Saturday, September 1, 2012

What Would the Founders Do (WWFD)


Here's the first of four ideas:

Limiting Firearm Ownership
The Founding Fathers, though idealists, were also fierce pragmatists and knew that freedom could not be maintained without law and order. In this spirit, I believe they would have used common sense as their guide to limit the number of firearms that civilians could own, perhaps to the tune of a single gun for every adult in the household, with children automatically becoming eligible when they reached a certain age, and with certain exceptions for hunting.
I never put much stock in what the Founding Fathers said or might have said, being misogynist slave-owners and all. I certainly don't put them on the pedestal that many gun-rights folks do, but maybe I've been looking at it all wrong. Maybe Sanjay has the right idea.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. ...limit the number of firearms that civilians could own...

    Again with some arbitrary number. What difference does it make if I own one or two rifles? or pistols? or shotguns? or one of each? How is limiting the number of firearms that a law abiding citizen owns suppose to reduce crime? We already know that if there was a one firearm limit, that the criminals would have two, or three. We already know this, because the limit on crack rocks is zero, but the crack heads still get their crack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well for one thing, fewer would get stolen.

      Delete
  2. Do I really have to point this out?

    I have more than one firearm because different firearms are better suited to different purposes. I have a tiny pistol that is ultra concealable for the times that I want to be certain no one will know that I am carrying. The problem? That tiny pistol is only accurate to a few feet and might not work very well against a large, determined, high (on drugs) attacker. Thus I have a larger pistol for other situations. And I have a shotgun for hunting birds. And I have a rifle for hunting deer. And I have a semi-automatic carbine for home defense. And I have a .22 caliber rifle for hunting small game. You get the idea.

    Telling someone they can only have one firearm is like telling someone they can only have one tool in their toolbox. Good luck fixing your car with only a hammer or only a hack saw. Similarly, good luck shooting a fast flying duck with a carbine. And good luck having your hearing after firing a shotgun inside your home in defense of you family during a home invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're seriously quoting Sanjay? Seriously?

    Sanjay is a constitutional moron, one of the worst I have seen. I have been over there several times commenting on his posts (and others) and he hasn't the foggiest understanding for how the United States was founded and for why the United States was founded. Obviously you do not as well because if you do not believe in the protections of fundamental rights that were established when the United States of America was founded, you do not have any ground to which to spew your rhetoric.

    You sit there, protected by the 1st amendment, blasting people that exercise their right protected by the 2nd amendment because you do not "put much stock in what the Founding Fathers said or might have said". Just wait to see how long your precious 1st Amendment lasts when fascists like yourself take away the 2nd amendment, disarming the citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now the real paranoid Jolly Roger is coming out after all these attempts at sounding reasonable.

    "Just wait to see how long your precious 1st Amendment lasts when fascists like yourself take away the 2nd amendment, disarming the citizens."

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Now the real paranoid Jolly Roger is coming out ..."

    Versus the paranoid gun grabbers who think armed citizens are knocking off people left and right which is why we need to control their guns.

    How many "concealed killers" (citizens with no previous criminal record and concealed handgun carry licenses) did the Violence Policy Center manage to dig up? Something like 300 in the entire nation over the course of 5 years. That translates to 60 per year or about 1 per state per year. That's right. About 1 person with a concealed carry license per state per year murders an innocent person.

    And then the Centers for Disease Control says there are about 600 accidental deaths per year involving a firearm. That's about 12 per state per year.

    Combining those numbers means that a citizen can expect about 13 deaths per year in their state from armed citizens (accidents) and concealed handgun carry license holders (murders). And yet that is why gun grabbers want to control guns. Who is paranoid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid it's a lot more than that.

      Delete
    2. And I'm afraid there are a lot more than 2+ million violent crimes. I'm also afraid that lots of evil people are just waiting for the right moment to attack the citizens of the U.S.

      So whose fear trumps who?

      Delete
  6. " I believe they would have used common sense as their guide to limit the number of firearms that civilians could own, perhaps to the tune of a single gun for every adult in the household, with children automatically becoming eligible when they reached a certain age, and with certain exceptions for hunting."

    There is a very easy way to determine if this was the thinking of the founding fathers... read the Constitution and point to the phrase limiting the number of weapons a person can own. I will state that the 2nd amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms to the people and no limit was placed on how many arms they are allowed to keep or bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very question of "how many" touches on the anachronistic nature of the Amendment. In 1790, there was no such thing as hoarding personal arsenals. Today this is a real problem, or situation, if you prefer.

      Delete
    2. The same could be said of the press. When the first amendment was passed, the founders could not have meant to include such things as the internet. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the first amendment does not extend to speech made through any electronic means due to the anachronistic nature of the amendment. See how easy that is?

      Delete
    3. No, that doesn't follow. The Freedom of Speech is an intangible that is timeless and not dependent upon the medium of communications.

      With the 2A we're talking about possessing and carrying an inanimate object. The original purpose of this "right" was so that you could participate in the militia.

      None of that relates to today.

      Delete
    4. "No, that doesn't follow. Freedom is an intangible that is timeless and does not depend upon the approval of citizens or government."

      There, I fixed that for you.

      Delete
    5. "No, that doesn't follow. The Freedom to Defend Yourself is an intangible that is timeless and not dependent upon the method of self-defense."

      There, that is a more specific fix.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you can't just claim that one right is intangible, timeless, and not dependent on the technology involved and deny those same characteristics to other rights. Do you expect us to buy it because you say it? My principle is that rights are rights. I have taken that position because I don't trust the government to have discretion in who gets to do what with rights. I've seen too many cases in my lifetime and have read about many more in which government discretion is an opportunity for abuse. People have rights; governments have limited powers--that mode of running a society works best.

      Delete