I'm thinking of starting a series of blog entries on hot-button issues and how one (or both) sides get the argument wrong. So often with passionate issues, the arguments become completely ridiculous when there are far more rational, although more complicated, arguments to be made. I'm going to start with gun control.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:
Most people who are pro-gun (for the lack of a better term), ignore the first clause. It is hard for me to understand how owning a gun for hunting or home protection constitutes a militia and keeps America a free country. The army may be an "Army of One", but you are not a militia of one. I do not accept the argument that freedom includes or requires gun ownership. If that is your argument, why isn't the right to bear heroin or kiddy-porn or napalm necessary to maintain a free country?
There is a much better argument that can be made for gun ownership. I maintain that the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with personal gun ownership, and therefore the constitution makes no case one way or the other concerning guns. When you take the constitutional argument out of it, this can now be left up to states to decide what is best for its citizens. I think using the Constitution as part of your argument is a cop-out. If you believe that you should be allowed to own a gun for home protection or hunting (or home decor), come up with a rational argument for it that doesn't include a document written over 300 years ago that was making reference to being organized against an invading British army. (I don't think Tony Blair or Gordon Brown are going to launch an offensive any time soon)
Without the constitutional crutch, the argument for guns does become a bit more difficult. For example, for hunting, a state could set up rules that allowed only regulated, licensed business to rent out guns for a day or week. This would allow people to hunt but make it impossible for them to have guns in their homes. For home protection, one would have to show statistics for how often guns are successfully used to protect a person or property and compare that to the risks of gun ownership.
What am I missing in these arguments?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Most people who are pro-gun (for the lack of a better term), ignore the first clause. It is hard for me to understand how owning a gun for hunting or home protection constitutes a militia and keeps America a free country. The army may be an "Army of One", but you are not a militia of one. I do not accept the argument that freedom includes or requires gun ownership. If that is your argument, why isn't the right to bear heroin or kiddy-porn or napalm necessary to maintain a free country?
There is a much better argument that can be made for gun ownership. I maintain that the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with personal gun ownership, and therefore the constitution makes no case one way or the other concerning guns. When you take the constitutional argument out of it, this can now be left up to states to decide what is best for its citizens. I think using the Constitution as part of your argument is a cop-out. If you believe that you should be allowed to own a gun for home protection or hunting (or home decor), come up with a rational argument for it that doesn't include a document written over 300 years ago that was making reference to being organized against an invading British army. (I don't think Tony Blair or Gordon Brown are going to launch an offensive any time soon)
Without the constitutional crutch, the argument for guns does become a bit more difficult. For example, for hunting, a state could set up rules that allowed only regulated, licensed business to rent out guns for a day or week. This would allow people to hunt but make it impossible for them to have guns in their homes. For home protection, one would have to show statistics for how often guns are successfully used to protect a person or property and compare that to the risks of gun ownership.
What am I missing in these arguments?
