Does the left actually believe with just 1 more gun control law we can solve this problem? They can never seem to explain how keeping law abiding people from guns is going to help in gun violence.
It's not about protecting innocents, It's about control over the masses. If ALL firearms were banned nation-wide there would still be crime, but it's not about crime. It's about control. Each new legislation, each small liberty taken away from the good, law-abiding public is a step closer to disarmament and government control. Much of the left actually want to be controlled. They see it as "protection". No guns, no violence. It's an absurd misunderstanding of human nature.
It's a head scratcher. My gut feeling tells me that it's a mixed bag on the gun control side. Some naively think that a gun ban means guns disappear and people are happy. They are too naive to realize criminals will continue to have guns and law abiding people will be made defenseless, they are too naive to understand that governments take turns for the worst and an armed population is a deterrent (may not save the day, but it does deter violence) despite our last president literally murdering American citizens without charge or trial and making it legal for the military to repeat to us what FDR did to Japanese Americans and despite the current president, so I've heard, being the "next Hitler."
But I think for many and the most vocal, they don't actually care about safety or making anything better. They are simply so filled with hate for the conservative caricature they have created and maintained and shared amongst themselves, that they know banning guns would be a huge blow to those they hate. I don't think it goes any further than that. In my state of Washington "we" recently passed a law that bans more guns and makes it so 18-20 year olds can have guns and die in the military and can vote, but can't purchase weapons to defend themselves and their families. I have seen neighbors who rabidly supported this then victory chant and waste no time telling conservatives that if they didn't abide by this new law that cops would bust in their doors etc. They really relish the thought of doing damage to those they hate who have different political views, so much so that they would make them and their families defenseless in the face of criminals and tyrannical government.
There are two classes of people that push gun control. The vast majority are the ones that look at a school shooting and think that something anything must be done. They don't generally know much or anything about guns or what guns laws had already been violated in the incident and there usually have been some. You can argue all you want that rendering people helpless doesn't make gunmen harmless. It'll fall on deaf ears because something must be done. Ignorance is frightening to see in action.
The other class much smaller in number but, it is more authoritarian. The movers and shakers on the left are aware that they have convinced pretty much everyone they are going to convince. They want you to be helpless when they attempt to force an extreme agenda on the country.
The issue is a pipe dream for the left. Regardless of what law you pass, there are way too many guns out there for the government to collect in less than a decade.
Personally, I don’t like to view these questions from a left-right perspective. In truth, there is no need to. The argument is really about the interpretation of the Constitution. In particular, we are talking about the Second Amendment. The reason I say interpretation is because it is not obvious how the Second Amendment should apply to us today.
Much is said about the intentions of the framers; in other words, what they had in mind should have some bearing on our interpretation of what they wrote. Now, before I get into my thoughts, in the interest of full disclosure, I support every word in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. However, that does not mean that I believe the document cannot or should not be changed to rise with modern challenges.
Anyone who supports the Constitution must also support the idea that the Constitution can, should, and must be changed from time to time. Why? It is designed by our founding fathers to be changeable in order that it may adapt and remain valid from generation to generation and from age to age. Once again, to be very clear, I support the Second Amendment, and that may color my thinking. Nevertheless, here I go.
Let’s begin by looking at the second amendment itself:
“Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”
Despite the fact that the Second Amendment is just a single, short sentence, it is surprisingly complicated. It would seem to me that two things, that are not to be infringed, are listed here:
Let’s look at a few definitions of key words:
These first two words offer very little difficulty. The next two, however, are rather cumbersome. Indeed, I will not offer definitions for these words, I will, instead, discuss them.
The part of that phrase that pops out at us today is “regulated,” and this, of course, makes us think of “regulation;” in other words, limited by “rules” (“regulation” comes from the Latin word “regulatum,” meaning “according to rule,” which comes from “regulo,” “to direct.” It is also connected to the word “regula,” meaning “ruler, measuring stick” ). Whatever the connotations of the word today, in the 18th century, the word “regulated” could mean simply “following a rule, orderly.” One might well argue that the only difference between an armed, belligerent mob and a militia is the fact that the latter is not only orderly in its conduct but submissive to order—it operates based on a well-defined rule of order and conduct. If you add the word “well” to the mix, then we have the idea that the founding fathers felt that one thing necessary to the “safety of a free state” was a disciplined group of citizens acting as an orderly militia. It would be well now to ask: did the phrase “well-regulated” apply to the word “arms”? If it did, which I doubt given the construction of the sentence, it would only mean something like “weapons in good repair” if we continue to use the word to mean “following a rule, orderly.” Now, on to the real issue in the Second Amendment, the word “arms.”
Today, we take this word to mean “guns,” but let us take the longer view. Remember, the founding fathers of our country, with rare exception, were all classically educated—they were all highly skilled in the languages of Latin and Ancient Greek. Indeed, they viewed the English language and English words through this lens. When they used the word “arms,” they had something clearly in mind. Unfortunately, what they had in mind was vague.
The Latin word from which “arms” is derived is “arma.” It’s a plural word. It’s a kind of word that we call “only plural” (pluralis tantum). That means that it’s never used in the singular. It’s meaning is “weapons.” To the Romans, the word meant the sword (gladius), the spear (pilum), the lance (hasta), the shield (scutum) and the body armor (lorica, galea, ocrea, etc.). At least that is what would probably have come to the Roman mind when hearing the word “arma,” but it could be extended to anything—even a rock if that was the only thing at hand.
To our founding fathers, it would have meant the flintlock musket, the saber, the canon, and all the accoutrement of the 18th century solider. It would have greatly simplified things if they had said exactly that: “A[n orderly] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear [flintlock muskets and as many sabers as they can carry], should not be infringed,” but they did not.
So, we are left to decide for ourselves, just as the founding fathers intended, what the Second Amendment means to us and for our society today. In truth, citizens are not free to own and operate any form of “arma” they like, and I seriously doubt that any of my friends—no matter how gun-totin’ they might be—would feel safe with their having a neighbor with a nuclear or biological weapon at his/her disposal. The fact is that we do restrict the types of weapons that private citizens are permitted to own. The question is: which guns are to be permitted and which ones aren’t?
I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I don’t think it is simply a question of right and left politics. The founding fathers anticipated that we would be responsible people with well-developed minds, capable of discussing things rationally. I hate to think we are letting them down.