As left-winged and socialist as I usually am, I even surprise myself when the issue of gun control comes up. Being from Canada, and being terrified of even being near a gun, one would think that I would want the government to immediately ban all guns all the time. While I do think that obviously people shouldn't be able to just walk into the drug store and pick up Tylenol and a .45, I think the ownership of guns is an essential right in America.
Of course, here's where I start sounding crazy. Now unlike most people, I don't think that the ownership of guns is important to protect one's family against the roving bands of criminals ruling our streets (sarcasm). I'm also not one of those people who thinks teachers should be armed to stopped school shootings (stupid). I believe that the ownership of guns is essential because I am a firm believer in John Locke's assertion of the right of a people to revolt against their government in the instance that the government stops representing the people's best interest. Now obviously I don't mean if the government sends more troops to Iraq or raises taxes a dollar then we should take those motherfuckers down. But if the government were to abandon the theories of democracy and strip the people of their rights without the consent of the people then I think the people have a right and a duty to revolt. That might seem like a crazy possibility to us right now (hopefully crazy), but it could happen.
Nick has mentioned that obviously Joe Militia in Montana wouldn't be able to take down the United States Army with his stockpile of grenade launchers and surplus Soviet AK-47s, but if the situation ever deteriorated that much, it would only take a handful of people revolting to convince some people in the military to revolt as well. It's not like we're so separated from people in the armed forces that if there was open revolt they would blindly follow a government overstepping its boundaries. And that people can own weapons, and any home in America might possess at least a revolver would inject some level of fear in a totalitarian government.
There was actually an instance in the early 90s of two street gangs in Los Angeles (well armed militias, which I think the 2nd amendment also protects) uniting and making political demands of the local government to clean up the poor areas of town and to cease overly racist police practices. I doubt any of this did any good, but I think it is an interesting thing to cite.
I was going to cut this next paragraph because nobody will agree with me, but I decided to keep it for the sake of argument. I mentioned the word "duty" earlier, too, in speaking of a people revolting. I believe (and this will definitely get people angry) that the people of a country are complicit in the actions of their government. Sure, we may have voted against Bush in the last election (well, not me, because I can't vote), but by continuing to live in America we all share some responsibility for the actions of his administration. Protesting or writing against government policy absolves some guilt, but not all of it. Likewise, those people in dictatorships are responsible for the actions of their government, if they were not rising against the government. People in Nazi Germany, for example, were responsible for their government's actions. If they did not speak out against their government because they feared death, then they decided that life under that regime was acceptable. Therefore, if our government ever deteriorated into aggressive totalitarianism, then we would have a duty to revolt, or we would be guilty for whatever actions were made by the government.
As for assault weapons, they are dangerous weapons that do no good besides deal in death. But part of living in a free society is living in a dangerous society. Sure, by getting rid of these weapons (or all guns) on the market you might make this country safer. And by getting rid of guns in general you might make this country safer. But that rationale is also used by people who want to implement wiretapping on innocent civilians. By listening in to all of our phone calls, you might make America a safer place, but it would come at the cost of an element of freedom that I don't think is worth it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
...but by continuing to live in America we all share some responsibility for the actions of his administration.
I live in South Korea :-)
I don't disagree that the citizens of a country are to a certain extent complicit in their government. However, I think you may take that idea too far. Could I afford to move out of America? Absolutely not; so I know you, Glenn, sure as hell couldn't. I can't even afford to move out of my condo! I do think, though, that the people do have an obligation to be involved in the process, and that means protesting, writing letters, etc. etc. The people putting pressure on our elected government actually gets things done; some in power or in the media might like to make people think otherwise, but it is true. But you seem to be just itching for a violent revolt!
As I have pointed out many times, I have never and would never advocate for banning all guns, and I think that guns serve a purpose; obviously first and foremost as protection, then as a tool of hunting, then as a recreational thing for many people, or something handed down from generation to generation, which is wonderful, and then as a way to revolt. And you are right, the people mobilized against a government would actually be a formidable opponent. That, however, is not a good argument for people being allowed to have assault weapons. I mean, why not take it all the way? I suggest that our Founders could not have anticipated the kinds of weapons that are in existence now and would have likely worded the 2nd amendment differently were it written in modern times- however, as I hold the Constitution in extremely high esteem, I honor this amendment. But, to take it to an extreme, why not let's evaluate what they meant by "arms" and what they would have in mind to "revolt." In those times, the gov't possessed about the same kinds of weapons the people did. So why don't we make bombs legal for people to have? Why not rocket launchers and flamethrowers? Sell 'em right in the Wal-Marts. After all, those are arms, and they would be more effective in revolting against an uppity government.
The argument that "we live in a dangerous world" is total bullshit and has always pissed me off. I do agree, of course, but it would be illogical to apply that only to guns. Why not evaluate across the board things that are considered dangerous but illegal, and legalize it all. After all, the world is dangerous, people could do it anyway, so let's just legalize it all and let people go fuck-crazy. How about drugs? Let's legalize it all. Crystal meth. Crack. (Of course, some here might actually want to legalize all drugs; however, the Right Wing and social conservatives would never be for legalizing drugs and giving up the Drug War). Some people might want to own assault weapons so they can put them up on the wall and never touch them; some people want them so they can go out to the field and shoot stuff and have a good ol' time gettin' stuff blowed up. But "just because I want it" is not a good argument. That would mean that shit that I might want that is illegal, I should be able to have to! I want to drive 100 mph on the road; it's a dangerous world anyway, so why not just let me do it. I like to drink alcohol and then drive around; it's already a dangerous world, and I might even do that even though it is illegal, so why no just let me do it, and hope that I don't hurt someone.
Assault weapons and their ilk have no useful purpose outside of the military or law enforcement; because the world is dangerous anyway is a bullshit argument because you'd be a hypocrite to not advocate that attitude across the board. Because people like them is not a good argument; people like a lot of things that are illegal, and we aren't going to give it to them just because they want it. Once a week here, and in the past year almost every other day, someone has been killed, and it's no coincidence that in each headline the words "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is used, and most of the articles deal with children and teenagers. And for the Right Wing to advocate for coming into our bedrooms, for opening our mail without a warrant (as Bush recently asserted was his right), for legislating what two people in love may do and feel, and every other bullshit personal thing, but then to cry if anyone mentions anything regarding any sort of gun control and then yells about "leftist gun grabbers" and personal freedoms, that is the lowest of the fucking low.
Of course other guns kill people; a rifle kills, as does a handgun. As does a knife. Many of my college textbooks could kill someone. I could kill someone with my bare hands, too. Still not a good argument against not having some gun control; and making it harder to get legal guns is important too. There's no reason why someone needs a handgun right that second; a waiting period and tough background checks, etc., all good things.
Well, Nick, if you weighed all the options and decided that the government we had was so vile that you could not stand to have it represent you then you could find a way to leave the country. However you and I are comfortable with our way of lives here in America, and have decided it's something we can live with, the death our government deals. This makes us complicit in their actions. But we are complicit in the good they do, too. It's a question of balances, really. If our government started banning free press and free speech, or launching nuclear weapons against foreign lands, or gassing millions of people, then I'm sure we probably would leave or revolt, and then we would be absolved of the guilt we have for their actions.
I never said I'm against gun control. That is, I agree that there should be waiting periods for weapons. But you have not made a good case why assault rifles are so much worse than handguns. Both kill people. Handguns are used in probably way more instances of murder, even if you were to consider a proportion of how many of each weapon are on the streets. And yes, I think that an assault rifle in a home would give a government more fear than a revolver, but you're taking my argument to an illogical extreme by saying I would support the legalization of rocket launchers and bombs. That is exactly the kind of extremist rhetoric you purport to be against.
I don't support the government spying on its people to stop "terrorism," if you were implying I do, and I don't support a complete ban on assault rifles. I do, however, support a waiting period to get a gun, or not allowing felons to purchase weapons, or other measures to make sure these weapons don't fall into the hands of obviously crazy people, even though they might fall into the hands of a not-obviously crazy person, and I might end up shot dead.
I am not the greatest writer; I think that I made it seem like I was arguing against you when I was really arguing more against other people and things that usually get argued regarding gun control. My apologies for that; I do think that many people who advocate against gun control also advocate all sorts of other personal violations (gays, sex, etc.). Obviously I know you never advocate for something like that. I guess it would help if I delineated my argument towards you and the argument towards other people.
However, I still think that there should be a ban on assault weapons. I've still seen no good argument against it. Yes, handguns kill and are used in more murders than any assault weapons; but you'd HAVE to agree that assault weapons are much more efficient killing weapons than a handgun, right? And I wasn't trying for extremist ideas, I really do think that it is logical to say that if we are going to use weapons to revolt, and people's rights should not be infringed upon, then why not let them have even more extreme weapons? An assault rifle is to a handgun what a grenade launcher is to an assault rifle, I think. You can kill with either, but one is MUCH more effective than the other. An assault rifle in a home, in my opinion, would not make a government more fearful; the government has things at its disposal like swat teams, attack helicopters, missiles, etc. Maybe it would make them slightly more concerned, but not much.
I don't have time now to go into detail on every single point that you argued in your rebuttal. I will say that I am very glad that I've cause some arguments and some discussion. I'll also say that gun control was not what I thought would be the most popular topic this week: I thought my argument on gay marriage would be more vehemently debated. I also have to say that my actual stand on gun control is actually what I would call pretty moderate: I think the vast majority of guns should never be banned. I think that the gun show loophole should be closed so that people have the same waiting period there as in a gun store. That, to me, is hardly a radical opinion. I do think that some assault weapons should be limited to use in only the military or law enforcement. However, I believe that should be kept to a minimum. I think that the 2nd Amendment should absolutely be interpreted as people should have the right to bear arms, and that should be interpreted widely, and I also absolutely agree that the right to citizens to protect themselves, including against their government, is important. We had one civil war, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility that something similar could happen given the right circumstances. However, the Constitution also guarantees the promotion of the general welfare and protections of the citizens, and I think that means some relatively small bans on some extreme guns. That's all. I'm glad to see that we don't agree on everything, and I LOVE arguing!
BTW, I still love you, Glenn.
Well, I disagree with you Nick about assault rifles equalling larger weapons. But I do apologize for saying you were using "extremist rhetoric." That was mean.
PS - I love you too. Let's get married!
only if you allow me to be the maid of honor! ;)
great arguements, fellas. i am also with the idea that assault rifles are a bit on the extreme side. these are automatic weapons made for the army to use (and to ensure death) in a war against the "enemy."
i think there are extremes that need to be regulated. and reading on wikipedia, assault rifles are catagorized as light machine guns. if one were to say it was for safety, i sure as hell would not feel safe living next to the guy with the light machine gun!
wikipedia also states some improvements these guns are getting:
A renaissance of 7.62 mm weapons has begun to occur recently. To some degree in Iraq, but particularly in Afghanistan, soldiers are beginning to use modernized M14s, M21s, M24 SWSs, and AR10s (the 7.62x51 mm predecessor of the AR15). With a longer effective range, the 7.62x51 mm is proving useful at fighting at long ranges. The 7.62x51 NATO round has also shown its usefulness against enemies who have been seen to take several hits from 5.56 mm bullets and not be incapacitated, killed, or on occasion, even deterred. That unpleasant surprise is attributed to long-range ballistic deficiencies of the 5.56 bullet.
it is just obvious these were never made, nor intended, for public use. it should be regulated that way.
No post for Friday?
I think there was a good discussion this week. I suppose I get too jumbled in my writing and start arguing points that were not being put forth by the person I am specifically rebutting. Besides that, though, I still don't feel that anyone put forth a good argument for why certain assault weapons should not be regulated by the government.
The best argument, I believe, is that the government should stay out of people's lives and not decide what is "good for them." That is the argument I identify with the most, and that is, in my opinion, the only argument that holds up. And that argument works well for me with almost all guns and weaponry. But it is still not a good enough argument to not have the gov't regulate SOME guns. There are some guns that are made for the military and law enforcement. Those were not meant for private use, and should not be allowed for private use. I always by default lean towards the gov't staying out of people's lives; but there are some things that the gov't SHOULD be involved in, and weaponry is one of them. I would never argue taking the vast majority of guns; some, though, should be restricted and there hasn't been a good argument against that. I find it hilarious that someone would call me a "leftist gun grabber," but that sort of name calling is the mark of someone that has no real argument.
Glenn's main argument, being that people should be allowed to have guns in case they need to rise up against a tyrannical gov't, is also a good one, but not a very good one when it comes to assault weapons. Any research on assault weapons, first of all, shows very conclusively that these weapons were never meant to be in private hands. And though Glenn may find my argument "extreme," I strongly disagree: when the Framers wrote the 2nd Amendment, the gov't and the citizenry had basically the same sorts of weapons. If your argument is seriously that people need to be packing heat so they can revolt against a gov't that has serious weapons at their disposal, and you'd argue that having an assault weapon would strike more fear in a gov't than just a rifle (which I would disagree with- if I had a bazooka, and you threatened me with either a sharpened pencil or a sawed-off shotgun, I still have a bazooka; I won't be scared either way), but it doesn't seem extreme at all to me that that argument means that the people should logically be able to have more serious weaponry. If you're really about having the firepower to revolt, you're gonna need a HELL of a lot more than any assault weapons. And even then, the gov't will always have more serious technology at their disposal. And they SHOULD! But this argument has other flaws. What if the gov't passed a sweeping civil rights law (abortion or gay marriage, which people in some regions and states get extremely worked up about); do you want people to have assault weapons and such to rise up against their gov't in these cases? It's not implausible at all to imagine that situation. I don't believe that people should be even close to as armed as their gov't; the gov't does have the responsibility to be more powerful than the citizenry. So I don't buy that argument.
Anyways, I'm glad we had a good week of discussion. Like I said, I would have thought that the gay marriage thing would have been the one more argued. Either way, it was a lot of fun.
Post a Comment