Last week I published a column on OEN entitled
"What the Gunners Want: What's In Rick Perry's Pocket (1). I simply sought to present to the readership
of this webmagazine what one of the leading "pro-gun rights" organizations, the
Second Amendment Foundation (2), to which I happen to belong, is putting
forward as its program, at least as seen through the lens of the court cases
that it is pursuing around the country. According
to Wikipedia, "The Second Amendment Foundation or SAF is an educational-
and legal-defense organization which describes its mission as "promoting a
better understanding about our constitutional heritage to privately own and
possess firearms. To that end, SAF carries on many educational- and
legal-action programs designed to better inform the public about the
gun-control debate.' "
Now, among other things I
did point out that a literal reading of the Second Amendment means either that
it provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to form
well-regulated militias, or it provides to individuals the right to bear arms,
in a well-regulated system for the protection of the free state. However, the present Supreme Court, "strict
constructionist" as it is, doesn't agree with that interpretation, so gun-ownership
is wide open. Of course, even when one
disagrees with Supreme Court rulings, one must go along with the present law of
the land (except of course when it comes to such things as religious belief and
abortion rights where according to some murder is excusable, but that is
another matter). I also pointed out that the NRA position on
firearms ownership means that one has a right to own any of them, up to an
including a tank, or at least the gun part of a tank. But the principal focus of the column was on
the SAF and what it is fighting for in court cases around the land.
Well, somehow I hit a
sensitive nerve on the part of a couple of our readers. One said in part (3): " The 2nd
Amendment does not mean one can own tanks and hand grenades. That is just
inflammatory propaganda." Gee, Mr.
Erickson, if the 2nd Amendment means what the NRA says it means, why not? If it does not mean that, and that tank ownership
can be limited, regulated, or even banned, why would not that rule apply to any
other type of firearm? One answer could
be that "Tanks (or bazookas or rocket-propelled grenade launchers) did not
exist at the time the 2nd Amendment, and thus they would not be
covered by it. " Well neither did assault rifles or pistols that can carry cartridges
holding 15 hollow-point bullets exist at that time. Further according to that
reasoning the President would not be Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, for it
is not mentioned in the Constitution.
So if you can't regulate one kind
of weapon that didn't exist way back then, you cannot regulate another either. The NRA is very clear on this question. Its position is that there is a "fundamental,
individual, right to own guns" (4). And a gun is a gun, is it not? Of course there is the
problem of the tank part of the tank.
The question of a driver's license requirement might come up as well the
matter of liability for potential damage to the public roads. But I'm sure that the NRA could come up with
an answer for that dilemma.
Another reader wrote (5): " It is obvious that Mr. Jonas is neither a student of
history, or a criminologist. . . . There are many thousands of restrictive gun
laws on the books. Of those, not even one can be shown to have reduced violent
crime or homicide. . . . . But if you want to live in a world free of crime and
violence, you will want law abiding citizens to be able to buy, keep, and carry
firearms." Ah yes, let's start off with the
old reliable ad hominem attack. Then let's follow it up with a misrepresentation
of facts. There are not "thousands of
restrictive gun laws on the books." The
NRA has seen to that very well. And
anyway, if there were, how could the US possibly be as awash in guns as it
presently is.
As
to the effectiveness of gun limitations on a state-by-state basis, as I pointed
out in the column, how can we know what is really going on since the NRA has
been able to squash virtually all gun-violence-related research, at least that
which might be Federally-funded in any way.
However, the comparisons of both gun violence and crime rates with those
of other countries that have strict gun-control laws are instructive (6). On the other hand, let's say all that data is
wrong or mis-interpreted, as some do (7), and that the more gun ownership the
less crime. Would that not be an
argument for mandatory gun ownership by everyone (well, with certain groups
like criminals, terrorists, potential criminals and potential terrorists
excluded)? And then there could be an
argument for mandatory training in the use of firearms, let's say starting in
grade school. But we would have to think about that carefully, because that
might lead to mandatory owner licensing and weapon registration (something I have
advocated for donkey's years) and we couldn't have that now, could we?
As
to how to regard the NRA on all this, I will leave that to another commentator
on my column, an NRA member himself, using language I did not (8): " I can
quite agree that the "leadership' of the organization are primarily shills for
the firearms industry, fundraisers for fascist causes, and Wayne LaPierre is,
in my opinion, a mentally unbalanced propagandist. His recent statement that
the Obama administration not having done anything to restrict firearm ownership
is proof that they are going to take away our guns is demonstration enough of
that assertion."
But
really, folks, the primary focus of my previous column on the subject of guns
was to simply put out there what the Second Amendment Foundation is fighting
for, in the courts, all around the country.
And that makes me "anti-gun?" My-oh-my. If that makes me "anti-gun," doesn't that
tell us something about the 2nd Amendment Foundation, its
supporters, and the positions that they take?
References:
1. http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-the-Gunners-Want-Wha-by-Steven-Jonas-120126-316.html .
2. Wikipedia:
click here
3. Comment
on my previous column by Steven G. Erickson.
4. Fund-raising
letter from the NRA, January 23, 2012.
5. Comment
on my previous column by Peter Allen.
7. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html .
8. Comment
on my previous column by John Sanchez, Jr.
