Second Amendment meets a fine-tooth comb
A robust, 80-minute discussion helped to prove that any sort of mass agreement on gun ownership remains elusive.
“Guns and America: Exploring the Second Amendment,” an Oregon Humanities/Conversation Project open forum on Tuesday generated a respectable group of approximately 20 community members at MHCC.
Due to the controversial nature of the topic, there were many passionately held points of view represented, ranging from unrestricted pro-individual gun ownership, to regulated and responsible ownership, to complete abolishment of ownership.
It was quickly pointed out by the guest facilitator that there was no “easy or ‘right’ solution to the questions we ask today. What we are going to begin with is historical context and let the conversation evolve, just like the meaning of these words,” said Pancho Savery, professor of English and Humanities at Reed College.
Savery presented the Second Amendment debate both in a historical and semantic context. Original intent and liberal interpretation were discussed, from the original writing up to, and including, the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming Americans’ individual right to bear arms.
The varying viewpoints came alive through a good-natured and genuine questioning of each other’s reasoning.
Noting the intent of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution) was to protect against federal overreach – meeting force with equal force was questioned by the group, as was the use of drones and the right of the people to defend themselves against their own government.
One participant in the discussion asked, “Could it be that the reverence we hold for the Constitution, the almost holy regard of the document, hinders our progress?
“European nations who view their governments and founding documents as being much more plastic don’t seem to have these problems,” she said.
Perhaps one of the linchpin concepts raised, which most of the audience seemed to agree, was the idea that the price of freedom is, without question, responsibility.
“You cannot have the freedom to choose anything, let alone such potentially dangerous implements as firearms, without being willing to accept the responsibility that goes along with choosing such things,” was how the notion was voiced by one of the philosophy students present.
Overall, the hour-plus discussion was positive.
Although participants might not have made any decisions that greatly changed their beliefs, they came together and had the discussion. Compromise in America has come to mean choosing either no guns or no regulation – when, in reality, the compromise is somewhere in the middle and the only way to get there is to talk about it.
We have a God given right to defend ourselves. Our Constitution recognized that fact in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment uses the term “arms”, which would include knives, swords, bows and arrows and any number of other weapons that could be called arms. Elitists, progressives, etc. do not trust the ordinary people to defend themselves from their betters. The biggest loss of life in the last century was death by government of unarmed citizens (not including war casualties). The only thing controversial is heard from the left. Good post Phil.
Using your reasoning, Norm, your brother should have the right to own a small tactical nuclear warhead and tinker with it on the weekends? Or perhaps, your neighbor should drive an M1 Abrams Tank?
“The biggest loss of life in the last century was death by government of unarmed citizens (not including war casualties).” What do you define as war casualties? Your government, that is that of the United States, is the most directly responsible for the slaughter of people in the world in the last century, unquestionably.
Since the attacks on 9/11, in which the US lost ~ 4000 citizens, the US has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 204,000 foreign civilians…this is okay? Killing 51 times the number of our own losses? Way to value human life, ‘murica!
Seriously, if you don’t own the moral high ground, stop trying to take it.
I mentioned arms meaning more than just firearms and you jump to nuclear bombs. If you can afford one, a tank would be fun. By not including war casualties, I was not including soldiers killing soldiers or civilians accidentally being killed. What I was talking about is governments disarming their own citizens and then killing the ones they didn’t like. For example, Ottoman Turkey killed 1 to 1.5 Million Armenians (mostly Christians) between 1915 and 1917, Red China murdered 20 to 35 Million citizens 1949 to 1976, Uganda murdered 300,000 Christians and political enemies in 1971 to 1979. More people were killed by their governments than in all the wars–combined. And all these and many more were in countries that had removed all firearms from citizens.
” Overall, the hour-plus discussion was positive.” Yeah positive they want to push for more gun control.
The ‘participant that seems to like Europeon (yes that is an o for a reason) gun laws (pretty much hand them over) so much can go live in Europe, we got away from them for a reason and that reason wasn’t to become them at a later date.
Dave, the conversation was not positive that there needs to be more gun laws. All viewpoints were represented quite well, and fairly.
As far as your “participant that seems to like Europeon (yes that is an o for a reason) gun laws…,” such a person was not present. European gun laws in particular were not addressed. According to my interpretation of the quote it appears rather to be a general reflection on the attitude of the Europeans regarding their understanding of their right to change their laws as they see fit and not having such huge arguments as a result.
As far as your reason that we “got away from them,” you might want to do a little reading about that. I might also suggest not doing all of your study from an American-biased point of view, as there is a lot to be said for objectivity. Shoot to read all sides, then make an informed decision, rather than shooting from your hip.
LFL /yes participant was present and seems to think that we hold the the Constitution in some “almost holy regard of the document” and that the Europeons founding documents are much more plastic,in other words bent in anyway that suits their Kings or what ever. So if Participant doesn’t like our Constitution then Participant can go live under a plastic one.
As far as Europeon gun laws not being adressed they have one [1] no guns unless so granted. Enter der Kanonenstiefel.
“Could it be that the reverence we hold for the Constitution, the almost holy regard of the document, hinders our progress?
Most certainly. It hinders our progressive slide into totalitarianism.
You cannot point to ANY “Compromise” on the part of gun controllers that gives a single thing to gun owners that does not already exist.
In other words, it is the pro-firearm freedom people who are expected to “give and give and give” until there is not going to be anything left to give any more as a compromise.
You doubt me? Name one, just one, “compromise” from the left that they are willing to live with that gives the pro-gun side something that they don’t already have.
And name just one compromise that the pro-firearm community can/will give that we can be 100 percent assured of that ~this~ will be the ~last~ compromise the left asks for.
Once we all find out that any compromise we give now will have exactly NO effect on crime, crime rates, or killers killing people the pro-firearm people absolutely, 100 percent know for sure that the anti-gun left will be coming back for “more and more” because what they got before was as ineffective as we keep telling them that it will be.
You , sir are the epitome of why America is broken. Your idea of compromise is so seriously flawed. The fact that the “left,” which by your use I am assuming you to mean anyone that is not a Nationalist, is tolerating guns in our society (because they do share it with you, no matter how much you wish they didn’t) is their compromise. See many AMERICANS want no guns at all, and many AMERICANS want everyone to have guns, hence the compromise is that those AMERICANS who have proven their responsibility to own guns may choose to do so, and those who do not may choose not to own guns.
That’s how compromise works and that’s why it is beautiful.
America is not a democracy. It is a Republic ruled by law. When you say “those AMERICANS who have proven their responsibility to own guns may choose to do so” you assume there is a law that proves you are worthy of something. You may have to show that you are not a convicted felon to own and carry a firearm but you do not have to prove you meet someone’s responsibility test. If you do not want a gun, you do not have to have one. It is not a compromise–it is just your right as an American citizen to own and bear arms or not. Simple.
Here’s the rub…”AMERICANS who have proven their responsibility” And how would you in your wisdom go about declaring who is responsible? I think I know, but just want you to say it.
Amen to that.
Phil, is a totalitarian regime any less of a totalitarian regime if you simply call it democracy? Do you realize that in relation to the second amendment, if you advocate for personal ownership of firearms (such as in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) you are advocating for the “progressive” point of view? As a matter of fact, until the aforementioned 2008 case the 2nd Amendment was held to apply only to militias, and not to individual private citizens uninterrupted for nearly 225 years.
Are you actually free to exercise your rights just because a piece of 228 year old paper says that you can? Isn’t there something more that guarantees your rights? Something that you can point to and say this is where I get my rights from? If not, a nearly 228 year old piece of paper seems pretty flimsy in the face of such a hugely “oppressive” government no matter how fancy of a box it is placed in. The constitution always has only been and always will only ever be the placeholder of where your liberty is derived from–the consent of the governed.
A piece of paper doesn’t hold the government in check, the people are supposed to do that, but they seem awfully busy squabbling about what rights they are supposed to have instead of exercising those rights.
And how about the fact that this is the 2nd Amendment, and that the Founding Fathers, hallowed be their names, chose to place it behind your rights to free religion, speech, press, and assembly? We’ve had those rights ever so severely curtailed, but you don’t complain as loudly about those infinitely more productive and important rights? Why not? They are more of a safeguard for liberty than any other rights, which is why they came first.
Is it just me, or does this guy sound like the author? Damn hippies.
And you are absolutely right.