But I DON’T respect people who show - by their actions - that their personal self-aggrandizing desire to have an arsenal in their garage, unlike any other civilized country, outweighs the cost to the rest of us – the classful of dead kindergarteners, the nightclub full of dead young people, the movie theater full of dead moviegoers, the church full of dead churchgoers, the college town full of dead students, etc, etc. etc.
"The dangerous people are those such as Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Roof, the Orlando shooter, and the far too many others who have cost so many lives, not one of them a “bubba.” "
I would submit that Dylan Roof qualified as a bubba, for what it’s worth. But it’s still not the point.
No one is claiming that the bubbas or the gun enthusiasts are, themselves, the ones who are going about shooting up classrooms / nightclubs / movie theaters / churches / college campuses / oh, I don’t have time to list all the places. (Oh, they may have their kids going into the handbags and shooting mom or the toddler who lives next door, but gosh, those are just one-off accidents and they aren’t mass shootings, so no harm, no foul, right?.)
It is the fact that their refusal to agree to reasonable gun control measures enables guns to be easily available to a) the guys who are up to no good (cf: gangbangers in Chicago) and b) people with mental health issues.
To me, this would be like arguing that your right to a car is so absolute that you protest having to have licensing to drive a car, registering your vehicle with the state, being mandated to carry insurance, and how dare they infringe your freedom by mandating that you have to stop at arbitrary lights that turn red, g-d gubmint.
I’m only saying that if you keep framing it as an “us” versus “them” argument, the other side will dig in its heels and refuse to budge. We will continue to get nowhere on sensible gun legislation.
Lumping everyone into a group of “self-aggrandizing” individuals who “desire to have an arsenal in their garage” doesn’t address the millions of individuals who see gun ownership as a recreational hobby, and who have legitimate concerns about their ability to continue engaging in it.
Though there is no right to a car (at least not in a constitutional sense).
“g-d gubmint.”
Am I really the only one who is offended by this???
NB: After back channel discussion, I have been schooled a bit more in the use of the word “bubba,” and will refrain from using it from here on out.
Yes, I get there is no right to a car in a constitutional sense. Everyone knows the difference. Those on the gun control side don’t get what the big deal is about reasonable gun control, though, when it’s just common sense.
The scrutiny involved in reviewing any given legislation/regulation is significantly different when a fundamental right is involved (such as second amendment) than another “right” is involved (such as driving a car). The two should not be compared and used as examples for the other.
I am not a lawyer, but as I see it, we already have limits on certain fundamental rights - I have the right to free speech, but I can’t yell fire in the crowded theater, can’t take out a full-page ad alleging that saillakeerie is a murderer, etc. Likewise, I I have the right to practice my religion, but I can’t go beheading and sacrificing dogs in my front yard.
Are any of the things we are talking about here things that the Supreme Court would likely consider unconstitutional?
You could argue that fundamental rights such as the right to travel to petition the government, and the right of free assembly, are intertwined with the right to drive. Cars didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was enacted? Neither did AR-15s.
And Pizzagirl is correct that there are limits on all fundamental rights, including free speech, the free exercise of religion, and the warrant requirement. It’s only the Second Amendment that seems to inspire this extreme degree of absolutism.
“Lumping everyone into a group of “self-aggrandizing” individuals who “desire to have an arsenal in their garage” doesn’t address the millions of individuals who see gun ownership as a recreational hobby, and who have legitimate concerns about their ability to continue engaging in it.”
Why is this so peculiar to the US? Why is it that there are so many people in the US who “need” guns as their hobby, compared to other comparable civilized countries? Doesn’t that ever make responsible, good-guy gun owners stop and think about why their pull to their guns is so strong? Don’t they ever have any pangs of conscience over dead-kindergarteners-at-Sandy-Hook-et-al?
Should the creators of the Internet be held responsible when predators use it to stalk an innocent girl and abduct her?
Should Ford feel guilty if a serial killer uses one of their vehicles to carry bodies to a dump site?
Should the manufacturers of alcohol be to blame when someone gets raped by someone who is drunk?
I didn’t say they should be held responsible, albert. I asked why they are sooooo gun-clingy that simple, easy measures that would help at least reduce the violence don’t have any effect on them. Why is this such an American trait? Why do we still have vast numbers of people who apparently idolize the Wild West, who think that the world is “safer” when we’re all carrying guns to Safeway and Starbucks, when the experience of other countries tells us otherwise?
I don’t really GAS about the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers were brilliant but not perfect. We “corrected” them on many matters, such as women’s suffrage and slavery.
Fundamental rights do have limits. I have never suggested otherwise. My issue is comparing regulation of the right to own a gun with owning/driving a car. Guns are a fundamental right. Driving a car is not. Its a privilege (legally speaking). You don’t have a right to own a horse either though they existed at the time the Constitution was enacted.
Talking of absolutism and the 2nd amendment also doesn’t make sense. There are already a lot of regulations with respect to the right to bear arms. Question is whether we should have more and if so what (and would they make a difference in terms of gun violence).
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences of speech. So you can lie about someone if you want (difficult to stop someone actually – even if they are doing it in writing through freedom of the press – though be careful because its not freedom of anyone to have anything printed in the press – its freedom of the owners of the press – so you don’t have a right to have anything printed in your local paper for instance) but you may well be liable to them for damages. Nothing really limiting on speech there. You are free to say what you want but you also must live with the consequences of what you say.
“There are already a lot of regulations with respect to the right to bear arms. Question is whether we should have more and if so what (and would they make a difference in terms of gun violence).”
Apparently there aren’t enough of them to bring our level of violence down to our peer countries.
But whatever. Can’t end all gun violence, so why even bother trying. That’s the attitude I hear from the other side.
Can’t end all drunk driving, so why even bother to make it a crime.
Can’t end all crystal meth production, so why even bother to limit the materials that go into its use.
Why bother. I want what I want and I want it now and I don’t care who else suffers.
Last time I checked, murdering people is a crime.
That ship has sailed. But it isn’t gun enthusiasts who must be persuaded. Majorities of gun owners already favor at least some legislation, large majorities in some cases. It is the NRA which refuses to budge and no amount of respect or reasonableness is going to change that. Their power over certain members of Congress has to be broken. Then I think it will be much easier to find common ground.
Thank you for posting that article, treemaven.
Interesting quote that stuck out to me:
“Two decades ago, leaving the house with a concealed weapon was strictly controlled or illegal in twenty-two states, and fewer than five million Americans had a permit to do so. Since then, it has become legal in every state, and the number of concealed-carry permit holders has climbed to an estimated 12.8 million.”
What sickness went on in society that more people decided that they suddenly “needed” to exercise their Second Amendment right and carry their firearms to Safeway and Starbucks?
I’m not talking about hunting or shooting for sport. I’m not talking about having a gun in your home to brandish if an intruder comes in. But going about your daily business and carrying a gun. Doesn’t anybody else think that it’s just completely odd, paranoid behavior to carry a gun around like that?
And yes, I do think there is a culture war / clash going on. I don’t think those on the other side get how completely classless and tacky carrying your gun to Safeway and Starbucks is. It’s like you’re wanting to live in a John Wayne movie where you’re prepared to Save the Day and shoot the guy who butts in front of you in line. It’s just not something that civilized people do (unless of course they are policemen, in the armed services, or licensed security guards).
》》 licensed security guards《《
You mean like the Orlando shooter? Should we do away with those since one went bad and misused his power?
One more time, with feeling … just because we can’t prevent them all doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to prevent some.