Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: President Obama: 2nd Amendment is Constitutional Right. [View all]Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Firstly, sorry it took so long; work has been a nightmare, but I've been getting -plenty- of overtime. Not much sleep, but more money isn't a bad thing. I rarely leave a post unattended for that long, and for that, I apologize.
Now, on to content.
Paragraph 1.)
You keep bringing up protection in regards to gun control. As I've stated before, I do not purchase firearms for protection, nor do I know anyone in my immediate group of friends who does; we simply enjoy firearms, both for personal enjoyment as well as for market value and collector's worth. In regards to concern about a hypothetical government rounding people up, my actual concern for that is about on par with that of the Zombiepocalypse; will probably never happen, but I would rather be prepared than not. More importantly, what we're talking about isn't necessarily a concern that the threat is imminent or even potentially impending. What I am genuinely concerned with is the -ability- of a person to maintain a resistance of any kind to a potentially dire threat of any variety. Do I believe that I will need a firearm to protect myself? Honestly, probably not. However, both the option and the ability to arm myself, -if- the need arises, is what I fight to defend in regards to gun control. To be perfectly honest, when it comes down to people dying of firearms, I am ambivalent. People die to thousands of causes. Every day, 100,000+ people die. If I were to think that the hundred or so people dying to firearms were any more important than the other hundred thousand, I would not be able to justify it to myself. Who am I to judge who should or shouldn't die of any given cause, simply by virtue of -how- they died without relation to appropriate cause and effect on a case by case basis, especially when pertaining to rights (or even perceived rights) of an entire demographic? To think otherwise is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable to any means outside those thoughts of a true sociopath.
Paragraphs 2 and 3.)
My personal belief in the right to own a firearm, and it is a right regardless of your quotation marks, is simply based on the constitution, as well as my belief in personal responsibility, freedom, and choice. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment being lightly regulated because, as with all things, bad people will do bad things. They will poison, they will stab, they will bludgeon their spouse to death with a golf trophy; the -weapon- does not matter. The solution is not in the revocation of every weapon they could potentially use; indeed, said removal has proven fruitless on numerous occasions (See Scotland, Washington DC, Russia, et cetera). Instead, the solution (and where I devote most of my non-firearm-related political influence) is in improving the social quality and makeup that lead to crime, regardless of the weapons driving it. There will always be impulse-killings so long as humans have emotion, that much is certain. However, in areas where social and cultural development are increasing or already sustain natural highs (Norway, for instance), the firearm is seen less as a solution to a problem and is appreciated more for what it is: A tool capable of ending a human being's life. While we can never eliminate crime, we can attempt to mitigate it's spread and propagation through social engineering and improving the quality of life as well as the -appreciation- of life, both one's own and that of others.
I believe your attempt to liken firearms to child pornography is flawed in two simple, massive ways: CP is not protected by the constitution, and CP, unlike firearms, is entirely and completely negative in every regard: The victimization of an unprotected human being, potential marketting of said being, emotional trauma if the child is abused, physical and psychological destruction and late-term psychological ramifications that may or may not lead to destructive behavior. It is directly, and -always-, harmful. A more correct analogue to firearms would be that every bullet kills; every shot fired hits; no firearms are used for target practice or hunting. To be blunt, I'm sorry, but your analogy is hideously and fatally flawed in all but the most superficial ways.
Paragraph 4.)
I am doing nothing of the sort. Freedom is the ability to do something, nothing more or less. I want the freedom to purchase a firearm; there is no intent nor desire to "conveniently kill and wound." I am perfectly capable of doing that more efficiently with my bare hands (Shodan of Okinawan Goju Ryu ).
Paragraph 5.)
Because, once in a while, the Freepwits may get something right. They are correct in concept, and in fact they're quite liberal; they just don't understand -why- they're right. As I like to say, they're right, but for all the wrong reasons; they want their guns because damnit, they want their guns and "Becauz fuk u dats why". I want the -ability- to have guns.
Let me use your own analogy against you. I want a child; I have the ability, with my fiancee, to make a child. What I do with that child, however... Like make child porn... is completely independent of the child itself. In regards to guns, the -action- of killing someone is reprehensible. Don't just state "Guns are evil", say "Murdering another human being is evil" and take steps to stop that action rather than prohibiting access to an item to the rest of the population.