Please let me know what you think.

[magman454]

Any suggestions or improvements would be greatly appreciated.

I posted this on Facebook, but I'm thinking about righting a book on the subject of how the Second Amendment is treated differently than the other rights that we have as Americans. The following is just off the cuff. If I go through with the book, I will be doing a lot more research to insure that my numbers and facts are right. Thank you in advance.

Recently, I was in a rather heated debate about the new and proposed firearms laws. His stance was that our Rights are not absolute and that there are restrictions on our other rights, so why should the Second Amendment be any different than the others. I couldn’t agree more with that last part! Why should the Second Amendment be treated any differently than any of our other Rights? The reason for the argument was more along the lines of reasoning.

His favorite, and by far, most often used example is that one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, nor yell “Bomb” at an airport. This was his example of a restriction on the First Amendment that was supposed to correlate with the proposed “Assault Weapons” and “High Capacity” magazine bans. I say that one has nothing to do with the other. It is comparing apples to oranges.

He is right! It is against the law, and is punishable by incarceration to yell those words in those locations without just cause. Charges can range from disturbing the peace to murder depending upon the result of doing so.

A more correct Second Amendment comparison would be that you cannot shoot at anyone with an “Assault Weapon”, or anything else for that matter, ANYWHERE. Dong so without just cause can garner one charges ranging disturbing the peace to murder dependant upon the intent and the outcome of the actions.

You can yell “Fire”, “Bomb”, or anything else they like on your own property, but in most cases, you cannot discharge a firearm there. Even if you have taken great pains to insure that you are doing it safely. So as you can see, the Second Amendment is already more restricted than the First.

His example would have to be modified in order to be able to more accurately compare it to the proposed bans. In order to insure that no one could yell those words inappropriately, everyone would have to be gagged upon entering a theater, airport, or any other crowded place.

The restrictions that are placed upon our rights do not truly limit them in any way. One is completely unfettered from violating the public trust, and causing harm to other by abusing those rights. The restrictions only come into play when someone abuses their rights to the detriment of others. The principle behind the restrictions to most of our rights is the presumption of innocence. We punish those who offend, and leave the rest alone. Not so when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the punishment for rape is that the offending appendage is surgically removed. (A fitting punishment, I think.) Let’s also say that Jim rapes 50 women. Everyone knows that it is Jim who should loose his penis, not every male who lives in his neighborhood. Yet if Jim shoots 50 women with an AR-15, suddenly everyone in the United States who happens to have one, or anything that even slightly resembles one, has to loose theirs.

Think about this; Mass shootings are a tragedy that should never occur, but how many have there been over the last twenty years? Let’s say there have been 3 a year for twenty years. That would be 60 events. Most such shootings are done by individuals, but let’s say that half of them were committed by two people. That would be 90 perpetrators committing those vile acts.

I have not done the research to get the exact numbers, but I guarantee my example is higher. That would mean that, as a society, we are willing to negate the free exercise of the Second Amendment to literally hundreds of millions of Americans, because of the actions of less than 90 people.

It’s a damned good thing that we don’t apply this logic to drunk driving, huh? Which, by the way, kills exponentially more people annually than “Assault Weapons”, but these laws aren't really about saving lives anyway.

[Hesprit]

I actually had a similar discussion this evening. Actually it was probably not a discussion, one person posted on one of the numerous inflammatory reports ans I responded. Mine is not as well written as yours, but I think it is similar in some ways. In this case the specific topic was the comparison between guns and cars as far as lethality and restrictions.

Peter

Her (name withheld):

I love it when people try to compare guns to cars...because we *do* regulate access to who can / can't operate a vehicle. We require that all person's be trained in how to drive a vehicle before we let them drive without guidance and we require that all persons who own a vehicle at least get liability insurance to protect the people around you that you may cause harm to while driving. So to answer your question gun nuts - I would *love* for gun ownership to be as strictly regulated as vehicle ownership

Me:

I hate to say it, but that argument doesn't quite hold up. Purchasing a gun is actually much more restricted than having a car. The only real exception is the statement about insurance, however since "gun insurance" does not even exist, it would be a little difficult to require it. If insurance companies would be required, by law, to offer such insurance, I suspect something like that might be able to be done.
As for other restriction points, the age limit to get a driver's license is 16 in most, if not all states. It is 18 or 21 (depending on the state and in some cases, the type of gun).
There is no background check to purchase or even to get a license to drive a car. There is a skills test, but nobody asks if you have a mental illness, or about your criminal history or calls your friends to see if they would be nervous about you being behind the wheel. While different states may handle them in different ways, Federal law requires that all retail gun sales include some form of background check. If the Universal Background checks being proposed in Congress go through this will bring the standards and requirements in all states to the same. Nothing like this has ever been enacted or even suggested for owning or driving a car.
Safe gun training courses (for all types of guns) are available in all states and are required in most. This includes, and is even more true, of handguns and the requirements to obtain a license to carry these.
There is no law restricting the owner of a car from loaning, selling or giving that car to any other person they choose. There are laws about who is allowed to drive it, but you can legally turn over possession of your car to anyone you choose. The driving part is on the person who has it. With guns you can be, and often are, legally forbidden from transferring a gun to another person, whether giving, selling or loaning, for many reasons. If any person who can not legally purchase a gun for themselves, it is illegal for you to purchase on for them or to transfer (give or sell) one to them.

The bottom line is that LEGAL gun owners already are under many more restrictions than car owners. What should be done first is to improve the ability to enforce those restrictions and laws. One of the biggest would be making it possible to actually find out about higher risk mental illnesses. At this point, unless a person has already done something to be "flagged" there is no way for a gun seller or the authorities (including the people performing background checks) to know if a person is at high risk for violence due to a mental illness. There are difficulties in enforcement of many of the gun ownership restrictions (just as there are difficulties in enforcing driving laws) because law enforcement is often not allowed to do the things or enforce the laws they are supposed to. We need to correct these issues and have the laws already on the books enforced before we start adding even more laws which probably won't be able to be enforced either.

[davidrayt]

Magman, that is very good. Please do write the book. With your permission I would like to paste the content of your post on my facebook page. Also yours Hesprit. This is good stuff. People need to read it.

[Pseudomind]

Write it, but these two items guns and cars, are a mixture of apples and oranges, "We require that all person's be trained in how to drive a vehicle before we let them drive without guidance and we require that all persons who own a vehicle at least get liability insurance to protect the people around you that you may cause harm to while driving."

It may be a requirement to have "insurance(?)," but this is another area where laws are already in place, but not enforced. I do not know how many folks are involved in accidents who have no insurance, and nothing happens from the law, many folks loose their license and still continue to drive, multiple drivers who have numerous DIU's, nothing happens, so it is the old case of lets enforce current laws. Inprison felons for years, not a turn around system as being used today. Arrested for a major crime and back on the streets.

[Hesprit]

David,

Thanks for the compliment. When I wrote that it was basically a "sitting down and typing as I think" with very little correction, no planned out thought ... none of the "right" ways to write something like this. To be honest, I wasn't really expecting anyone to want to repost what I had said, although i thought maybe a few would agree with it and it might give them ideas of their own come backs to these goofballs!

Oh, and yes, of course you're welcome to use it if you'd like and to share it if you think it's worth it.

Peter

[Stogies]

There is a big difference between the second and all other amendments. The second is the only one that specifically states that it shall not be "infringed" upon. A very meaningful wording that states that this right shall not be touched at all. I would like to think they worded it that way for a reason.

[London]

His favorite, and by far, most often used example is that one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, nor yell “Bomb” at an airport.... He is right!

Sure you can- if there's a fire or a bomb.

A more correct Second Amendment comparison would be that you cannot shoot at anyone with an “Assault Weapon”, or anything else for that matter, ANYWHERE.

You can if use of deadly force is authorized.

His argument is crap because the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So only congress is forbidden from making these kind of laws.

But the second amendment says, "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." So this right is not supposed to be infringed by anybody.

[davidrayt]

You must remember that according to our government, driving is a privilege, not a right. I don't agree with that because every man had a right to have a horse for transportation. Since they won't let us ride around town on a horse, then we must be allowed to have transportation of some sort. But I digress. The ammendments are rights not privileges. And this is where the problems lie: Congress shall make no law.......but our problem is the supreme court being able to strike laws down making them unconstitutional. We as a country have surrendered our laws and rights to the supreme court. 9 people. Our government is supposed to be by the people for the people.