Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘guns’

Those of you who know me well will be aware that I am no fan of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, typically finding him my ideological polar opposite. As such, when he and I agree on anything at all, there is probably some truth in it.

To quote from his opinion in District Of Columbia v. Heller:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

Also:

“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the (government) a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.”

I have written a lot about guns these past few days, for obvious reasons, and have just about exhausted myself on the subject at this point. However, I would like to sign off with the idea that if even Justice Scalia, an arch-conservative constitutional scholar if ever there was one, believes there is room for reasonable limitations on the Second Amendment, there probably is.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Thirty-five years ago today, the world lost a genius to an act of madness.

John Lennon. Not a perfect man, a flawed one. But he was blessed with a creativity and spirit which ring through the decades, continuing to inspire musicians and pacifists today.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all, however, is that since the day he was shot and killed, over a million others in America have met the same fate.

Surely we can do better.

Read Full Post »

Let’s take a moment to review a couple of fairly important pieces of paper, shall we? Specifically, I’m referring to the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

From the Declaration:

“We” (Americans) “hold these truths to be self-evident:” (which means we think you’d have to be kind of a bonehead not to see it)
“that all Men are created equal” (bearing in mind that in the standard usages of the time this referred to ‘mankind’, not to those of a specific gender),
“that they are endowed by their Creator” (this does not restrict us to the Judaeo-Christian God but to any creative force, be it a God, multiple gods, Nature or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster)
“with certain unalienable rights” (definition: unable to be taken from or given away by their possessor)
“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is powerful stuff.

When you take away someone’s life, impinge on someone’s liberty or impede their pursuit of happiness, you are actively opposing what it means to be American.

From this alone we can see that slavery, domestic violence, the death penalty, hate crimes – and any denial of rights to one group of people which another would claim for themselves – are in direct violation of our nation’s most sacred principles.

Let’s also look at the Bill of Rights a little:

The First Amendment. “Freedom of speech” does indeed give you the right to say hateful and discriminatory things. It does not in any way protect you from people calling you out for it, putting your despicable rantings on YouTube, breaking off friendships, refusing to do business with you or voting you out of office. Similarly, this amendment proscribes government from “an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Even if the people wishing to freely exercise their religion happen to be Muslims, or indeed anything other than Christian.

The Second Amendment. “A well-regulated citizen militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Well-regulated. That means that yes, gun control measures to ensure that random nutjobs aren’t shooting up schools and churches are not only perfectly legitimate, they are necessary.

The Fourth Amendment. Understanding that the nation’s founders had no way of predicting the technological advances of the last half century, I think it’s fair to say that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” also applies to electronic data – which has been unreasonably searched and seized all too often of late.

The Ninth Amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence above (the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) continue to be retained by the people and must remain inviolate.

None of these things seem particularly hard to understand….

Read Full Post »

So now that I’ve had more time to digest all this…

We’re never going to get rid of guns in this country, not within my lifetime at least. Even if we ban new ones completely, the number of guns still extant runs to nine digits. So maybe something like this:

1. Design a mechanism to be built into the design of a gun which remotely disables its firing mechanism in areas where a “gun free area” transponder signal is being received, unless the gun is assigned to law enforcement personnel. This would not be a technological stretch for us.

2. Mandate the inclusion of this system on all new guns manufactured in or imported into the USA.

3. Set up the transponders in designated areas such as schools, malls etc. – preferably paid for via a surcharge on the cost of obtaining a gun license.

4. Provide a tax incentive for citizens who turn in old firearms in exchange for ones equipped with the above system.

5. Print serial numbers on ammunition and keep records of which numbers are purchased where and by whom in a centralized law enforcement database. If I have to show my ID and sign my name to buy cold medicine, we can damn well do it for bullets.

This would create jobs, keep us all safer, let people keep their guns in their homes for safety and allow the NRA to keep doing their hunting in areas where it’s permitted.

Maybe there are other problems with this, and I’m willing to discuss them, but surely something like this is a good start?

Your move, Congress.

Read Full Post »