mpd239
Member
I want to start by saying that I'm a young Democrat, generally fairly liberal but with unique viewpoints on several issues.
Anyways, a friend sent me to the website www.a-human-right.com; and through that site I found these forums. In reading the site, and the initial poll, I noticed some illogical questions and statements. I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views. Don't get me wrong, I come into conflict with fellow Democrats often on issues of gun control, and am generally against it. But I just wanted to point somethings out, and hear some response to what I have to say.
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact. It's something you should understand regardless of your viewpoint; I am in favor of individual gun ownership as a basic right, but am still willing to recognize this. More importantly, the Second Amendment has not been selectively incorporated to the states. Meaning, the US Constitution is a federal document, applying to the federal government. Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court began in the early 20th century and has covered almost all rights-- but not the 2nd amendment. Thus, regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it does not, at this time, apply to state governments.
But what I really want to talk about is the assault weapon ban. My view on gun ownership is this-- while actual incidents involving defense of property or self with a gun may be limited and unconvincing of the importance of gun ownership, the possibility of a gun held by a victim reduces crime in a manner that cannot be measured. Thus the statistics used to justify gun control should not be related to how many times a gun is used in defense, and the results, but should be cross-country comparisons of crime rates. When you look at statistics such as these, you find that while the US has a higher murder rate than countries with strong gun control, those countries have higher contact crime rates. Therefore there is a tradeoff, it seems-- the more guns, the more murder; but the less guns, the less risk incurred by criminals involved in lesser crimes. So I think a balance has to be found, most likely erring on the side of individual freedom and thus individual gun ownership.
But, assault weapons have little place in modern society. Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense. But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise? An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States. Thus in your poll, comparing banning assault weapons to banning a specific type of computer-- that's ridiculous. Computers have legitimate uses other than electronic crime, whereas an Uzi used in a drive-by is operating within its primary function. Its wrong to deny fifth graders Microsoft Encarta because of electronic crime; but I think gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur and thus relinquish their right to own such property. Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.
I just think these are some points you should all think about.
Anyways, a friend sent me to the website www.a-human-right.com; and through that site I found these forums. In reading the site, and the initial poll, I noticed some illogical questions and statements. I find that insulated issue-oriented internet communities often diverge from mainstream viewpoints, and don't become aware of their radicalism or the illogical nature of some of their views. Don't get me wrong, I come into conflict with fellow Democrats often on issues of gun control, and am generally against it. But I just wanted to point somethings out, and hear some response to what I have to say.
First of all, the Second Amendment has always been a collective right, and only recently has been interpreted as an individual one-- this is historical fact. It's something you should understand regardless of your viewpoint; I am in favor of individual gun ownership as a basic right, but am still willing to recognize this. More importantly, the Second Amendment has not been selectively incorporated to the states. Meaning, the US Constitution is a federal document, applying to the federal government. Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Supreme Court began in the early 20th century and has covered almost all rights-- but not the 2nd amendment. Thus, regardless of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it does not, at this time, apply to state governments.
But what I really want to talk about is the assault weapon ban. My view on gun ownership is this-- while actual incidents involving defense of property or self with a gun may be limited and unconvincing of the importance of gun ownership, the possibility of a gun held by a victim reduces crime in a manner that cannot be measured. Thus the statistics used to justify gun control should not be related to how many times a gun is used in defense, and the results, but should be cross-country comparisons of crime rates. When you look at statistics such as these, you find that while the US has a higher murder rate than countries with strong gun control, those countries have higher contact crime rates. Therefore there is a tradeoff, it seems-- the more guns, the more murder; but the less guns, the less risk incurred by criminals involved in lesser crimes. So I think a balance has to be found, most likely erring on the side of individual freedom and thus individual gun ownership.
But, assault weapons have little place in modern society. Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense. But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise? An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men. That's not something that is necessary or wanted in the modern United States. Thus in your poll, comparing banning assault weapons to banning a specific type of computer-- that's ridiculous. Computers have legitimate uses other than electronic crime, whereas an Uzi used in a drive-by is operating within its primary function. Its wrong to deny fifth graders Microsoft Encarta because of electronic crime; but I think gun enthusiasts should be mature enough to recognize the cost to society legalized assault weapons incur and thus relinquish their right to own such property. Legalized assault weapons enable terrorists and criminals to acquire means without risk, and this will result in more uses of the weapons.
I just think these are some points you should all think about.
