This seems to quickly be turning into one of those GD threads I discussed in that this much-ignored thread in which the questionable legality of an issue is reduced to a discussion of precedent and this-case-versus-that, rather than striking at the moral heart of the issue (which appears to have been Snakespirit’s original intention.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with citing legal precedent, and obviously it’s a necessary component of a debate along these lines. I’ve just always felt that a certain law or case ought to be referenced in terms of what it had to say about the matter, or what new insights it provided, rather than simply taking the outcome as “proof” of the correctness of a given position. For example, the Silveira case asks the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to individual rights under the Equal Protection clause. Rather than take the decision on this case to be the true answer to this question (as the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of morality, and has been known to change its collective mind from time to time), shouldn’t we instead reference the viewpoints taken by the opposing sides and consider the logic and practicality of each? Again, Snakespirit seems to understand what I’m talking about, as he is occassionally quoting his referenced cases in an analytical manner (and a couple of others here have done the same).
It may sound like I’m spouting too much Debate Team rhetoric here, but I honestly feel that a focus on the moral and practical standpoints on the issue, rather than a discussion of current legality, yields much more interesting and informative results. Of course, it ain’t my discussion, it ain’t my board, and I ain’t a mod, so by all means feel free to ignore the above if you see fit. It’s nothing more than my own $0.02 on that particular issue.
In regards to the OP, I personally feel that gun control is a good thing overall, but should definitely be applied with a lighter hand rather than a firm one when considering oft-disputed areas of the subject. I equal respect (read: virtually nil) for the positions of “Ban All Guns” and “End Gun Control”, but frankly, the former scenario would disturb me more. As ElectricZ pointed out, one original purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of the people to protect themselves against their own government. I do not believe that the American government, at present, seeks to exert the quite that extreme an extent of control over its citizens (and clearly, a bill that called to ban all firearms would be hard-pressed to get out of committee, let alone pass). But as long as we’re dabbling in the hypothetical, let’s have a look at the opposite extremes: I am much more afraid of the possibility of living under a totalitarain regime than having each of my fellow citizens armed with assault weaponry. Everyday nutjobs having easy and legal access to Uzis is certainly a frightening thought, but compare that to the possibility of living under something akin to the former Soviet Union, where dissent against the government is considered just cause for death at the hands of a trained force of soliders (who, conveniently enough, also happen to have all the guns). Now ask yourself which of these scenarios you’re more willing to approach. This should give you some idea of where on the spectrum you stand. As for me, I’ll be standing over by the former side, trying to convince the guy down the street to drop his AK-47, but also damned glad for the right to hold my little Colt .22.
:rolleyes: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
