If you only watched TV or looked the internet, you might think that all Republicans want to arms preschoolers with AR 15 assault rifles and all Democrats want to wage war on babies in the womb. You might think that, but you would be wrong. Surprised? According to a Quinnipiac poll, they found that 62 percent in the GOP support banning gun modifications that turn semi-automatic guns into virtual automatic weapons (machine guns) with the use of such accessories as as bump stocks. And, the other side of that contradiction between reality and image is shown in a Marist poll that found that only 21 percent of Democrats actually favor legal abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy, and 56 percent support or strongly support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Add on to that the fact that far more Democrats strongly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions (24 percent) than strongly support such (15 percent). Hmmmm. . . .
There are those who try to make the Republican Party into the political action committee of the NRA and there are those who try to make the Democratic Party into the political action committee of the pro-abortion movement. In reality, this is not the case. However, there are vested interests on both sides in preserving these stereotypes.
I stand with Ronald Reagan who insisted that being pro-gun rights for sportsman does not mean believing the lie that an automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle is a sportsman's gun. It is not. The second amendment, which I fully support, does not guarantee all weapons are allowed or that none can be separated and restricted. That said, are we to allow the stereotype to continue? It is the silence of the people in the middle who allow the voices of the extremes to predominate in this discussion.
In the same way, what ever happened to making abortion legal, safe, and rare? Democrats have taken on the abortion cause nationally in ways that state and local Democrats cannot support. If this is the case, then those Democrats on the state and local level need to raise their voices and insist that the fringe does not speak for them.
My point is simply this. Unless we stand up, those on the fringes will define who we are. We cannot allow them this privilege. For the sake of the second amendment on steriods and a supreme court decision formed from imaginary law, we must stake our claim to what is good, right, and beneficial and take back the bully pulpit from those presume to speak for us.
You may disagree with me and I may respectfully disagree with you but all of us will need to make our case on the merits of the cause and not on the silent support of people who don't actually agree with us.
Regarding guns, it is a matter of proper training and use. Why not just translate the Swiss gun laws into English, pass those into law in the USA, and call it a day?
A semi-automatic rifle is not really an assault rifle, which is actually an automatic rifle, even though some semi-automatic rifles have the appearance of automatic rifles.
Some attempt to define (and ban) semi-automatic rifles as those having a pistol grip, which would eliminate semi-automatic pistols, or other appearance features such as detachable magazines or barrel length.
"The second amendment, which I fully support, does not guarantee all weapons are allowed or that none can be separated and restricted."
One should support such an assertion regarding the "right of the people to keep and bear arms " with specifics (which weapons are not included in the right of the people to keep and bear arms", what kind of restrictions on this consntitutional right of the people), based on the merits of the assertion and not on the silent support of others.
Regardless of where people lie on the political spectrum, we are called to minister to and make disciples of all peoples and nations. One cannot do so if they hold a monolithic view of the very people to whom we are commissioned to proclaim God's word.
What "monolithic view" is that?
Economist Karl Denninger provides more information regarding the gun debate:
The strongest reason for marriage is to provide for any children that result from the consequences of sex.
It is time to address the causes instead of debating what to do after a girl gets pregnant. It is time to bring back the traditional concept of courtship and to encourage social activities that would allow for the formation and strengthening of traditional families.
I am not a gun owner, and in principle I am not opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms owned by individuals. However, it seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion abroad about the historical background, and the meaning, of the Second Amendment.
I stand with Ronald Reagan who insisted that being pro-gun rights for sportsman does not mean believing the lie that an automatic or semi-automatic assault rifle is a sportsman's gun.
With all due respect (which is considerable) to President Reagan, there is nothing in the historical background of the Second Amendment, nor in the text of the amendment itself, that has anything at all to do with the use of guns for sport. The intent of the Second Amendment is to protect the natural right of self-defense by ensuring that individuals have access to the means of self-defense. People have the right to bear arms primarily in order to be able to defend themselves, their homes and families, and the "free state" of which they are citizens. The reason that the amendment refers to "the security of a free state" is that the citizens of a free state have the right and duty to defend that free state against tyranny, and therefore those citizens must be able to be armed in order to carry out that defense.
So the question is not, what sorts of weapons are suitable for hunting or other sport. The question is, what sorts of weapons are suitable for free people to defend their individual and collective liberty. When put in those terms, it is less clear why automatic weapons should be excluded.
You also write:
The second amendment, which I fully support, does not guarantee all weapons are allowed or that none can be separated and restricted.
But the text of the Second Amendment doesn't qualify or limit the word "arms" in any way. If it does not refer to "all weapons," what is there in the text of the amendment that will tell us what weapons are, or are not, covered?
As a matter of policy and prudence, I agree with you that it would be reasonable and right to limit the individual ownership of some particularly egregious types of weapons. But as a matter of law (and constitutional law at that), I can see no basis for us to do so. Perhaps the notions of collective self-defense that form the background of the Second Amendment, and represent the intent of the Framers, no longer make sense in the 21st century. But if that is the case, the answer is not to ignore the Constitution and enact laws that it clearly prohibits; the answer is to have the political courage to amend the Constitution to allow the government to make laws that carry out the policies that we believe are right for our time.
Carl, was referring to the same tendency to form monolithic opposing groups as was referred to in the first paragraph of the article. Thanks for asking for clarification.
Post a Comment