Yea right... I'd probably never buy a gun. I just used the title to get you to click the link. It worked, and I accept your forgiveness. Since you're here, you might as well read about other people buying guns.
Today’s podcast is my first official reference from The Cato Institute. I fear this is a giant leap for me towards becoming a Libertarian *insert horror music here*. My husband and brother are eagerly awaiting the moment they can welcome me into the fold, but alas, I’m not so sure I’m ready to claim them as yet *smile*. For those of you unfamiliar with The Cato Institute, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_institute
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in the case McDonald v. Chicago – a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns. Currently, Chicago residents are limited to owning shotguns. The suit asserts that the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental and individual right that should be applicable at the state level (right now it only applies to the federal government). Mr. McDonald is fighting for the right to protect his home against the numerous break-ins he has experienced. But of course, there are those who disagree with the idea of law-abiding citizens owning handguns.
That’s where the Cato piece comes in. The gentleman speaking, Mr. Tom Palmer, makes excellent points to support handgun ownership. Here are Tammy’s top three picks:
1. Criminals are already armed.
This point should hit you over the head like they do in the V8 commercials. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Gangbanger will be requesting a gun license from the state of Maryland. People have a misinformed notion that lifting handgun bans would provide criminals carte blanche to procure weapons. Have we learned nothing from the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana? When people want something, and you ban it, they will merely create a black market for it. Criminals will find guns when they want them. Only one person is left unprotected – the law abiding citizen.
2. Violent crime does not increase with handgun ownership/carry laws.
Criminals are not stupid. Ok I take that back… Most criminals are not stupid. As Mr. Palmer described it, an armed citizenry serves as a disincentive for criminal activity. Just as the gangbanger will likely skip over the house with the ADT sign on the front lawn, or the vehicle with the car alarm light flashing, he’s less likely to aggress against an armed person. I would certainly opt to have an armed, law-abiding citizen next to me when the gang banging of it all goes down *shrug*. Most people who would follow the process and purchase a handgun are only really interested in brandishing the weapon if they are faced with harm, as Mr. Palmer did.
3. Constitution guarantees the right to bear/carry arms
If you’ve read anything I’ve written before, it is plain to see that I want to protect my ability to have and protect all my stuff. Translate that into the individual rights that the constitution is designed to protect. It’s simple people. We should be allowed to have the option to own a handgun. We should be allowed the right to walk around with our handguns. The second amendment says so:
“..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Keep your ears to the ground to see what our Justices say. My prediction: handguns for all!
FYI – If you live in Maryland, you are free to get a handgun license, provided you haven’t murdered anybody. You aren’t allowed to carry your handgun (unless you’re transporting it to the shooting range), but you may keep it in your home. If you have an Oprah type story of people trying to hunt you down, you MAY be able to secure a permit to carry your weapon… but good luck with that one.
--TamSam
Posted while listening to ‘I Am One’ by Chrisette Michelle (on repeat because it took me a while to type this)
“If one can make a difference, then two can change the world..”
I feel you on the sway towards "Libertarianism," primarily the self-reliance/entrepreneurship slant of it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not so sure about some of the political stances, much of which seem as reactionary resistance to progressive interpretations of the Constitution. Using the gun ownership issue, I make the following three points:
1. The Constitution (like the Bible) is open to interpretation, so I think it's healthy that progressive ideas challenge the traditional view of the 2nd amendment (especially since there isn't a "holy spirit" to help us interpret the Constitution--is there?).
2. The people of each state (not the Supreme Court) should vote on whether they want the right to bear arms. Of course, I know that's naive with regards to how the balance of powers works; this is only my opinion. If my condo association held a vote to ban handguns on the community, I'd vote to approve that ban. Since I don't want a handgun, I don't my neighbor with one either. I know that's a slippery slope, but I personally deem the gun issue worthy of control by the majority's will. Even if the citizens or the High Court approves "the right to bear handguns" I probably won't, because...
3. Criminals will always be ahead of law-abiding citizens (good movie, by the way). Everyone would agree that certain things should be banned--why not handguns? Its illogical for individuals try to keep up with criminals--that's why we have the police, "a government," and "a military."
The Constitution is a wonderful (but not perfect) document, and I think that in the 2nd amendment, it tries to limit the powers of the government and empower the individual. But in my utopia, no one but the criminals and law enforcers carry handguns. The rest of us keep watch and raise children that hopefully turn out not to be criminals. Because at the end of the day, "guns don't shoot people; people shoot people" (or something like that).
Thanks much for sharing your views! Here is my response:
ReplyDelete1. We may not have a ‘holy spirit’ to help in the interpretation of The Constitution, but we can look to the intent with which it was written. As a matter of fact, we are obligated to look to something written so long ago, reevaluate it, and adjust, if necessary. This was precisely what was accomplished in the Heller case. The court determined that the Second Amendment was applicable to the citizenry, not merely for militia purposes.
2. You know I couldn’t turn a blind eye to your slippery slope *smile*. If we let the majority determine the law for us, that would be problematic. We need only to look at Nazi Germany, American slavery, or our deplorable history of anti-miscegenation laws, to see the effects of acquiescing to majoritarian ideals. Moreover, as a Seventh Day Adventist, I’d like to secure my right to worship on Saturday, the Sabbath. I am not comfortable relinquishing this right merely because I fall within the minority. Likewise, I support the right for gays to marry each other if they choose, and women to have abortions if they so choose. I’m not selective in my zeal for personal autonomy. Rather, I choose to adopt a principled approach to individual liberty.
3. I think I addressed this in the second point…
I'm sure you're right about how the legal system and a republic SHOULD work. I'm just uncomfortable with loose restrictions on gun ownership. Speaking of slippery slope, if handguns, why not semis? If we have the right to bear arms, why should we need to register them? (Although I am fine with guns for hunting purposes, but if it is used to kill a human---MAJOR hand slap!) Again, just my utopia.
ReplyDeleteCase in point, a man gets out of his car on I-95 today and fires several rounds in a fit of road rage--with his 2?-year old daughter sitting in the back seat!
I can understand your concern for gun ownership restrictions, but that's a separate issue to the handgun ban (which is the focus of the Chicago case). I am still working through my thoughts on what reasonable limitations I support.
ReplyDeleteThe story you shared is definitely unfortunate. But a sad story can be found for almost everything. We have to weigh the pros and cons. This article provided a little insight for me; maybe it will do the same for you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life//
Reed's project is really interesting. What I like most about it isn't the 10 bucks, but the time he's spending with people. None of us seems to have time anymore, you know, for anything? So, a sit down or brief chat or coffee or whatever is so valuable.
ReplyDeleteLast year, our family did a project involving a charitable deed every day. Instead of giving money daily (something in short supply around here) we gave time, donated our energy, volunteered. I blogged about it, too. You can read it http://jenpb.blogspot.com