About guns, people, and cars…

I am amazed at the wide range of opinions people express about guns – on one hand you have a deranged group of people demanding that Americans flatly surrender their rights guaranteed by second amendment – the Absolute Disarmament Crowd (ADC) , on the other hand you have a group of people who would like not only that ANYONE would be able to buy a gun without any CHECKS, but that he or she would be able to buy not just any gun, but AUTOMATIC WEAPON. I call the latter the Anarchy Crowd (AC).

In my opinion owning a gun can be seen as a necessity, just like owning a car. You cannot depend on police , they are too few, too human. But it is absurd that anyone can buy a gun. Let us compare: to buy and use a car one has to

1. Pass a test, theory and practice, and be licensed by the state;

2. Have insurance, that guarantees that if you misuse the car in any way, the damage and injury resulting of that can be remedied.

There are no such provisions for gun ownership.

Do not misunderstand me – Liberalism’s ideas of gun free zones, restrictions on gun ownership are just as tyrannical as Conservatives’ attempts to limit right to abortion.

But people MUST BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO OWN GUNS!

Those rights must include:

1. Tests (practice and theory) and licensing to own,

2. Insurance to cover expenses in case of actually using the gun.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. jaredmclaughlin said

    I’m not so sure I agree, on the grounds that there aren’t any other rights that have tests. By definition a right does not have a test. You don’t really have a “right” to drive a car. In a sense you do, and can do so on your own private property without a license or insurance.

    However, you do have a right to arms. Much like poll taxes and tests are an unwelcome infringement on a right, so would be what you propose. The responsibility inherent in rights is tied up in how they are used. If you kill someone without justification, it is murder. The firearm is simply the tool.

  2. armilnov said

    Well, thank you for a comment! I have to say, I did not expected to receive a comment so soon, I am very grateful!!!

    “You don’t really have a “right” to drive a car. In a sense you do, and can do so on your own private property without a license or insurance…you do have a right to arms”

    Here is the 2nd Amendment text:
    “A ***well regulated*** Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Emphasis on WELL REGULATED militia!
    Let me rephrase : with Right comes Responsibility. I am NOT in ANY way suggesting infringement on 2nd Amendment, it is a constitutional right. I myself visit the local gun range every two-three months.

    However, just like the First Amendment’s freedom of speech is not absolute (it is against law to yell “fire” in crowded theater), neither is the Second Amendment.

    First, just like with car, irresponsible or reckless use of weapons is dangerous – that is why people must pass tests and be mentally and physically fit to drive. Yes, one can drive a car on his own lawn, but that is a very special case: cars are not designed to be driven on one’s own property, they are designed to be used on the road. To use a car only on one’s own property is like buying a gun and not loading it with ammunition, ever. Besides, car is not designed to inflict damage – it is a different category of thing altogether. A gun, by definition, is a much higher level of real responsibility, but according to today’s situation, it is less legal responsibility than owning car – an absurd situation.

    Second, if you have a gun, you should take responsibility for it. What if it gets stolen and used in a crime? What if it accidentally discharges? What if….? If you have a car, you are obligated by law to have insurance for these “what-ifs”, but not if you own a gun??? You can buy a submachine gun, fully automatic, but you cannot pull your car out of your driveway without insurance? Isn’t that absurd?

    Besides, let us think of Virginia Tech – if what I said would be the active law, Cho would have never gotten his hands on a Glock 17 and Walther P22 he used.

    Bottom line : with great power of owning a gun comes great responsibility, that is all I am saying. It is not much, as a matter of fact, what I suggest is what millions of people do every day to use cars.

  3. jaredmclaughlin said

    I respectfully disagree with you on all the above points. Other researchers in other forums of discourse have shown the meaning of “well regulated” being more indicative of miltiary precision in drills as opposed to laws on keeping and bearing. If we intend to have a militia that hopes to be precise in its use of arms, then those people must not be restricted in their ownership.

    Certainly with a right comes a responsiblity, and with firearms it is the responsibility to use them wisely. Those that do not ought be punished. Once again I stress that use of cars and carrying arms is a hard comparison. There is no natural or civil right to drive a car. The opposite is true of keeping and bearing firearms. It has been said before that “the pen is mightier than the sword.” This has been proven quite true in history. However, neither of us is licensed to utilize the right to free political speech. The only good argument that the government has to require a license for driving cars is that they own the roads. Likewise, we are often required to be unarmed on government property.

    Perhaps, by your logic, insurance and licensing for driving cars should not be required. If they are less dangerous than carrying firearms, and we can carry firearms unlicensed and uninsured, then why is it not so of firearms?

    The licensing of a right is a poor idea.

  4. armilnov said

    Thank you for your comment!
    I, as a naturalized citizen, still learning my new culture and country, and definitely not an expert in firearms, truly appreciate your opinion. Thank you!

    You are right in the sense that being a member of militia is not a requirement for owning a gun, BUT the right to bear arms is just like any other right – it is not absolute and it is subject to just and reasonable limitations, dictated by evolving society. A great examples is the right to vote, which I am sure you know changed a lot, starting from only non-slave males who owned property to ending up with really everyone who is a citizen above 18 today.

    I, as a person born in Soviet Union understand clearly how important freedom to own a gun is to freedom in general. My concern is that ANYONE can own a gun – a blind person, a person with cerebral palsy, a person ignorant of how the gun works, a person financially incapable of taking responsibility for danger associated with the gun.

    So, for me, three things are important:

    Physical fitness – to be able to aim, to be able to hold gun steady.

    Proper skills, theoretical/practical knowledge how to use gun responsibly – how to aim, how to load/unload, cock/uncock.

    Financial responsibility – insurance against accidental discharging and harming someone, and insurance against the gun being stolen and used in a crime. To me this one is probably most important. What if someone steals your gun and uses it to shoot someone else? Creating this insurance would make sure that people care that their guns do not fall into hands of criminals.

    The power of the modern semi-automatic pistol, the danger of it falling into wrong hands, public ignorance of how guns work and what they can do, I think, necessitates these simple safeguards.

    I think Founding Fathers thought that it was common sense that most boys were able bodied (far more than today), that they naturally knew how guns worked. Today, it is not true. The other day when I went to a gun range I saw a guy buying a gun – his hands were SHAKING! Maybe he was a cokehead, or maybe he had some neurological disorder, in either case, I would not want him to have such unrestricted access to a gun.

  5. yes, you are right, but I have one more question said

    Please ignore what I wrote previously.
    After more thinking, I have to admit that Constitution is crystal clear – owning a gun is just a basic right, and basic rights do not have tests. I admit defeat on that point, you are correct.
    But nevertheless, I still have a question : can a person who is blind legally own a gun? So, a felon cannot own a gun, but a blind person can? So, to buy a gun you must be crime-free, but not be physically able to use gun properly and safely?
    That is the only sticky point I am unsure about, in other respects I agree with you, so I hope you could tell me, what do you think?
    -armilnov

  6. jaredmclaughlin said

    Allow me to congratulate you on your naturalization. I’ve known quite a few immigrants and it always brings me joy to know that some people will work so hard to join us.

    The most basic point about rights listed in the Constitution under the Bill of Rights is that most of them are considered Natural Rights. They were written with the understanding that they in existance with or without a government and that they were the purpose of government. Natural rights are rights that exist by definition as a part of being a human. Government exists to protect its citizens from having those rights restricted by others. Some of the Founders thought it unneccesary to write them down, thinking that the people would never allow the government to infringe upon those rights it was designed to protect. Luckily, some among them thought it possible that such a thing might happen.

    Recall that liberty is inherently dangerous. It is risky business and the best we can do is to prepare people for its dangers. With that in mind I do say that due to their existance as human beings, blind people ought to be allowed to purchase guns. I do not believe it impossible to use them safely.

    You may think me a little wild for believing this, but I think felons ought to be allowed to own guns. Let me explain. If a person commits a felony, and we believe them to be dangerous they should be in jail. They do not have guns in jail. If we believe they have learned from their errors and ought to be allowed out into our society again, they should then have all the rights that come in such membership in society. We shouldn’t have different levels of application of rights.

    Also a note on what I know and believe about rights. You mentioned voting. People tend to forget that this was never a democracy. That form of government was specifically avoided. The states chose the senators, the states chose electors to select the president. The people really only voted for the Congress. As you mentioned, the people who voted were landowners. If I recall my history correctly it was because representation was tied to taxation. You may recall that complaint of the revolutionaries, “No taxation without representation.” I believe at the time the only applicable taxes were tied to land ownership, hence landowners voted. I could be incorrect in this. The point here is that voting really isn’t a right, and even if we call it one it isn’t a natural right, and hence it isn’t comparable to the right to self defense as embodied in the right to bear arms.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: