Dear Facebook Friends. I revere our Constitution. Though I disagree with some of the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the current Supreme Court, I respect and accept their interpretation and will support the application of it. But I will NOT sign a petition that presupposes that support for common-sense limitations of the kinds and capacities of weapons is tantamount to "confiscating our guns". Please do not place on my wall such petitions. I DO support the Second Amendment but I do NOT support insulting and libelous petitions.
{Later Note: This short post elicited MANY comments and a great debate that was, for the most part very civil, and really quite impressive. I want to preserve it here.]
Don Henderson
in the words of the great John Lennon, Give peace a chance.
Michael J. Sarver
Last time I checked it was still called the Bill of Rights. Not the "Bill of Needs" or the "Bill of Wants". You can make all the weapons laws you want and the massacres will continue. Common sense? Common sense tells me to control criminals and crazy people. Start focusing on the criminals and crazy people or continue to reap what you have sewn. Where there is a will...there is a way. Laws didn't stop Timothy McVeigh? And anyone who believes government will stop with laws prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and large ammo clips is naive.
Howard Smith
Terrell, I could not agree more. And, for the record, "Rights" in the Bill of Rights have never been viewed as "absolutes" and reasonable citizens understand this. Free speech is a right, but there are limits on free speech. You'll be arrested if you yell "FIRE", for instance, in a crowded theater, just for the fun of it. Free speech does not permit you to use certain language on the radio or conduct certain acts on television. Freedom of religion is not without limits...the slaughter of animals as a sacrifice is not permitted as part of today's Christianity. I could go on but, why....The Supreme Court has long held that the Second Amendment, like other Amendments is subject to legislative oversight as gun control laws have been upheld in the past. No doubt, many will be upheld in the future.
Michael J. Sarver
That's nice Howard, however the Constitution exists to limit government not the individual. "Reasonable" citizens aren't as quick to become controlled by any government especially one as progressive and liberal as this one. This attack on the 2nd Amendment is the beginning of a slippery slope my friend. Why aren't you guys questioning the handling of crazy people and criminals as much or more than you are the handling of the 2nd Amendment?
Howard Smith
But, you do accept the fact (and it is a fact) that the Supreme Court has recognized that governments may impose restrictions on "the right to bear arms". Now, you may not agree with the Supreme Courts rulings but you are aware that they have so ruled. And, by the way, the Constitution's purpose was to establish rule by law, not by man. And, "reasonable" citizens know we must have controls on all sorts of things in our society from air traffic to speed limits on the highway to pedestrian crosswalks. There are so many kinds of controls that most we simply take for granted as the price we pay for living in a society. And, all represent "slippery slopes" of one kind are another. That is why we try to employ reason in enforcing controls over each other. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. I agree it is a balancing act. The only constant in all of this is change. And, because things change, smart people do, too. When the Second Amendment was passed it took a full minute to reload after firing one round. Today, a legal weapon can fire 60 rounds in a minute. The framers of our Constitution could not possibly have imagined such a weapon. The rifle that existed in their day was impossible of massacring 20 children in a few minutes. That is why they were wise enough to provide for the Constitution and the Amendments to be subject to interpretation. Gun control is simply an interpretation of a guaranteed Second Amendment right. And, as long as there is a Second Amendment, also subject to being changed, citizens will have the "right to bear arms"...not an unabridged right, however.
Michael J. Sarver
I believe the 2nd Amendment is to be held to a higher regard since without it no others would matter. And remember when the 2nd Amendment was passed...it took a full minute for EVERYONE to reload. By the way still silent on crazy people and criminals?
Howard Smith
Of course we need to spend more money on the mentally ill but you have to get the funding through Congressional Republicans who have so far blocked it. As far as criminals, what do you want to do? We already have the largest prison population of any country in the world...BY FAR. What we need to do is spend more on education and social services. Do you have any idea how much more we spend to incarcerate someone for a year as opposed to educate them? And, you could not be more wrong about the Second Amendment somehow guaranteeing the others. Castro's revolution in Cuba was led by armed civilians...how did that work out for the Cuban people. Lenin's Russian revolution was led by armed civilians...how did that work out for Russians. When Hitler came to power as a democratically elected leader one of his very first acts was to relax gun control laws...how did that work out for other freedoms? On the other hand, Ghandi used peaceful protests and free speech to establish an independent and democratic India...NO GUNS. Mandala also used the power of free speech rather than guns to establish the rights of all South Africans. And, in America, MLK's speeches have left a lasting legacy of freedom. The most powerful freedom is not the right to own an assault weapon but rather the right to speak freely in an open society. There is little question that in America we used guns to fight for our freedom. But, But, it was the written word which ushered in that call and it is the written and spoken word that has protected and expanded it for American citizens. It has done so for workers, for women, for minorities, for the handicapped and most recently for the LGBT community...all without a necessary shot being fired.
Terrell Shaw
Thanks for the good debate, Howard and Mike.
Terrell Shaw
I just lost a very wise and pithy <grin> response to our wifi difficulties. Dang! Here's another effort:
Reliance on citizen weapons as protection against a rogue federal govt is no longer applicable, and probably never was, it seems to me. If our only recourse were the Second Amendment then the issue would be already moot. Arming common folk with weapons sufficient to overthrow our military and police would deliver weapons of mass destruction to nuts as well. If we fear that We the People will become We the Mob (a reasonable and very historical fear) then we must rely on free speech, a free press, and the ballot box. The body of the Constitution, the other Amendments, and the longterm wisdom of the body politic are our hope for the continuation of liberty.
Michael J. Sarver
No one has ever TALKED their way out of slavery, oppression or tyranny. You are simply spoiled by more than 200 years of the liberties provided for you by the sacrifices of those who were willing to fight for them. If you can't recognize the difference between America and your examples of Cuba, Russia, Germany, India and South Africa then nothing I say is going to convince you an unarmed society is a vulnerable society my friend. The fact that our military and our police are better armed than we are is no justification for reducing or removing our right to bear arms. It takes a human being to pull triggers, fly jets, drive tanks, drop bombs and launch rockets, but, they have to get to them before we do don't they? The Constitution states that the judiciary operates UNDER the Constitution not over it.
Duane Parsons
It has taken me, a Liberal, a long time to finally realize the gun control debate is not about criminals. The literalist/absolutist position on the Second Amendment taken by the NRA Executives and their supporters is actually about preserving and ensuring citizens have equal firepower to the police and military for protection against some future tyrannical Government.
Similar to the barrage of e-mails and FB posts by our Right-Wing “friends” made during the presidential election season that were irrationally unsubstantiated, based on suspicions and paranoias and conspiracies passed along from one ditto to another and accepted without thinking, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to argue or debate with those that have forgone the rational thinking process – mind is made up, rock-solid, locked up, the key lost.
The thoughts I have and many things I would say about gun control here to the opponents would be moot because when someone has no intention of being convinced, facts don’t matter. As usual, we the people will avoid the knee-jerk reaction of shoot now and ask question later idiom, but I hope we can be mindful of President Barack Obama’s declaration in the second inaugural speech, “[W]e have always understood that when times change, so must we,….“
Nevertheless, for those literalist of the Constitution, what do you think "well-regulated" means?
Why are you against controlling guns in any manner when the Constitution itself not only says they should be "regulated," but "well-regulated" -- and that it is "necessary"?
Further:
Since the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is based specifically and solely on the necessity of a well-regulated "Militia," how many gun owners do you know who are in militias? Or who have any intention of joining a militia? And how many of them have guns solely because they simply want a gun, something specifically not granted in the Constitution? And what you do actually think of White Supremacist militias?
Michael J. Sarver
Duane there is no reason to change the 2nd Amendment it is in and of itself completely harmless. What the president has done is "irrationally unsubstantiated". You liberals have jumped to what will be an ineffective conclusion as a solution to a problem without the slightest attempt to find real solutions that will actually work to "protect our children" and reduce gun violence.
Lets cut the crap shall we? It's all about power and control for this president and his supporters. All of you liberals and progressives are drunk with power and are determined to use it to control the masses especially people you don't like. The fact that people like me don't want people like you attacking the Constitution doesn't make us paranoid literalists/absolutists anymore than your position makes you a communist/socialist. The truth is you don't want a 2nd Amendment period. You don't want society armed at all. You love government and you can't get enough of it. You are perfectly willing to relinquish your freedoms as long as government provides for your needs. The concept of the rights of the individual is outdated and selfish to you. As a matter of fact you believe the entire Constitution is outdated and no longer "applicable". Your rant is littered with assumptions, insults and innuendo..grow up Duane.
Duane Parsons
From Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
“All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations guaranties and prohibitions in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions.”
The Constitution is clearly a living document that has passed the test of time. The originalist perspective in theory is trying to counter legislative history and conceal reality by relying on the mythical deity of the framers of the Constitution. For instance, most of us are too young to remember that in the 1930s in reaction to organized crime, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, 1934, designed to make it difficult to obtain especially lethal guns. These would include preferred weapons of the era’s gangsters, like sawed-off long rifles or shotguns and machine guns. It also regulated specialty weapons concealed in canes, pens, or other items.
I wish we could finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberals and conservatives is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to Government assertions of authority. The extraordinarily crass Left vs. Right paradigm of American political issues is not constitutional and none of it is conducive to liberty or the honest pursuit of happiness. Left and Right are not the two paradigms of American politics. They are the two flavors of only one America.
True Constitutionalists conserve liberality. Does that make them Conservative or Liberal? For all their differences, Liberals and Conservatives tend surprisingly to agree on the original intention of the Constitution and on the nature of the original institutions it established.
Michael J. Sarver
Awesome presentation Duane. OK...I consider myself neither conservative nor liberal, you identified yourself as a liberal. I do have great admiration for Abraham Lincoln and I appreciate his service to this great country, his opinions and perspective. I regret the attempts of Congress in the 1930's were misguided, futile and ineffective. I simply don't believe changing our Constitution is a viable, sensible and reasonable solution to eliminating mass killings. It seems to me there has to be some other motivation for changing the Constitution. I believe nothing less than total removal of firearms from our society is going to eliminate shooting deaths. No law of any kind will. And because that will never happen I refuse to live in this society without the ability to arm myself. The President, Senate and Congress among others should be so adamant about improving education, elimination of poverty, improving management and treatment for mental illness, prison reform. These are the areas to focus on and until that happens another gun law solves nothing. This proposed legislation to implement gun registration, make semiautomatic weapons and gun clips illegal is the government attempting to systematically increase control of any law abiding citizen who owns a gun. I disagree with their logic. What a waste of time, energy and money.
Howard Smith
Michael, you refuse to be influenced by facts. One, Americans have more guns per person than any other developed nation and the weakest gun control laws and BY FAR the highest number of gun related deaths...using critical thinking skills, what conclusions may we draw? Second, are you aware of any proposal that has been made by any responsible person that says you will not continue to have the right to own firearms and the answer is no. Your stated position is simply extreme and unrelated to reality. Pay attention, the President and those advocating for gun control are NOT saying you cannot own firearms. They support your right to own firearms. Many of them own firearms. How much clearer can this point be made? Finally, no responsible person has suggested that our Constitution be changed with relation to the Second Amendment. Again, this is hysteria on your part. The Constitution has FOREVER been subject to interpretation and the Second Amendment has already been interpreted to recognize the ability of government to regulate "the right to bear arms". This interpretation has existed for decades. In fact, longer than that. The only argument that you can make is that of absolutism and that simply hasn't held water since the first time the Supreme Court met. Which leads me back to where I started.....remember that every developed nation in the world has stronger gun control laws than us and far less gun related deaths....it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret the data, but one does have to be rational and objective.
Michael J. Sarver
Howard have you read my posts? As I stated yesterday...The President, Senate and Congress among others should be so adamant about improving management and treatment for mental illness, prison reform, improving education, elimination of poverty. Guns don't fire themselves...someone has to pull the trigger! These are the areas to focus on not in addition to gun control rather instead of gun control. And until that happens another gun law solves nothing. I say again shooting deaths won't stop until there are NO MORE GUNS IN AMERICA! I believe this is the goal of the current government fully supported and promoted by mainstream media and self professed liberal/ progressives. This proposed legislation to implement gun registration, make semiautomatic weapons and gun clips illegal is the governments attempt to invade the privacy of and to systematically increase control of any LAW ABIDING CITIZEN who owns a gun. I disagree with their logic. You and your friends trust the President and those advocating for gun control to stop with semiautomatic weapons and large ammo clips or you just don't care if government systematically disarms American citizens. I do care...simple as that. You say I refuse to listen to facts? There are a lot of statistics out there, some support your position and some support mine if you look at the population of other countries as compared to America. I say you refuse to accept facts...we had these same laws for 10 years and it didn't work. I am against these proposals. Call me extreme, absolutist, unrealistic. It's more about trust and leadership for me.
Duane Parsons
I dislike the use, misuse, and overuse of most labels; especially political labels like “liberal” and “conservative” – those words change meaning in the wake of an historic electoral shift. Yet, it is next to impossible to be a centrist social moderate in the political upheaval of our current political climate. [It ain’t that simple, because at some point we’ll have to self-identify or be pigeonholed by others.] For those interested in soul-searching and discovering where you fall on social liberties, economics, foreign policy -- even the culture war, take the Political Spectrum Quiz at – http://www.gotoquiz.com/poli.../political-spectrum-quiz.html
Michael J. Sarver
Duane I agree...I have definitely taken the conservative side of this issue. I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal, I feel I'm more Independent because I don't fully agree with either. I'll take the test.
Duane Parsons
We live in a culture in which people tend to glide on the surface of things, seldom pausing long enough to consider anything very deeply; we live in the age of the sound byte, the video clip. It is my own belief that this leaves us very vulnerable to what are called fallacies of argument: certain “moves” in arguing a claim that by their very nature are bogus, invalid, and deceiving. Sometimes a bogus line of argument is simply used out of ignorance and lack of experience. But all too often, fallacies of argument are used entirely by design, from a conscious intent to deceive and manipulate us. This intent, quite frankly, is particularly true in advertising and in politics. Thus it pays to learn to detect such fallacies.
The Slippery Slope Argument portrays today’s seemingly small concession as tomorrow’s catastrophe. As with all of the emotionally focused fallacies of argument, this one too plays on the fear factor. Sometimes, correcting a small error can indeed prevent greater subsequent errors, as when in the 1990s New York City cracked down on petty crimes and by doing so, saw a drop in major crime as well. However, not all slippery-slope arguments make as much sense as fixing loose shingles on a roof so the entire roof will not begin to leak. For example, in the topic of gun control, it is probably a “slippery-slope” argument when those against gun control argue that if a law were passed limiting ownership of fully automatic weapons such as an AK-47, the inevitable consequence would be the Government battering down our doors and seizing our hunting rifles.
We must learn to reason through such arguments to discern probable consequences from wildly improbable ones. Further, we should never knowingly use this Slippery Slope Argument strategy when the predicted consequence seems implausible.
Slippery slope arguments like "just the beginning of a flood of restrictions”, "the first step toward eliminating our second amendment rights”, "the first step in the total disarmament of the American populace”, and "the ugly foot in the door" divert the focus of the debate and are fallacious. The consequences of a proposal are certainly relevant to deciding whether to adopt it. One potential consequence of imposing a reasonable restriction on a constitutional right is that it may represent the proverbial "first step" toward the next restriction, which may be an unreasonable one. However, this concern is valid only if relevant empirical facts establish some real likelihood that the next step will in fact be taken. To the extent an argument raises exaggerated fears of an uncontrolled tumble down the slippery slope, with no evidence realistically supporting those fears, it is fallacious. It crosses the line from a legitimate concern about a proposal's consequences to something that has been referred to as the fallacy of the "unnecessary parade of horribles”.
Why is it that proposed restrictions on guns are invariably met with the argument: "If we let them do x today, they'll be coming to take away our hunting rifles tomorrow?” Why are restrictions on the Second Amendment viewed as different, as somehow more diabolical, and treacherous than restrictions on other rights? Guns are so deeply entrenched in this country's history and culture that there is virtually no chance they ever will be banned. Guns are inextricably identified with the frontier spirit that Americans idealize. While the extreme views of many gun control supporters make the slippery slope argument understandable, assertions that any new gun control law is "the first step in the total disarmament of the American populace" remains hyperbolic exaggeration.
Michael J. Sarver
Damn Duane very impressive. For me it's simpler...it boils down to the people in charge, their beliefs, philosophies and actions. It is with this knowledge that I make my decision regarding proposed gun legislation. I still can't understand you and your friends so determined to disregard the human factor in all this gun control debate.
Michael J. Sarver
I took the test...result= right of center Libertarian.
Duane Parsons
Thanks for sharing your results, Michael. I am a left moderate social libertarian.
Duane Parsons
Not sure Michael whether you’re pointing fingers at specific people like Obama and Biden (who BTW are strong supporters of the Second Amendment) or lawmakers like Congress, State Legislatures, etc. Doesn’t really matter because those really in charge are “we the people”. The human factor can never be logically disregarded when people are involved. In his second inaugural address, President Obama explained what it means in the broadest sense to be “we the people” with an eloquent description of our common heritage.
“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.”
Michael J. Sarver
I'm pointing fingers collectively at all those in government who are left leaning and are in the most influential positions where executive orders and laws are passed and imposed on "we the people". If as you state "The human factor can never be logically disregarded when people are involved" you are making my case for me. I remain puzzled by the disregard of the human factor in this gun debate. I agree Obama is a gifted speaker and I respect what he says unfortunately his actions speak louder than his words or lack thereof. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years, but they can pass a Filibuster law in days. Obama says for four years he's gonna get people back to work?...it takes him a few weeks to sign executive orders for gun control?
Duane Parsons
My small contribution to this gun violence discourse will end here. Questions although rhetorical in nature have been avoided and some basic non-sequitur logical connection issues avoided by introducing red herring distractions. We all have our biases and both sides of the political aisle live inside bubbles where facts often do not get in the way of our worldview.
Okay (I’m bad) – one more diversion. What a difference Executive power makes. U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the Federal Government itself. Executive Orders (or their equivalents) have allowed Presidents to make momentous, unilateral policy choices: creating and abolishing executive branch agencies, reorganizing administrative and regulatory processes, handling emergencies, and determining how legislation is implemented.
George W. Bush issued 291 Executive Orders. Barack Obama to present has issued 143 Executive Orders.
In today’s fractured news market (network, cable, print, Internet, etc.) we all have our favorite “echo chamber” that usually agrees with our viewpoint and values. I invite everyone to step out of his or her “echo chamber” and “bubble” once in awhile to hear the facts or another viewpoint. Hopefully we will have a better chance to think for ourselves instead of just playing to the prejudices of misinformation stories disseminated to the gullible masses.
A functional democracy demands an intelligent electorate. As originally attributed to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts”. We do need governance. It is perplexing that statesmanship has gone astray along with common sense from both sides and that no common ground can be found. We need to wade to common ground out of the swamp of fragmented hyperpartisanship and hammer out compromises. Of course, lawmaking will be acrimonious and ugly, but that is democracy.
Back to gun violence – Vice President Joe Biden said, “We know that no policy we enact or law we enforce can prevent every senseless act of violence in our country. But if we can save the life of even one child, we have a deep responsibility to act.”
Read about the events that brought The White House to this point and Obama’s proposed plan to help protect our kids and communities from gun violence. -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence...
Michael J. Sarver
Thanks Duane!
