Tuesday, February 23, 2010

More guns, less sense

From one of the last reliable news services on the planet, the New York Times...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html?hp

The gun nuts are out in force although I don't know if they've ever really taken a day off. Currently, they are anticipating a big anti-gun push by President Obama, a push that hasn't taken place yet, but is nonetheless bringing out the idiots.

Many state governments have already begun loosening gun laws. I'll spare you all the details that are in the article since you'll have read them yourself - right? - but suffice it to say that there are real problems here. As a resident of Tennessee, I know about some of these problems. A few months ago, the state legislature passed a law allowing guns to be brought into bars and other establishments that serve alcohol. I'm sure, dear readers, that many of you have been in bars before and seen drunk people get in fights. You know what would make that situation better? Giving those guys guns! If that doesn't solve the problem, I can't possibly think of what might.

The gun control argument highlights the larger issue of how we interpret the Constitution. The law of the land, infallible though it is, was laid down well over 200 years ago. Without suggesting that we change it, it may be prudent to view it as a document that addresses the problems we face today rather than the ones the founding fathers were dealing with in the late 18th century.

Take, for example, gun control. Faced with an oppressive government the colonists of America rebelled and won their independence. It made sense at the time that the democratic experiment started by our founding fathers may have faced road bumps and that citizen-soldiers may need arms to fight an oppressive government again. Today, however, despite what the Tea Partiers may tell you, we are not dealing with an oppressive government trampling on our rights. Far from it in fact. American presidents and legislators have peacefully handed over power to their successors for over 200 years. I have trouble imagining that the founding fathers would be ok with individual citizens owning assault rifles and automatic weapons that are capable of killing dozens of people in minutes, especially given that there is no tyrant overseas to oppress us.

Don't get me wrong, the Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms and I stand by that. I do believe that there is a need to limit what types and how many. You want a rifle or a shotgun to go hunting? Of course. Unfortunate though it may be, keep a hand gun in your house or car if it makes you feel safer. You want an assault rifle? Move to Afghanistan where you might actually need it. This is America; there will be no government take over; there is no one so dangerous that you need an automatic weapon to protect yourself. Put the rocket launcher away and think sensibly about this.

I stand by the second amendment but only when it is prudent to do so. When Americans start stock piling weapons and ammunition in preparation for the apocalypse there is a problem. Let's fix that problem by putting sensible limits on what kind of guns people can buy.

No comments:

Post a Comment