Skip to comments.Sleznikow overlooks key gun control arguments(WI)
Posted on 05/07/2012 8:51:15 AM PDT by marktwain
This column is in response to Hannah Sleznikows recent column titled, Safety concerns outweigh rights to bear arms.
On the Constitution being a living document: This is only true in the sense it is in full force today and can be formally amended. However, it cannot simply be reinterpreted based on ones political whims or to fit with the times.
When one tries to take the Constitution, or any of its subsequent amendments, out of its historical context, a great disservice is done and the floodgates are opened to abuse. We cannot twist and warp it to fit our own desires. Historians do not look at ancient scripts and attempt to interpret their meaning based on our definitions or values today, but based on their original context and what its authors intended to say. Anything else would be an egregious misuse of the text and completely distort its message.
If two businesses create a contract with each other, one firm could not legally come back 80 years later and try to alter the original agreement by manipulating the terms to fit their current aspirations. If the firm wanted the contract changed, they would have to do so by amending it.
This is the exact same process we have with our Constitution. For example, courts could not rule, based on their own social opinions, that our Constitution was dated and claim that denying the vote to women did nothing but demean them as second-class citizens. They couldnt abolish such laws because such a right at that time didnt exist. A constitutional amendment was needed to change this, not the partisan agenda of any particular court modernizing the Constitution to reflect our present values.
On firearms control: Advocates of gun control may point out modern firearms didnt exist 200 years ago, so if we abandoned the flawed living document view, any modern weapons could potentially be banned. Such a draconian viewpoint ignores the entire context of the Second Amendment. The word arms was never intended to be limited to weapons available in that timeframe, at the exclusion of all future inventions. No serious scholar would ever attempt to manifest such a case; future firearms inventions were meant to be protected, just like modern methods of utilizing free speech are protected.
Gun control can be thought of like modern-day prohibition; no matter how much one tries to restrict firearms, criminals will always obtain and use them. Its very much like the failed war on drugs. Just about any university student could find a way to obtain marijuana if they so desired, even though its production, possession, and sale are forbidden. Does banning the use of drugs or underage drinking stop those who wish to do so from disregarding the law? Nope. Likewise, preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms will do nothing to prevent gunmen from carrying them anyway.
Why are campuses primary targets for gunmen? Im sure it has nothing to do with the fact theyre a giant conglomerate of unarmed individuals unable to fire back and defend themselves. It sure makes for easy shooting when the attacker doesnt have to worry about a pesky student who may be packing heat.
Sleznikow correctly points out not everybody shares the view concealed carry laws provide safety. Yet, ones opinion doesnt trump constitutional rights. It also begs the question of why this is even the case. A tongue-in-cheek term for it is hoplophobia, which is the irrational fear of weapons. People dont recoil in fear if they see policemen carrying firearms, for we are not conditioned to perceive this as a threat. We need to correct the misconception concealed carry poses a risk to society.
At the end of the day, it doesnt matter how many fancy signs one puts up banning firearms gunmen dont give a darn about the law. Its absurd to think gunmen would let a rule banning handguns or a sign declaring a gun-free zone to thwart their plans. Theres an old saying, When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Our university will be made a more dangerous place if our Second Amendment rights and ability to exercise self-defense are curtailed.
Justin Kramer (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a sophomore majoring in nuclear engineering.
Wisconsin Concealed Carry ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Nope, but at close range they were every bit as deadly, if much slower to reload.
And some of the revolutionary era firearms were accurate at several hundred yards, though true expertise was required at such a range.
The 2nd refers to arms, not muskets, swords and rifles.
:: Hannah Sleznikows recent column titled, Safety concerns outweigh rights to bear arms. ::
In these types of statements, I always point out the implied “my” in the sentence. You see, Hannah believes that HER (perception of) safety outweighs the Constitution.
Hannah is a nation unto herself.
Advocates of gun control also dance around the fact that 200 years ago we had privately owned cannons. We had privately owned warships (privateers). Merchant shipping had cannons mounted to defend themselves against pirates. Etc.
That's when the idea of gun control started. The armored highly trained knights learned, to their horror, that any dumb unskilled peasant could just point this new invention at them and kill them. Can't have that.
In the Japanese version of "The Seven Samurai" there is a classic scene where the ace swordsman is killed by some unskilled goon with a matchlock.
Actually goes back before firearms. Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows against Christians. (Apparently they were fine for shooting Muslims, heretics and pagans.)
But I'm supposed to believe that strict gun control laws will keep the criminals from being armed?
Who is this stupid woman's keeper? He needs to come and collect her.
Safety concerns outweigh rights to bear arms.
The leftist aka progressives claimed the same thing during WW II. When they rounded up and imprisoned hundred of thousands of American citizens. Without going before a court. Simply because of the place of their birth.