First -- I am aware of and disagree with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the words of the Second Amendment. I believe the matter of gun ownership is clearly a community right according to the original constitutional language, not a right guaranteed to individuals ("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 attribute this to a highly politicized and dogmatic interpretation of a current majority of the Supreme Court. In many ways this is similar to the Supreme Court misinterpretation of the equality before the law provisions of the Constitution, which for six or seven decades interpreted segregated schools as "separate but equal", based on a majority of justices’ cultural and racist predilections. It is also similar to my strong disagreement about the Supreme Court interpretation of the freedom of speech being equivalent to the spending of money to influence elections based on a 1976 decision. Second
-- my problem isn't with "law abiding citizens", but with the evidence
that suggests that five of seven murders are committed by
individuals who knew their victims or were relatives. As well as, evidence
that, the unintentional firearm injury/ death rates among children ages 14
and under in the United States is nine times higher than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. My bet is that those 25 countries have
effective regulations on gun ownership and accessibility. In other words
most gun violence is enabled by the easy availability and accessibility
and deadly consequences of guns. At times when passion displaces reason in
fights, and when immaturity and curiosity is more important than
understanding the consequences of gun use in young children, handy
firearms have very negative consequences.
|
Therefore,
I support reasonable regulation of gun ownership. I believe that passion
is more likely to prevail than reason in circumstances and areas where
desperation, depression, and powerlessness in a significant percentage of
our population is enhanced by poverty, unemployment, inadequate education,
poor health and lack of insurance. I find gun restriction in Chicago and
Washington DC reasonable. And it is reasonable wherever poverty and
unemployment are present and concentrated. Careful and exhaustive
investigative procedures are justifiable in both the purchasing and
licensing of firearms. I believe that organizations which fight such
reasonable regulation are destroying their legitimacy and effectiveness.
|
Front
Page
Archives
Great links
|
Contact: ken.s+sunacom.com (replace "+" with "@") |