Comment for Bud.

(This is continuation of comments on Bud's post found here. Since this
one is kind of long, I thought I'd post it here. Long posts are a little tedious
to read in the small Blogger comments window)

Bud, I wasn’t really comparing guns and cars. The right to keep and bear arms is, well, a right. The use and operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege, granted and regulated by the respective states. It is well within the power of the state to regulate the use and operation of motor vehicles, but the federal government and the states are strictly forbidden by the Constitution from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. I was, however, making the point that death is not the exclusive province of firearms. I did not mention registration, licenses, etc.

I would take issue with “inadvertent mayhem”. Of the approx. 40,000 people who die on the highways every year, approx. 20,000 involve alcohol. When your actions have unintended but harmful results, they are not inadvertent or accidental; they are criminal. Someone has decided, as evidenced by their actions, that their choice of drinking and driving is more important than the life of every person they meet on the road. Of the remaining 20,000, I would hazard a guess that a substantial portion is due to criminal negligence on the part of the drivers, such as driving while too tired, putting on makeup in the car, using a cell phone, eating, following too closely, driving too fast, reading a newspaper, and the list goes on.

I’m glad you agree that keeping and bearing arms is a right, even if you qualify it with “of some sort.” I’d be interested to see your reasoning behind limiting a human right. Do you apply the same description and standards to the rest of our civil rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, peaceable assembly, petition for redress of grievances against the government, search and seizure, and others, as you do to the civil right to keep and bear arms?

You see, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not given to us in that document, nor are they given by government that government may take them away; we possess them at birth. (“…and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,”) If something is within the power of government to allow or deny, it is a privilege, not a right. When exercised responsibly so as not to infringe upon the rights of others, all our rights are, by nature, unlimited. This is called Liberty. However, when exercised irresponsibly and without respect of the rights of those around us (not liberty, but license: lack of due restraint), they are no longer rights, but crimes of various sorts.

When the man in Atlanta took the lives of people who were not threatening him, he was not exercising his right to bear arms or his right to self defense. He was committing the crimes of assault and murder. Participants in a riot are not exercising their right of peaceable assembly; they are committing a crime. If I were to slander or libel you, I would not be exercising free speech; I would be committing a crime.

And so we have laws defining, among other things, when abuse of a right becomes a crime. The purpose of laws is not to prevent crime; laws define crime and outline the penalties for unlawful behavior. Most people obey most laws not because they are afraid of the penalties, but because they desire to live at peace with their neighbors in an orderly fashion, and lawfulness is their normal way of life. Some people obey laws because, even though they would like to disobey some of them, they don’t want to suffer the penalty if caught and convicted. And then there are the rest, people who obey the laws only when it’s convenient for them because they have no respect for the people around them and, for some reason, don’t seem to dread the penalties. We call these people criminals. They do not respect our rights, and they impose their reckless selfishness on the rest of us. Criminals would pay absolutely no attention to any new restrictions or regulation of firearms. How do I know this?

It’s against the law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Yet how many convicted felons commit additional crimes with a firearm? In many jurisdictions, it’s against the law for anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Yet how many criminals pull a pistol from a pocket or a shotgun from under a coat to commit armed robbery? Need I go on? I think you get my point that criminals break the law. Any law that suits them. That is their nature.

In the sense you use it, it is not in the “nature” of guns to do or be anything. Nature is defined as a characteristic disposition or temperament, and guns are capable of neither. Nor are firearms good or evil, they are amoral. Firearms are tools. Some wield them to good purpose, others do not. Firearms do not take on the character of the person who uses them. Murders and assaults have been committed with knives, baseball bats, crowbars, telephones, ropes, rocks, sticks, motor vehicles, ash trays, axes, hammers, saws, stairs, fists, feet, and airplanes. Need I go on? Yet only guns have been singled out as “evil” things. Wouldn’t it make more sense to vilify the criminals rather than the tools they use? If you hire a carpenter to build a storage shed for you and he does it poorly, you don’t blame the hammer and saw when your shed falls down. It wasn’t the “nature” of the tools to do a bad job, it was a bad carpenter.

If someone misuses a firearm, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have no problem with extended sentences for anyone who is convicted of committing a crime with any weapon, not just firearms. I do have a problem with laws that make it more difficult for law-abiding people to acquire, keep, or bear arms. Total bans on firearms do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at Washington, D.C. or New York City. In both those cities, it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to legally acquire a firearm, yet criminals acquire them easily. If a total ban doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals, isn’t it reasonable to expect the only people on whom additional “gun-control” laws have an impact are otherwise law-abiding citizens?

I claim no privilege to use arms against anyone I want, whenever I please. That is criminal. However, I do have the human right of self defense, which may require the use of arms if I am in fear for my life or grievous bodily harm. I also have the right to defend those for whom I have a responsibility to defend against the same threats. In this, I am answerable to myself and my God. I am not saying I am above the law.

I have no desire to use arms against any person, but as this is not a perfect world populated by perfect people, I must at least consider that eventuality. Really the question here is not whether or not one will defend oneself. If you are attacked, you will not just sit and take it. The question is what tools you will allow yourself to use. I think it’s a bad idea to drive nails with a rock. There are better tools to use. I will use the most efficient tools I can for self defense.

Please understand. However much I may try to persuade someone, it is not my intent to force anyone else to own or bear firearms. How people exercise their civil rights (or not) is of no concern to me as long their actions do not infringe upon my rights. If, for any reason, a person doesn’t want to own a weapon, that is their call and it is fine by me. Like me, everyone lives with the consequences of our daily decisions, whether good or bad. That is personal responsibility. It is another thing, however, to make that call for someone else and force them to live with the consequences of someone else's decision. That is tyranny.
GBW