Since the slaughter in Tucson, we once more hear the lackeys of the gun lobby shouting that 'OH NO, you must NOT do one thing to limit our right to bear arms!" BULL POCKEY! In fact, the seventh straight mass shooting in the past two years demands something be done and this country's government get off its ass for once and fix it! We have a major problem and it is the government's bounden duty to resolve it via appropriate legislation. No, not to take away anyone's guns - but certainly to limit the sale and acquisition of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, especially in the hands of the mentally unstable!
If anyone is appalled by the mere thought of weapons limitations, consider this: we already have laws on the books that prohibit lugging an anti-aircraft gun anywhere near airports! (Or even owning one!)
And lest anyone think I'm a "lily-livered lib" who's scared of guns or rifles (because I served in the Peace Corps), think again! (See attached images). I know how to use them and can fire a rifle with sharpshooter accuracy using only a mechanical sight - no scope!
But I digress. Let me cite again the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
"A self-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."
Now, one must understand and comprehend the era and period in which this was written. At that time muskets were the primary weapon, and no major organized standing army existed such as we now have. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, now had massive war debts to pay off. There was no way to keep thousands of men under arms for sustained periods, as well as clothing and feeding them - far less recycling them with newer equipment each year!
It therefore became necessary to authorize the basis for a non-centralized force or "Militia" in order to supplement any governmentally organized army called up. This "Militia" originated in the countryside, from citizens living across the land in various villages, towns and states. In effect, the 2nd amendment drafters were asserting the necessity for a subsidiary people's army to assist the main one. Citizens then became in effect, necessary to the security of the nation. One could then describe the state militias as "adjunct armies".
Indeed, some interpreters of the amendment believe the original content is really even more diluted than what I portrayed. They see the "well regulated militia" provision as actually devised as protections from any marauding, "loose cannon" generals. These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes - claiming it would have really detracted from a militia's effectiveness (E.g. who controls when they fire weapons at whom, and when? Or whether or not the owners are even trained in their use? DO we just let thousands of gun owners go off half-cocked to do their own thing?)
But there is NO way, not one bit, the framers would behold what we have now ....the most formidable organized military in the world - with more weapons than all the empires of all previous centuries put together, and insist that separate citizens' militias were still neded. And they certainly wouldn't confer any benediction on owning powerful automatic rifles or even semi-automatic Glocks that can spew off 31 rounds in seconds!
Their argument would be simple and concise:
"Given you already have a vast, organized force to provide security of the State there is no longer a need for any private militias"
Nor would they assert there's a need to keep a weapon around for defense, given large, organized police forces many of which now are amped up with super-SWAT technology in the light of provisions of the Patriot Act. (Essentially meaning most large city police forces are now de facto militarized)
Even a conservative jurist, Richard Posner, has concurred with this take, writing in 2008, in The New Republic:
"The text of the amendment whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property."
Now, even if our current congress critters believe (as a matter of personal preference as opposed to 2nd amendment right) that a person ought to be able to own weapons for hunting, sport or defense, there is simply no logical or rational way this can be extended to permitting semi-authomatics - either rifles or handguns.
So what has happened? The NRA, with enormous political clout, has succeeded in vaporizing what few common sense controls were left and given us a very close version of the "wild West". It began when a federal law enacted in 1994 that restricted the sale of certain semi-automatics was allowed to expire in 2004. This expiry was sought by the NRA which put pressure on congress critters to allow it. (The NRA doubtless subscribed to the "slippery slope" fallacy: that if semi-automatics weren't permitted, then ordinary weapons would follow.)
The next major piece of followup idiocy was in allowing 'make my day' laws in many states from around 2006. Thus in Colorado now, a home owner who even thinks he's under a serious threat can open fire and use deadly force with barely a question asked.
Finally, we had the idiotic inclusion of an amendment to the credit card regulation bill passed in 2009, which permitted people to carry loaded weapons into National Parks! Hello, is anyone in this fucked up nation paying attention? By all rights, Obama ought to have vetoed that asinine bill and sent it back to the legislative body to clean it up.
The last element in all this is how easy it's been for nutcakes to get hold of these weapons. But this is a tall order- especially since Ronnie "Star Wars" Ray-gun had over a half million mentally ill tossed out of hospital beds from the early 80s. (Instantly creating a vast homeless population). And today, though the Reagan "effect" has diminished, we still have many states cutting budgets for the mentally ill.
SO no wonder a guy like Jared Lee Loughner can escape through the cracks of the system - though a number of people (like at his Pima Community College) did notice his schizoid personality disorder behavior.
Now, given there are at least 11 million in this country with schizoid personality disorder (not "Satan possession" as some dumbass Florida pastors proclaim) , and probably five million with your garden variety schizophrenia, it makes more sense to pass laws that keep semi-automatics out of their hands than it does to have a monitor on each of them 24/7.
Again, this doesn't infringe on anyone's "right" to own a normal weapon, like a 30.06 Remington, or your basic .22 rifle. These can still get the job done, including stopping any intruder, or hunting a buck. Hell, one can even own a .44 Magnum, "Dirty Harry's" choice! The point is there is NO justification for owning a Glock 9 mm. No one needs one of those to bring down a varmint, or to stop an intruder.
In the wake of this mass shooting, this country needs to find the courage to limit the sale and distribution of weapons of mass destruction - namely those which can inflict mass carnage in a short time. The whole world is freaking watching.
If anyone is appalled by the mere thought of weapons limitations, consider this: we already have laws on the books that prohibit lugging an anti-aircraft gun anywhere near airports! (Or even owning one!)
And lest anyone think I'm a "lily-livered lib" who's scared of guns or rifles (because I served in the Peace Corps), think again! (See attached images). I know how to use them and can fire a rifle with sharpshooter accuracy using only a mechanical sight - no scope!
But I digress. Let me cite again the Second Amendment to the Constitution:
"A self-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."
Now, one must understand and comprehend the era and period in which this was written. At that time muskets were the primary weapon, and no major organized standing army existed such as we now have. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, now had massive war debts to pay off. There was no way to keep thousands of men under arms for sustained periods, as well as clothing and feeding them - far less recycling them with newer equipment each year!
It therefore became necessary to authorize the basis for a non-centralized force or "Militia" in order to supplement any governmentally organized army called up. This "Militia" originated in the countryside, from citizens living across the land in various villages, towns and states. In effect, the 2nd amendment drafters were asserting the necessity for a subsidiary people's army to assist the main one. Citizens then became in effect, necessary to the security of the nation. One could then describe the state militias as "adjunct armies".
Indeed, some interpreters of the amendment believe the original content is really even more diluted than what I portrayed. They see the "well regulated militia" provision as actually devised as protections from any marauding, "loose cannon" generals. These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes - claiming it would have really detracted from a militia's effectiveness (E.g. who controls when they fire weapons at whom, and when? Or whether or not the owners are even trained in their use? DO we just let thousands of gun owners go off half-cocked to do their own thing?)
But there is NO way, not one bit, the framers would behold what we have now ....the most formidable organized military in the world - with more weapons than all the empires of all previous centuries put together, and insist that separate citizens' militias were still neded. And they certainly wouldn't confer any benediction on owning powerful automatic rifles or even semi-automatic Glocks that can spew off 31 rounds in seconds!
Their argument would be simple and concise:
"Given you already have a vast, organized force to provide security of the State there is no longer a need for any private militias"
Nor would they assert there's a need to keep a weapon around for defense, given large, organized police forces many of which now are amped up with super-SWAT technology in the light of provisions of the Patriot Act. (Essentially meaning most large city police forces are now de facto militarized)
Even a conservative jurist, Richard Posner, has concurred with this take, writing in 2008, in The New Republic:
"The text of the amendment whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property."
Now, even if our current congress critters believe (as a matter of personal preference as opposed to 2nd amendment right) that a person ought to be able to own weapons for hunting, sport or defense, there is simply no logical or rational way this can be extended to permitting semi-authomatics - either rifles or handguns.
So what has happened? The NRA, with enormous political clout, has succeeded in vaporizing what few common sense controls were left and given us a very close version of the "wild West". It began when a federal law enacted in 1994 that restricted the sale of certain semi-automatics was allowed to expire in 2004. This expiry was sought by the NRA which put pressure on congress critters to allow it. (The NRA doubtless subscribed to the "slippery slope" fallacy: that if semi-automatics weren't permitted, then ordinary weapons would follow.)
The next major piece of followup idiocy was in allowing 'make my day' laws in many states from around 2006. Thus in Colorado now, a home owner who even thinks he's under a serious threat can open fire and use deadly force with barely a question asked.
Finally, we had the idiotic inclusion of an amendment to the credit card regulation bill passed in 2009, which permitted people to carry loaded weapons into National Parks! Hello, is anyone in this fucked up nation paying attention? By all rights, Obama ought to have vetoed that asinine bill and sent it back to the legislative body to clean it up.
The last element in all this is how easy it's been for nutcakes to get hold of these weapons. But this is a tall order- especially since Ronnie "Star Wars" Ray-gun had over a half million mentally ill tossed out of hospital beds from the early 80s. (Instantly creating a vast homeless population). And today, though the Reagan "effect" has diminished, we still have many states cutting budgets for the mentally ill.
SO no wonder a guy like Jared Lee Loughner can escape through the cracks of the system - though a number of people (like at his Pima Community College) did notice his schizoid personality disorder behavior.
Now, given there are at least 11 million in this country with schizoid personality disorder (not "Satan possession" as some dumbass Florida pastors proclaim) , and probably five million with your garden variety schizophrenia, it makes more sense to pass laws that keep semi-automatics out of their hands than it does to have a monitor on each of them 24/7.
Again, this doesn't infringe on anyone's "right" to own a normal weapon, like a 30.06 Remington, or your basic .22 rifle. These can still get the job done, including stopping any intruder, or hunting a buck. Hell, one can even own a .44 Magnum, "Dirty Harry's" choice! The point is there is NO justification for owning a Glock 9 mm. No one needs one of those to bring down a varmint, or to stop an intruder.
In the wake of this mass shooting, this country needs to find the courage to limit the sale and distribution of weapons of mass destruction - namely those which can inflict mass carnage in a short time. The whole world is freaking watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment