[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Randy Arabie wrote:
> On Monday,  2 December 2002 at 14:40:14 -0700, grant <grant at amadensor.com> wrote:
>
> <--SNIP-->
>
> > I look at it like a car.  Check their background (you can't get a license
> > with too many tickets).  Make them take a proficiency test, and let things
> > go from there.  Safest possible solution.
>
> But one must remember that we have a 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.
> There is no corresponding right to own or operate a vehicle.  A vehicle
> operators license is a privledge granted by the issuing state.  The
> firearm <--> car analogy is used often, but isn't really applicable.
> Background checks or proficiency exams are not required before one can
> exercise thier right to free speech or to practice religion.

Yes, but you need to remember that we have limits on other rights.

The 1st Amendment rights, for example, are not absolute. You cannot
yell "fire" in a crowded theatre without fear of prosecution. You cannot
publish child pornography and call it "free speech." Well, you can but
you'll find yourself in jail pretty quickly.

There are already restrictions on owning "arms." I don't believe that
you or I can legally own a rocket launcher, nor rapid-fire machine guns
or a fully-equipped Harrier Jet. A background check would not interfere
with one's legal right to bear arms because the 2nd Amendment says
nothing about a right to immediate access to purchasing a specific
type of firearm.

Insistence on this absolute right to own any kind of weapon without
any regulation is one of the reasons why there's a negative stereotype
for gun owners. It's just as unreasonable a position as the position
that guns should be outlawed, regardless of your interpretation of
the 2nd Amendment.

Zonker
--
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/