01-21-2009, 02:12 AM
I had a minor epiphany, of sorts, whilst reading some information on the Brady center website, which I read in the context of the other articles linked in this thread, the Lott/Mustard study, and after reading as many articles on second amendment topics as the first three pages of a google search could provide.
The first thing I noticed is that both sides quote different statistics, picking whichever supports their point of view. This is nothing new. My favorite example is DC: after the handgun ban, handgun homicides went down, according to the anti-gun lobby. Handgun violence, on the other hand, went up according to the pro-gun lobby. Both are true. Concurrent, but unrelated to the ban, DC increased funding for emergency rooms, bought more ambulances, and hired more EMTs and emergency room personnel. People were being shot more, but dying less. Second thing I noticed was that both sides quote statistics from studies that were not made available for peer-review. Might as well ignore those. Third, many crime statistics are shoddy at best. Numbers indicating 'crimes involving handguns' are particularly suspect. Got arrested for jaywalking while carrying a pistol? That counts as using a handgun in the commission of a crime. Many statistics are shoddy and incomplete, on both sides of the argument. This is dishonest, but to be expected from politicians, and organizations with agendas.
The anti-gun lobby has on it's side several important legal precedents, like US v Miller, and the general legal consensus seems to be to let the states set their own requirements, inside the existing federal legislation, e.g. the NFA of '32. The anti-gun lobby also seems to stress the first phrase of the amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". Their interpretation of the amendment hinges on that controversial phrase. If, indeed, a well-regulated militia is necessary, then where are they? As one of the articles linked here stated, and as historical context shows, a militia is simply all able-bodied men that own and/or know how to use firearms, and who historically provided their own.
The pro-gun lobby, on the other hand, doesn't have quite the same legal precedents. In fact, they lost most of their steam when the first gun restriction legislation was enacted, and as Rex pointed out, legislation rarely becomes less-restrictive. The pro-gun lobby also emphasizes the second phrase of the amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Which, legal precedent has made dependent on the first phrase, membership in a militia.
But the militia doesn't exist. If a standing citizens army is necessary for the security (and preservation) of a free state, where is our well-regulated militia, our citizens army? All we have now is an all-volunteer military and a dependence on private contractors and mercenaries.
My epiphany was that, instead of regulating/deregulating firearms, a militia must be created. A citizens army, compulsory for all able-bodied citizens between 18-40, bring your own autoloading rifle in a NATO caliber. I believe that is the true intent of the second amendment. That every person in America be equipped and ready to fight. In fact, many states had, at one point or another, laws requiring men of fighting age to own rifles. With this constant exposure to, and the necessary constant or frequent use of rifles, the gun would lose it's stigma, lose much of it's controversy, and become another part of daily life. A place it should have never left.
The first thing I noticed is that both sides quote different statistics, picking whichever supports their point of view. This is nothing new. My favorite example is DC: after the handgun ban, handgun homicides went down, according to the anti-gun lobby. Handgun violence, on the other hand, went up according to the pro-gun lobby. Both are true. Concurrent, but unrelated to the ban, DC increased funding for emergency rooms, bought more ambulances, and hired more EMTs and emergency room personnel. People were being shot more, but dying less. Second thing I noticed was that both sides quote statistics from studies that were not made available for peer-review. Might as well ignore those. Third, many crime statistics are shoddy at best. Numbers indicating 'crimes involving handguns' are particularly suspect. Got arrested for jaywalking while carrying a pistol? That counts as using a handgun in the commission of a crime. Many statistics are shoddy and incomplete, on both sides of the argument. This is dishonest, but to be expected from politicians, and organizations with agendas.
The anti-gun lobby has on it's side several important legal precedents, like US v Miller, and the general legal consensus seems to be to let the states set their own requirements, inside the existing federal legislation, e.g. the NFA of '32. The anti-gun lobby also seems to stress the first phrase of the amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". Their interpretation of the amendment hinges on that controversial phrase. If, indeed, a well-regulated militia is necessary, then where are they? As one of the articles linked here stated, and as historical context shows, a militia is simply all able-bodied men that own and/or know how to use firearms, and who historically provided their own.
The pro-gun lobby, on the other hand, doesn't have quite the same legal precedents. In fact, they lost most of their steam when the first gun restriction legislation was enacted, and as Rex pointed out, legislation rarely becomes less-restrictive. The pro-gun lobby also emphasizes the second phrase of the amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Which, legal precedent has made dependent on the first phrase, membership in a militia.
But the militia doesn't exist. If a standing citizens army is necessary for the security (and preservation) of a free state, where is our well-regulated militia, our citizens army? All we have now is an all-volunteer military and a dependence on private contractors and mercenaries.
My epiphany was that, instead of regulating/deregulating firearms, a militia must be created. A citizens army, compulsory for all able-bodied citizens between 18-40, bring your own autoloading rifle in a NATO caliber. I believe that is the true intent of the second amendment. That every person in America be equipped and ready to fight. In fact, many states had, at one point or another, laws requiring men of fighting age to own rifles. With this constant exposure to, and the necessary constant or frequent use of rifles, the gun would lose it's stigma, lose much of it's controversy, and become another part of daily life. A place it should have never left.
horizontally opposed>*