Thursday, September 6, 2012

Fisking a Gun Control Advocate

I was reading the news links for Thursday when I came across this letter to the editor of the University Daily Kansan by Clay Cosby entitled Gun Rights Need Regulation.  Of course, when I saw that it was written by a student, I naturally felt a need to put on some kid gloves, and pull some punches. On the other hand, anyone entering publicly into a debate on public issues should know whereof he speaks, and this student doesn't seem to know very much. Perhaps it is all those midnight candle light vigils that have him thinking that singing Kumbaya around the campfire will solve all his problems. So, let's review shall we?

Mr. Cosby writes:
When the second amendment was written, it was included because many men in our country were militia and it was necessary for them to have weapons for national security purposes. We are no longer under an immediate threat to be invaded by an enemy (unless North Korea suddenly develops sailing technology), but the amendment still stands because it is important for people to have the right to weapons if they feel they need them in their home for their protection.
Ha, Ha! Good one about North Korea developing sailing technology. But seriously, if we are under no threat, why do we need the most expensive standing military in the world? The Founders of our nation were that frightened of our maintaining a standing military because of the possibility of a military coup. Many people are still concerned that our military could be turned against the civilian population. It could happen, and while it may seem a remote possibility to you, you should not dismiss it out of hand. What would you do if it happened? The Second Amendment was written to ensure that every member of the public would have the same small arms as the military had, should they be needed. Today, that means a selective fire automatic weapon firing 5.56 NATO rounds. An M16 or variants. What they call "assault weapons" are semiautomatic guns with scary military features.

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law...abridging... the press.  Certainly presses have advanced since Franklin published his Almanac using a hand operated screw press.  Does your support for a ban on so called assault weapons mean you would be in favor of a ban on high speed presses and the Internet?  Ideas ultimately have killed more people than guns have.  Don't believe me?  Read the Koran.

Cosby writes:
We have freedom of speech but it is regulated when it comes to slander. It is also regulated in schools and other locations where not all types of apparel are permitted. We regulate freedom of religion when it comes to polygamy. We are able to enjoy our freedoms as long as they do not interfere with another person’s inalienable rights.
So that means you can not slander someone? In other words, before you can speak, a government censor analyses what you intend to say, and blacks out anything that is slanderous. You can then say only what remains. Is that what you are saying here? Because I don't remember government censors. Rather, you can say whatever you want, but if you cross a certain line, you will be punished. In the same way that slander is illegal, but you can do it, murder is illegal, but you can do it too. In both cases, there is no prior restraint, rather there are consequences for doing both.
Specifically when it comes to gun control it is important to note that in the last ten years, the regulations have decreased although the technology has continued to become contrastingly more lethal. The assault weapons ban which was passed in 1994, expired in 2004. The ban outlawed the selling of assault weapons. Gun control is a right we have that needs more regulation. The second amendment does not need to be struck but it is important to distinguish the intent with which it was written, and how the meaning of the amendment at the time and how that is different from its meaning today. The second amendment was never meant to mean that individuals should be allowed to own an AK-47.
Perhaps those government censor would be of use, at least as editors. The fact of the matter is that regulations have not decreased, a pity really. The Assault Weapon Ban had no effect on crime, and since it was easy to get around, little effect on manufacturing and sales. Moreover, while the Second Amendment may not have allowed AK 47s, it would only be because these were designed in the Soviet Union and manufactured mostly in Communist Block countries. But M16s and other small arms used by our military would be well within the framework of a "well regulated militia.

Finally, a rifle of whatever type is only a tool. Like any tool, it has no purpose on its own. Its user determines its purpose. The person who decides to take innocent life has used the tool in a criminal way, and must be punished. Everyone that didn't use the tool in that fashion should be left alone.

No comments:

Post a Comment