Nov 03 2008
Seriously, Fuck the Second Amendment
I got quite a bit of feedback from my last post about how guns are the illegitimate children of Satan and Charlton Heston , and it only seemed fair to address these issues in the form of another patronizing, self-righteous post.
The most common line of defense from the gun toters is that a ban on guns will only take away weapons from the good people (I’m not even going to try to explain the fallacy of the phrase “good people”).
First off, this is the same logic that we use to defend abortion — if we ban abortion, women will still have them, and they’ll be less safe. If this is your reason for owning a gun, you better be ready to support abortion.
Secondly, of course some criminals would still find ways to get their hands on guns. The point is, they’d have to do it illegally, meaning that these evildoers (again, I’m biting my tongue), could be arrested and prosecuted for owning firearms before they shot twelve year old boys trick-or-treating . If we’re really concerned about home invasion, we can invest in security systems, we can take self-defense classes, we can raise Rottweilers, we can demand a stronger and more efficient police force. We can work to make living conditions better for would-be criminals, we can legalize and regulate the sex and drug industries to ensure that the workers of these businesses can feel safe. We don’t have to shoot everyone trying to steal our TVs.
And of course, we can’t stop murder, as the pro-killers often remind us. There will always be knives, screwdrivers, piano wires, and bows and arrows — but these are nothing compared to the quick, unstoppable force of a single bullet. If T.J. Darrisaw ’s attacker was limited to a box cutter, he could still be alive today enjoying a Three Musketeers bar.
Then there’s the Constitution. The Second Amendment is apparently sacred to the urban cowboys, on par with the likes of the Sixth Commandment (that’s the not-killing one). What they forget is that this same constitution once labeled a black man as being equal to three-fifths of a white man and prohibited the production of alcohol . The founding fathers knew that no document could withstand the tests of time. Back in 1776, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that a woman’s voice counted for nothing, slavery was the backbone of the nation’s economy, and every citizen could own a musket to defend themselves from an encroaching government. But it’s 2008 now, and none of those values are still logical. There’s a reason these things are called “amendments”; laws can be amended.
They ask, “What if the government gets out of control? What if Czar Obama sends his secret police force after us?” They lament, “If only Anne Frank had an Uzi.”
They’re reading too much George Orwell. But assuming that they’re right, that the government will grow too big, reducing the US to a totalitarian police state, there’s not much a group of rednecks can do with their hunting rifles. In the 21st century, information is the strongest weapon around. No dictatorship, no matter how powerful, can stop the flow of information. Remember that it wasn’t an army of rebellious citizens that torn down the Berlin Wall in 1989, it was the fax machine.
Finally, it can’t be denied that guns have saved private citizens’ lives on occasions. Everyone has the right to defend himself, and the practical use of firearms has indeed given second chances to countless Americans. But at some point we must ask — at what cost?
Why is it that the US feels the need to have guns? Countries with no 2nd amendment, who don’t have people owning guns like kitchen appliances, don’t have the same rates of violence. Is that just a coincidence?
My late uncle was a Canadian hunter/trapper and so I grew up having respect for rifles. He taught me to shoot (paper targets only) and for a while I was a member of a rifle club. Would I have a gun in my house? You have to be kidding me. If I had a gun, and someone entered my home, I’d use the gun even if were to shoot their knees and make them wish I’d killed them! For this reason, I know that guns breed violence, because I hate violence and yet I know if I had one, and was in a situation of defending myself, I’d use it.
Point 1: If you support legal gun ownership, you’d better support abortion.
While I find the logic a little spurious, I am actually in favor of both guns and abortions being legal. My reasoning for both is pretty close, that being that people should be allowed to make their own decisions and should only be punished if they break laws.
Point 2: If guns are outlawed, it will be easier to prosecute the “bad people” for having them.
Right now, it is illegal to purchase a weapon if you are a convicted felon and in VA, if you are being tried for misdemeanor domestic violence. The law you want is already in place and you don’t have to disarm anyone those people might hurt to have it.
Second, keep in mind things that can be a felony in this country: Downloading music illegally. Wearing a face concealing mask in VA in public. Do either of these sound like you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself effectively because of them?
Argument 3: There are other ways to defend yourself.
This is true. I keep other weapons besides my guns, including swords and my hands. The truth, though, is that not everyone has that opportunity. There are 90 year old grannies that can kick my butt I’m sure, but I’m betting the percentage of that age group that can is kinda low. Recently, I’ve read stories about similar people stopping robbers with a handgun.
Argument 4: The Constitution is mutable and is designed to keep up with the time.
Remember that freedom of speech is an amendment too. Because it’s mutable doesn’t mean it needs to go away if people find it inconvenient.
The time when we will no longer need to own arms is the day when the whole world tosses their guns in the ocean. If that day comes, I’ll be there with them. Until such time, I choose to arm myself against those who would use force in the place good judgement.
Argument 5: Having a gun will not stop the government from oppressing you.
A hunting rifle might not keep the US Army at bay, but I daresay that not having it isn’t any better. Peaceful protest, education and the free exchange of ideas is the only way to build lasting change, that I agree with. Every system, though, falls back to force as the final argument. If that weren’t true, cops wouldn’t be armed.
Also, keep in mind the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we are fighting there is essentially a bunch of farmers with rifles. That’s what we fought in Vietnam too. While I don’t in any way say these were just conflicts, I do think they are examples of what even the smallest armed resistance is capable of.
Argument the last: What is the cost of firearms ownership?
I agree that tragedy has occured. I work on Virginia Tech campus and sat in horror of what happened on 4/16. My father was shot and killed in my living room. My uncle died in a hunting accident before I was born.
That said, I recognize these as accidents. I don’t consider deaths caused by DUI to be reason to ban alcohol. I don’t think that Internet Fraud is a reason to ban computers. I don’t think that stalking is a reason to ban binoculars.
What do I think should be illegal? Shooting through a doorway at an uncertain target. I hope the guy gets the needle. He did a horrible thing and should be punished for it. But if he’d had a shotgun, a handgun, a bucket of hot grease, a machete, an electrified grate on his porch or any of a host of other deadly means, my opinion would be the same and so would the outcome.
Let the bastard be punished for his crime, not those who own the same tools and do nothing wrong with them.
Bill..do you want a ban on all guns or only fully automatic firearms?
I want every object that has the sole purpose of killing people to be banned.