The Sheer Stupidity of 'The Right to Bear Arms'
December 16th 2007 22:11
Modern society is cursed with many outdated laws that sometimes make their way in inconvenient circumstances. Yet none of those ancient, outdated, irrelevant and plain pointless laws cause more harm than the much hyped 2nd Amendment.
The sheer stupidity and irrelevance of this supposed 'right' is something to gaze upon at with awe. What sort of misplaced ideals of freedom brought about a desire to carry weapons? In what context was this right created and why do Americans insist, despite all the evidence, it makes them safer?
There is no safety in carrying weapons, by giving people the 'right' to easily purchase small sidearm and worse yet, conceal them, goes to the heart of the issue. Who first takes advantage of these 'rights'? Criminals of course, only they would feel obligated enough to be armed before committing a robbery and what better alibi than the second amendment should he or she be caught just before attempting to commit the deed?
When gun control is imposed firearms aren't banned, they are regulated. They are regulated such that ex-criminals cannot purchase them, they are regulated such that only those who have legitimate reason to own a firearm can acquire one with minimal fuss. When gun control is enforced less criminals will have guns, in fact hardly any will. There will be no criminal left with a gun for you to fear.
Which year do we live in now? Are we to die by 'rights' given to us years ago in a world totally different than the one we live in now? In a world where slavery was rife and infighting was above and beyond anything that has ever happened again? Almost every country has moved on, have adopted modern laws to tackle modern problems.
The United States, like in so many things, is not willing to go forward because it can't let go of the past. So what we have here is something that we have in many other issues with the US, from such things as war to healthcare to environmentalism. Unclear, inconsistent direction. Gun free zones have been created, and for what reason do we have gun free zones but to disarm law abiding citizens and give criminals an easy avenue to commit gun related crimes on them? We have people who want the freedom to carry and acquire weapons easily yet want it to be more difficult for would-be criminals to do the same.
The insanity goes on and on, the half-truths, the flat-out false propaganda keeps going. The issue won't ever be resolved because like just about every element of American politics corporations are involved. Worse yet however is there is no side objecting to the context in which the second amendment exists. Conservatives are busily away appeasing their corporate masters while liberals are clamouring onto their supposed ideals of freedom, both ideologies achieve the same end: The right to carry concealed weapons.
There are of course those who claim the right to bare arms comes down to a fundamental right of self defence. To those people I ask, self defence from what? Criminals? It would be very rare for a criminal to have a sidearm in a society with appropriate gun control laws. The government? Even if the majority of Americans were capable of standing up for what they believe in, if they believe in anything that is, they would not need guns. There have been many revolutions without any bloodshed, why can’t the same happen in the US? Guns don’t make a revolution, people do.
Perhaps the constitution is overrated, in many ways there is ample evidence it is and even those who wrote it probably did not do so with the intention it would be brought into literally every political debate hundreds of years later. It would seem everything in the US is about the constitution. Yet no one seems to understand the simple fact, that the constitution is just a piece of paper, arguing over it is fruitless. What should be argued over is what the piece of paper represents. It represents the modern world, it represents modern society, it represents everything modern society is essentially built up on.
So no one should argue that gun-control is unconstitutional, to do so is to argue semantics. You could argue that the constitution gives people the right to bare arms yet in the same breath argue that it doesn’t give people the right to bare arms. The wording on the paper is deliberately vague because the author, and those who approved the authors writing, recognized they were not perfect, they recognized times would inevitably change and above all they recognized the constitution should be upheld and respected not because of what was written on it but what it clearly and unambiguously stood for, in one word, civilization.
The sheer stupidity and irrelevance of this supposed 'right' is something to gaze upon at with awe. What sort of misplaced ideals of freedom brought about a desire to carry weapons? In what context was this right created and why do Americans insist, despite all the evidence, it makes them safer?
There is no safety in carrying weapons, by giving people the 'right' to easily purchase small sidearm and worse yet, conceal them, goes to the heart of the issue. Who first takes advantage of these 'rights'? Criminals of course, only they would feel obligated enough to be armed before committing a robbery and what better alibi than the second amendment should he or she be caught just before attempting to commit the deed?
When gun control is imposed firearms aren't banned, they are regulated. They are regulated such that ex-criminals cannot purchase them, they are regulated such that only those who have legitimate reason to own a firearm can acquire one with minimal fuss. When gun control is enforced less criminals will have guns, in fact hardly any will. There will be no criminal left with a gun for you to fear.
Which year do we live in now? Are we to die by 'rights' given to us years ago in a world totally different than the one we live in now? In a world where slavery was rife and infighting was above and beyond anything that has ever happened again? Almost every country has moved on, have adopted modern laws to tackle modern problems.
The United States, like in so many things, is not willing to go forward because it can't let go of the past. So what we have here is something that we have in many other issues with the US, from such things as war to healthcare to environmentalism. Unclear, inconsistent direction. Gun free zones have been created, and for what reason do we have gun free zones but to disarm law abiding citizens and give criminals an easy avenue to commit gun related crimes on them? We have people who want the freedom to carry and acquire weapons easily yet want it to be more difficult for would-be criminals to do the same.
The insanity goes on and on, the half-truths, the flat-out false propaganda keeps going. The issue won't ever be resolved because like just about every element of American politics corporations are involved. Worse yet however is there is no side objecting to the context in which the second amendment exists. Conservatives are busily away appeasing their corporate masters while liberals are clamouring onto their supposed ideals of freedom, both ideologies achieve the same end: The right to carry concealed weapons.
There are of course those who claim the right to bare arms comes down to a fundamental right of self defence. To those people I ask, self defence from what? Criminals? It would be very rare for a criminal to have a sidearm in a society with appropriate gun control laws. The government? Even if the majority of Americans were capable of standing up for what they believe in, if they believe in anything that is, they would not need guns. There have been many revolutions without any bloodshed, why can’t the same happen in the US? Guns don’t make a revolution, people do.
Perhaps the constitution is overrated, in many ways there is ample evidence it is and even those who wrote it probably did not do so with the intention it would be brought into literally every political debate hundreds of years later. It would seem everything in the US is about the constitution. Yet no one seems to understand the simple fact, that the constitution is just a piece of paper, arguing over it is fruitless. What should be argued over is what the piece of paper represents. It represents the modern world, it represents modern society, it represents everything modern society is essentially built up on.
So no one should argue that gun-control is unconstitutional, to do so is to argue semantics. You could argue that the constitution gives people the right to bare arms yet in the same breath argue that it doesn’t give people the right to bare arms. The wording on the paper is deliberately vague because the author, and those who approved the authors writing, recognized they were not perfect, they recognized times would inevitably change and above all they recognized the constitution should be upheld and respected not because of what was written on it but what it clearly and unambiguously stood for, in one word, civilization.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Our founding fathers knew that a defenseless populace is one that is easily controlled by outside armed forces and didn't find that particularly appealing, so they made provisions that the people of this country would have the right to bear arms; to fight back against insurgents, criminals and even our own government if it got crazy.
Trying not to be mean spirited, as a Muslim Ahmed, how safe would you feel about being unarmed in a region rife with sectarian violence or political unrest? You'd be strapping in pretty quick order, or be relegated to victim status the the rest of your stay in the region.
So, what or who put a burr under your saddle? Are you bi-polar? Mentally stable individuals that own weapons seldom use them; criminals or the mentally unbalanced will use a syringe, hammer, knife, sword, bomb, stone, bow and arrow, club or anything else at hand to commit their mayhem. Should we license those items as weapon/tools as well?
Are you suggesting that the government forbid the use of anything that can harm people? Medicine, autos, planes, flames and food would manifest as the largest contributors to premature death. So, back off a bit with the surliness of your rhetoric-this kind of inflammatory discourse has led to many killings and injuries in this world and blows!
Blanket statements like: the document you are so disdainful of is far more modern and less radical than those used to establish the rule of law in Muslim dominated countries. Those are inflammatory and irresponsibly used; much like most of what you ranted about in your post.
The problem isn't as clear cut as you paint it. Raven
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Raven, are you seriously comparing the United States to a country run by religous extremists? If you did live in a country over run by sectarian violnece you would probably want to get out. Not arm yourself with a weapon and foolishly attack whoever it is oppressing you.
Hammeres, knives, syringes are all illegal weapons that criminals will use, unfortunately those cannot feasibly be controlled in the same way guns can. However it is important to emphasize that gun control laws do in fact reduce gun violence and that is fact. The United States is evident that inconsistant gun laws drive the gun related crime rate up (gun freezones probably being a good example).
I'm not suggesting the govenrment ban everything that's dangerous, I never said that or even implied it in the slightest. I'm not even asking the government to ban guns. I'm asking why the government does not regulate the ownership of guns to a more strict degree? Why acquiring guns is so easy, perhaps easier than medicine or ciggarettes. This is a problem, because as much as guns are tools they are far more dangerous than most other weapons. While a butchers knife might have real uses not involved in killing side arms in particular are designed to kill people.
I have no disdain of the constitution, quite the opposite, I think the constitution plays a vital part in free society because it defines the limits of government and allows more diverse people to be elected into office. In all fairness I wouldn't be layering on the praise in the last paragraph if I didn't. But once again, I fail to see how you can compare a dictatorship with a supposedly free country... unless of course it isn't as free as americans say it is? Are you trying to drop hints?