Posted by Kromey at 1:25pm Dec 2 '13Your First Amendment parallel makes a lot of sense, and I think that's a fantastic comparison to help me see where you're coming from.
That faux-historical assertion -- always, of course, made by people exercising their assumed First Amendment rights on the internet while ironically decrying that the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned modern firearms (while also -- quite often at least -- anachronistically ignoring that non-musket weapons like revolver pistols and rifles actually did exist at the time) -- has always irked me, but I've never been able to well articulate that. Still don't think I've done it adequately.
Can you explain to me how you reach that conclusion?
Reading historical documents such as The Federalist Papers, and generally researching attitudes of the Founding Fathers and the period they lived in. It becomes quite clear quite quickly that, while indeed a misattributed one of late-20th century invention, the alleged Jefferson quote "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" does, in fact, accurately represent their views at the time.
While it's not possible to distill all of that into simple quotes, here's a good sampling:
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
[private] Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
The Jefferson and Lee quotes are perhaps the most telling, as how can liberty be preserved if the people are subjected to the insurmountable might of a tyrannical government?
And as to the militia itself:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
I don't agree with extremists who want to outlaw firearms period--that is clearly a violation of Constitutional rights. So, while the incident that spurred the threadstarter here may have come from an extremist, I'm more curious about the law itself.
I'm not doing that. You brought up the "slippery slope" stuff, I pointed out that they -- the extremist gun-grabbers who do want to outlaw all firearms, period -- are deliberately trying to create one.
I know you're not one of them, but when you try to assert that my arguments are one of a slippery slope, it's perfectly fair and legitimate to point out that it's the anti-gun groups who started us down that path.
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
If we can prevent the extreme goal (and as much as many people in this country dislike guns, I don't think it will ever fly to remove them entirely), then can a more moderate law not be a good thing, simply because of its source?
Now I have to point out that you're presenting anti-extremist arguments to me. Contrary to the repeated slanders on 4K, I do not and never have supported unregulated firearm ownership. I support NICS for example (although I disagree with how broad the "prohibited persons" list is), and I don't advocate for individuals to own grenade launchers.
There, already, we have moderate laws.
The broader answer to your question is that prohibiting scary-looking weapons doesn't do anyone any good, and infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. So what if my rifle happens to superficially resemble the Army's M16? It's less dangerous than Grampa's ol' deer rifle, which no one seems to have any issue with [or, at least, no one's trying to outlaw -- yet]. And magazine limits are a slippery slope -- first it was 10 rounds, but why? What's so magical about 10? Well -- nothing! So why not make it 7? It's just an arbitrary number, so it's just as (il)legitimate. Done that. So now why not make it 5?
Why 5? That doesn't even make sense with the faux-historical argument, since six-shooters were indeed around at the time the 2nd Amendment was written! (Actually there might also have even 8-shooters, but my firearm history isn't strong enough to be certain about that at all.) But 7 worked, and 5's just another number, so let's do it anyway.
We are on that slippery slope. New York already limited magazines to 10 rounds, then lowered that to 7, and is now going to 5.
While not as clear-cut as this one, other such regulations are just as useless, while being no less tyrannical. Why shouldn't I be allowed to have a collapsing stock on my rifle? That simple feature -- which alters the function of the firearm in no way whatsoever -- means that I can shoot it comfortably, then hand it to [private] who, with her smaller arms, can collapse the stock and shoot the very same rifle just as comfortably.
The alleged goal of gun control (at least the one presented to the public at large) is public safety. But study after study after study proves there's no correlation between any legitimate measure of public safety and gun control. So why continue? What's the point? It doesn't make anyone safer, and just infringes on the rights of the people.
Show me a law that does improve public safety, and I'll consider its benefits versus the impact to citizens' rights. But when laws have no benefit whatsoever, there's simply nothing to consider. That's not an extremist view -- that's simply a common-sense view.
Re: Hmm. - Kromey