This is a claw hammer. It is a tool that has multiple purposes. Its primary purposes include driving nails and extracting nails, but it can also be used for other purposes like demolition. There are other styles of hammers that have different uses; ball-peen hammers can be used for shaping metal, sledgehammers are much better for demolition work, etc., but all hammers are basically variations of the same tool. Hammers require practice in order to use safely and properly. Improper use of a hammer can result in injury to the user or persons around the user. In a pinch, most any hammer can also be used as a weapon to defend oneself against an attacker, or it can be used by someone with criminal intent to harm innocent people around them.
This is a firearm. Like the hammer, it is a tool with multiple purposes. Its primary purposes include hunting, target practice, and self-defense. There are many styles of firearms that have different uses; handguns are small and easier to conceal on your person, rifles have longer range, shotguns have a wider area of effect, etc., but all firearms are basically variations of the same tool. Firearms require practice in order to use safely and properly. Improper use of a firearm can result in injury to the user or persons around the user. Most any firearm can be used as a weapon to defend oneself against an attacker, or it can be used by someone with criminal intent to harm innocent people around them.
Both hammers and firearms are tools. Both have peaceful purposes in society (one builds your house, the other protects it and puts food on its table), both require care in use to avoid injury, and both can be used by criminals to harm innocent people. So why is it that anyone can walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer and hammers can be carried anywhere, yet there are numerous restrictions on firearm purchase and possession? And why are such restrictions even allowable in the first place given that the Second Amendment of the Constitution plainly states that "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? What ends are served by restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to firearms?
Happy Independence Day everybody. If you appreciate your freedom, remember that it is never free.
(First image is taken from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia. Second image from the collection of the author.)Labels: Firearms, Politics
4 Comments:
I don't know. Maybe because two of the three purposes you mentioned for a gun has to do with killing. I don't hear about kids accidently being killed by hammers, either. Or scare tactics being employed to convince the more naive that the government is coming to take a way your hammers leading to a ridiculous stockpling of hammers and nails.
Regarding the second amendment, the document is a living document. Interpretation is key and there is obviously a lot of debate regarding that particular passage. Over blown rhetoric is employeed on both sides.
What is the problem with having background checks on guns to attempt to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable? How does that infringe upon your right of owning guns? Not having them sure infringes on some people's right to, you know, live and stuff.
5:03 PM
There was a specific reason for my analogy. There was a time not too long ago that anyone could walk up to a hardware store or a department store and buy a firearm. No background checks, no investigations, nada. People weren't afraid of firearms, they were just another tool. If your concerns over the mentally unstable posessing firearms were really valid, why weren't crazy people shooting up everything in sight?
Having said that, I do realize that times change; while your concerns may not have held water back then, I'd have to agree that to some extent they do now. I'm not a proponent of doing away with background checks or anything of that sort. Given how quickly they process, I'm actually in favor of background checks as long as they're not abused (i.e. used to create a registry of gun owners, manipulated to prohibit otherwise legitimate purchasers from buying, etc.).
My main concern regarding firearms is the lawful use and carry of them, not our means of purchase. 41 our of 50 states have some sort of system in place that allows their citizens to legally carry firearms on their person in public for the purpose of self-defense. Generally a permit is needed, but these permits are easily obtainable to anyone who will pass the same background check necessary to purchase a firearm. And much like a drivers liscense, most of these permits are recognized in other states that allow their citizens to carry.
Of the remaining states (I'll use Maryland as an example since I live here), it is very difficult, if not impossible, for their citizens to legally carry a firearm for their own protection outside of their homes. Given the high crime rates in areas like Baltimore and the fact that states that have passed legislation to allow their citizens to legally carry firearms generally see their crime rates drop, I have to wonder why I am denied the right to carry a firearm for my own protection while citizens of a majority of other states are not.
Now, a lot of pro-gun people will talk about the government coming to get our guns, how gun control laws are a vast left-wing conspiracy, etc. I don't buy into that rhetoric for the most part. I think that there are just some groups of politicians with good intentions, but bad implementations. Hopefully, a slew of cases working their way up the federal court systems will correct that.
Finally, I do agree that the Constitution is a living document, but it must be interpreted with original intent in mind. The founders of this nation understood the power, and responsibility, of an armed citizenry. They intended us to be able to stand up and defend ourselves, be it from the thug on he street corner, a foreign invasion, or an oppressive government. Because at the end of the day, who else will?
6:49 PM
I'll let you two handle the back and forth here, but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
No, no no no no. I do not want every/any person I am around to have access and ability to kill me at any moment. I know this sounds extreme and perhaps a bit dramatic, but if I go somewhere and the guy next to me has a hammer and we argue and he hits me in "self defense" I have a pretty good chance of surviving. You have to put in a lot of effort to kill someone with a hammer, you have to have strength to over power your victim, be in close proximity, and swing that damn thing many many times. WIth a gun, there are very few steps between "decide to kill" and "killed." And I respectfully disagree that it is necessary or even just desirable to have the ability to have a firearm on your person to defend yourself. Seriously, what are the chances that in your lifetime you will have the opportunity to need to carry and use a gun to protect yourself? Do you know ANYONE who has said, "if I'd only carried a gun I wouldn't have been mugged, etc.?" I don't buy that argument. Call me a Pollyanna, but I would prefer that tools for killing not be a part of my everyday life.
6:27 AM
Jess, I understand and respect your point of view. I know that you're not comfortable around firearms and I'm not asking you to change that. However, your discomfort, or even the discomfort of a large group of people does not trump a Constitutionally protected right.
Think about this: even though speech is protected by the First Amendment, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Such actions endanger those in the theater so the well-being of the population overrules the Constitutionally protected right. That's fine by me. But, in order to prevent people from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do we cut out everyone's vocal cords? No, we trust that the vast majority of people won't do it and punish the ones who do. In spite of nearly everyone in the country having the ability to do so, you rarely hear of this happening.
Now, take that situation and apply it to the Second Amendment instead of the First. Can someone who is lawfully carrying a gun shoot you for no reason if they desire? Sure. Does that mean that we should prevent all people from lawfully carrying guns? Of course not. Why? Because the people who are lawfully carrying guns understand full well that they will go to jail and lose that right if they abuse it. Just like people understand that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater will land them in jail.
There are gun-related problems in America that need to be fixed, I'll be the first to admit it. People lawfully carrying guns for their own protection, and the protection of those around them, isn't one of these problems.
And one more thing to keep in mind: every state bordering Maryland allows their citizens, upon receiving a permit, to carry concealed a firearm on their person. Do you hear stories about people in those states who lawfully posess a gun shooting each other over petty arguments like the situation you described? I sure don't.
8:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home