On guns

[celandineb]

I believe my right to live, and not be randomly or accidentally or even purposefully shot, ought to trump someone else's right to own a gun.Full stop. People shooting other people ignores the whole principle of the rule of law, and I do not accept that as valid

Comments

[telperion1]

I don't have mixed feelings on gun control - I am firmly in favor of it. Growing up I was frightened by quite a few things (rightly frightened, I believe), and the one thing that lessened that fear was that we didn't have guns in our house. That was unusual - this was rural NC, and hunting was common - but my mum always insisted that the guns be kept at the target range.

Frankly, I don't trust anyone all the time. I don't want anyone to have destructive capability that they have easy access too. Pure physical strength is bad enough, but any kind of weapon exacerbates a bad situation. This goes for everyone, myself included.

This is of course an emotional argument, not a legal one. I'm not a legal expert, and I try to keep from talking about things I don't understand. But if you want one amateur's opinion, I'd say that it's important to read the amendment in context. Not just "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first part, too. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That makes it sound like

(a) the right to bear army must be well-regulated, not just in a registration sense but in a militia sense, with a power structure telling you what to aim at, and

(b) The purpose of being armed isn't to protect yourself but to preserve "the security of a free State" - either from our "enemies" (whoever they are), or if it comes to that, to save the people from an overarching government itself.

But as I said, I'm no legal expert. This is just me doing a quick read and interpreting it as best I can, given my limitations. Whatever the legal issues, though, I'd say that ethically, having guns where people can get to them quickly is a Bad Idea.