Mike Liberty
As I indicated in last week's post, I plan this to be the first in a series of columns defending the Second Amendment argument by argument. Yup, in case you haven't been following along, I'm one of THOSE guys. I believe that the Peoples' Right to Keep and Bear Arms underpins the entire Constitution of the United Sates, safeguarding every other Article within it. And it's my intention over the coming months to explain that position as clearly as I can.
Having said that, I also recognize the unique potential of firearms to be enormously destructive. In the wrong hands, almost any item can be used as a devastatingly effective weapon; none more so than a gun. So it's understandable how and why someone could draw the conclusion that guns are more trouble than their worth. There's no denying that guns play a daily role in crime and violence. What gets far les attention, though, is the fact that they also play an even greater daily role in deterring crime and violence. Which is why it's incumbent upon us all to ensure that the law abiding are not prevented from exercising this vital right while simultaneously doing everything we can to keep criminals from exploiting it.
As I indicated in last week's post, I plan this to be the first in a series of columns defending the Second Amendment argument by argument. Yup, in case you haven't been following along, I'm one of THOSE guys. I believe that the Peoples' Right to Keep and Bear Arms underpins the entire Constitution of the United Sates, safeguarding every other Article within it. And it's my intention over the coming months to explain that position as clearly as I can.
Having said that, I also recognize the unique potential of firearms to be enormously destructive. In the wrong hands, almost any item can be used as a devastatingly effective weapon; none more so than a gun. So it's understandable how and why someone could draw the conclusion that guns are more trouble than their worth. There's no denying that guns play a daily role in crime and violence. What gets far les attention, though, is the fact that they also play an even greater daily role in deterring crime and violence. Which is why it's incumbent upon us all to ensure that the law abiding are not prevented from exercising this vital right while simultaneously doing everything we can to keep criminals from exploiting it.
If the Devil does lie in the details, that last sentence is the granddaddy of them all! It pretty much sums up both sides of the debate. It's also a topic for another day.
Instead, I wanted to start this series where most anti-gunners begin their own argument; with the question of need. "Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon with sixty round clips," they'll ask. Intentionally incendiary and outright inaccurate descriptions aside, it's a valid question. It's also an fundamentally flawed one.
Do we really want to live in a country where everything you WANT must be justified with a NEED?
After all, ours is a free society, largely predicated upon the unquestioned validity of merely wanting things. I wonder how those same people would respond if pressed about their need to own certain things, eat certain foods, go certain places or engage in certain activities. Is a standard of need really a path down which we want to venture?
For example, does the average anti-gunner want to apply the standard of need to the issue of abortion? Considering that something like a quarter to a third of abortions performed in the U.S. are medically necessary or in response to rape or incest, the question begs asking if there's a justifiable need for the vast majority that remains. I know that those who are pro-choice can answer that question, but I also know that when they do, they sound like me defending the Second Amendment.
What if we go a step further to compare mortality rates and destructive capability in calculating this standard of need? Then the case gets even clearer.
Instead, I wanted to start this series where most anti-gunners begin their own argument; with the question of need. "Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon with sixty round clips," they'll ask. Intentionally incendiary and outright inaccurate descriptions aside, it's a valid question. It's also an fundamentally flawed one.
Do we really want to live in a country where everything you WANT must be justified with a NEED?
After all, ours is a free society, largely predicated upon the unquestioned validity of merely wanting things. I wonder how those same people would respond if pressed about their need to own certain things, eat certain foods, go certain places or engage in certain activities. Is a standard of need really a path down which we want to venture?
For example, does the average anti-gunner want to apply the standard of need to the issue of abortion? Considering that something like a quarter to a third of abortions performed in the U.S. are medically necessary or in response to rape or incest, the question begs asking if there's a justifiable need for the vast majority that remains. I know that those who are pro-choice can answer that question, but I also know that when they do, they sound like me defending the Second Amendment.
What if we go a step further to compare mortality rates and destructive capability in calculating this standard of need? Then the case gets even clearer.
| | Killing some 200 to 300 thousand people per year, obesity is a leading cause of death in America. Homicides committed with a firearm pale in comparison. Even when suicide by firearm is added into the mix, the total is only a fraction of obesity related deaths. So I ask you, why does anyone NEED a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese or a Big Gulp? When Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked that same question, in the form of restrictive laws, he was roundly condemned as a nanny state tyrant and his laws were stricken from the books. I'm not going to go nuts with stats and hyperlinks, but obviously the same grievous case can be made in relation toalcohol. And a downright open and shut case when it comes to cigarettes. Yet, not since the run up to Prohibition has anyone asked with a straight face why anyone needed to unwind with a stiff drink or five. Regulate where people can drink and smoke? Sure. Impose stiff penalties for abusing the privilege after the fact rather than treating everyone like a criminal? No questions asked. Yet, when the pro-gun crowd demands to be treated the same way we're being unreasonable. What about cars? Why does anyone need a car with 470 horsepower and capable of traveling at nearly 200 mph when highway speeds top out at 65mph and we're trying to cut down on greenhouse emissions? Omitting suicides, cars kill roughly three times more Americans per year than guns. |
Plane travel for purposes of recreation, Playboy Magazine, gambling, backyard trampolines, selective vaccination... I could do this all day! But I only NEED to do one more: Did Rosa Parks need to remain in her seat when a white man demanded it? No, we all recognize today that she had an inherent, unalienable civil right to stay put. If the safeguard of all civil rights is the U.S. Constitution, then doesn't the second right enumerated therein apply?
Oh, just in case you're thinking to yourself that I completely sidestepped the question of why anyone would need a modern sporting rifle with a standard capacity magazine, I'll tackle that next time with some specific examples...
Oh, just in case you're thinking to yourself that I completely sidestepped the question of why anyone would need a modern sporting rifle with a standard capacity magazine, I'll tackle that next time with some specific examples...
