#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Guns in America
Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.
I differ with you here. Having written a law review note on the subject, I can assure you that the Framers understood that the Freedoms protected could/would be abused by some among us, but felt the overall good outweighed the bad. Street crime as we know it was not much of a factor, but being secure in your home was. Similarly, having just defeated an army of professional and mercenary soldiers with lightly trained militias, the concept that individual citizens had a right to own weapons was so clear that it frankly bore little discussion. You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals? As was noted elsewhere, many State constitutions contain a right to bear arms. This largely eliminates the militia argument because the State would not need to protect itself from itself in order to arm a militia. Most States adopt some form of reasonable regulation approach, akin to what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. Drawing that line is where the disputes arise. |
|
|