![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
SCOTUS & Second Amendment
I read the decisions by the justices and all the op-ed pieces that have flown by my eyes this past week. Granted, much of my political time has been spent from the "talk radio perspective" but I was a bit surprised with the amount of people who don't believe that the Second Amendment extended to individuals. While the Second Amendment never won awards for grammatical clarity, I think context clarifies things. Amendments 1-9 are about individual rights - speech, guns, protection from troops, search & seizure, due process/double jeopardy/self incrimination, trial by jury, civil trial by jury, reasonable punishment, other rights not excluded. But the status of protection offered by these amendments has shifted through the years.
Let's think about the lovely First Amendment. It wasn't long ago that the government only gave lip service to this protection. Political speech was easily crushed. The postal service could censor content of mail sent through it. Despite individuals being granted the individual rights to speech in the Bill of Rights, it didn't serve the govt to actually allow speech it didn't like. The country was young and any dissent could teeter us into chaos. They had to protect the establishment, so the court didn't protect speech rights until the past century. Little by little, as our country grew in stature, the courts loosened the govt's grip on speech. While there are still moments when politicians/judges freak out that someone's free speech rights will bring chaos to America, I think the citizens of this country has emerged from fear into freedom on this issue.
Several of the other amendments also boast similar stories of their freedoms and protections only being seriously considered by the govt in recent history. I feel that D.C. V. Heller is a pivotal case for the Second Amendment's time for govt respect of this individual right. While events like the Whiskey Rebellion made it easy for the early govt to justify actions against firearms, it is silly to consider the prospect of a citizen army overcoming the technological and military power of the US Armed Forces.
I'm already getting dizzy from rolling my eyes at the "slippery slope" exclamations of those against individual rights. Give people the freedom of speech and someone will get offended by something someone says. Give people protection from govt intrusion and some bad folks will get away with crimes because the govt didn't see it coming. Each freedom in the amendments has a price, but each are worth it.
Just as one can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the court isn't going to have people walking the streets looking like Yosemite Sam or dueling at dawn. Stop with the hyperbole, folks. I often don't see differences between the attitude and arguments of anti-abortion folks and anti-gun folks. Both decry the culture of death their opponents support. Both are quick to use graphic pictures and sob stories to emotionally assault others. Both prefer protection over freedom on their issue.
As some of them might say about other issues, education is more effective than banning. Educate the youth and the general population about illegal drugs as a health issue (avoid drugs and get treatment when struggling with them). Educate folks on sex education to spurn abortions, teen pregnancies, STDs, and assist in family planning. Educate gun owners on how to use, care for, and store firearms to prevent accidents and loss of weapons to burglary/theft. Educate people detained by police of their Miranda rights so they can exercise them.
This American choses education over the fearful warnings of chaos that freedom brings.
My background: Army brat, dad took me target shooting with .22s in 7th grade (earned a bunch of NRA youth awards), did two years in high school ROTC, and have enjoyed firing weapons with talk show listeners through the years. I don't own any firearms because I don't "need" any. My dad has an arsenal and whenever I do decide to get one, I'll get it from him. When the kids get older, I'm likely to have a gun or two because I would like a shotgun in the house for protection and enjoy firing pistols. With little kids around the house and no "need" for protection, I don't feel the desire to have any in the house right now.
Let's think about the lovely First Amendment. It wasn't long ago that the government only gave lip service to this protection. Political speech was easily crushed. The postal service could censor content of mail sent through it. Despite individuals being granted the individual rights to speech in the Bill of Rights, it didn't serve the govt to actually allow speech it didn't like. The country was young and any dissent could teeter us into chaos. They had to protect the establishment, so the court didn't protect speech rights until the past century. Little by little, as our country grew in stature, the courts loosened the govt's grip on speech. While there are still moments when politicians/judges freak out that someone's free speech rights will bring chaos to America, I think the citizens of this country has emerged from fear into freedom on this issue.
Several of the other amendments also boast similar stories of their freedoms and protections only being seriously considered by the govt in recent history. I feel that D.C. V. Heller is a pivotal case for the Second Amendment's time for govt respect of this individual right. While events like the Whiskey Rebellion made it easy for the early govt to justify actions against firearms, it is silly to consider the prospect of a citizen army overcoming the technological and military power of the US Armed Forces.
I'm already getting dizzy from rolling my eyes at the "slippery slope" exclamations of those against individual rights. Give people the freedom of speech and someone will get offended by something someone says. Give people protection from govt intrusion and some bad folks will get away with crimes because the govt didn't see it coming. Each freedom in the amendments has a price, but each are worth it.
Just as one can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the court isn't going to have people walking the streets looking like Yosemite Sam or dueling at dawn. Stop with the hyperbole, folks. I often don't see differences between the attitude and arguments of anti-abortion folks and anti-gun folks. Both decry the culture of death their opponents support. Both are quick to use graphic pictures and sob stories to emotionally assault others. Both prefer protection over freedom on their issue.
As some of them might say about other issues, education is more effective than banning. Educate the youth and the general population about illegal drugs as a health issue (avoid drugs and get treatment when struggling with them). Educate folks on sex education to spurn abortions, teen pregnancies, STDs, and assist in family planning. Educate gun owners on how to use, care for, and store firearms to prevent accidents and loss of weapons to burglary/theft. Educate people detained by police of their Miranda rights so they can exercise them.
This American choses education over the fearful warnings of chaos that freedom brings.
My background: Army brat, dad took me target shooting with .22s in 7th grade (earned a bunch of NRA youth awards), did two years in high school ROTC, and have enjoyed firing weapons with talk show listeners through the years. I don't own any firearms because I don't "need" any. My dad has an arsenal and whenever I do decide to get one, I'll get it from him. When the kids get older, I'm likely to have a gun or two because I would like a shotgun in the house for protection and enjoy firing pistols. With little kids around the house and no "need" for protection, I don't feel the desire to have any in the house right now.
no subject
the nra suing san francisco because city laws outlaw guns in public housing is a prime example of this. i dont take any issue for people being forced to follow rules to have access to certain public assistance.
sure people have the right to own guns, but the government also has to provide for the common defense. and even though we all have to right to own a gun, not everyone should be allowed to have one. i would be curious to see how many guns in america are used for defending ones person and property, and how many are used in crimes, regardless of the legal standing of the gun.
no subject
I don't know if you've heard about the situation in GA. A new state law just went into effect allowing guns to be carried onto public transportation (by those with permits, of course) and into other public places. The City of Atlanta, however, has come back and declared Hartsfield/Jackson Airport to be a "gun-free" zone and said the only people allowed to carry guns there will be police, FBI, etc. From what I have heard, though, the new state law is pretty specific about stating that no city gov't can make it's own provision restricting individual rights of permitted gun-owners to carry their weapons. It will be interesting to see what develops, I think. There is a court case in process, of course.
no subject