There is another dilemma that is rarely tackled by the pro-gun lobby.
It is the responsibility of government to step in when the gun-owner himself, or the weapons he owns pose an unreasonable threat to his innocent neighbours.
Let me give you an example:
I live (currently) in an apartment building with paper thin walls. I have no problem with Farmer Bloggs owning a heavy machine gun (or hand grenades, tanks blah blah blah) for self defence. He owns a large farm and if he ever cut loose with the thing the bullets would fall to earth long before they left his property.
The same is not true if a neighbour of mine owned the same heavy machine gun... cutting loose with that would send bullets through his attacker, his walls, and my closet and into me. Understandably I have a large problem with becoming a collateral damage statistic.
Of course I would be placated if my neighbour decided to buy a hand-gun for home defence and only pulled out the 50 cal for special occasions at a place where it was safe to use. This - far more rational strategy - would signify that my neighbour wasn't a deranged gun nut with small-penis-complex and I would sleep easier at night.
I do not believe that the Anti-gun zealot's solution to this problem (ban 50 cal MGs) is a fair solution. But neither do I think that the Pro-gun zealot's solution (no government interference) is a fair solution either.
My point is this.
(1) Everybody has a right to the means to defend themselves. (Note that I am interpreting "firearms" in the 2nd Amendment to cover ALL weapons - why shouldn't it?)
(2) The government exists to step in when one person poses a threat to another.
There will be times when these two rights conflict with somebody else’s right to life. In that the possession of a particular weapon (hand-gun, howitzer, battleship, B2 etc. etc.) by a particular person in a place poses a risk to other innocent parties. And the 2nd Amendment as written does not reconcile this fact.
How should it be reconciled?
You need a system of law that allows someone to petition the government when they have proof positive that a gun/tank/battle cruiser owner poses an objective threat to your safety or your property. A hearing eschews where both sides put their case before an objective judge and he decides whether the petition has merit or not. If it doesn't the complainant pays for wasting everybody’s time. If it does the government takes action against the gun owner, stripping him only of those weapons which pose an unreasonable threat.
The judge will be guided by principles of law established by precedents that would slowly build up (and presumably be applicable whatever technology brings to the table), instead of being hamstrung by statutes like the Brady Bill.
In other words you need to repair to common law to settle dilemmas like this. That and to change the 2nd Amendment so that a persons right to own weapons can be moderated by the government if that combination of weapon & person are a threat to others.
PS please don’t credit me for this argument – the ideas weren’t mine… I will take responsibility for any flaws you can find because I am looking for the best, most rational solution to the hypothetical I posed above.
PPS: I am an ex-gun owner. I had to sell them when I came to the USA - the .22, the .303 and the 12 gauge wouldn't fit into my suitcase... :-)
(Edited by Robert Winefield on 2/06, 12:17pm)
|
