News, notes, and observations from the James River Valley in northern South Dakota with special attention to reviewing the performance of the media--old and new. E-Mail to MinneKota@gmail.com

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Guns rule over intelligence

Voters in Colorado recalled two of their state senators, one the Senate president, for advocating and passing strict gun laws.  Colorado is the scene of two of the mass shootings that have defined what has become part of American culture, Columbine and the Aurora movie theater.  

The Second Amendment, which in the time it was framed was intended to establish a means of maintaining an armed militia that could be called up in defense of the nation, has been given an interpretation that rules over all other parts of the Constitution which provide individual rights and public safety. Voters in Colorado Springs and Pueblo have decided that the right of mentally deranged killers to have any type of weapon they want and use it any way they want takes precedent over rights of kids to be safe in schools and of people to enjoy a film without being threatened by nuts with guns. 

I am a gun owner and user who has enjoyed shooting sports.  My advocacy of reasonable gun laws has and will result in gun addicts saying I am anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment.  However, I am also convinced that some kinds of weapons should be regulated.  Those with violent criminal histories and the mentally ill should not have unrestrained access to firearms, and some types of weapons should be restricted as to where, when, and by whom they can be used.

The argument advanced by the NRA and other gun nut organizations is that Obama and others are plotting to take away all guns to set up  a totalitarian state.  They can cite no proposals that do more than try to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to use them to kill other people.  Still the hysteria that someone is out to take away all their toys spreads and becomes a basis for the law of the  land.  

The last time I went pheasant hunting with my son, we were stopped by conservation officers who checked my son's shotgun to see if it contained the plug that limits it to three shells, and they checked the ammunition to see if it was lead or steel shot, as we were hunting in a state preserve area.    And, of course, they checked his hunting license.  We had complied with all the rules.  But I wonder, if given the interpretation that any rules and regulations restricting guns is considered an infringement on the Second Amendment, if the rules restricting the amount of shells in a shotgun and the kind of ammunition used can hold up under the current interpretation. 

Furthermore, if one chooses an automobile as a weapon of choice, need one abide by the licensing and insurance requirements and the traffic laws.  Many people use their automobiles to run down animals in the night and to defend what they regard as their rights on the highways.  Are all the vehicular laws infringements on their right to bear automobiles as arms?

Do we even need a constitution when we can solve our problems with guns and other devices we can use as arms? (And I wonder why any of these Second-Amendment-over-all advocates should give a shit if Obama wants to use weapons on Syria.)

Ridiculous, you say?  Not any more so than what the NRA is promoting.  If people are against laws restricting the violent aspects of human behavior,  it may be time to go all out and let our violent tendencies and the devices we express them with supplant the rule of law.  The only constitution we need is the Second Amendment.  And without any constitution, we don't need that. 

For accounts of the Colorado recall elections, you can consult the following links:

The Denver Post

The New York Times

Huffington Post Denver

Talking Points Memo


Top Dem: Colorado losses due to 'voter suppression, pure and simple'



 

1 comment:

M Larson said...

And on a scarier note, the blind may file for gun permits.

Blog Archive

About Me

My Photo
Aberdeen, South Dakota, United States

NVBBETA