I heard a snippet of comment today on the radio. I think it was from an FBI guy and it was relating to the second amendment and the legal purchasing of guns, probably motivated by the recent bombing attempt in Times Square. The basic gist was that he thought that any person on a terrorist watch list, or the like, ought to be prohibited from legally purchasing firearms. I am really not sure how I feel about the issue...
Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?
I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.
Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?
~A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wrote a persuasive paper in 10th grade about gun control. Going into it I was quite ignorant to the issue, because I believed in the right to own guns and felt that 'gun control' is wrong. After studying the topic I felt that most of the problems that arose from guns or gun related issues stemmed from the ignorant use of guns. From that time on, I've been in favor of a form of gun control. I would be in favor of 'gun control'. For example, as prerequisite, mandatory gun safety training by a third party group, such as the NRA. That is one option that might satisfy some folks, but doesn't address the domestic terror issue.
ReplyDeleteSo, if someone is actually planning a terrorist act and they find out that they could not legally purchase a gun, what is the probability that they would be either a) detered or b) captured as a result. If the probability is not high, then such a law would only be a symbolic action and therefore unjust in that it might prevent someone with inocent intent from purchasing a gun.
ReplyDeleteHow much do "gun control" laws actually keep guns out of criminal or terrorist hands. If someone wants a gun for a non lawful act are they going to be constrained by laws in obtaining those guns?
ReplyDeleteExactly what I was meaning. I think reasonable restrictions such as age limits may be justified. I'm all for a parent knowing if their minor child wants a gun. But beyond something like that, I don't see that gun laws are making us safer. Perhaps to reduce "the ignorant use of guns" as Hollis put it, we should require an on the spot >firearms IQ test< to determine that you are not an idiot.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't barring people from buying firearms if they are on a "terrorist watch list" be self defeating? In order to do it, you would have to make known to the person that they are on such a list, in which case they would know to either avoid suspicious activity or better cover their tracks. Don't you usually try to avoid tipping of the person you are watching?
ReplyDelete