| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
|
Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM MST
|
| There was much reaction to the news of a recent shooting death of a 1½ year-old girl. It prompted an emotional reaction from Pete Talbot ("...explain to me how the Second Amendment applies to a...loser like this..."); a reasoned (and impassioned) defense of the Second Amendment from Wulfgar! ("The 2nd is an enumeration of a right. For the word to have any meaning, it must apply to all ... even Smail. A tragic as this is, the alternative - a selective application of 'rights' -- is far more tragic, and has had far bloodier consequences in US history."); and an absolutely brilliant column from New West's Sutton Stokes, "Little Girl Dead: Going to a Gun Show with Dwayne Smail on My Mind," which somehow manages to embody all of my own ambivalence about guns, the gun crowd, the Second Amendment, liberty.
Some of the good parts from Stokes' piece:
The question is whether we have any good way to prevent gun sales to the stupid at the policy level, as opposed to, say, harshly punishing the Smails of the world. If gun sales were to become illegal tomorrow, there would of course quickly be even more of a flourishing illegal market in the things than there is right now (and it's already pretty flourishing). I'd refer you to, say, the market in illegal drugs, and point out that a lot of people who would like to see a prohibition on gun sales might be open, on the other hand, to a decriminalization of some forms of currently illegal drugs. Of course there are huge distinctions to be made (pot never killed anyone, but handguns - not so much), and I'm not saying that holding the two views makes anyone a hypocrite, but I do think it would be foolish to ignore the apparently powerful desire of vast numbers of people in this country to own guns, and to fail to consider the evidence from the "drug war" that a lot of people are quite willing to disobey laws they consider unjust.
And of course there is that pesky Second Amendment to the Constitution, which I'm afraid I don't see a way to read in a way that would permit the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and I say that not only as a confirmed political liberal but as a professional editor. We can argue about the "well-regulated militia" part, I suppose, but, if your objections to a "personal right" reading of this amendment rest on comma placement, I hope you realize that this boils down to essentially not having an argument to make.
In short, damn good arguments. |
| Jay Stevens :: On Dwayne Smail, guns, and the too-often toxic tone of the "debate" |
| The comment section was delightfully thoughtful - apart from a few rabid right wingers - unusual for a debate on guns. And that's the thing, isn't it? Sutton touched on how right-wing gun enthusiasts view the debate in black/white terms: those for gun control are "evil," and those for the Second Amendment are the white hats protecting "freedom" and "liberty" from the "libs." It's gone far beyond a reasonable stand and has become a weird obsession with the projection of perceived masculine power. If you want to know why there are large swaths of the population in favor of gun control, you only need read the posts from Dave Skinner in the comments of the New West piece to understand.
Two observations about this line of thinking.
First, if you think "libs" are automatically pro-gun-control, it's obvious you don't know very many. Here in the Montana blogosphere there are plenty of examples of liberal gun nuts, yet few (if any?) who call for increased gun control. That means you're living in a self-created fantasy world. Get out of the house.
Second, being a gun owner and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment does not necessarily make you a good person. After all, Dwayne Smail was a gun owner and, presumably, in favor of the Second Amendment. So you don't get a free pass on civility or reason or kindness or decency simply because you support a Constitutional amendment.
And, last of all, despite the emotion and feeling for vengence that the death of a small child evokes, I just don't see any possible way to legislate her back to life, or to create handgun legislation - even if that legislation didn't contradict the Constitution -- that would prevent the deaths of other children from the Dwayne Smails of the world and their...stupidty? Malice? |
|
| Poll |
| Purely Hypothetical, of course, but - The best candidate for the Republicans for US Senate is: |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
