Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/25/2004 4:18:52 PM EST
www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0655_gun_control_gone_too_far.html


Gun Control: Have We Gone Too Far?


A fundamentally flawed piece of gun legislation just died. Here's why the

rest should too.

By Matt Hutaff Sep 20, 2004


"Tyranny is always better organized than freedom." – Charles Péguy

It took three shootings over the course of ten years to spur Diane
Feinstein, the Grand Dame of California politics, into spearheading the 1994 Assault
Weapons Act.

"It was the ultimate shock," Feinstein said of the final spree that claimed
six lives in a San Francisco law office. "Someone comes in, aggrieved, and
goes right through the place."

And you know what? Such a response makes sense. After all, when 34 people
are killed in three totally unrelated situations years apart, what other
alternative is there than stripping away the rights of law-abiding citizens?

·····
Gun control is the ultimate extension of the "government-as-parent" scenario
which posits that Americans are either too stupid or too ignorant to take
care of themselves. While I won't argue that our nation is plagued with an
overabundance of idiocy, it is not the responsibility of the government to
baby-sit everyone and make sure they don't stick a fork in a light socket.

Such a mentality towards gun regulation only punishes the average citizen by
depriving themselves of the right to defend their person and their property.

Criminals aren't likely to care about where they find their firearms
because, hey, they're criminals. When they rob a store the last thing they're worried
about is whether or not their handgun is licensed.

Yet that reaction is what we've come to expect from our society. When one
lone nutjob storms into a school and kills five people, public outcry
doesn't lay blame on the criminal who committed the crime, it lands on the society that
gave him free access to a semi-automatic weapon and the legislators who,
despite campaign promises to the contrary, cannot see the future and
foretell every human tragedy that will ever occur in his or her jurisdiction.

Hey, there's a chance an airliner could be hijacked – should we be allowed
to fly with that kind of danger hanging over us? Drink too much water and
you'll die – why not regulate its consumption?

Because doing so would be as vain a pursuit as trying to make sure that
every person who is ever wounded or killed by a firearm deserved it. Wise up – you
can't standardize life.

However, it appears common sense is kicking in on Capitol Hill, as
Feinstein's bill shuffled off into the political sunset last Monday
afternoon. Having passed its ten-year anniversary, the bill required renewal or expiration. It
was quietly ignored.

And with good cause. Opponents of the bill will correctly highlight its
overall impotence at keeping weapons out of people's hands. Numerous
loopholes allowed the guns to stay on the market with small cosmetic changes or minor
alterations in accessories. Many that weren't modifiable were often
protected by grandfather clauses that exempted pre-ban guns. Feinstein herself has
admitted that "we could have written a better bill."

But while I herald the death of a law that, by the Department of Justice's
admission, had no impact on crime reduction, there are bigger issues at
play. How can firearms be regulated in the first place? Who benefits from such
regulation?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution plainly states that
"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." There's
no wiggle room on this. The Founders of our nation wanted to make sure that, if
we wanted to, we could arm and defend ourselves. Strangely, the past fifty
years have only amplified the need for such protection.

Why? Some would argue that the notion of gun rights in this day and age are
antiquated, a relic of our rural past. Few Americans need to hunt to
survive, critics say. And it's not like we're expecting the British or French to
invade any time soon.

While these things are true, the Founding Fathers didn't draft the Bill of
Rights to better prepare us from the hordes of berets and fish n' chips from
rampaging unchecked throughout the land. The personal freedoms guaranteed to
every American by that living document are there to protect you from the
tyranny of our own government.

Think about it for a moment. The First Amendment protects you from being
persecuted by the government for what you say and believe. The Fourth
Amendment defends your right to privacy, the Fifth guards you from incriminating
yourself in court and the Sixth guarantees you won't be subjected to a show trial if
you're ever prosecuted. These ideas are so simple and obvious it seems silly
to write them down, but they are all rights that a crooked government would
love to abuse or discard if they weren't.

In the past four years we've seen numerous attacks on many of the liberties
we find sacred. Censorship, the PATRIOT Act and secret "Star Chamber" trials
have eroded the fundamental freedoms I noted above. Police forces and
National Guard units are militarizing against their own citizens. And lest you think
this is a recent phenomenon, federal Civil Disturbance plans like Operation
Garden Plot and Department of State Publication 7277 have been around for
decades, ready and waiting to strip you of your rights to defend yourself before
killing you for disagreeing with the government.

History has shown that gun control invariably ends in total gun restriction
and genocide. Don't believe me? Ask German Jews or Armenian Turks - two
ethnic groups unable to save themselves from violence. It's estimated that 56
million unarmed victims fell in the 20th century alone. Crimes like these are
precisely why the Second Amendment was written. In the end, you may need to
make sure you have the same firepower the military has.

So I wholeheartedly support the ability for any citizen of this country to
purchase the exact same weaponry available to its own army. If you've got
the

inclination and the wherewithal to buy a tank or a rocket launcher, go for
it. If our arms manufacturers can sell automatic weapons to foreign countries
that have no specific allegiance to the United States, why can't they sell them
to

Americans who have a vested interest in securing themselves? Profit is
profit.

Am I advocating another Ruby Ridge or violent insurrection? Hardly. I just
think the playing field should be level and that people who want access to
these weapons shouldn't be denied because some irresponsible ass might do
something deadly with it. The presumption of innocence is one of the basic tenets of
American society.

Does everyone need to arm up? That's a personal decision. Should they have
the possibility?

You're damn right.

Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:24:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:25:06 PM EST
Tagged for later. I'm in a hurry...
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:25:17 PM EST
Damn, I like his attitude!
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:31:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By RustyTX:
www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0655_gun_control_gone_too_far.html


Gun Control: Have We Gone Too Far?


A fundamentally flawed piece of gun legislation just died. Here's why the

rest should too.

By Matt Hutaff Sep 20, 2004


"Tyranny is always better organized than freedom." – Charles Péguy

It took three shootings over the course of ten years to spur Diane
Feinstein, the Grand Dame of California politics, into spearheading the 1994 Assault
Weapons Act.

"It was the ultimate shock," Feinstein said of the final spree that claimed
six lives in a San Francisco law office. "Someone comes in, aggrieved, and
goes right through the place."

And you know what? Such a response makes sense. After all, when 34 people
are killed in three totally unrelated situations years apart, what other
alternative is there than stripping away the rights of law-abiding citizens?

·····
Gun control is the ultimate extension of the "government-as-parent" scenario
which posits that Americans are either too stupid or too ignorant to take
care of themselves. While I won't argue that our nation is plagued with an
overabundance of idiocy, it is not the responsibility of the government to
baby-sit everyone and make sure they don't stick a fork in a light socket.

Such a mentality towards gun regulation only punishes the average citizen by
depriving themselves of the right to defend their person and their property.

Criminals aren't likely to care about where they find their firearms
because, hey, they're criminals. When they rob a store the last thing they're worried
about is whether or not their handgun is licensed.

Yet that reaction is what we've come to expect from our society. When one
lone nutjob storms into a school and kills five people, public outcry
doesn't lay blame on the criminal who committed the crime, it lands on the society that
gave him free access to a semi-automatic weapon and the legislators who,
despite campaign promises to the contrary, cannot see the future and
foretell every human tragedy that will ever occur in his or her jurisdiction.

Hey, there's a chance an airliner could be hijacked – should we be allowed
to fly with that kind of danger hanging over us? Drink too much water and
you'll die – why not regulate its consumption?

Because doing so would be as vain a pursuit as trying to make sure that
every person who is ever wounded or killed by a firearm deserved it. Wise up – you
can't standardize life.

However, it appears common sense is kicking in on Capitol Hill, as
Feinstein's bill shuffled off into the political sunset last Monday
afternoon. Having passed its ten-year anniversary, the bill required renewal or expiration. It
was quietly ignored.

And with good cause. Opponents of the bill will correctly highlight its
overall impotence at keeping weapons out of people's hands. Numerous
loopholes allowed the guns to stay on the market with small cosmetic changes or minor
alterations in accessories. Many that weren't modifiable were often
protected by grandfather clauses that exempted pre-ban guns. Feinstein herself has
admitted that "we could have written a better bill."

But while I herald the death of a law that, by the Department of Justice's
admission, had no impact on crime reduction, there are bigger issues at
play. How can firearms be regulated in the first place? Who benefits from such
regulation?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution plainly states that
"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." There's
no wiggle room on this. The Founders of our nation wanted to make sure that, if
we wanted to, we could arm and defend ourselves. Strangely, the past fifty
years have only amplified the need for such protection.

Why? Some would argue that the notion of gun rights in this day and age are
antiquated, a relic of our rural past. Few Americans need to hunt to
survive, critics say. And it's not like we're expecting the British or French to
invade any time soon.

While these things are true, the Founding Fathers didn't draft the Bill of
Rights to better prepare us from the hordes of berets and fish n' chips from
rampaging unchecked throughout the land. The personal freedoms guaranteed to
every American by that living document are there to protect you from the
tyranny of our own government.

Think about it for a moment. The First Amendment protects you from being
persecuted by the government for what you say and believe. The Fourth
Amendment defends your right to privacy, the Fifth guards you from incriminating
yourself in court and the Sixth guarantees you won't be subjected to a show trial if
you're ever prosecuted. These ideas are so simple and obvious it seems silly
to write them down, but they are all rights that a crooked government would
love to abuse or discard if they weren't.

In the past four years we've seen numerous attacks on many of the liberties
we find sacred. Censorship, the PATRIOT Act and secret "Star Chamber" trials
have eroded the fundamental freedoms I noted above. Police forces and
National Guard units are militarizing against their own citizens. And lest you think
this is a recent phenomenon, federal Civil Disturbance plans like Operation
Garden Plot and Department of State Publication 7277 have been around for
decades, ready and waiting to strip you of your rights to defend yourself before
killing you for disagreeing with the government.

History has shown that gun control invariably ends in total gun restriction
and genocide. Don't believe me? Ask German Jews or Armenian Turks - two
ethnic groups unable to save themselves from violence. It's estimated that 56
million unarmed victims fell in the 20th century alone. Crimes like these are
precisely why the Second Amendment was written. In the end, you may need to
make sure you have the same firepower the military has.

So I wholeheartedly support the ability for any citizen of this country to
purchase the exact same weaponry available to its own army. If you've got
the

inclination and the wherewithal to buy a tank or a rocket launcher, go for
it. If our arms manufacturers can sell automatic weapons to foreign countries
that have no specific allegiance to the United States, why can't they sell them
to

Americans who have a vested interest in securing themselves? Profit is
profit.

Am I advocating another Ruby Ridge or violent insurrection? Hardly. I just
think the playing field should be level and that people who want access to
these weapons shouldn't be denied because some irresponsible ass might do
something deadly with it. The presumption of innocence is one of the basic tenets of
American society.

Does everyone need to arm up? That's a personal decision. Should they have
the possibility?

You're damn right.

Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.




Could'nt agree more
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:43:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By DWFAN:

Originally Posted By RustyTX:
www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0655_gun_control_gone_too_far.html


Gun Control: Have We Gone Too Far?


A fundamentally flawed piece of gun legislation just died. Here's why the

rest should too.

.....
Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.




Could'nt agree more



learn to use ellipses
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:44:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:44:48 PM EST
I think he has a great point! Thanks Arvin
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:46:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
General public skims article and comes to a conclusion:

"How did this psycho anti-government militant get published?"

They have been slowly trained to think this with TV and movies. Just like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", TV is the Soma. Just abide and succumb, the government will make sure you are ok....



+1
Top Top