Troy McNaughtonSecond Amendment an Individual Right
December 5th 2007 13:00
I read an article about the Second Amendment posted by Jim Stillman, a person I respect, and like even though we have never meet. His opinion about the Second Amendment I believe is wrong no matter how well intended it maybe, I am not as eloquent of speech as Jim, nor am I a lawyer, but that doesn't disqualify my opinion as a supporter of the Second Amendment.
The Arguments maybe answered in a few months from now, by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It has agreed to here the case of District of Columbia v. Heller a case in which plaintiffs challenge the unconstitutional gun ban in the nation’s capital. A lower court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, but was appealed by the District of Columbia.
The Constitution speaks of the rights of the people in different articles of the Bill of Rights such as the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, as well as the Second Amendment. Which does show proof that it is clearly intended to be a Individual Right to keep and bear Arms. I believe also that it is a Civil Right, which is a right or rights belonging to a person of citizenship including the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14 amendments, and subsequent acts of Congress.
The Constitution was approved without a Bill of Rights, then sent to the states for ratification. The states, did not approve of a Constitution that did not guarantee the protection of certain rights and freedoms. The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms. Did you note that the Bills of Rights guarantee certain rights and freedom? Of which the right to keep and bare arms is one of them.
The opponents of gun rights should understand that it's not about slogans or bumper stickers. They also demonize hunters for choosing to hunt for meat instead of going down to the local market to buy some meat that maybe contaminated with e coli or some other disease. I am not in the habit of criticizing people for their choice of food they chose to eat. Personally I don't hunt wild animals for food, but I do enjoy shooting them with my camera.
It is true we don't live under the same situations as the eighteenth century, but our rights I believe are timeless, just because times change does mean that our rights should change. Some feel that our rights to keep and bare arms are irrelevant now. But yet they are outraged by the patriot act which some say destroys our rights and freedoms given to us by the Constitution. Which by the way is the same Constitution that gives us the right to keep and bare arms, seems they are selective in the freedoms they want to keep.
They make it sound like gun control will stop school shootings, work place violence, and domestic violence. Well it will not, they are just using that bull to scare people into supporting an all out gun ban. The truth is that gun control does not stop crime, in many cases crime increases after gun control is put in place.
Lets take a look Australia, the government banned weapons in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent, and manslaughter by 29 percent. This was reported on the Web site of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January, 2000. Also England, and Canada have very strict gun laws, and it has not help them either. Interestingly in the District of Columbia crime went up also after their strict gun ban.
They also cite more control and laws, but did you know that there are currently about 20,000 gun laws on the books already, instead of more, how about enforcing the ones already in existence. I have bought guns, and before I could I had to have a back ground check, as well as everyone else that buys a gun legally. The reason gun control will never work to stop criminals is that you can buy guns from private citizens, and illegal gun dealers, which leaves no record of it. To stop this would be impossible. All gun control will do is hurt law abiding gun owners.
I agree with sensible gun ownership using trigger locks, gun safes, education and safe firearm skills. I also have no problems with back ground checks either. Yes gun owners are responsible for their guns, but it shows their bigotry toward the Second Amendment, and it's supporters to suggest that a gun owner be charge with a crime if his gun got stolen and used in a criminal offence. You don't charge a person for their car being stolen and used in a crime, why do that to a gun owner?
Supporters of the Second Amendment should not think these gun control fanatics are going to be fair. No on the other hand they are subtle, and devious they cannot be trusted. Legal Gun owners have been criticized, demonized, and verbally attacked by gun control advocates, but hopefully the Supreme Court will give us a reprieve from the persecutions.
Protect your computer with XoftSpyse.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Opinions of a curmudgeon
Political Certainty
The Supreme Court may finally resolve the Constitutional debate as to whether the Second Amendment is a civil right of individuals or a collective empowerment to the individual states to maintain a “well regulated militia”. While in the broad nature of things, it may not matter, what meaning to you assign to the opening phrase:”A well 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.” If an individual’s personal rights were involved, the drafters of the Amendment would have simply left off the qualifying phrase. As I noted in my article, no other provision of the Bill of Rights includes an explanation of why it is included.
There are statistics all over the place as to a lessening of violent crime where strict gun control laws are enacted and enforced. The fact that, for the most part, gun laws are imposed on the state or municipal level and that we have absolute freedom of movement between states, make it hard to be certain of effect. For example, the District of Columbia has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country while in the Commonwealth of Virginia, next door, one may purchase unlimited quantities of guns with minimal restriction.
However, the nearly unanimous opinions of law enforcement officials support stricter gun control laws; the United States has one of the highest incidences of violent crime in the world and is the nation with the most privately owned guns.
Finally, I suggested an absolute liability on gun owners for harm caused by their weapons.
You wrote:
I agree with sensible gun ownership using trigger locks, gun safes, education and safe firearm skills. I also have no problems with back ground checks either. Yes gun owners are responsible for their guns, but it shows their bigotry toward the Second Amendment, and its supporters to suggest that a gun owner be charge with a crime if his gun got stolen and used in a criminal offence. You don't charge a person for their car being stolen and used in a crime, why do that to a gun owner?
The reason is that a gun, used for its intended purpose, is dangerous, much as are explosives. Persons transporting explosives on the highway are strictly liable for any damages resulting from the product, without any consideration of negligence or intentional acts. An automobile, used for its intended purpose, provides transportation.
I do not think the Supreme Court will have that much effect on the debate. It is universally accepted that some controls on gun ownership and possession are necessary. The debate will continue on where to draw that line.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Lester before quoting the Australian Bureau of statistics it would be wise to have actually visited the site and read the reports because in this case you are dead wrong.
Here is the correct information which show a steady decline since 1997.
The publicized shooting you refer to in Australia is in fact the The Port Arthur Massacre. It still holds the record for the largest mass killing by a lone gunman on earth. This was not a minor incident blown out proportion.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Conservative Christian Views
Gun control is a very sensitive issue for many people especially for me I am a legal gun owner I have never harmed anyone with a gun why should my rights be infringed, because of criminals that don't obey the law.
Should we punish the innocent along with the guilty. There is already over 20,000 gun laws in existence, if they were enforced, many crimes would not happen. Jim just as many law enforcement officers say they support the second amendment as doesn't it all depends on who you ask.
Damo I did visit Australian Bureau of statistics, and found that the information is not always complete, because of the reporting discrepancies between the states and territories. Gun control has not made a difference, because there are spikes, and low in the gun related crimes.
Damo you will find that I am right if you use the dates I stated, there was and increase in gun related crime in that time frame.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
All state police forces in Australia have produced reports that directly counter what you have said. Instead they say that crime, and particulary violent crime has been steadily decreasing. How is that you have found something that the entire media, police and Australian Gun Lobbiests have missed?
You will need to provide a link to the pages that drew you conclusions from.
BTW the fiigues you are quoting look omniously like those quoted in a discredited Spam email from several years ago. Using a non existant Police officer and quoting non existant ABS figures, This email has been used by Gun Lobbiests the world over. How ever it was nothing more than a total lie. Is that the source you are quoting?
Comment by S.L. Bradish
I don't favor criminals having weapons, but they can always find them. Responsible gun owners shouldn't have to give up their rights because criminals do bad things. The old adage "Guns don't kill people. People kill people," is proven true repeatedly. A killer who is determined will find another way, like clubs, knives or their own hands. Shall we outlaw anything that can kill (Jim?) Guns aren't the problem, a permissive society that doesn't bring the full extent of the law on criminals is the problem.
If someone breaks into my home, intending to do me or my family harm, you can bet he'll get a quick lesson in gun control! I'll be holding him at bay or dropping him in his tracks while Jim and others are hoping for a minute on the phone to call the police (and then waiting for them to arrive.)
Comment by Lester Caudill
Conservative Christian Views
I am a member of the NRA and am proud of it. I also support the Second Amendment Foundation. The Liberal dems want to destroy the true foundation of Constitution, and change it to fit their wrapped thinking.
Comment by S.L. Bradish