Why George Takei is Wrong on Gun Control

This is my rebuttal ( for the most part) of George Takei’s recent article on the Orlando shooting., although I will be addressing the issue of gun control in general as well. Thei first part, however, is my response to George Takei on gun control.While he is indeed correct that the Orlando shooting was a tragedy fueled  by hate and religious extremism, this is the only point I agree with him on ( and I will not quit being a fan simply because I disagree with him.

He cites the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004. However, what he fails to mention is that Columbine under the aforementioned assault weapons ban, as did the 1997 North Hollywood B of A shootout, where 2 criminals, using fully automatic weapons- ie, BANNED GUNS- initially had the police OUTGUNNED.

He is also incorrect that a private citizen is not allowed to own a machine gun. In point of fact one can own a fully automatic weapon- it’s simply a royal pain in the butt to do so with all the red tape, plus it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986 ( source).

As for his question about how much liberty we must concede, allow me to offer this quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (reference).

Also, with all due respect to George Takei, he needs to get off the NRAs case. While far from perfect, the NRA did NOT put the gun in the Orlando ( or any other mass shooters) hands. They seem to be one of the only, if not THE ONLY organization in America that gets blamed for acts NONE of its members commit.

As for the background check, exactly how will expanded background checks help when this guy PASSED a background check. It seems to me it was law enforcement that dropped the ball here.oh, and it is actually VERY UNUSUAL for shooters to obtain their guns legally. This was the exception that proved the rule.  In point of fact, the gun shop owner and his employees REFUSED to sell Omar Mateen anything and reported him ( source).

I would also respectfully remind George Takei that the Orlando shooting, like the vast majority of the, occurred in a GUN FREE ZONE. Obviously, at least in the case of a nightclub or bar, I would NOT want the patrons armed as alcohol and guns are just as bad a combination as alcohol and cars. However, arming the staff- on a volunteer basis, of course, is probably not a bad idea.  After all, there’s a REASON mass shootings RARELY occur at gun ranges or police stations- it’s because the people in those locations have the ability to SHOOT BACK.

Now, on to gun control advocates in general.

First, with respect to the gun control lobby’s claim that no law abiding gun owner has ever stopped a mass shooting, there are 2 reasons for that: 1) They stop the shooter BEFORE it becomes a mass shooting, such as the Clackamas mall shooting, or 2) They’re in a gun free zone and, being law abiding, don’t have their guns.

Now,as for the claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, 1) Using that logic, the First Amendment only applies to a quill and parchment- the point being that the same standards must be applied to either the ENTIRE Bill of Rights or NONE of it, and 2) we have the Puckle gun, which was the first machine gun, invented in 1718, about 73 years BEFORE the 2nd Amendment was written (source).   Also, since the Founding Fathers had seen weapons technology advance from rocks, the bow and arrow, catapult, etc to muskets and pistols, the argument that they couldn’t anticipate the advancement of ANY sort of technology is invalid. There’s a REASON they said ARMS.

Regarding the “well-regulated militia,” well-regulated back then had a completely different meaning than it does now.

These quotes from here sums it up pretty well: ”

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.” The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the “whole body of the people.” and

 

“Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).

The above analysis leads us finally to the term “well regulated.” What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

Oh, and before anyone says civilians are no match for tanks, planes, etc: The Afghans and Vietnamese seemed to manage all right against them.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Posted June 19, 2016 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: