As some of you may know, I work on a college campus and, under the circumstances, I find many situation in Campus Life which I deplore.
Among these are the distressing tendencies of college students to:
- clutter parking lots in the near vicinity of dormitories with discarded beer cartons and broken beer bottles;
- complain vociferously that "there are not enough parking spaces!";
- ride bicycles too fast and with no apprehension of the general Rules of the Road - bicyclists typically consider that whatever rules (pedestrian vs vehicular traffic) provides them the best advantage, that's the rule they rely upon.
But this week, in response to DC vs HELLER, I was delighted to find that College Times recently presented an article which reminded me why college students are so enjoyable.
The original article merely presented a summary of the DC v HELLER controversy. I thought it was well-presented, concise and (if you will excuse the expression) 'balanced'.
(This was not the first time that College Times discussed the Second Amendment & 'Right to Carry' issues... c/f "The Facts behind Gun Control need to be cleared"; August 7, 2007, re: Virginia Tech and CCW.)
This current (March 20, 2008) article ("Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun") article only reports on the current DC v HELLER issues, in reference to the Supreme Court case.
Go there and read the commentary, as well as the comments.)
The proposition of this article seems to be that the 2nd Amendment is an "Individual Right", rather than a "Collective Right" applicable to formal Militias, such as the National guard. (There's a Leap of Faith involved here.)
While there seems to be a consensus in the comments, there is not unanimity of opinion. We should pay special attention to the(few) dissenting voices here.
I would like to pay special attention to one single dissenting voice, which (since there are no permalinks guaranteed on this website) I will cite in full:
"Joe Edwards: Freshman, Forestry" comments:
"Concealed Carry is unnecessary for Safety"
I have a response in regard to the column, "Constitution fully maintains the right to own a handgun," (CT, March 20).
Today's world presents times of tragedy and turmoil, regardless of the right to own or carry a handgun. While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.
It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers. It is crazy to think how gun supporters use mass shootings to promote the sale and use of guns when the killers bought the guns legally in the first place. This does not make me feel safe at all.
I have never felt threatened at all in my home or anywhere for that fact. I do not need a gun for safety. I can lock my doors and shut my windows. If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it.
I draw your attention to certain phrases in this comment:
While the second amendment does in fact permit the right to keep and bear arms, it is wonderfully inappropriate to assume the founding fathers meant for us to buy and keep firearms to keep criminals off the street.
Well, yes. However, the Second Amendment postulates, by inference, that American Citizen may not be charged with purpose of the Second Amendment is to " ... keep criminals off the street."
That's the normative view of the purpose of Police, who are too few and too often too far away. If you want to defend yourself against criminal predators, the Second Amendment only serves to acknowledge that, in the absence of Police, you have the right to provide for your own personal defense.
Mr, Edwards also states:
"It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally, but it has been proven that these so-called law-abiding citizens can quickly turn into psychopathic killers."Mr. Edwards not only fails to cite justification for this extremist Point of View, he has established an iconic statement which has been the subject of ridicule by websites which require more substantial authority than personal bigotry. In short, he has established his own personal '15 minutes of fame' by leveling unsubstantiated charges.
(I will not bother to address the statement that "... It is true that only law-abiding citizens can buy firearms legally...", except to note that "law-abiding citizens" must submit to background checks, while "other" "non-law-abiding citizens", do not typically concern themselves with any requirement to conform to current firearms-control laws.)
Skipping lightly over several more egregious opinions, Mr. Edwards concludes:
If there is such a need for guns, then why don't we sell the guns and make it impossible to get the ammunition? Then everyone could be happy. The gun enthusiasts could have their guns and the people who are out to shoot people can't get the ammunition they need to do it....Ahhh .. there you reveal yourself to be a True Progressive Liberal, Joe.
You are entirely unconcerned with the intent of current Firearms Laws. Instead, you have your own personal agenda to pursue, and all other considerations pale in comparison.
If the Second Amendment guarantees the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", and you cannot discern a legal means to undermine it, then you are perfectly comfortable with starving that Constitutional Right by denying legal firearms owners the ammunition necessary to make the Civil Right work.
This is tantamount to saying: if the First Amendment is uncomfortable, we may deny newspapers the right to possess printing presses, paper or ink; we may deny protesters the right to speak in public places (only private residences will be secure in this right), and Religious Organizations the zoning variances necessary to build churches.
For these accouterments are no less necessary to the First Amendment than ammunition is to the Second Amendment.
And you, Joseph Edwards, are no better than Joseph Stalin in your zeal to deny your fellow countrymen their Civil Rights.
I'll bet you never thought of yourself as a Tyrant before, did you?