Add a Comment
Email This
If I understand you correctly, there are three reasons you think gun ownership should be "free as speech:"
- the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights,
- restricting gun use doesn't take guns out of the hands of criminals, and
- tracking the information necessary to restrict gun control is too expensive and violates privacy rights.
I think these are valid points, but they certainly aren't unassailable.
In the first case, I agree the Bill of Rights should be protected - but I'm not willing to label it infallible. As long as the possibility exists for circumstances to arise in which it would be best to modify the Bill, we are forced to consider on some level if that time is now.
In the second case, I think the argument falls fairly easily if considered individually. Cocaine, after all, isn't taken out of the hands of criminals by being outlawed, but you wouldn't promote its legalization.
In the third case, I don't think the solution must be so inefficient as to be not worthwhile.
Overall, though, I think the effect of these arguments is greater than the sum of the parts. I agree the bearing of arms should be a right until forfeited, and I think I was hasty in describing it as a privalege. I do, however, still think there is improvement to be made in "the system" - and I'm still hopeful this could be accomplished by growing the list of what may potentially disqualify someone from the right to gun ownership in perhaps creative ways.
Do we trade an "[sic] essential liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety (1)"?
First - What wording could be use to modify or amend the bill of rights? I can only assume by your first argument you would change it from “the right to keep and bear arms” to “the privilege to keep and bear arms”. This to me is as unacceptable as saying we could only enjoy the privilege of having a jury if we deserve one.
Second – Making legal gun owners who have a right to bear arms feel like criminals every time they purchase a new gun is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. Let me illustrate by using the other amendments.
- How would a person who is about to make a speech feel if they had to pass a background check, take a training course and have the government edit out parts deemed too dangerous?
- Could the government take names, decide if things might get too dangerous, and perform psychological evaluations, without affecting the freedom of religion? Or even by the act of listing what religion everyone is and making it a record?
- How long would they keep “no gun” lists? Could you get off those lists if you were on one in error? Would “no gun” lists would be as useful and error free as the “no fly” lists is in present days?
I will also not argue that the sword is mightier than the pen or to say guns kill more people than ideas, religions or a gathering of people.
Third – "the solutions" so far have been proven inefficient and not worthwhile. Canada and Australia have done the proof for us. Adding restrictions to gun ownership does not improve public safety at a reasonable cost.
If someone who purchases a gun worry a tyrannical government is scrutinizing their actions? If that person has a right and not just the privilege to keep and bear arms I answer “NO”.
(1)http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
RSS
RE: Take all the privately own firearms and destroy them
The freedom to own a gun should be as free as the freedom of speech and ownership should be as easy as buying a power drill at the hardware store or selling that same drill on the street.
Bad people who want guns have them or can get them. They didn’t fill out any forms or pass instant background checks. They obtained them the same way they may have gotten the car they are driving or the stereo they listen to steeling or trading stolen or illegal goods.
Thorough background checks carry a cost and a risk. Putting mental health, credit, and nation wide criminal records in one database under government control I believe violates the fourth amendment right to privacy.
Tracking guns does not prevent gun crimes. It does create a lack of freedom of ownership to a lawful person who would like to remain anonymous. It is also costly. Canada has lost billions to an under funded program that ultimately failed (1)
Penalties are already high enough for improper gun use. Like many of our laws crimes are not enforced or cannot be punished due to lack of resources and prison space.
You cannot determine under simple criteria what the purpose is of a gun. They tried with the Brady Bill and it has now passed into the sunset without increase of incidences where any of those weapons labeled “evil” being used. The guns used in crime are mainly pistols not something that costs $3,000.00 to buy and $1.20 a round to shoot.
Ammo should not be regulated or any type of identifier attempted. Could we consider freedom of speech without pen, paper or ink (choose one)? This also keeps many from cheaply reloading their own ammo saving themselves money and denying them a hobby. I have my own bullet press, powder and components would they regulate those.
Gun ownership is not a sport. It is a freedom and a right given to us for our protection under inspired leaders. As any freedom I understand unlawful use could take that right away but until then we cannot prejudge.
(1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/
View Full Discussion