A gun is a tool, albeit a very dangerous tool. I don't think they should be banned -- anymore than a chainsaw should be banned -- but they ought to be regulated.
Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights
By Robert Barnes
The Supreme Court set up a historic decision on gun control Wednesday, saying it will rule on whether restrictive state and local laws violate the Second Amendment right to gun ownership that it recognised last year.
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html?referrer=emailarticle
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
3 comments:
"Regulated" is a very broad word. But let's discuss this with the US constitution in mind and with their history as well. For starters, the 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Supreme Court has basically said that the idea that this was only for a well regulated militia or for the army is incorrect. That second comma isn't a mistake, it is a statement that there are two rights in play here. The first is the right to a well regulated militia, being a military force made up of ordinary citizens as opposed to mercenaries or professional soldiers. The second is the right of individual citizens to keep arms and to carry them.
So why is this a right in the US? Look at how they became a nation: Through Revolution! The US is a nation that was born from tyranny and one that fully expected its citizens to be able to overthrow any future tyranny. Any government knows that to really oppress a people you must first disarm them.
So you don't understand this "love" of guns? How about a love of liberty, or freedom, or just a love of fresh deer meat? A gun is a tool, as you say, and I would agree that a gun owner should be vetted for a criminal record or serious mental illnes as well as basic safety skills, but the regulation of guns in Canada makes no sense.
I can own a gun, and I do, and I can borrow guns without informing the registry so the registry can never tell anyone what guns I actually have in my possession. I can legally own a Czech clone of an AK-47 in semi-auto, and even use it to hunt, but the "real" Ak-47 is banned by name meaning I can't own one of those even though I can own the exact same design if it's made by the Czechs. The same for the M16 or AR 15, banned by name, but I can own the exact same design if it's made by Bushmaster.
I can own a pistol and have a magazine that hold 10 rounds but I can't own a semi-auto rifle with a magazine larger than five. Uhh, except that I can use a 10 round magazine in my semi-auto rifle if that magazine was manufactured for a firearm that can legally use a 10 round magazine such as a pistol. So if I put my 9mm pistol mag in my 9mm semi-auto rifle and it works I'm perfectly legal.
I can't own a bullpup rifle unless it can't be fired with the stock removed. So I can legally own a Tavor and use it to hunt, but I cannot convert my Ruger 10/22, a .22 caliber semi-auto plinker, into a bullpup because that would be illegal. But bullpup stock or regualr stock I can still fire my 10/22 with the stock removed!
What sort of regulation do you want, James? Wouldn't it be nice to have regulation based on fact rather than fear? We ban the AK-47 because it has a scary name, not because it is scary. We make arbitrary rules in order to win favor, or votes, like Martin's pledge to ban hand guns. It's a mess here in Canada, and I'd like to see it fixed, and I would like to see the government mind its own business if I continue to be the law abiding citizen that I am.
Good response and fairly put -- may I "promote" it to the main page?
Please do if you think it's worthwhile. And feel free to edit it for spelling or if my point is redundant (I think the section on the Czech vz 58 has some, and I'd probably change "exact same design" to "functionally and visually")
Post a Comment