What a brilliant idea

Dear {$diety}, the more I post, the more I realize I need to add a “Stupid” category for entries here. The latest news article which would make the category is I had it is this bit of insight into the 2nd amendment (and a shorter link if that one is broken) from the Detroit-based think tank Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Let’s see what ISPU tells us about our 2nd amendment.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy’s most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly “everything has changed,” perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

I agree with that last sentence for sure. I’ve reconsidered the value of public gun ownership. A couple of years ago, I never though anything about it. Now, I think it’s time for me to get one. I still haven’t gotten a gun nor the training that would be wise to have as a gun owner. But I think about it a lot now.

Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a “Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb.” As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.

He forgets to mention, as well, that as long as the public is allowed to own guns the potential for self-defense against armed attackers is significantly higher than when the public is without guns. The author ends his plea for repealing the 2nd amendment by noting the difficulty in doing so, due to all those crazy white, male conservative gun-owners lobbying against such a repeal (well duh). Then he wraps up with this.

This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as “preserving marriage between a man and woman,” the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

That crazy Bill of Rights always getting in the way of the government better controlling the citizens. And every nutjob that wants to remove some of those rights claims their argument shows why amendment number <target of the month> just isn’t worth keeping. So far, none of the arguments for any repeal have convinced me. Anyone else feel the need to throw away a freedom today?

[tags]Detroit think tank calls for repeal of 2nd amendment, Right to beat arms “just not worth it” in a post-9/11 world?[/tags]

One thought on “What a brilliant idea”

  1. The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to ‘keep and bear arms.’ If it had, there would have been explicit wording such as “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”



Comments are closed.