Spring Break
The Daily OrangeMisinterpretation of right to bear arms
By Kevin Eggleston
Posted: 3/4/08, 11:34 PM EST Section: Opinion
Danish journalist Terkel Svensson was covering a meeting at President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch earlier this week when he crossed the street to get better cell phone reception. As he stepped onto a neighbor's lawn, he encountered an elderly lady with a pistol yelling at him to get off her property. Before an international incident could develop, Svensson made it back across the street and looked at photos bystanders had taken of the geriatric Annie Oakley. "I will show the photos to my wife and children," he told CNN's Ed Henry. "They thought I was on a safe trip."
Welcome to America, Terkel, the land of the free and the home of 18-year-old assault rifle owners who can't legally buy a beer and 90-year-old women who are legally blind and armed with purse-pistols. Here, the brave are the ones that venture outside, or dare to go hunting with the vice president.
It is a land where even a family fast-food outing can end in a bullet-fueled massacre. It is a place where whole families are discovered shot and killed in their homes. It is a country where innocent bystanders at a bus stop find themselves gun victims of gang wars. And these are examples from just the past three days.
In America, there is no place to run because it seems everyone has a gun.
And yet, the remaining democratic candidates for president seem to have no problem running from the issue. At a time when the NRA-beholden republicans have successfully achieved the 2004 expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Sens. Obama and Clinton have failed to provide a voice for gun control advocates.
Both have backed away from previous support of tightened licensing and registration laws. When asked about gun control at public forums, they reply by emphasizing their shared belief in the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Which would be fine, if there was any agreement reached as to what rights the Second Amendment actually guarantees.
According to Steven Tronovitch, chief of the Binghamton Police Department, after examining the structure of the amendment it seems likely the framers intended the right to extend only to citizens fulfilling military obligations. He notes that at the time of the enactment of the Bill of Rights, "this nation still had that 'wild west' mentality and guns were a necessity for survival, for food, and protection."
Welcome to America, Terkel, the land of the free and the home of 18-year-old assault rifle owners who can't legally buy a beer and 90-year-old women who are legally blind and armed with purse-pistols. Here, the brave are the ones that venture outside, or dare to go hunting with the vice president.
It is a land where even a family fast-food outing can end in a bullet-fueled massacre. It is a place where whole families are discovered shot and killed in their homes. It is a country where innocent bystanders at a bus stop find themselves gun victims of gang wars. And these are examples from just the past three days.
In America, there is no place to run because it seems everyone has a gun.
And yet, the remaining democratic candidates for president seem to have no problem running from the issue. At a time when the NRA-beholden republicans have successfully achieved the 2004 expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Sens. Obama and Clinton have failed to provide a voice for gun control advocates.
Both have backed away from previous support of tightened licensing and registration laws. When asked about gun control at public forums, they reply by emphasizing their shared belief in the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Which would be fine, if there was any agreement reached as to what rights the Second Amendment actually guarantees.
According to Steven Tronovitch, chief of the Binghamton Police Department, after examining the structure of the amendment it seems likely the framers intended the right to extend only to citizens fulfilling military obligations. He notes that at the time of the enactment of the Bill of Rights, "this nation still had that 'wild west' mentality and guns were a necessity for survival, for food, and protection."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 29
SU Junior
posted 3/05/08 @ 8:36 AM EST
"According to Steven Tronovitch, chief of the Binghamton Police Department... it seems likely the framers intended the right to extend only to citizens fulfilling military obligations"
The Maxwell School provides Syracuse students access to top-class Constitutional Law experts. (Continued…)
MG
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:42 AM EST
Nowadays, the newly re-legalized assault weapons are obviously not necessary for survival.
A lot of things aren't necessary for survival. Are the cigarettes that kill thousands a year necessary? Are the millions of burgers and fries we eat food items that we really need?
If you want to argue that an automatic weapon (assault weapon is a made up term by anti-gun advocates) can kill a lot of people at one time, my response is: If you truly had open gun laws instead of the unconstitutional laws in places like DC and NYC, a crazy with an automatic gun would think twice about trying to open fire if he knew others were locked and loaded. (Continued…)
Will S.
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:46 AM EST
Interesting that a majority of your sources were foreign - the same countries where crime went through the roof when they banned guns.
Americans are united on this issue for a reason: it is a Constitutional right. (Continued…)
msgibbon
MG
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:53 AM EST
"That's what Syracuse sophomore Aaron Katchen's friend believes. Katchen claims that his friend keeps an AK-47 in the trunk of his car. Allowing for assault rifles to pepper people's trunks is not likely to bring about peace or safety, but it could very well redefine the term "road rage. (Continued…)
Carmen Cagnotti
posted 3/05/08 @ 3:11 PM EST
About 30 years ago, when my family lived in a more rural area of upstate, my husband's shotgun stopped two men from robbing us in the dead of night. Before then, I yelled at him to get rid of it. (Continued…)
MG
posted 3/05/08 @ 3:46 PM EST
"I can tell you, next time these guys will come, they will be armed. So, you will get an automatic weapon, which they will too, which then will make you buy grenades, which he will too, then a tank"
Really? What facts or evidence do you have to back up that claim?
Phil, can you tell me your plan to completely remove guns from America, so 300MM can't get their hands on them?
Eva Valez
posted 3/05/08 @ 8:45 PM EST
WOW. I cannot believe there are people who actually think this way!
It's very true, you just gave foreign sources - why can't you find AMERICANS who oppose the right to bear arms?
Thank God Hill and Obama aren't this far left on guns (though they are pretty bad)
Doug
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:57 PM EST
I am really tired of hearing comparisons with the UK. The murder rate in NYC has been several times higher than London for 200 years. From a time when both cities had no gun control to strict gun control. (Continued…)
Dean
posted 3/06/08 @ 12:08 AM EST
It does seem banning guns has the effect of increasing the crime rate.
Example: Washington, DC. Prior to 1976, Washington, DC had very relaxed gun control laws and a very low homicide rate. (Continued…)
C. Intha
posted 3/06/08 @ 2:50 AM EST
Your arguments are very flawed, Kevin. I hope you will really research the facts about the next topic you write on. You may feel it necessary to take the far-left stance all the time, but maybe it's ok to back away from an issue that is JUST PLAIN WRONG. (Continued…)
Post a Comment