General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_second_amendment_must_go_we_ban_lawn_darts_its_time_to_ban_guns/We are one nation, forever fucked by the NRA and an outdated and dangerous read of the Constitution. Let's fix it
Our youngest son just transitioned from crib to bed. Since we dont plan to have any more children, we decided to sell the crib, a hand-me-down from his older brother. Its a nice, well-made crib, made from real wood and bought from a reliable company. We could easily resell it for a handsome price, but we found out a few weeks ago that we cant. Its a drop side crib, and unbeknownst to us the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale, and resale of drop-sides in 2010, even though individuals can unadvisedly still use them. Drop-sides were responsible for more than 30 infant and toddler deaths in the decade prior to their ban, along with thousands of injuries. We hadnt realized that our kid had been sleeping and playing in a death trap.
A few accidental deaths are often enough to ban certain items, or at the very least recall them, and often without much fanfare. Its strange that we dont have the same reaction to guns. Guns have killed many more infants and toddlers than drop-side cribs, not to mention older children, adolescents, and adults. Guns have killed many more than a host of other objects not originally designed to kill. Remember lawn darts? The CPSC banned the sale of the metal-tipped ones after three deaths and numerous serious injuries.
Yet when it comes to guns, we collectively do nothing, except spout off some strained political rhetoric every now and then, that is, after the most recent mass shooting. [Add in prayer here.] Or we dig in and cite our constitutional right to bear arms, which apparently trumps death, even the death of children. Theres a lot of room for debate regarding the meaning of the second amendment. I doubt very much that our founding fathers envisioned that right in its current form, but even if they did, it really shouldnt matter. The framers of the constitution werent gods, meaning that their words arentand shouldnt besacrosanct.
We know this intuitively, since weve had to add numerous amendments to make up for their failures, lack, or just plain ignorance. But if we can add, we can also take away, by interpreting the Second Amendment differently or passing a new amendment that would effectively repeal it. We should never do so lightly, of coursetaking away rights can be, and often is, a risky enterprise. But the purpose of a right should be individual and collective flourishing. A right, in other words, has as its goal the individual and common good, even if we dont like to use such weighty moral terminology nowadays.
Its not clear to me that gun ownership accomplishes that purpose. It seems more the case that it works against the good of all, in the havoc and murder it wreaks but also in the fear that in promotes. At the very least, we should have a discussion about the relationship of guns to the common good, instead of appealing like a fundamentalist to rights every time something happens that questions their value.
Guns dont kill people, people do, someone will say. But people use guns to kill people, and it makes it much easier to do so, including on a mass scale. The idea that guns arent to blame but the actions of people is misguided and unthinking, to say the least. Specifically, it ignores what guns are for. A crib or, perhaps, a car, may kill under certain circumstances, but thats not what a crib or a car is for. When death does result from their use, we assume that they have, in some way, been misused. At the very least, they have failed to fulfill their intended purpose, intentionally or not. Not so with a gun. The whole point of a gun is to injure or kill. Guns can certainly be used in other ways and for other reasons, such as sport, but these are secondary to its primary function. When a gun is used to injure or kill, its being used as intended. Its the gun thats at issue, because of the type of object that it is.
But the problem is irresponsible gun owners or criminals, not the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens who choose to own and use guns responsibly, people say. A fair point at one level, but most everyones responsible and law-abiding until theyre not. People in committed relationships usually go into them with fidelity in mind, yet infidelity is common and, often, unexpected. Its similar with guns and gun owners. No responsible gun owner ever thinks hell ever misuse his gununtil he does something stupid, gets angry in the wrong place at the wrong time, leaves it unattended with children around, or simply snaps. Perhaps that doesnt happen most of the time, but it happens frequently enough to raise questions, even though we usually dont.
<snip>
Much more and worth the read at above link.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Call me naïve or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis. Its also no more naïve than thinking that well solve our gun problem with half measures or, even worse, doing nothing.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Australia did it after a massacre of 35 people in 1996.
"There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path." - John Howard
"...the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."
That 59% decrease in the US would have saved about 160,000 lives in one decade.
forsaken mortal
(112 posts)Why does it seem that only guns are considered "arms"? Couldn't lawn darts be considered an arm? Should we start the National Lawndart Association, the NLA and start hiring lobbyists to protect our 2nd amendment rights to own lawndarts in case the gov't goes full dictator?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)please give me ten minutes notice before you come for my guns so I can pick up the house a little- ok?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Response to Photographer (Reply #9)
Maynar This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maynar
(769 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Just sayin'...
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Just for you, Lizzie: http://www.armedwithreason.com/better-than-somalia-how-to-feel-good-about-gun-violence/
Where did you get that information, Lizzie?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)They have info on gun laws in every country.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Awkward to navigate, but lots of information.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)trumps everything, and they'll use em on anyone trying to take their gunz. It's like listening to George Zimmerman claiming he's a moral, law-abiding, peaceful , pillar of society.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)amend the 2a from the constitution.
The political mechanism already exists. You just have to convince enough folks to join your side.
Good luck...
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Of course that is par for the course for gundamentalists.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)from all that is wrong with a stroke of the pen (or boot heel, or even a rifle butt)? That is wishful thinking, and worse, would probably generate more harm than good - in the long run.
Yes, democracy is messy, slow to make changes, and oftentimes extremely frustrating.
Do you have an alternative?
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Accomplishing that will be messy and slow but much like abolition, it is the only possible course of action for our society.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)are responsible individuals. I would add that they are by and large good, civic-minded folks who would give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. Perhaps you already know that, but if you don't, I would suggest that you break free from your insular existence, and get out of the echo-chamber that has been feeding you mis-truths.
I get it - you don't like guns. But you're fooling yourself if you think going after GUNS is going to solve this countries problems. Think about it, if GUNS were the problem how is it the 99.9% of the folks who own them don't cause trouble?
No, what we need to being focusing on is MOTIVE - the WHY. Why are there so many who feel the need to kill and destroy? I hope you realize that getting rid of guns does not get rid of the hatred these destroyers feel.
Going after guns is just kicking the can down the road and will solve very little.
My two cents...
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.
Is there any reason at all why I should value anyone else's life?
Should I value Charles Manson's life over Jeffry Dahmer's?
Is there a yardstick that measures someone's worthiness?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Can't handle the truth?
Everything said in that post is accurate.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)You happy, or would you rather bury your head in the sand.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)elleng
(130,964 posts)one that does not 'discard' "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," as the Supreme Court did, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, more like Mr. Justice Stevens suggests: 'The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Heller was a 5-4 decision. It can be overturned with a 5-4 decision.
elleng
(130,964 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Develop something like a phaser that looks and handles like a gun that will disable an attacker for a minimum of 30 minutes. I will trade you this for my firearm.
Until you have a viable self defense alternative for me, back off.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)LonePirate
(13,424 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)LonePirate
(13,424 posts)In both cases, they are preventing the rest of us from saving lives. Gun ownership and the support of gun ownership are morally repugnant acts unworthy of respect.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Therefore, I will not defer to you no matter the amount of spittle-flecked invective used.
I regard attempts at guilt-tripping like yours as no way different than those of demagouges
like William Bennett of Pat Robertson (I will not dignify him with the title of 'Reverend')
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)If the unnecessary and preventable deaths of thousands of Americans due to guns are insufficient reasons for gunners and their loyalists to renounce those death tools and the antiquated license to murder known as the Second Amendment, then they absolutely cannot claim any moral superiority on this subject. Pro-gun people of the 21st century are no different than pro-slavery people of the 18th and 19th centuries. They enable the destruction of life and liberty in order to support their own pathetic existence.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)All you ("you" as in gun control advocates in general, not you personally) need do
is obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters
of all state legislatures. There's a problem with that idea, however...
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/03/10/287314912/4-reasons-the-pew-millennials-report-should-worry-democrats-too
Given that overheated rhetoric such as yours seems to be endemic
amongst gun control advocates, your chances of success
are somewhat less likely than, say, Donald Trump renouncing
materialism and becoming a cloistered monk...
B2G
(9,766 posts)We have one in our home for defense.
But you evidently are not even willing to consider that this is a legitimate reason.
So bye.
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Your home is more dangerous, not safer, for you and your family because you have a gun in it. If you actually cared about your loved ones, you would get rid of the gun and choose a less lethal method of defending yourself.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Photographer
(1,142 posts)I am so sorry for you. I hope you can someday find somewhere safe to live.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Too much in fact.
I certainly hope you never have your door kicked in at 3 AM in a home invasion by armed men. You might change your mind about depending on the cops to get to you in time.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)sights and constantly wanting to do you and yours harm is a rational cause for you to remain vigilantly armed and at guard.
I am thankful that I don't live in such a situation. My hotel room in a diverse neighborhood has kept me safe for several months since I was burned out of my house from an electrical fire... Do you think I should go find the electrician responsible for the short that caused the fire?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I'm thankful that I don't live in such a situation.
(Free clue: pretending to know what people are thinking usually ends up telling us more about your own thinking than theirs.)
Photographer
(1,142 posts)with a fire extinguisher but know where the exits are.
So why are you so fucking scared of armed people breaking into your home?
ON EDIT: SRY, thought you were BSG.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)I never heard the fire extiquisher comparison until that discussion and now it turns up here. I wonder if it's a suggestion from The NRA? And the guy I was trying to talk to sounded like he thought he was living in a Charles Bronsan "Death Wish" movie.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)You want guns to magically disappear without providing a viable non-lethal replacement.
Why are you so opposed to the idea when the end result would be less guns? Isn't that what you want?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)for frightened people to hoard guns?
B2G
(9,766 posts)How many illegally? How will you prevent criminals from obtaining them? How are you going to forcibly take them from legal gun owners?
Shouldn't this be a reality bad solution?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)So I guess your vision is that there's so many that there's no reason to try anything other than adding more guns to the mix?
Sorry, that rings as fucking crazy to me. If we started pulling guns off the street tomorrow due to an Aussie type law I would imagine it might take 10-15 years to get a majority of semi auto guns off the street.
For me, the fewer guns at the restaurants and shops that I go to is a good thing.
RandySF
(58,899 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Are you trying to push down your comment telling a rape victim she has a blood lust because she chooses to defend herself with a firearm?
Photographer
(1,142 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I certainly do.
You would think a pacifist and a Buddhist would have some empathy and compassion.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Right after you clean my pistol
Waldorf
(654 posts)And I think I will continue to support the 2nd Amendment.
"A fair point at one level, but most everyones responsible and law-abiding until theyre not."
I guess we just need to lock everybody up in the US.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)When you can guarantee me that no one will open fire at me in a public venue like a theater, church, or medical clinic, then I'll consider disarming. Make sure all the republicans stop threatening to resort to the ammo box when they lose at the ballot box, too. Until then, no dice.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)(s).
That sux. Glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I'll give you time to google it.
Photographer
(1,142 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Have a good one.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)One's chances of becoming a victim of a mass murder may be higher than of being the target of an Islamist terrorist...but not by much. Neither event is commonplace enough to make basing one's actions on their probability anything other than irrational. Ordinary violent crime, however, is another matter.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)We had a lot of fun with them that summer after 8th grade. Then Becky and Cindy became more interesting.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)political rhetoric. Why be suckered into what has been assigned to "liberals," by conservatives to gather votes, you are providing them with the confirmation bias they all seek and it is a lie. I am a liberal and I am not opposed to gun ownership. But most of all I know the violence is a problem created by the dialog. I can say this honestly having been born in a rural environment where everyone had guns, but everyone was then also taught reverence for human life and to never point that gun at a human. There was never a discussion that you might want to kill a person with what were varmint guns to protect livestock or for hunting.
The dialog now seems to be, got a problem, get a gun, don't like someone, get a gun, damn the violent talk, the fear mongering, the promoters of violence as a solution, and this has now become a grand vote generator for Republicans if you are opposed to gun ownership you must want to endanger them. They are such babies, but they are winning and we have lost a lot of political power on this stupid issue and the real problem with violence in this nation is the violent dialog.
romanic
(2,841 posts)I read the article but I don't understand what "the fix" is.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Most (if not all) state constitutions have similar provisions.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Most things could potentially be a weapon.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Didn't GO(PU) senators just vote unanimously the other day to allow folks deemed so dangerous to be placed on 'no fly" lists to buy guns?