It seems that Democrats, who believe government has a role in protecting the public by creating regulation, are quite susceptible to the monster dog myth... It's fear, and unfamiliarity. It's easy to pass laws against groups that are marginaziled and stereotyped by a majority of people in a political constituency. It's disgusting being on the receiving end, because you see the ugly side of the political left, which liberal folks like you or I generally want to think of as "the good guys."
As for guns, I've moved over to a libertarian position there, of late. I believe in the first amendment with fervor, and if I feel that strongly about one item on the bill of rights, why don't I feel that way about item number two? The funny thing is that people don't want to even get that far and ponder it, they are quite content to skip from the first amendment right to the third. I'd generally consider myself to be liberal, but I'm increasingly distrustful of politicians that are so dismissive of any of our rights.
I do think that as a practical matter, banning the public's use of certain guns has had a positive public safety effect, such as in Britain. I would tentatively agree with the first part...there are and should be reasonable (and carefully considered) restrictions on all rights. For example, one's freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone. Restrictions on gun ownership need to be weighed against constitutional provisions, and also have some evidence to suggest that they'll actually make people safer, instead of just making them feel safer.
However, I've yet to see one bit of evidence demonstrating that gun control in the UK has produced any meaningful decrease in crime. In fact (while I'm not arguing this), just seeing the correlation with their rising violent crime rate might suggest the opposite effect. In either case, for or against gun control, I'm wary of international comparisons, because so many other factors come into play.
There is tremendous legal debate about the phrasing of the second amendment. I could highlight several decent perspectives from a "pro gun" side, but I'm sure you could find plenty yourself. Personally, while I think the constitutional scholarship is tremendously important, we usually don't even have to go that far...policy analysis and contemporary arguments make a good enough point, and SHOULD guide lawmaking.
no subject
It's fear, and unfamiliarity. It's easy to pass laws against groups that are marginaziled and stereotyped by a majority of people in a political constituency. It's disgusting being on the receiving end, because you see the ugly side of the political left, which liberal folks like you or I generally want to think of as "the good guys."
As for guns, I've moved over to a libertarian position there, of late. I believe in the first amendment with fervor, and if I feel that strongly about one item on the bill of rights, why don't I feel that way about item number two?
The funny thing is that people don't want to even get that far and ponder it, they are quite content to skip from the first amendment right to the third. I'd generally consider myself to be liberal, but I'm increasingly distrustful of politicians that are so dismissive of any of our rights.
Fitting with your libertarian position, here's an interesting article on the subject from Reason magazine:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html
I do think that as a practical matter, banning the public's use of certain guns has had a positive public safety effect, such as in Britain.
I would tentatively agree with the first part...there are and should be reasonable (and carefully considered) restrictions on all rights. For example, one's freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone. Restrictions on gun ownership need to be weighed against constitutional provisions, and also have some evidence to suggest that they'll actually make people safer, instead of just making them feel safer.
However, I've yet to see one bit of evidence demonstrating that gun control in the UK has produced any meaningful decrease in crime. In fact (while I'm not arguing this), just seeing the correlation with their rising violent crime rate might suggest the opposite effect. In either case, for or against gun control, I'm wary of international comparisons, because so many other factors come into play.
There is tremendous legal debate about the phrasing of the second amendment. I could highlight several decent perspectives from a "pro gun" side, but I'm sure you could find plenty yourself. Personally, while I think the constitutional scholarship is tremendously important, we usually don't even have to go that far...policy analysis and contemporary arguments make a good enough point, and SHOULD guide lawmaking.
While I don't think it's without flaws, Daniel Polsby's article about gun control from The Atlantic makes some solid observations:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199403/gun-control/2