First of all, let me say I appreciate the spirit of this conversation, on both sides. I wish all our public discussion around this issue (and others) were conducted at this level of reasoned, respectful discourse.
I am a confirmed liberal democrat, small “l,” small “d.” I have never owned a firearm and wouldn’t know how to handle it prope…
First of all, let me say I appreciate the spirit of this conversation, on both sides. I wish all our public discussion around this issue (and others) were conducted at this level of reasoned, respectful discourse.
I am a confirmed liberal democrat, small “l,” small “d.” I have never owned a firearm and wouldn’t know how to handle it properly if I did. But it is a fact, for better or worse, that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. I wish it weren’t, and I understand that—in principle, in an ideal world—everything and anything in the Constitution should be open to reconsideration and revision. That’s what Article 5 is for.
But notwithstanding my personal feelings about guns and their effects on our society, I would strenuously oppose any effort to repeal or revise the Second Amendment. (I realize you haven’t suggested this, Steve, but there is no shortage of others who do.) Amending the Bill of Rights in any way would set a disastrous precedent, an open invitation to start chipping away at it in other ways: to, say, limit the right of trial by jury, or repeal the religious establishment clause, or revoke the “speedy and public trial” clause and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and keep people incarcerated indefinitely without charge. I’m normally skeptical (you’d probably write “sceptical”) of “slippery slope” arguments, but this is one slope I don’t want to set one toe on. The Bill of Rights, whatever its imperfections, must remain sacrosanct.
Having said that, I would hope a guy like Michael would support things like more stringent training and proficiency testing; as a “responsible gun owner,” I don’t see why he would object to this. Restrictions on fire rate, magazine size, biometric trigger locks—all these things should be possible consistent with the Second Amendment. You have to pass a road test to get a driver’s license, register your vehicle, pay an annual registration fee, display registration plates, but nobody thinks those things infringe your right to keep and operate an automobile. This is what we on the left mean by “common-sense gun regulation.” Can’t we please find common ground here?
The 18th amendment was repealed in 1933. It was the first. I would like the Second to be the second.
Slippery slope arguments are logically fallacious. It's not as though removing a chartered right to own something whose reason for being was to kill people would lead to an avalanche of lost liberties; if you're worried about lost freedoms you should be out canvassing for the Democrats (not that I like the Democrats much but they are the only ones capable of keeping Republicans from power).
Anyway the Second was obsolete in 1903 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) when we began with a standing army and didn't need any more well-regulated militæ. Actually it was obsolete with the Emancipation Proclamation since the original point was to put down slave revolts and protect Decent Christian American Pinch-Faced White Wimmin. But the fetishizing of guns led to some gallingly dishonest revisionism that ignored the first fourteen words and turned the RKBA into an individual right to settle domestic disputes with finality and mow down kindergartners and Jews.
Go traveling to a country where most of the population is nonwhite. Look at the signs in the air[port. Travel to America is discouraged.
The cruelty that came over with the religious nutters in the 17th century and has been part of American culture ever since is the only thing about America worse than the Second Amendment, and that title has a lot of competition.
First of all, let me say I appreciate the spirit of this conversation, on both sides. I wish all our public discussion around this issue (and others) were conducted at this level of reasoned, respectful discourse.
I am a confirmed liberal democrat, small “l,” small “d.” I have never owned a firearm and wouldn’t know how to handle it properly if I did. But it is a fact, for better or worse, that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. I wish it weren’t, and I understand that—in principle, in an ideal world—everything and anything in the Constitution should be open to reconsideration and revision. That’s what Article 5 is for.
But notwithstanding my personal feelings about guns and their effects on our society, I would strenuously oppose any effort to repeal or revise the Second Amendment. (I realize you haven’t suggested this, Steve, but there is no shortage of others who do.) Amending the Bill of Rights in any way would set a disastrous precedent, an open invitation to start chipping away at it in other ways: to, say, limit the right of trial by jury, or repeal the religious establishment clause, or revoke the “speedy and public trial” clause and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and keep people incarcerated indefinitely without charge. I’m normally skeptical (you’d probably write “sceptical”) of “slippery slope” arguments, but this is one slope I don’t want to set one toe on. The Bill of Rights, whatever its imperfections, must remain sacrosanct.
Having said that, I would hope a guy like Michael would support things like more stringent training and proficiency testing; as a “responsible gun owner,” I don’t see why he would object to this. Restrictions on fire rate, magazine size, biometric trigger locks—all these things should be possible consistent with the Second Amendment. You have to pass a road test to get a driver’s license, register your vehicle, pay an annual registration fee, display registration plates, but nobody thinks those things infringe your right to keep and operate an automobile. This is what we on the left mean by “common-sense gun regulation.” Can’t we please find common ground here?
The 18th amendment was repealed in 1933. It was the first. I would like the Second to be the second.
Slippery slope arguments are logically fallacious. It's not as though removing a chartered right to own something whose reason for being was to kill people would lead to an avalanche of lost liberties; if you're worried about lost freedoms you should be out canvassing for the Democrats (not that I like the Democrats much but they are the only ones capable of keeping Republicans from power).
Anyway the Second was obsolete in 1903 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) when we began with a standing army and didn't need any more well-regulated militæ. Actually it was obsolete with the Emancipation Proclamation since the original point was to put down slave revolts and protect Decent Christian American Pinch-Faced White Wimmin. But the fetishizing of guns led to some gallingly dishonest revisionism that ignored the first fourteen words and turned the RKBA into an individual right to settle domestic disputes with finality and mow down kindergartners and Jews.
Go traveling to a country where most of the population is nonwhite. Look at the signs in the air[port. Travel to America is discouraged.
The cruelty that came over with the religious nutters in the 17th century and has been part of American culture ever since is the only thing about America worse than the Second Amendment, and that title has a lot of competition.