
STM,
I don't totally disagree with common sense regulations, problem is as I mentioned in my latest article "On Guns and Balls" we've seen first hand the types of regulations the left is after in states like Chicago and California to name a few. These are states run almost exclusively by the left, and they do not have common sense gun laws. What they have is an incredibly burdensome set of rules designed to keep law abiding Americans from getting guns at all. Of course criminals in these states have guns - these laws don't seem to matter to them. So in the few cases where the left has reign, they've basically stopped gun ownership in their tracks. It's hard to bargain your rights with a party who basically wants you to not even have those rights.
155 - zingzing
oa: "But you get my point. Even heroin does not kill anyone. It's the person's choice to shoot that junk in their veins."
heroin leads to addiction, which is a lack of choice. so it isn't their choice to kill themselves. they don't want to, most of the time. nobody even wants to get addicted. so that's not a choice either.
"I guess in some respects, the right is guilty of this too (notably the war on drugs). In either case, it's wrong headed."
yeah, it's the wrong idea. but, unfortunately, heroin shouldn't be legal. or at least i, personally, wouldn't last long if it were. some things are more complex than you let on.
shooting heroin doesn't mean you're going to die. by that same token, owning a gun doesn't mean someone is going to die, but it's a damn good start.
"Deal with the mentality, not the inatimate object."
if you can do that, then do it. but we're not. or at least what we're doing obviously isn't working.
156 - STM
Have they really introduced laws that stop law-abiding citizens owning guns OA?
I thought gun ownership was protected by the constitution.
If that's the case, do they really have a hope in hell of stopping that.
Like I say, though, controls aren't bands ... and IMO, in a modern society, it's not unreasonable for governments to want to regulate gun ownership, at the very least.
Licensing and registration don't equate to bans.
If I want a gun here, I can get one. The government won't stop me, but it won't allow unfettered ownership of assault-style weapons or handguns.
The only thing is, I have to apply for a licence, register the firearm, comply with the "cooling-off" period and abide by the law if I want to keep it.
Sounds simple to me ... just like having a driver's licence.
You obey the law you get to drive, you don't, you lose that right.
How hard can it be??
157 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
Read up on the laws in California and Chicago. Close runners up New York, New Jersey. Bastions of democratic rule all. With more legislation on the way.
I wouldn't be against a drivers license for guns, but as I said, you don't negotiate with terrorists. And when you look at what happened in these states it's clear the left is operating on an by-any-means-necessary mindset. Sorry but it's just a fact.