Tuesday, March 18, 2008

I'd love to spit some Beechnut in that dude's eyes...

I am not a gun nut. I consider myself a gun enthusiast. Most of the guns I own have sentimental or historical value. Others are just awesome. I don't use them to shoot any living things- I am a vegetarian for crying out loud- but I do get a kick out of shooting the Halloween jack-o-lantern and random other targets.

I agree with our forefathers that gun ownership should be a legally protected right. The biggest problem I have with those that want to infringe upon gun ownership rights is that they justify that intrusion as a crime fighting measure. I think their arguments are nuts. I believe that there is a good way to prevent crime: legalization of drugs. Plenty of people disagree with me on this point, but that's fine. I think the futility of gun bans as a way to reduce crime speaks for itself.

However, I am surprised to read that the Supreme Court is questioning the ban on handguns in Washington D.C.. I am not surprised because I have a problem with that, I am surprised because I cannot believe that they are showing that much common sense. Does that make me cynical?


Randy C said...

I'm definately no Constitutional Scholar, and I am a staunch critic of the NRA but the second amendment clearly states that Americans have the right to bear arms. I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwise. But, I also feel that state governments should have the authority and responsibility to regulate gun ownership as they see fit to protect the health and general welfare of the public at large (this is why I don't buy many of the NRA's arguments). The dicey issue here is that DC did not ban all guns, but only a certain type of gun, in this case handguns. I understand what the DC government is trying to do, but I personally feel that the ban is over the line, unreasonable and unconstitutional, and as you said definately not an effective way to fight violent crime. Its not like just because they ban handguns that the criminals will suddenly stop using them. All a ban does is stop the law abiding citizens from protecting their families and property, thus giving the criminals another edge.

Anonymous said...

Beechnut, is this a reference to "A country boy can survive?"

I too do not proclaim to be a constitutional scholar, and with that said, I don't believe the 2nd amendment was intended to allow citizens to shoot each other in an agressive manner, but in defense. The time and context in which the bill of rights was written has changed dramatically, and they did not have the technology and resources that are in the hands of those who this law suit is discussing.

Freemarket said...

Has the ban on handguns in DC stopped people from shooting each other in an "aggressive manner", or in a non-aggressive manner for that matter? I would support the ban if it could be shown that it is effective in reducing crime. However, the only thing it appears to accomplish is giving criminals the upper hand.

As far as technology goes, just as gun technology has increased, so have the law enforcement methods of tracking those guns and screening their owners. I don't think the constitution becomes fundamentally obsolete.