The anti-gun crowd wasted no time in making their feelings known after the terrible tragedy in Aurora, Colorado. No surprise there So, I thought it might be worthwhile for we conservatives and supporters of the Second Amendment right to bear arms to discuss in an open thread what, if any, limits we believe there should be on the right to bear arms. [I don’t know it an open thread will work the way i would like on a small traffic blog like this, but we shall see. Also, If anyone can explain to me how to use a “sticky” to keep this post at the top for a couple of days, i would very much appreciate the advice.]
Yesterday I watched a Fox News video clip where Senator Diane Fienstein argued for renewal of her assault weapons ban and Senator Ron Johnson, Wis., was there to defend the Second Amendment. Senator Fienstein was agast that the Aurora shooter had an assault weapon with a 100 round barrel clip. She argued that this type of weapon was good for only one thing: killing people. She claimed there was no justification for a citizen to need an arm with a 100 round clip; that this type of weapon was not needed for hunting. Frankly, the good Senator from Wisconsin was less than brilliant in rebutting Senator Fienstein. He basically said that the constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms and he supports and defends the constitution.
My first reaction upon listening to Senator Fienstein was, since it was known that the shooter, James Holmes had knowledge of bombs and in fact had supposedly left his apartment booby trapped with bombs, if she would have been happier if, instead of automatic rifles, he had come with bombs and killed hundreds rather than a dozen. Upon thinking about her argument further, I was able to imagine a scenario where civil order had broken down in some part of the country and mobs were looting and destroying property that a person very well be glad to have an automatic weapon with a hundred round clip to protect his family and property. I also asked myself if Senator Fienstein thought the Second Amendment existed for the only reason that citizens should be able to hunt? Then I asked myself: What limit would I or any conservative or any supporter of the Second Amendment put on a citizen’s right to bear arms? Let’s start by looking at what 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.
I would read that to mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because it may be necessary for a free state to call up a citizen militia to defend the state from all enemies foreign or domestic.
One definition of “arms” is:
Implements of war, weapons, munitions, and weapon systems.
In the time of our founding, arms amounted basically to muskets and cannon, Our Founders saw the need for a navy to keep the sea lanes open and protected from pirates. But, our Founders did not foresee a need for a standing army. But, we live in a much different world today. We do have a standing army. Today arms run the gamut from weapons of mass destruction to smart bombs and guided missiles and grenade launchers and ground to air missiles and an incredible array of artillery and much, much more. Would our founders, if they could visit the future of today, argue that citizens had the right to bear any of todays “arms” they so desired? I doubt it. I doubt that any sane supporter of the Second Amendment would argue that a citizen had the right to bear a weapon of mass destruction. Possibly some extreme supporter of the right to bear arms might argue that an ex-fighter pilot should have the right to possess a fighter jet armed with all the weapons he was trained to use.
I think you see where I am going with this. So, here is my open thread question to supporters of the Second Amendment:
Between the extremes of a totally disarmed citizenry and the right to possess weapons of mass destruction, what limits would you put on our right to bear arms?
I will be very interested your responses.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?