The right to bear arms? Not anymore... and it's about time.
Marvin the Martian 21 comments
A New Jersey court recently decided a case that has far reaching consequences for all Americans. The right to bear arms is no longer a fundamental right. While the court did not say that guns should be outlawed, although they should have, they did stipulate that those who wish to poses a handgun should have law enforcement approval and permission in advance.
What this decision means is that the second amendment is not dead, but now has a more focused legal framework to guide its enforcement and application. That an individual wishes to have a weapon is still protected under the constitution, but that the right to bear arms should carry, at a minimum, a license and/or clearance to do so.
While the majority of countries in the western world already posses some kind on federal gun control registry, the United States misplaced obsession with their fundamental right to bear arms has been for decades linked to the increased homicides in that country.
In previous articles, I have written about the governments decision to allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon into public places. This includes hospitals, public parks and even airports.
I have always been outspoken about gun control. In fact I believe that no one outside of the military or law enforcement should ever be allowed to carry a weapon in public. There is simply no compelling reason to do so.
A New Jersey judge says a quadriplegic blocked from buying a gun to go hunting has the right to bear arms even though he will have to use a wheelchair mount to use the firearm.
I applaud the higher courts decision to implement at the minimum a license. This use of and fascination with guns in the U.S. will be its undoing. How can you teach people to turn the other cheek, when you know a gun is pointing right at you?
Some may argue that if you have a gun, you have better protection against an assailant. Some argue that guns don't kill people, people kill people and so on. The fact of the matter is that the United States has a disproportionate number of gun related deaths. The number of available guns also contributes to gang violence and terrorism as weapons are easier to purchase both legally and illegally.
What is the more appalling part of this is a related story that I believe illustrates my point perfectly.
Here is the excerpt from Huffington Post (original article here)
Though I'll concede criminals should never have a gun, my concern is our right to privacy. If I keep a gun in my house for protection, or sport, that's nobody's business. That said, though criminals are typically too lazy to get a job, they usually are creative. It can't be too far a stretch to see them making their own weapons, which would be more dangerous in that they are not built to the same high standards as a real gun maker
http://englishrussia.com/?p=965.
Papa
Monday 16th November 2009 | 03:17 AMNazi Germany required everyone to register their guns. Then the government came and took them all way before sh*t hit the fan in Europe.
"There is simply no compelling reason to do so."
That is a very empty statement. Simply because you can't think of a reason to own a gun, you support gun control? When someone comes into my home with a ILLEGALLY bought firearm, I will be in a much better situation with my LEGALLY purchased firearm than you my friend. My wife and family are more important than some fantastical ideas about ridding the world of firearms. Good luck with your crusade...
This is a complicated issue, but I have to go along with Papa on this one...I'm not so sure I want the guns that I dont have or owne taken away from me, and leave the only guns with the police and the army. Thats scary.
F-
Marvin the Martian
Monday 16th November 2009 | 05:22 AM...in response to this comment by Papa. if you have a gun in your home, and you follow the rules, that gun is useless...
By law, you are required to store your ammunition seperately to the gun, and in some state, you are even required to have a lock on the trigger. If a robber comes into your home, are you going to ask for a few minutes to get your gun, unlock the trigger lock, get and load your ammunition so you can "defend" your family?
The fact is that if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, you are better off to so as they ask. Prokoing a response from an intruder is the stupidest thing you can do.
As for the rest, one of the reasons why illegal handguns are so prevelant, is that there is an abundance of guns in general. Theft, black marke deals and illegal trade contribute to this. If there was a properly regulated market, or if people realised that guns do more harm than good, there would be fewer guns available to criminals.
Finally, regulation does not mean facism, or have you not learnt from the current financial and healthcare crisies in the US? Regualtion simply ensures that proper safeguards are in place to protect the people.
I fail to see any compelling reason to own a gun. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Papa
Monday 16th November 2009 | 06:56 AM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. The laws that you speak of are only in a few states. No law requires me to store my ammunition in a separate location than my firearm in my own home and I am in a very liberal state. I am actually not sure where you get your facts from. I live in the United States, no reason for you to care what I have in my possession or what I do with it.
Rest assured, if someone were to come into my abode, It would take me less than a second for me to be armed.
Fact of the matter is, I care more about my family than I do about the perp attempting to harm them. If you don't, thats your prerogative.
Papa
Monday 16th November 2009 | 07:03 AMAddition, I don't have to keep a lock on my gun nor store my ammunition separately unless I am transported my firearms out side of my home in a motor vehicle. Hence, my firearms are very functional and practical were an intruder to invade my domicile.
...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. As far as a compelling reason to own a gun- hunting. Even though I live in the city, there are plenty of guys here who enjoy to go hunting. Though a couple of them are sport hunters, many hunt for food. Most of them who hunted with their dad's, who did the same. It keeps a rich tradition of fending for yourself alive and well.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 16th November 2009 | 09:37 AMI live in Australia and I think these gun laws in the U.S or any country with similar rights is so outdated - it's too scary to comprehend!
It's not the keeping of the weapon thats wrong it's what happens with that weapon.
If it stays in the home then that's fine but a lot unfortunately do not.
In Australia you can only defend yourself inside your property with similar or equal force. If an intruder breaks in and you go and shoot him dead knowing that that individual is not holding a similar weapon then you will be charged and possibly go to jail.
A society who has a policy of everyone being able to keep a weapon will only create more violence so what is so wrong with having to get a licence to keep a weapon?
When I was younger I had a little 22cal rifle which I used for target shooting. I had to get a licence for that weapon with a small fee every year. No problems!
When I was over the target shooting experience I simply handed the rifle into Police and ceased updating my licence. I found no reason why I should keep the weapon in my house especially with children around. Even though I kept the bolt in a different location I knew that I could not defend myself with this weapon hence the reason why I handed it in.
I know that people who have been living with these gun rights all of their lives will simply disagree with everything that I have said especially those people in the U.S.
It is not an easy law to change but you have to start somewhere so why not now?
Put you so called rights aside and think of the bigger picture..........
Just my two sense. The more people that are packing the more hesitation enters a criminals mind.
Marvin the Martian
Monday 16th November 2009 | 12:01 PM...in response to this comment by The Movie Whore. or the more agressive the intruder/robber has to be in order to get what they want.
This is the same issue with military escallation... you always want the bigger gun to scare the other guy into submission. The unfortunate thing is that eventually someone blinks. That is when people get hurt.
Marvin the Martian
Monday 16th November 2009 | 12:07 PM...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa,
I have lived in New York and know what you are saying. Many people have the 'illusion' of security when they own a gun. Unfortunately, when everyone is armed, no one is safe... just more people are hurt.
I truely understand you desire to protect your family, but believe me, I know from experience, if someone enters your home to rob you, they have already taken that first step. They are doing it for a reason, and a lot of the time it is desparation. It is not far off for them to kill.
By antagonising them further, you are taking risk that they will call your bluff. They already have a hightened level of awareness and adrelene by entering your home while you are presumably waking up and groggy. They have the advantage.
Aside from the specific issue of an intruder, the point of this and other gun-control article I have written is to point out the absolutely crazy notion of a society armed to the teeth, completely paranoid of anyone they don't know. This simply is not the case in Toronto, where I grew up, in Israel and Hong Kong and now in Melbourne where I have lived.
I have only expereince this insanity in the US. Food for thought.
Papa
Monday 16th November 2009 | 12:32 PM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. I don't think I am going to antagonize them at all. I purchased a Taclight laser combo exactly for that reason. Put the red dot on his or her chest and pull the trigger until he or she stops moving sounds good to me, I doubt me or my family will be any risk after that.
Maybe it is just me, but I am not going to cooperate with any criminal that is in MY house. Unless they have a knife to my wife's throat, I see me killing anyone who attempts to deprive me of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Sorry to get all constitutional on you...
Marvin the Martian
Monday 16th November 2009 | 01:13 PM...in response to this comment by Papa. Not a problem... but that last statement really does explain the difference in attitude.
A right to bear arms that really no one understands the true meaning or history of, being taken totally out of control to a place where everyone is armed and ready to kill. This is the exact reason I chose not to stay in the US and why I am sure to make it clear to everyone who hears my voice that I am a Canadian, lest they get the wrong impression.
MarionK
Monday 15th February 2010 | 04:02 PMWell, I dont wanted to argue with you but I think each one of u has a point of view about this matter. You dont need to exchange bad words with each other. As of me, literally, I really love bears especially the Death Bear.
Mark
Saturday 4th December 2010 | 05:48 AMThe right to keep and bear arms is still alive and well. If you are willing to purchase a firearm of the type that was common when the second amendment was written, there are almost no restrictions at all. To check this point, I recently purchased a replica of a Revolutionary war era musket, as well as a civil war era revolver. Both were delivered to my door, in the mail, without so much as a signature required. Both fire straight and true, and are no less lethal than a modern day firearm. I guess my point is this; If you want an antique firearm, it's regulated by antique laws. IF you want a modern firearm, it should be regulated by modern laws. Makes sense to me.
...in response to this comment by Mark. The biggest problem with modern laws is they're fear based and inconsistent. Traveling from one state to the next is really complicated, and the only people it hurts are non-criminals. There's a fellow in NJ serving time just for having an unloaded, locked gun in his trunk, which is perfectly legal in most of the US.
Gun regulations only make sense if they are consistent and criminals follow them like everyone else.
Henk V
Saturday 4th December 2010 | 11:27 PMGuys, why were the amendments written? In Oz its to shoot rabbits and foxes... lets be a nay sayer and ask why you want to bear arms.
lets face it, if you can bear arms, its totally legal for some fuckwit with a bad cd to keep them as well.
Every time someone mentions Tupac I raise my clenched fist... "the right to kill idiots" lives
That Guy
Sunday 5th December 2010 | 07:29 AM"Nazi Germany required everyone to register their guns. Then the government came and took them all way before sh*t hit the fan in Europe."
Did the rest of you just miss that statement or what? The right to bare arms is in place in order to give the public the ability to fight back against tyranny. Take away that and you'll soon see Big Brother walk all over you...harder than they do already.
...in response to this comment by That Guy. Right on Guy...Well put. I don't even own a gun, but if I did, it would be "out of my cold dead hand."
f~
Henk V
Monday 6th December 2010 | 07:56 AMLook, there is a difference between owning a tool and bearing arms.
Dictionary of phrases; "the right to bear arms" ,
a) jingoistic expression by five foot weaklings to make the 6' 5" with a 17" penis.
b) political jargon (to garner popular votes) as relevant as the ten commandments are to christians.
c) the cringe statement that all farmers, hunters and sports shooters wish would disappear so the five footers dont ruin their operations.
d) would not even exist if five foot men didnt get drunk and shoot people rather than run to safety as any other sane man would.
Yes every morning I put on my blue super suit and my red undies over my tights and save the world by 9 oclock. Its my right to be superman.
If the right to bear arms really meant anything, why do you have a secret service? everyone loves your president and everyone is sane?
No, just one hell of a load of people wake up in the morning and think they are che guevara and blog or comment about it.
If you own a fire arm, you had better have a lifestyle reason for doing so. Otherwise you are a potential liability.
Hey I can fly and have x-ray vision..I should know about fighting crime and tyranny.
what a fucking wally.
Mario
Sunday 15th November 2009 | 04:13 PMAnother strike for individual liberty.