Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

Well, gun control is a violation of the Bill of Rights. You can disagree with the pro-gun movement, but whether or not gun control is an infringement to the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not debatable. Gun control is against the Constitution.

 

All rights do have limitations on them. The most basic is that your right ends when it intrudes upon the right of another. So coexistence is not only possible, but necessary.

 

Our system is predicated on the most basic principle that individual liberty is paramount, but the public good must be maintained. So all controls and limitations on rights have to be weighed between the two. When individual right intrudes upon public safety, then it must be limited; otherwise you have anarchy and mob riots. When public safety intrudes upon individual liberty, it too must be limited; otherwise you have a police state where the individual lives only to serve the state.

 

So the arguments about what could happen, what might be, what if, are not sufficient to curtail individual liberty in exchange for public safety. Doesn't keep laws from being made on that basis, of course, and it also doesn't prevent legal challenge over their constitutionality. Laws should be designed to affect an individual action that will directly affect the public safety, not about actions which could, may, possibly, eventually domino to result in some future scenario.

 

Yes, I might agree that there are way too many guns in the hands of criminals on the streets these days, but how does it guarantee public safety to limit legal gun buyers to only one a month? By definition, if they are legal buyers, then they are not the ones committing the crimes, and limiting them will not reduce the crime already going on.

 

There must be a balance between individual rights and public safety based upon intelligent agreement, not radical emotions akin to wishing upon a star. For me, if I were presented with only two extreme choices, total anarchy or total state control, I'd opt for total anarchy.

 

That being said, I do understand the need for basic rules concerning the gun (hold on fellow Second Amendment lovers, lemme explain!) In the same context that you should not be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you should not be able to brandish a gun in a crowded park and fire wildly into air. Just as you cannot verbally harrass people with words, you cannot point your gun and otherwise harrass people with guns.

 

The problem with gun control is that it has gone beyond laws that say "You may not use a cityscape as a backstop for your rifle practice". Imagine if you needed to get a drivers license in every state you wanted to drive. Imagine if you needed to pay a 200 dollar tax to register every book/scroll/article that was transfered to you. Imagine if it was illegal to speak about disagreeable politics within 100 yards of a school zone. Imagine if you needed a federal speech license to publish even something as simple as this answer on the internet. Imagine a complete ban on the mere casual discussion of illegal activities.

 

It would bring uproar. We would fall into revolution. Yet firearm owners have to deal with it every day. We need a license to carry in every state. You need a 200 dollar tax to transfer an SBR/SBS. Even with a license you cannot carry with X yards of a school zone in many states. You need federal firearms licenses to manufacture even something as incomplete as an ar-15 lower. You have a complete ban on machine guns.

 

And even among the so called sensible laws there are arbitrary laws that affect people deeply and daily. An unregistered AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel is perfectly legal, but an unregistered AR-15 with a 15.5 inch barrel is an automatic 10 years in prison. There's an incredibly intricate system defining what weapons are and aren't illegal, required registration, and require taxes.

 

People get screwed by these tedious laws every day simply because the laws are so complicated and so disorganised that a modifications as simple as a forward grip on a handgun somehow in the laws eyes converts it to a short barreled rifle, or an AOW and *BAM* automatic 10 years. Innocent people being imprisoned and taxed by these laws that say that a AR pistol with a large buffer tube is okay, but installing a stock turns it into an SBR and needs either a 200 dollar tax and registrations, or there goes another 10 years of your life.

 

Meanwhile, I hardly think the average criminal with these so called federally regulated devices know what the abbreviations FFL AOW SBS SBR CCP mean let alone the forms you need to fill out to obtain them.

 

:)I bet she don't go "ewww" when she sees a gun :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, gun control is a violation of the Bill of Rights. You can disagree with the pro-gun movement, but whether or not gun control is an infringement to the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not debatable. Gun control is against the Constitution.

It is debatable to an extent. The historical circumstances when the constitution was created and ratified were far different today than it was back then. During the time the constitution was created they heavily relied on militia's to repel enemy invasions. Yes the US still had a standing army but to deploy it back then could take days or even weeks while a state's militia could respond way faster. It's critical that citizens weren't barred their right to arms for this purpose, I mean how can you fight if you don't have weapons. If you interpret it in regards that citizens were required to keep and bear arms for the security of the nation it is arguable (more particularly the state since things were more centered around the state rather then a central government at this time), and the underlying reason (to rapidly draw up a defense) is no longer needed thanks to the mass transportation and the utter disappearance of state militias. We also have a vastly superior army, navy, and air force then what existed back then which can deter any threat to the US within 24 hours or less.

 

I suppose it should also be mentioned that in the very beginning during the U.S.'s articles of confederation that no other state had to help out the other. So say Britain invaded Rhode Island, New York wouldn't have to help, although it would probably be beneficial if they did. Once the constitution was established the federal army really took over but this sense of state individuality and reliance upon militias still lingered.

 

That's just one of various arguments and I won't really go into it further because quite honestly I don't care one way or the other. If you limit guns people will import them anyways. At this point guns have become a central and critical part of some peoples lives at least in the US. If you were to outlaw them they'd find a way to smuggle them in, and I'm sure gangs/mafias/whatever will find ways too. If you outlaw law enforcement from having it bad guys get weapons and get an upper hand. If you don't outlaw them there will be tragic incidents where people die. Everything has it's goods and bads and guns are no exception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...