![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Before we get started I'd like to separate this point I'm trying to make from the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. That's a specific tragedy that more accurately seems to be a result of a terrible law than the entire Second Amendment, and as a result I want to make it clear that I'm not referring to this. Since I have young nephews who live in Florida I am sure I will at some point, but not tonight.
Anyway these past few weeks or so I've noticed a few news stories in which people have had weapons in their possession while acting in ways that in general make me question their emotional and mental stability. In early February I posted a news article in which a Florida man forced a tourist off the road while claiming to be a member of law enforcement because he didn't like his driving, and today I saw a very disturbing video on the news in which a man confronts a news crew in front of a house (not his own), and when they don't leave, goes to his truck and grabs a handgun to make them leave the public street there were on.
Thankfully in both cases no shots were fired and no one died. However, I just read this story from Michigan where lawmakers are considering allowing "highly trained" individuals to carry concealed weapons into churches, schools, and sport arenas, places I would argue are no place for weapons. I've posted the link below for anyone to read but perhaps needless to say, I'm rather concerned about any mixture of beer and bullets at sporting events, and schools are beyond my comprehension.
Now I would also like to make clear that I am not anti gun. I understand, accept, concede, and surrender to the idea that there is a legitimate place for lawful citizens to own and use guns in sport, agriculture, hunting, and yes, unfortunately, even self defence. What I do not understand is the spirit of the Second Amendment as it is seen today and I would love it if someone, especially a constitutional scholar, could answer just a few simple questions:
1. Does the Second Amendment require people to use their weapons with intelligence and discretion, or is it a right without responsibility? If it presumes that people must act responsibly with their weapons then what sanctions are there for those who don't outside of the criminal justice system?
2. For individuals who have shown a history of rash, hot headed, ill considered behaviour does their right to bear arms trump the right of the majority of citizens to be protected from being threatened, injured or killed?
3. Can the Second Amendment be amended to require proficiency tests, health checkups, and random drug testing for gun owners? Considering pilot licenses, employment, and even welfare benefits sometimes require this I think its a fair question.
Anyway, those are my questions. I doubt they'll be answered, but they are out there.
Michigan story:
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/22/lawmakers-propose-changes-to-michigan-concealed-weapons-law/?hpt=us_bn6
Anyway these past few weeks or so I've noticed a few news stories in which people have had weapons in their possession while acting in ways that in general make me question their emotional and mental stability. In early February I posted a news article in which a Florida man forced a tourist off the road while claiming to be a member of law enforcement because he didn't like his driving, and today I saw a very disturbing video on the news in which a man confronts a news crew in front of a house (not his own), and when they don't leave, goes to his truck and grabs a handgun to make them leave the public street there were on.
Thankfully in both cases no shots were fired and no one died. However, I just read this story from Michigan where lawmakers are considering allowing "highly trained" individuals to carry concealed weapons into churches, schools, and sport arenas, places I would argue are no place for weapons. I've posted the link below for anyone to read but perhaps needless to say, I'm rather concerned about any mixture of beer and bullets at sporting events, and schools are beyond my comprehension.
Now I would also like to make clear that I am not anti gun. I understand, accept, concede, and surrender to the idea that there is a legitimate place for lawful citizens to own and use guns in sport, agriculture, hunting, and yes, unfortunately, even self defence. What I do not understand is the spirit of the Second Amendment as it is seen today and I would love it if someone, especially a constitutional scholar, could answer just a few simple questions:
1. Does the Second Amendment require people to use their weapons with intelligence and discretion, or is it a right without responsibility? If it presumes that people must act responsibly with their weapons then what sanctions are there for those who don't outside of the criminal justice system?
2. For individuals who have shown a history of rash, hot headed, ill considered behaviour does their right to bear arms trump the right of the majority of citizens to be protected from being threatened, injured or killed?
3. Can the Second Amendment be amended to require proficiency tests, health checkups, and random drug testing for gun owners? Considering pilot licenses, employment, and even welfare benefits sometimes require this I think its a fair question.
Anyway, those are my questions. I doubt they'll be answered, but they are out there.
Michigan story:
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/22/lawmakers-propose-changes-to-michigan-concealed-weapons-law/?hpt=us_bn6
