A reply to Jonathan Wallace's Some Gripes
By Bob Wilson
If the gun-phobic crowd doesn't effect a Constitutional change, then I will continue to have my guns, and will live in relative safety (relative to New York, where private ownership of guns is highly restricted) and Mr. Wallace will live in the city where only the police and the criminals have guns. He, and his neighbors alike will continue to be sacrificial lambs--easy picking for the criminals, and I won't. The crime problem is not the fault of the guns. I really don't care to find a "middle ground" which, of course means a restriction of my rights to self protection with a fire arm, so that Mr. Wallace can attempt to solve his perceived problem with random gun fire by criminals in New York City. There is no relationship between the abundance of firearms, and the propensity for criminals to fire them in an urban environment, thus endangering the public. If there were, then bullets would be whizzing by me at this time, because I live in a city where open, and concealed carry of firearms is perfectly common and legal... How come we don't have the problem Mr. Wallace says exists in New York, where ownership is virtually outlawed? He will not respond to that "paradox." Mr. Wallace, like most liberal folks, does not understand "cause and effect." If, as Mr. Wallace continues to plead, there must be a "middle ground" of compromise regarding the constitutional right of Americans to own guns, and his freedom to not be threatened by criminals firing guns in the middle of an urban area, then what other parts of the onstitution should be open to "middle ground" compromise?.
How about a "middle ground" between his right to speak his mind, and my freedom not to be subjected to his irrationality? Perhaps he should only be limited to speech on alternate Tuesdays, and only in a confined area...subject to supervision by a government authority, and of course, a license. That would be a "middle ground" compromise. (Equally as absurd as his proposals regarding my rights to gun ownership.)
The Constitution exists to be a benchmark for laws. Few people, even we NRA "gun nuts" would seriously argue that some gun laws are not necessary. Many local gun restrictions however, would not stand a true Constitutional test as it is now. Those areas plagued with the most serious gun crime problems are the ones with the most "laws" against private ownership of guns.
Admittedly, the framers never envisioned a society so corrupt that the freedom to own guns by law abiding citizens would even be questioned. Drug abuse, lax punishment for serious crime, and a general tolerance for what the framers would undoubtedly call immoral and degenerate behavior was not a circumstance the nations founders had imagined. Had they envisioned this late 20th century phenomenon however, I doubt that they would suggest a solution be to restrict the lawful citizens right to bear arms.
Mr. Wallace continues to consider that it is the guns which cause the crimes... Until,(and it will never happen) Mr. Wallace understands "cause and effect" he will simply never get it.
We have been over this so many times I don't feel the need to say very much; interested parties can check out the gun issue of the Spectacle.
Bob makes two serious errors that warrant attention though. As I have repeatedly made clear, most recently in the "Gripes" article, the amount of crime in cities with gun control laws may have as its primary cause urban social tensions, but it is Bob's next door neighbor who actually supplies the guns. It is shameful to use the profound irresponsibility of your neighbor the gun dealer as an argument that gun control laws don't work in my city.
Secondly, what the Constitution says is very different from what Bob believes it does; check out my article on this topic from the above-referenced gun issue.