« ATF publc affairs exaggerations | Main | Texas man who shot two burglars... »
Support for second amendment from the left
Article here.
"So why keep them? If we look to our constitutional history, the answer is much more obvious than hunting, tradition and domestic protection. Like everything in the Bill of Rights, it is a safeguard against only one entity: the government. For me, this is the only even remotely logical reason to keep deadly weapons on the streets. It is important, to protect us from tyranny, that the politicians know their citizens are armed. Can we, the people, stop a professional army? Can we actually overthrow the government in some doomsday scenario? It's hard to say. But one thing's for certain: We stand a much better chance if we have guns. I think the founders realized this, and so, when they drafted the Second Amendment, they made sure to include the words "free state." In this, there's one other worthwhile benefit: protection. My guess is that it's harder to invade an armed country than an unarmed one, and national security is a reasonable justification for the right to be armed. "
14 Comments | Leave a comment
While this author ultimately reaches the right conclusion with respect to the Second Amendment's purpose, he takes a terribly illogical, uninformed, and narrow view. It seems to me the First Amendment's protection of speech was primarily directed at political speech but now we interpret that language much more expansively. Why shouldn't the Second be treated likewise. Further, he ignores many state constitutions that specifically provide that the right to arms is for defense of self and state. (And I think if the USSC over turns Parker, the state constitutions will be the next battle ground.)
There's also the fact that, if it were ever to come to the US vs. its citizens, a non-trivial portion of the military would be fighting with the citizenry. Look what happened to the regular army in 1861.
Search on LiveLeak for torture videos, your answer is right there. Police and military officials in third-world countries brutally torturing, raping, and beating citizens. They are difficult to watch because you know they’re real and unbelievably painful for the victims. They can commit these unspeakable acts because they don’t fear reprisal, not from the victim and not from the victim’s family. Here in the United States, we have the ability to even the playing field if the ‘officials’ get too far out of line.
The Author wrote the tired old refrain; "The right to bear arms, like all Constitutional rights, carries with it incredible responsibility."
Where is the great responsibility in not quartering troops in our houses, Or violating our right to unreasonable searches and seizues? It seems to me the great responsibility is for the government to not violate our rights and to carry out the command of the Second Amendment that the militia be well regulated.
On the citizen's side that responsibility means to fight the constant encroachment of that Constitution by the Government and the violations of our rights by the various paramilitary organizations we today call the police, but which would surely would have been called the Regulars in the 18th century as they are full-time armed professional government military organizations in the "regular service" of the federal, state and local governments.
Problem: The proportion of anti-2AM "liberals" or "Democrats" or whatever you want to call them to those who purport to support it is miniscule.
There might be one or two oddballs writing that they support the 2AM, but the overwhelming numbers among the Democrats are ANTI-SECOND-AMENDMENT.
Petryni's piece is just more smokescreen as far as I am concerned.
Much more importantly: the members of Congress and the other people who are highly positioned in various governmental offices--governors in anti-gun states, Sheriffs of large counties in anti-gun states, mayors in anti-gun states, et alii--are virtually all ANTI-SECOND-AMENDMENT.
I disagree with his whole analysis of keeping guns for personal self-defense. I have had guns in my house for that very reason since before my children were born. Once I acquired more than one (gun and child, that is) and they became more mobile, I bought a safe to keep them (the guns, not the kids) locked up. What about accessibility? Well, when I am home, I usually unlock the safe. When I leave the house, I lock it up.
It has worked fine so far - my oldest is 13; they both know not to touch my guns at all, and neither one has really shown any interest either (unfortunately, can't convince either one to come to the range with me - they're girls, but that shouldn't matter!)
Anyhow, his presumption that having guns in the house is inherently dangerous and impractical as a means of self-defense is a flawed argument.
Gun Control is really more of an Urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural issue than it is merely GOP vs. Democrat.
"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
Leadership is not for cowardly bedwetters. The government doesn't back off and stay within its bounds (sort of) because they are so highly evolved. The thought of multiple millions of fairly well armed citizens sobers them right up. I have made this point to more than several young phone bankers who called me to pitch subscriptions or polls. Don't ever go for a poll, they go on and on and on.......
It is the mark of a free man, a citizen, that he possess arms and the mark of a slave, a mere subject, that he does not.
The subjects of the U.K. are being subjected to tyranny at this moment. It is government tyranny imposed indirectly, by the enabling of street criminals through lack of punishment of crime and the disarming of citizens.
In spite of his rather immature analysis of the 2nd Amendment, he is on the right track. Therefore I think it wise to renew his authors license for another two years, and renew his permit to publish as well.
Seriously, if someone close to him could invite him to a range, teach him a little about guns, he might grow into a strong ally of the movement.
PolyKahr
PS Saw David Hardy's movie last night, finally, after buying it from the man himself at the Gun Rights Policy Conference. Excellent Stuff.
What is the real story on whether a gun in the house is more likely to kill you than an intruder? I find it extremely hard to believe, but it seems to come up as an anti-gun argument fairly often.
Alice, that's a reasonable fear, if the only gun in the house was brought in by a home invader.
But, you are indirectly quoting a debunked study by Kellerman, that was apparently misquoted several ways, one being that the group of people he was referring to was "friends" or "friends and relatives". The actual group is the FBI victim class "Friends, relatives, and acquaintances". You are not acquainted with your worst enemy?
Go here for more:
Heh. Hit the send button too fast.
Alice, your worst enemy is someone who does not know YOU?
Now, if you knew someone was a violent jerk, very likely to try to harm or kill you, wouldn't getting a gun make a certain amount of sense? Wouldn't the chance you would end up beaten to death actually increase if you did not have a gun in the house?
Got side tracked a bit. I've been finding lots of amusement in the overlap between those who say the US military is getting it's butt kicked in Iraq and those who say US citizens cannot stand up to fedgov forces.
I have to admit that the "resistance" in Iraq is made up of "professionals" of a sort. "Mercenaries" is more like it. Young men looking for a quick dollar by attacking Coalition forces and poor farmers trying to get by. Fighters in the US would be mostly volunteers. Yeah, I suppose that would make a difference: paid or unpaid.
There is a second justification that is very easy to test. Make you a small sign for the front window that says "no guns in this house". The answer should be right along.