This was the post my brother shared with me on Facebook from another source, and my response. I think it is important to clarify that most of us are realistic that guns will always be a part of American culture, and to explain the limits to what we want to see happen, no matter how many times it takes:
THE POST
“The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim. Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them. – CA State Senator (R) Tom McClintock, 2001.
MY RESPONSE
Wrong. It is illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. In fact, THAT’S THE POINT. All constitutional rights-even free speech-are limited when they interfere with other’s rights-like the right to live.
We are not saying there’s anything wrong with guns or owning a gun or shooting a gun or hunting or target practice etc. or, yes, defending your home with a gun.
We are saying this: you do not have a God-given right to own a bazooka or a nuclear weapon, nor a God-given right to own an AR-15 or high capacity clips. Other guns yes. THAT IS IT. NOTHING MORE.
That’s the fallacy. These people have this Hollywood movie mindset of the gun owner being like John McClane in Die Hard. While possible, it’s more fantasy than reality. It assumes that a there is a person who will break into your home with the intent to kill you, that you will be awake and alert at that time, you will have your gun at the ready and that there is no other means of escape of protection. Oh, and it assumes there is only one person threatening your life and your marksmanship is superior to theirs…. Yeah, well, all of those things could happen,but common sense would tell otherwise.
…is unlike the first there is actually a limiting clause written right into it: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…”
Polling consistently shows that gun control legislation of the sort the Democratic Party has been advocating for years consistently polls very well. However, when one asks questions like, “Should gun laws be made more restrictive, less restrictive, or stay about the same?” “More restrictive” is a clear minority position. It’s as if the public lives in some kind of fantasy land where gun control laws have already passed.
The other thing is that the American experiment makes it hard for plenty of Americans to accept the point made by our OP, viz., we all live together and so no one can have absolute freedoms if we’re to live harmoniously — or even live at all.
I suppose the conservative plan is that we all become devout, probably Christian, and so we’d never want to do socially harmful things because that would offend God. (The secular version includes a lot of deference to authority in place of the deity thing.) By that view, absolute freedom really is possible because no one ever actually exercises it. Gun control is thus an obstacle on the way to Conservative Utopia.
This is hardly the only area where people think that something so obviously should be law that surely it is by now. I believe bans on employment discrimination for the LGBT population also falls in this category in the minds of many.
….IF THERE IS NO FIRE.
If there is, it is almost your duty.
Regulation attempts have been failures because they fail to take into account the seriousness of a right they don’t agree with and overreach. So the courts strike them down. Sen Jacques’ gun law needed more than a dozen immediate corrections because it was so poorly drafted.
When you stop regarding gun regulations as a hill to be conquered instead of a problem to be solved, maybe progress can be made
I think there can be considerable criticism of Democrats for focusing on a narrow range of guns that actually cause a comparatively minor amount of harms rather than focusing on reducing overall gun violence through the give and take of policy making. An assault weapons ban does nothing for the hundreds of black children killed every year in Chicago, even if it makes us feel better about the white ones killed at Sandy Hook.
It doesn’t help though when the other side is a lobby that effectively ignores all the mounting evidence that gun violence is a problem or believes in fantasy statistics that somehow prove more guns lead to reduced violence, even though this has not been proven. Refusing to even fund studies into what policies would actually have efficacy is another way of pretending the problem isn’t real.
Democrats have certainly overreacted by posturing around silly solutions like no fly lists at the expense of an everything in the table approach to reducing gun violence that also funds social programs, mental health, domestic violence prevention, suicide prevention, and gang alternative programs. But since those are all social programs primarily geared towards the inner city, it’s unlikely many Republicans will be enthusiastic about those policies either-even if they theoretically reduce gun violence without touching gun rights. The callously politicized debate depresses those of us that have buried our relatives and know people burying more.
Yes, assault weapons bans are easy and get the headlines. We absolutely should do them as they have proven to bring crime down before. However, I strongly reject your premise that we aren’t doing or advocating other things. I don’t think you’ll find any argument regarding the things you suggest in your third paragraph.
This is the 8th or 9th time we are trying a no fly list? The 100th time we are trying an assault weapons ban since the 2003 expiration? None of these programs are getting funding and the White House refused to meet with Operation Ceasfire saying the issue was “too inner city”.
Well that’s where the most bodies are piling up, even if Anderson Cooper won’t tear up about them. This is where our action should be, and it shows how much Democrats take their most loyal constituency for granted. Show me the bills to pass this funding and the attempt to pass them this year and I’ll withdraw my complaint, until then it’s all talk and show for the CSPAN cameras and the swing district voters. If we multitasked I wouldn’t be so mad about inaction. I expect nothing from the GOP, I hold my “side” to a higher standard.
Because gun politics have been heretofore a challenge for our side we naturally drift toward the low hanging fruit that polls well. Are the members of Congress from the affected areas you refer to proposing those things? That’s where it has to start. What about the states? They can act where the feds can’t or won’t.
…say that he wouldn’t work to tighten MA laws, that it must be solved at the Federal level?
Since when is THAT how MA legislates?
I think the Democrats don’t want this solved or even bettered until after the election so they can fundraise and fearmonger with it.
Go ahead. Shoot me now.