5 Responses to ““Only a man who carries a gun ever needs one””

1. Jason Ihle
   February 24th, 2010 @

   I think you’re blithely ascribing intent to the wording of the Second Amendment without deference to history.

   Constitutional scholars (which neither you nor I is) have debated this issue for decades. In a very simple sense, the argument has been whether the wording of the amendment grants the militia the right to bear arms or individuals. The amendment doesn’t actually say individuals, but mentions the people. But if the intent was that the right to bear arms was specifically for the militia, then why mention the people at all?

   It’s not an easily resolvable issue, by any means.

   I don’t really care if people have guns, but I don’t think the 2nd amendment precludes the kind of restrictions that have existed including waiting periods, registrations, background checks. I’m not so sure semi-automatic rifles need to be included in the list of things people have a right to own. We’re all pretty much in agreement that individuals can’t own their own personal nuclear bomb, right? And surely we all agree that any individual has the right to own a knife. So the question of bearing arms really comes down to where the line is drawn.

   When I’ve had this discussion with friends from England, they just find it batshit crazy that people can own guns in the US. But I always attempt to distill it for them. If you think of a gun simply as a bought and sold commodity, attempting to divorce it from all the baggage and implications that come with it, why is it so self-evident that people shouldn’t be allowed to own them? I find that argument really difficult for people to get their heads around. And surely there are good arguments to defeat it, but I’ve yet to find someone who’s able to get past “think of a gun as something people want to own, not unlike a television.” Start with that premise and then make your laws.

   I would argue heavily for more control over bullets. Bullet sales should be traced carefully and controlled in a much better way. Every young man in Switzerland is required to be in the reserve army. They are also required to keep their rifles in their homes. However, they are forbidden from taking the bullets home after training weekends. Before leaving for home they have to dry fire the rifle into a barrel of sand to show the chamber is empty. A friend told me he knew a guy who fired a live round into that sand – he had to spend 2 weeks in a military jail.

2. Joel Friedlander
   February 25th, 2010 @

   Regardless of the tortuous history of this Amendment, two things are clear; First, the framers of the Constitution did not intend to ban the private ownership of weapons which were used for hunting or protective purposes. At the time of the drafting there were many hostile native Americans who were not getting along with the settlers very well. Add to that the necessity of the citizens to provide food for themselves on the frontier at least, and it is easy to see why weapons were necessary.

   However, and this is where I must disagree with the Originalists like Justice Scalia, times have changed across the United States, and where there is no longer any threat from hostiles, and most Americans live in large urban aggregations, it is ridiculous for people to carry concealed weapons.

   If a weapon is not concealed, everyone knows what they are dealing with, whereas, where is is hidden, no one knows what to expect. I would also add that there is no reason why anyone should be carrying weapons in the City of New York, other than police officers.

   The Swiss have a good point of view about Militia service, and perhaps that would fit nicely into the United States, but they have lived together for far longer than we have and know what to expect from each other.

   Even today there are so many immigrant and ethnic groups in America that many people have imagined fears about what other people are going to do to them. In such circumstances, carrying concealed weapons is just plain wrong.

3. Jason Ihle
   February 25th, 2010 @

   I would agree with you on the concealed weapon argument. But as far as an outright ban on the ownership of private guns? I’m not entirely convinced. I used to be, until I realized I didn’t actually have any reason to be against guns other than the fact that I didn’t like the kind of people who we typically characterize as having/wanting guns.

   Isn’t the whole point of carrying a weapon to let others know you’ve got it. Why conceal it? But I think I get why some people are really upset at the idea of repealing or limiting the 2nd amendment. It’s offered up as if it were as basic a right as the freedom of expression. It’s right there alongside the 1st amendment and part of the Bill of Rights, codifying the most basic rights anyone residing in or visiting the US has. So I get why people would want to protect it so fervently.

4. Joel Friedlander
   February 25th, 2010 @

   Can you imagine a person going into a bar anywhere with a concealed weapon on their person and then drinking. The ramifications are mind boggling. Heck, if you are going to carry a weapon outside your coat I suppose that will inform everyone to give you a wide berth. However, even in the old West, when the men came into town they had to hand their weapons over to the sheriff.

   I thought that I had covered the use of weapons for hunting and amusement, but I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I don’t think that the founding fathers ever wanted to limit weapon use for those purposes. I just don’t think we want anyone hunting in Central Park, or Yellowstone or Glacier or any other national park for that matter.

5. Andrew C
   April 12th, 2010 @

   if you have a concealed weapon it can save your life or stop you being mugged if the person trying to mug you doesn’t have a gun just showing a gun is enough to scare him/her off or if they try to kill you you can also shoot them and if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns

Leave a Reply