Guns
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- Amendment 1
A good friend stopped by to see me yesterday. Like every good and decent American, he is horrified by the mass-shootings that are taking place these days. As a gun owner, he is 100% in favor of outlawing military-grade assault guns for civilians. A person he is friends with had argued they must remain legal, pointing out that the military in Ukraine is using them to defend against the Russian invasion. My friend asked me how anyone could be so stupid?
In my opinion, the only way to have a semi-reasonable discussion with people that stupid -- and they are legion -- is to ask if they think Amendment 2 is intended to protect the "rights" of the human shit-stains that murdered so many innocent people in Buffalo and in the Texas school? Even stupid people seem to be able to grasp the implications, though they generally lack the intellectual ability to take it a step further.
It is more important, in my opinion, to be able to discuss gun control legislation with intelligent people who have concerns about restrictions on Amendment 2. This is not to say that all of their concerns are legitimate. For example, some are concerned by those who speak of getting rid of Amendment 2 and all guns. This is not a serious concern, of course, because there is at most zero chance of it happening. It is as meaningless as those who advocate for no restrictions.
In order to have serious discussions, it is important to study the history of Amendment 2, including the thinking of legal scholars as well as constitutional law (what the Supreme Court has ruled). This, of course, requires an open mind, and the willingness to listen to the opinions of those who disagree with you.
There is a book I recommend, titled, "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding," edited by Eugene Hickok, Jr. Though published in 1991 by the University of Virginia Press, it is still of great value when considering addressing the sickening amount of mass-shootings happening daily in our country. It contains contributions from various points of view on each of the Bill of Rights.
Likewise, it is good to be able to speak about Supreme Court decisions on Amendment 1, I think, in order to show that there are restrictions on what it protects and what it does not protect. This allows one to go beyond the old "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. The one that I like to use involved Dr. King leading a march in Birmingham in 1963. A state court judge had ordered King and his followers not to march on a specific date, until the planned march was approved by the city.
King decided the march at that time was too important, and knowingly violated the state court's order. Eventually, the case reached the US Supreme Court, as Walker v City of Birmingham, and in 1967, the USSC ruled against King and his followers. Part of their decision stated that "respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law." And I think that line can be applied by those advocating for gun control legislation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
