Gun-Control Moderate

I'm a gun-control moderate. I live in an area where a large percentage of the population relies on guns and hunting for their way of life. However, I also see the appeal of gun-control. This post is obviously biased--I did vote for Obama after all--but I'm not going to be so egocentric as to claim that everybody should believe as I do. But there are flaws in every logic and so I'm going to pick apart the side that I happen to disfavor. I'm totally fine with someone believing differently, especially on a "constitutional issue" because the Constitution was written to be ambiguous on purpose so future generations would have these debates.

Note: While reading these keep in mind that entire dissertations could be written about each of these, I have only stated barely more than the "quippy," possibly sarcastic answer. Also, these are not stated as church doctrine or as absolute truth, only as opinion--and only part of one--of one person. If you disagree, please don't tirade. You're welcome to bring up legitimate points for discussion, but no attacking philosophies without logical foundation and under no circumstances should anybody attack a person for things said in this blog or on this post. Thank you.

Point A: "Thugs ignore gun laws." Answer: Why, yes they do. Road-ragers also ignore "road-control" laws and they kill way more people per year than gun-related events do. That doesn't mean we should take those laws off the books. Now before you get caught in gun-rights stigma and shout me up the wazoo, keep in mind that I do acknowledge there are legitimate concerns raised about the fact that an armed criminal in an unarmed citizenry is a very dangerous thing. You should acknowledge that the original argument is a bad argument in itself, although coupled with other arguments it could be quite formidable.

Point B: "Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens." Answer: Well, obviously. There's no arguing that one, so I'm not going to.

Point C: "Crime is deviant behavior." Answer: I'll be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what "deviant" meant until I looked it up. The argument for this one was laughable. (I'm getting these from http://mddall.com/sbss/0311.htm by the way.) Whoever wrote it made the point that crime is the exception to the rule and that criminals will find other ways of committing crime without guns. The answer to this one is obvious. Of course they will, but--assuming gun control actually works which is another discussion entirely--sticks, rocks and even knives don't cause as much damage as an assault rifle.

Point D: "The Trump Card." Answer: Oh, please. They quoted the Second Amendment, which--for the purpose of argument--I now quote here:

"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."

The arguer claims that this particular Amendment to the Constitution is "absolute" and "unambiguous" but does not offer any--not a single word--of interpretation which is pretty silly because if you're going to enter an argument about interpretation of the Constitution and Amendments you should probably include your interpretation. First, the Constitution was written to be ambiguous because the Founding Fathers knew that they didn't know the trials and debates and changes that America would undergo. Second, you must either be daft or uninformed to believe the the Bill of Rights and Constitution are "absolute." They contradict each other and the system was set up so that it would be possible--not easy--to override any bit of the Constitution. So no, not absolute. I would go into a third point of discussing the meaning of the Amendment, but that is a discussion for another day, but it will show up eventually. But I will say this: The Founding Fathers never even imagined assault weapons. To claim that They believed that citizens should be able to hold assault weapons is just silly--there's no backing for it. So you might bring up the "shall not be infringed" bit. I remind you: they had in mind rifles and pistols and the like. Not veritable tanks. Even if they did, remember, the Constitution is not absolute.

My question: Has this person even read the recent legislation? In a following post, I will go major point by major point through the legislation. There may be a few I disagree with, but we'll see. Hasta proxima vez. (By the way, I'm only 90% sure that I said that right.)