Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
:PRISM: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
:Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
Iain Anderson
:Banking Reform - Where Next?
The issue of gun control finds itself, yet again, at the forefront of debate in the United States following the events of the Aurora massacre, and indeed, instances from around the world. Cho, Breievek, and now Holmes are all names that stir deep emotion in good and honest citizens as they ask themselves whether the second ammendment is relevant, and if it should be questioned. And while the people asking such questions ought to be given every respect and admired for their efforts to address a real and palpable issue, I feel that I should nail my proverbial colours to the mast - I disagree with them.
Yes, I disagree with them. I am 100% pro gun freedom in the United States. Now, I can understand if one considers the timing of this article inappropriate, but I confess I feel a certain calling to write it; my pro-gun beliefs are firm, and if one considers someting to be morally acceptable, then it ought be accepted in all times and places and now, with the ever-growing clamping down on gun freedom, I could suppose that guns are in need of an advocate. A rational one.
First and foremost, it is my conviction that the liberty endowed by the owning and bearing of a firearm is rather a desirable pursuit. When a people, on an individual basis, own weapons, they are enfranchised, they are capitalised. They, in every essence, have the literal means to rise up against tyranny and oppression wherever it is present. Whether it is in the monopoly of government, or the lethal menace of an unlawful intruder into one's personal property, a man who owns a firearm can defend himself. This, I feel, is quite eminently desirable, and for the executive branch to suspend or remove or license - or whatever verb should suffice - this right - this intrinsic, natural right of of a decent human being - is to, in effect, handicap a citizenry from self defence and revolution. As George Mason neatly surmised, "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".
And one only has to observe the history of the United States - and not the constitution - to note this. For the United States, as it was historically and nobly born, was started with a gun shot, not a decree of legislation. Just look at Concord, Massachusetts - this was the place where the Yanks fought of us Brits, with guns and the freedom they ensued. Indeed, I would argue that the gun, for better or for worse, is a highly accurate symbol for the values of American liberty.
I would urge you to keep that liberty in mind when you consider the notions of a state controlling gun usage. Is it, in all reality, a positive measure when a government can, by a simple declaration of 'insanity', remove the liberty and franchise of an individual, of a citizen? When I consider this, and I understand that it may not "work out like this in practice", I confess an image of Soviet style judgment panels declaring any dissent "insane" perforates around my mind - of course that might never happen, but attacks on the liberty of American citizens are happening, all in the name of "anti-terrorism", and one cannot rule out such scenarios in the future - this is the government that has faced allegations of rendition, and has created "free speech zones", where dissent has been alleged to have been found, in certain circumstance, illegal.
My arguments here are abridged, as I intend to keep my piece short and, hopefully, concise, and I invite you, reader, to express your views, whatever side of the fence they fall on. Ultimately, the most important part of the gun debate is the debate, is the discourse, and I am always willing to change my opinion if the facts present themselves in such a way as to comprehensively change the scenario. But for now, reader, I admit freely, the freedom of the gun and the liberty it brings must surely be pursuits worth chasing.
I conclude with this side-thought, which is just that - Can we say in good faith that certain criminals, who are prepared to harm and even kill, are going to obey some form of law preventing gun ownership?
Andrew Beazley is the co-founder of First Thought, a site showcasing the best young journalists from across the UK.
Follow Andrew Beazley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mrboez
Lisa McElroy: The Supreme Court, Gun Control, and a Very Dark Night
Sanjay Sanghoee: Why Gun Control Is Patriotic
Dan Ehrlich: UK Gun Ownership Up, Deaths Down Offering Stark Comparison with US Figures
Judge H. Lee Sarokin: How Do Gun Advocates and the NRA React to Gun Massacres and Killings?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the 18th century, the gov't didn't have weapons of mass destruction (all apologies to George for his lack of foresight).
So are you saying that all citizens in the 21st century should be entitled to own nukes---because otherwise I don't understand your argument. I mean your argument IS premised on every citizen being equally armed, right?
For some reason, when it comes to arms, Americans lose their minds somewhere between the right to bear arms and common sense.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
I think the practical limit is that individual civilians should be allowed to equip themselves with weapons that would allow them the potential to form effectively into infantry. They need small arms that are of similar capability to the small arms in general use in the professional military so that they have some hope in combat. They need the ability to take on the traditional role of militia, just as the founders said.
Anything less, and the freedom of the society is merely on loan.
If guns are allowed and accepted, then it makes some sense that possession of a gun by private citizens for self defence is perhaps a necessary evil.
Here in the UK we have no such history of needing or desiring private ownership of guns. I did own three guns in the 1960s and enjoyed being a member of a gun club, but the lack of facilities in which to use those weapons in open spaces was restrictive. I could still legally own a restricted range of firearms today, should I choose to do so!
Whilst the police are at a disadvantage, by not being routinely armed, whilst hardened and committed criminals may be, I am not convinced the police themselves should even have access to firearms, unless they are ex-military and have first hand experience of using them!
You are focussing on the wrong issue. The Second Amendment is part and parcel of an elaborate "checks and balances" play where neither the States nor the US were permitted to have standing armies, but for the defence of the commonwealth, the Founding Fathers recognised the need for armed forces. So the messy compromise was that the armed forces would be militia, the States provided the officers and the training, and the US called them up. That is the function of the Second Amendment, nothing else.
I happen to agree that excessive government control - of anything - is antithetical to freedom. But the US is as far removed from sensible gun regulation as it is from sensible taxation of the rich as it is from dealing rationally with climate change as it is from a rational public transport policy as it is from a rational immigration policy as it is from a rational drugs policy as it is from sensible, sane behaviour of many of its parliamentarians.
With that in mind, what justification is there for the NRA rabid opposition to any sort of sensible regulation?
How can any responsible person state that there should be no restrictions on the mentally ill having access to these types of weapons, using a fake possible conspiracy? I surely don't want someone who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and hallucinations having a AK47.
"I would urge you to keep that liberty in mind when you consider the notions of a state controlling gun usage. Is it, in all reality, a positive measure when a government can, by a simple declaration of 'insanity', remove the liberty and franchise of an individual, of a citizen?"
A man who owns a baseball bat can defend himself. Any Govt. that oppressed its people to the extent that they would need to rise up would have to have control of the armed forces. Therefore, the idea that citizenry would be able to overthrow such a well-armed Govt. is itself ridiculous. The most effective methods of controlling Govt. do not involve firearms, or lethal force.
'a government can...remove the liberty ...of a citizen'
This is a very dangerous and vague usage of the term 'Government'. I disagree that the 'Government' can declare someone insane and throw them in a padded cell. There are safeguards in the judiciary, and in the medical profession, to avoid such a grotesque misallocation of power.
'I understand that it may not "work out like this in practice"
And so, and with the greatest respect, I would ask, what's your point, then?
'attacks on the liberty of American citizens ...in the name of "anti-terrorism"
True, but the relation between this and gun-control is tenuous at best. Having a gun won't stop the CIA watching what you look at online. There are better ways to combat this affront to freedom, such as making the people in your country care about it and get involved politically, beyond blindly supporting one party because of geography, or religion, or tradition.
'My arguments here are abridged'
They are also not very well-reasoned.
A bat does not work well when the other attacker has a fire arm'. Sounds like a great argument in favour of gun control.
' Do the people of Syria have control of the armed forces?'
Are they winning, or are they suffering massive civilian fatalities? Are they fighting using their own weapons, or ones bought for them by the Saudis? (Hint: It's the second one).
' Pehaps you should aquaint yourself with the Soviet Unions use of declaring someone mentally ill'
We're not in the Soviet Union. Incidentally, there are plenty of guns there. Did that save those people from being institutionalised?
There are "safeguards in the judiciary" RIGHT NOW...is it not possible that this can change?
"Having a gun won't stop the CIA watching what you look at online," and prohibition doesn't stop people from using the "black market," furthering the overall criminal element.
There are no easy answers to human cruelty, if there are any answers at all. Personally, I'd hate for the pipe bomb to be the mass-killers "weapon of choice."
Guerrilla fighters generally win against superior firepower.'
There's an amazing oversimplification, if ever I saw one! It's also not always true. Look at the history of S. America or the Spanish Civil War. Also, define 'win'.
'There are "safeguards in the judiciary" RIGHT NOW...is it not possible that this can change?'
It could. But having guns won't affect whether that changes very much. Having an educated, politically engaged population and accountable political class will. Americans would be better advised removing the sinister lobbying system than polishing their artillery pieces.
'Personally, I'd hate for the pipe bomb to be the mass-killers "weapon of choice."
Why allow them any firearm or explosive weapon? Why not ban such things, then work to prevent people assembling them? Also, a man in a cinema throwing pipe bombs can be tackled. A man toting automatic weapons? Not so much...
So we cannot move beyond guns being the only way to change things? The guns mentioned were to fight off foreign influence. We have military power to now do that. When internal strife was not peacefully determined through negotiation, we had a civil war. Look back and see how well that worked out for us. Is that what we are heading for again? I certainly hope not, but would not rule it out.