Gun control has always been a touchy subject for Americans.
At the heart of the controversy is that badly worded Second Amendment to the Constitution , the one that says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is one of the most argued-about and over-analyzed passages in the Constitution. I’ve heard arguments (on both sides) focusing on the arrangement of the words, the meaning of the words, the meaning of the arrangement of the words, the original version Jefferson wrote, the meaning and arrangement of the words in the original version, and on and on and on. (Is it any surprise that nearly all of the opinions about the "right to keep and bear arms" center on some interpretation of the Second Amendment? I mean, that is where the phrase comes from, after all.)
And I’m not going to jump into that particular fire. Not with both feet, anyway.
Instead, let’s talk about where Barack Obama stands on all of this.
Obama has come out in support of an individual’s right to bear arms, be they hunting weapons or handguns for personal defense. He’s somewhat less supportive of military-stile rifles, what are often erroneously called "assault weapons," in fact he and Joe Biden both have supported a ban on such weapons. (Though it is true that Obama supported a ban on handguns, twenty years ago. He’s said different since then.)
Also in support of the "Obama-will-take-away-your-guns" crowd is the notion that Obama supports a 500% increase in tax on guns and ammo; but this is based on a comment he made back in 1999 (twenty years ago...see a pattern?) and has not since repeated. It would be a bit foolish to automatically assume, based on no better evidence than that, that that’s his position now. (God, that’s a lot of "thats.")
That hasn’t stopped the National Rifle Association from labeling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties." Nor did they heed Ohio governor Ted Strickland when he said, "If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama."
As to where I stand, not that it matters much:
I’m with Obama here (at least, I’m with what his stated position is). I’ve got no problem with possession of handguns for personal defense or with high-powered rifles for sporting purposes, but I don’t see the need for individual civilians to own "assault weapons" or fully-automatic machine guns or sub-machine guns.
I’m not in some paramilitary order (although I once was a Boy Scout) and I’m not a hunter, but I come from hunters and I do own several guns. I don’t own any handguns (except for an old flintlock pistol that won’t stay at full- or even half-cock) and I don’t have an assault rifle (though I did once, back during my survivalist days; a Valmet M56 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle made in Finland in the venerable Soviet AK stile); in fact the only military weapon I own is a WWI era Mauser (not including my Dad’s old Kabar knife).
And, frankly, I don’t think we really need to have "assault weapons" in civilian hands. True, I once felt differently; I once felt that we, as civilians, had every right to rise up in rebellion against a tyrannical government thus we had every right to have the means to do so at our disposal. (I did have that Valmet, after all.) Frankly, this was kind of silly. The idea that we the people could rise up in opposition to the government wasn’t a reasonable one. Isn’t a reasonable one. We might have rifles and ammunition but we the people were always way short on tanks, artillery, fighter jets, stealth bombers, destroyers, aircraft carriers, ant-ballistic missiles and stuff like that.
Makes the possession of an "assault rifle" seem kind of pointless.
(Oh, and about that Valmet rifle...I sold it many years ago. I doubled my money on that sale, and if I’d held on to the gun until last year I’d have at least tripled my original investment. I have no idea what they’re going for now.)
The Blues Viking
Further Reading
"Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores" (Reuters)
"NRA Targets Obama" (FactCheck.org)
Read what Barack Obama’s web site has to say on the matter.
Want to read opposing views? Fine. Want me to find them for you? Do you also want me to wipe your ass? Try the NRA’s website. Hell, I gave you the links I had...go find your own and don’t expect me to do all your research.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Yeargh! This is so frustrating. . .
". . .I don’t see the need for individual civilians to own 'assault weapons' or fully-automatic machine guns or sub-machine guns."
This kind of talk just drives me nuts, for multiple reasons.
First: Who said anything about machineguns or submachineguns? Those have been heavily restricted in the USA since 1934 and no new ones have been allowed for private citizens since 1986. Can somebody explain to me why this keeps being brought up in relation to the AWB? Seriously. . . It's dishonest. It's dishonorable. It's low. And it's infuriating for those of us who keep trying to explain this distinction over and over for the last 15+ years, since before the first AWB law began.
Secondly: Why does the public have to prove that we "need" something? Shouldn't the burden fall on the government to show something is harmful before they start banning it? After WW2 the market was flooded with surplus M1 Carbines, so this class of firearms has been available to the public for 60+ years now, and they've generally been used responsibly. If there was an AR and AK crime wave, then I might see your argument, but it hasn't happened.
Tony:
You said:
"First: Who said anything about machineguns or submachineguns?
I did. Weren't you paying attention?
It's sad to see that you think that banning legal imports has prevented such weapons from being available. They're still a problem, though not as much as they were, and I stand behind what I said.
What I did say, anyway; but you seem hung up on things that I never said. For example:
"Can somebody explain to me why this keeps being brought up in relation to the AWB?"
I certainly never brought up the assault weapopns ban (not before just now, anyway). Maybe you should have spent part of the last 15+ years listening to what people actually say instead of ranting about what they didn't.
One other thing that I don't get:
"Shouldn't the burden fall on the government to show something is harmful before they start banning it?"
Are you actually suggesting that "assault weapons" aren't harmful? When they're designed to be harmful? To kill people, in fact? You honestly don't see that as harmful? And don't try to say that "assault weapons" have a legitimate self defence function; that would be bullshit (if you were to say it), unless you're living in Somalia or somewhere lawless like that.
No one has to prove to me that nuclear weapons, for an example, are dangerous before I'm going to say that citizens shouldn't have them (but then, no one actually has a nuke in their pocket, so we don't really need legislation to control their posession or use; guns are another matter).
A final word about the "ban;" I can go down to any gun shop and buy a brand new AK. Today. Legally. And once upon a time I could have illegally bought an Uzi or an AK or STEN gun or whatever out of sombody's trunk, fully automatic(gun shows were great places to shop for things you shouldn't have, back in the day). And that was post-"ban" as well.
Thank you so much for your comment.
The Blues Viking
These thoughts are mine. Get your own.
You did indeed bring up the AWB. You wrote: "He’s somewhat less supportive of military-stile rifles, what are often erroneously called 'assault weapons,' in fact he and Joe Biden both have supported a ban on such weapons."
You should be able to scroll back up this very page and see where you wrote that, in fact. (And incidentally, John McCain also expressed his support for the same law.)
The threat of the AWB coming back is what's driving the current panic-buying of guns, magazines and ammo. For more than 15 years now, since before the first AWB law was enacted, anti-gunners have been playing on public confusion between "assault weapons" and machineguns to put this across. That's what I assumed you were doing, and that's why I said it was dishonest.
So. . . If that wasn't your purpose in raising the topic of machineguns, then what was it? This started out as a blog on Obama's possible gun policy. Do you think he needs to make machineguns even more illegal than they already are? That just leaves me scratching my head.
I'm not aware of any huge crime problem today involving illegal machineguns. (I do remember in the 1980s when drug gangs were shooting up Miami with converted MAC-10s, though.) If there is such a problem, then enforcement can be stepped up. I have no difficulty with that -- but it's really far outside the gun control battles that are shaping up for the Obama administration.
Those battles are most likely going to be over the AWB, concealed carry, and the so-called "gun show loophole". Black market machineguns aren't on the radar, and I doubt whether they would be the subject of any controversy whatsoever if the topic came up: everybody's against them. Even the NRA.
And yes, I am actually suggesting that "assault weapons" aren't harmful. We use them here in Texas for hunting coyotes and wild hogs. We use them in service rifle competition. And people have used them to protect their homes, businesses, families in times of crisis. That's not harmful, that's the opposite of harmful.
You mention Somalia. . . Somalia is lawless all the time. The USA rarely is, but breakdowns of social order can sometimes happen. I've lived to see the Miami riots (1980), the LA riots (1992) and the aftermath of hurricanes Andrew and Katrina. I've heard from somebody who credits his AK with getting his family out of Katrina. (He never fired it, but it was seen and got the message across.)
As for being able to go down to any gun shop and buy an AK today -- legally. Yes, if it's a semi-auto AK you can. And what's wrong with that? As I noted before, Americans have had access to similar weapons for about 60 years now. You're implying that you see something wrong with this state of affairs, something that needs to be corrected, and I just don't get it.
As for the illegal gun sales: I don't know where you are going with that. It almost seems like your argument is, "People can buy machineguns illegally, therefore we should make semi-autos illegal too!" But. . . That doesn't make sense. And if that's *not* your argument, then what is it? Because I honestly don't see what kind of policy change you are advocating with this, if any.
Tony:
What a putz.
No, I did not bring up the assault weapons ban, dispite your desire to read that into what I did say. I said they both supported "a ban" and right now we don't have a ban. Certainly not any kind of an effective one.
The assault weapons ban was an experiment that failed, and provisions of it have now expired and the rest of it is so inefective that it has not done what it was intended to do. Obama and Biden are supporting a more effective ban...a new ban as it were, and without reading it I can't say whether I'd support it or not, but I think it's a good idea in principle.
And yes, I have re-read the article, and I did not bring up the assult weapons ban (not the existing ban), did not refer to the assault weapons ban that exists but did refer to something which might one day exist or might not, did not intend to have anything to say about the assault weapons ban (except for what I said in my reply), and won't say much now: that's the stuff of a future article, I think.
But in reality I haven't read more than the first paragraph of your reply to my reply; I don't want this blog to degenerate into an endless stream of claim-counterclaim-countercounterclaim and so forth, and anyway you started out by erroneously accusing me of saying something I clearly didn't, and pissed me off, which is the only reason I'm writing this. That, and that I had some free time this evening, which I could have used to read your entire reply or eat dinner or something else constructive. But my chicken is getting cold and frankly I've had enough.
So please feel free to get the last word in, but if you don't have anything new to say you might just want to let it alone. Your call.
The Blues Viking
These thoughts are mine. Get your own.
Let's just repeal the Second Amendment and then ban guns. Works for me!
Anonymous said:
"Let's just repeal the Second Amendment and then ban guns. Works for me!"
It doesn't work for me. I can see feeling you need a gun for home defence, even a carry gun for personal defence (though I myself have neither, it's a fact that we live in an excessively violent society and people have a right to defend thenselves from it, and can't be denied access to the means to so defend themselves). And though I may not myself be a hunter, hunting is a legal actitivity and can be done safely, so I can't support a ban on hunting weapons either.
Nor do I think that merely banning something does anything to remove guns from society. Here we are, so many years after an assault weapons "ban" and that ban has had little or no effect on their availability. I think that the old ban failed for a lot of reasons, and I don't have a formula for one that will work, but we as a society need to be looking. We aren't.
The Blues Viking
These thoughts are mine. Get your own.
Like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment cannot be repealed, but can have some upward limits.
Aside from the "fun" uses, guns are a specific response to a perceived threat, and that perception guides the guns you need. If we are allowed to act in "home defense", there are situations where an assault rifle is warranted. I lived in a wealthy area abutted against a non-so-wealthy area in SoCal. The perceived threat was "looters after an earthquake, power outage, ethnic riot or nuclear attack." A 40 round clip could serve as a deterrent, and if ignored... well you get the idea.
During the 1992 LA riots, that area was "cordoned off" by armored vehicles. "Criminals have come down Rosecrans ;-) for years to do crime.
Hey I'm sure that everyone has heard about the shootout at the theater on Rosecrans over the weekend (4/14/08). Never did like that place, too many gang bangers.
When they LA Riots took place in 1992. They were pulling over bad boys with guns in El Segundo who were coming to the beach cities to do some crime. I hate to see what will happen during the next riots or when the "big one" comes." http://mbcon.blogspot.com/2008/04/irony-in-el-norte.html
The 2nd Amendment was designed to make a potential tyrant (like I hinted at Dubya between 11/4 and 1/20/09) count the cost of subjugating the populace. Yes, they have tanks, but so did the Russians in Chechnya or Afghanistan. So did we in Vietnam. The populace won or are resisting. Yay armed populace. That's us. So far.
I would like to hear the opinions of AuntieZel, since I and BV know her families' history of gun ownership.
Post a Comment