tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post380993502881570937..comments2011-07-08T13:03:42.327-05:00Comments on Political Argument: The Right to Bear Arms - Protecting DemocracyWayne BThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15343455979104443636noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post-36308329314006741612007-04-08T15:36:00.000-05:002007-04-08T15:36:00.000-05:00While I agree, as Estragon suggests, that we shoul...While I agree, as Estragon suggests, that we should not allow fundamental principles of our democratic nation to slowly erode in the face of overly zealous reformers and unwarranted fears, I’m not sure he stressed enough his opposing point that “we could not expect the authors of the Bill of Rights to address the modern context in which prevalent gun violence can be a significant concern.” The constitution and the Bill of Rights were constructed as living documents for a reason; our forefathers could not possibly predict what the coming centuries would hold and they knew it. Thus, these documents were intended at their inception to be organic by nature—we were supposed to be able, upon evaluation of our modern context and modern concerns, to adjust our rights at our discretion. <BR/><BR/>When the Bill of Rights was drafted to include the “right to bear arms” I don’t think the authors had in mind .50 Caliber anti-armor sniper rifles, for instance. According to the Violence Policy Center’s “National Security Expert Report on Unrestricted Weapons Sales,” These “anti-material” sniper rifles, striking accurately from distances of up to a mile, can down helicopters, destroy commercial aircraft and penetrate bulk storage tanks filled with lethal explosives. This exact weapon is available for sale in Idaho and Nevada on a cash-and-carry policy. No background check, no questions asked. Furthermore, though it is banned in many other states, it is not at all illegal for a citizen of New York to fly out to Idaho and purchase one. It is impossible to underestimate the potential devastation that such loose regulation could hold if exploited by the wrong person. Perhaps our “war on terror” should start a bit closer to home. <BR/><BR/>While the anti-armor sniper rifle is certainly an extreme example, the protection of a citizen’s “right” to carry assault rifles and other weapons of war such as the above falls well under the protection anti-gun control lobbyists are pushing for when they cite our “right to bear arms.” <BR/><BR/>The “original right of self defense” is certainly not a modern-day concoction, nor is it an out-dated right no longer necessary in our current times. Still, however, I disagree with the pro-gun concept that moderate gun control infringes on a constitutionally inherent and inviolable right. Indeed, I think the extent to which one is allowed to “defend” oneself against bodily harm and ensure the “protection of a free state” deserves thoughtful scrutiny. The scope of this individual right must be weighed against the unquestionable threat that its allowances pose to the very things the right was intended to protect. Ultimately, it is hard to understand how the unregulated dispersal of modern weapons-technology serves the protection of body and defense of free state.mmkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08358656698332215422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post-91739388137706923642007-04-03T11:21:00.000-05:002007-04-03T11:21:00.000-05:00While I don't doubt the data on widespread civilia...While I don't doubt the data on widespread civilian gun ownership decreasing rates of violent crime, I wonder about "accidental" shootings. How often do self-defense shootings occur in such situations? How often are they actually justified by a clear and present danger? A decrease in crime doesn't necessarily mean less gun-related deaths or shootings, since many such incidents aren't crimes to begin with. It's not a crime to shoot a Japanese boy who stops at your door asking for directions to a party on Halloween (a story I mentioned in an earlier post), but it is still deplorable that such "accidents" can happen.<BR/><BR/>And as for guns protecting democracy, well, it was certainly true in the 18th century. Whether or not it is true today, I'm not so sure. I think however, that we would all like for it to not be true. I mean, in 300 years, you would hope that humanity has progressed somewhat, that eventually we won't need to have such antiquated concerns. Still, if people feel it is necessary, then so it shall remain. I don't foresee the Second Amendment going away anytime soon, but I do believe we should strive towards a society where it is not needed.WYDIWYGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683667356982779448noreply@blogger.com