| hmm, threads all over the place awaiting responses. ahh, the good ol second amendment. certainly the intentions of the founders was to empower the populace against possible tyranny from the government. as they had just fought a bloody war against an entrenched power, they understood that power is corrupting and only a vast array of checks and balances could maintain a degree of equanimity. so then the question should turn to what can be done to limit the use of guns?
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use. obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory). heres some source materials 1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
|
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use.
obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory).
heres some source materials
1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
- dave 5-29-2000 10:53 pm