Clash of the Titans #1 (The Pick vs. Flare): Guns

Ladies and gentlemen, WYLFWT.com presents the first ever

Clash of the Titans
The Pick vs. FlareHolyMeteo

    Flare Time #13: I Disagree With Paul posted on April 8th proved one thing...We have two politically charged and excellent debaters. Those two oppositions are none other than FlareHolyMeteo & The Pick.

    Flare grew up with everything against him. Diagnosed with autism at the age of three, the doctors were almost ready to write him off. Then, he overcame the odds. Although, as you can imagine for anybody who was "different" as a child, school became for him became FlareHolyMeteo vs. The World. However, rather than bringing a gun to school and shooting everybody like some other kids do, he overcame the odds. He learned from that experience and is now at University of Illinois earning a degree in Atmospheric Sciences. This is while some of his former classmates that tortured him in school are presently pumping his gas. This 19 year old democrat participates in protests and is politically active on his campus. He also writes Flare Time here on WYLFWT.com

    The opposite, The Pick. The Pick has had to overcome many trials and tribulations in his life to be where he is today. That is, at the side of his wonderful wife and is working on his soon to be flourshing music career. He grew up in Illinois, but he did spend two years living in the Great State of Texas. School, much like Flare, was another game of The Pick taking on jerks who thought their shit didn't stink. He overcame all odds, and he stands here today to share his beliefs and viewpoints with the world. This 24 year old liberatarian is definitely one proud American

    So with this first edition of Clash of the Titans (The Pick vs. Flare #1), we bring our first debate. That debate will be about the 2nd amendment and guns.

We will first start off with The Pick's Opening Argument...

The issue of gun control is exclusively one of interpretation.  In the introduction of this topic, Richard mentioned the varied and contraversial methods of dealing with the gun problem, or more specifically, gun-related crimes.  The problem with most of these is, quite simply, that the assumption that those who engage in gun-related crime abide by all other laws.  In truth, there is little that can thwart a criminal with violent intent, especially in the most heinous crimes, such as the aforementioned Columbine shootings.  Simply having a hard time getting their hands on guns did not stop the gunmen in that scenario, nor would it stop anyone who has any degree of intent on causing the kind of mass carnage that results in the knee-jerk gun control laws.

At the very most, gun control laws and measures simply impede the criminally minded.  This has been effective in curbing crimes associated with flashes of rage or high emotions, but at the expense of the average American's freedoms.  Thankfully, gun control laws are by and large jurisdictional; for instance, if I didn't agree with the largely Democrat/Left-Wing gun politics of Illinois, I am free to relocate to the largely Republican/Right-Wing politics of Texas.  I personally favored the Texas gun law system when I lived there, and feel the nation would do a lot of good to adopt their manner of gun control (or lack thereof).  For those who have never been to Texas, or who are not familiar with their laws, it is fully legal to carry a loaded firearm on your person or in your vehicle, and obtaining a concealed-carry license is rather easy, provided you don't have a history of felony or violent crimes.

The thing that makes this system work so well is the "unknown" factor.  I've witnessed this system firsthand, and it works wonders.  The Texas mannerisms often associated with that great State are just as much politeness and "Southern Hospitality" as much as it was staying on the good side of those who might be toting firearms.  Indeed, a criminal would have to give much long, hard thought about doing any kind of crime, for the fear that an upright citizen would pull an iron off of their hip and put their criminal days to an end.  This was the case in homes, on the streets, even in places of business (I can still recall a true-blue cowboy with two revolvers on his belt walking into a gas station as I was walking out.  I can assure you there was nobody on either side of the counter that wanted to start any flak, and I'm sure the fellow tending the station had some kind of firearm in stow below the counter).

To tie back into the subject, this comparitive lawlessness was a very effective insurance against violent crimes, as they would likely end as quick as they started.  There was no need to control guns, as they effectively controlled themselves.  A similar situation is in place in Switzerland, where the rate of murder dropped drastically when it became law for every household to have a gun per their compulsory militia service.  Over there, it's not "do they have a gun?" as much as it is "they do have a gun," which has an historical significance; this policy all but derailed Nazi invasion during WWII.  Needless to say, only the brave and the foolhardy apply themselves to serious crime or invasion.

Conversely, in England, it is unlawful to own any type of firearm that produces more than 12 ft/lbs of energy, which is less than some airguns.  Over there, not only are the victims criminalized for defending themselves, but the criminals can commit the most preposterous gun-related crimes and get away with it, such as drive-by shootings on bicycles.

Constitutionally speaking, the Second Amendment calls for "a well-regulated milita" to ensure the protection of the people.  In those times, it was not the government's role to spoon-feed and lead by the hand those citizens who chose pacifism over freedom.  Indeed, Ben Franklin was quoted as saying "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  The intent of the Founding Fathers was to arm the people to keep their government from getting too powerful, a lesson hard-learned as a result of the tyranny of the British Empire.  Gun laws and restrictions are precisely counter-productive to this notion, as criminals will be using firearms against the innocent whether they're armed or not (another lesson courtesy of the Brits).  I concede, certain gun laws should remain in place, such as age restrictions and denials based on criminal history and mental competence, but as stated above, gun laws generally do more harm than good.

NOW FOR FLAREHOLYMETEO'S REBUTTAL

Personally, I used to think that banning almost all guns would be the best solution to the gun control problem. However, over the past year or so, I've realized that a HANDGUN may be necessary for protection, especially in high crime neighborhoods. However, I emphasize the word HANDGUN, as I do not mean that people should start wielding .50 caliber assault rifles with them on the streets. Personally, I like to walk on the street without having to fear being sniped by some lunatic every morning. I also condemn someone who owns 50 guns just for collection. We should put a limit as to how many guns one can own, as we don't need a mini-army coming out of someone's house! A 100 gun collection (especially if a majority of those are assault rifles or high-caliber handguns) is a threat to national security!

Now, as far as constitutional issues are concerned, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment only gives the right to bear arms for the formation of a well-regulated militia (which it has determined to be the National Guard). Most gun control laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. Also, the Pick cites quotes from our founding fathers that guns were necessary our freedoms. This surely held true in 1780, and even for a long time after, as the United States was still a small country with barely any military.Wielding a gun back then meant defending your country and property from criminals and outside invaders (War of 1812 anyone?) However, now that America has estabilished itself as a world superpower, it is no longer necessary for us to wield weapons for the creation of a militia, as the government has went over and beyond to do that for us. Now I only see owning a firearm for protection useful for people who live in high crime neighborhoods. My mother used to sleep with a loaded shotgun while my dad was in the Army and she lived in a not-so-nice neighborhood. No one robbed her house, I can tell you that much.

Now, why do some people advocate the ownership of military weapons? The answer is simple. Military weapons make lots of money for gun corporations. The NRA always advocates for nonexistent gun control because they are only representing the interests of big business. They know that the people that they cater to the most are the criminals, but they don't care as long as they get their dough.  Most common people that aren't paranoid of communists taking over their country (the site is made by the Orange and Blue Observer, and no I do not hint my opponent to be affilated with them in any way whatsoever), do not advocate the ownership of military-grade weapons to common civilians. They're just too dangerous for anybody not trained in how to use them and not disciplined in how they should be used for just casually wielding aound.

Now, as far as concealed carry laws are concerned, I would feel better if concealing firearms was illegal to begin with. If the person is armed, I'd rather know that he was armed beforehand then be caught by surprise if the person were to freak out and shoot me. I also think that no one should be able to carry out their firearms in public other than police officers. All carrying guns in public does for you is scare the living crap out of the other people. It also makes you a walking target for thieves who can then just shoot you down if you don't get to your gun on time. My point is, why should anyone have to carry a gun with them if there is no real danger? Just to look cool? Well, unlike the Texan scene that the Pick describes, most other societies are not like Bret Harte westerns and are civilized people that don't shoot each other at a whim. (Except Florida, where it is now legal to shoot someone if you even THINK they are going to attack you!) Even now, Florida has introduced into its House, along with a few other states (not IL), a bill that makes it legal to CARRY A LOADED GUN AT WORK. I wish I was joking.

Now, Pick, I end by asking the following question? What if the law that allows loaded guns at work was passed in Illinois? I'll tell you now, I've heard that your job position is very stressful as a job supervisor. If the government forces your workplace to allow guns into its workplace against its will and not in the interest of safety, would you feel safe as a supervisor that an employee could bring a LOADED gun to work. What if an employee does if this new law were passed? Do you want to go to work in a bullet-proof vest just to be able to not get killed by a lunatic on the job? I'm sorry, but I don't think people should just be toting around guns all over the place. I don't even know how people could even justify such a barbaric society. Guns should only be used for hunting and self-defense, not to scare the crap out of people.

Okay, now we head for the closing arguments/wrap-up. We start off with The Pick!

You pose a very interesting question at the end of your rebuttal.  After consideration, I feel that if carrying firearms were the order of the day, and I myself carried a firearm to work, I would consider the workplace an even playing field, in which case it would be my job to subdue any worker that got out of hand.  I suppose you could equate that to shooting, if a firearm was involved, but again I believe that those who pose the biggest threat to bringing a gun into work probably wouldn't wait around for a law to be passed.  Once again, I do not defend the use of a firearm in anger, or under the influence of anything that would impede your judgement, chemical or otherwise.  In this aspect, the aforementioned level playing field would be a necessity, not an option.  Also, in response to another point you made, I disagree with the cap on the amount of firearms you can own.  To me, this seems in direct opposition to court decisions which favor the constitutional rights of firearm owners.  Again, I must rely on my statement that any individual who wants to commit a firearm-related crime (in this case, arming a mob) is probably going to do so whether jurisdictional laws permit him to or not.

I was speaking to Richard about this topic yesterday, and I have concluded that we can probably all agree that an all-or-nothing approach to firearms simply cannot exist, the state of Texas notwithstanding.  In either case, the result would be lawlessness and bloodshed until social order was restored, which in the state of Texas took at least a good 50 years.  Once that system was in place, Texas became a hospitable place to live, but mainly because the people who migrated to Texas in the first place believed it to be worth living in, whether social order was present or not.

Conversely, my example of England would work just as poorly.  When a criminal can shoot someone and pedal away on a bicycle, it is a very stark example of a serious social problem.  I will say this, however.  Your comment on a well-regulated militia was quite aligned with Switzerland's gun-in-every-household situation that I cited.  Indeed, the reason there's a gun in every household is because Switzerland requires a mandatory service in the national militia.  However, in the both Switzerland and United States, the unfortunate thing about militias is their government sponsorship.  Anything outside of the Army National Guard is perceived as a fringe group that threatens the government, which makes them a target from both the Guard and the government.  While I heartily agree that any self-respecting militia should pose a threat to their government (as was their operative feature), the fact that the "well-regulated militia" the constitution refers to is regulated by the body they are defending the people against.  This effectively nullifies their purpose.  The Army National Guard still maintains the spirit of taking up arms to protect America, but they rely on the governing body for support.  The unfortunate thing is militias that remain true to the constitutional context of the second amendment are targeted by both the national militia and the government.  I have a real problem with this, because taking up arms and defending yourself from a tyrannical government shouldn't mean enlisting for service in that very government.

However, I understand that there really is no solution to the gun control problem.  While I personally would like to see far less gun control, I understand that an immediate implimentation of this idea would be disasterous in its results.  On the same token, banning firearms from the public at large would be equally disasterous. 

I know these last few paragraphs may have removed the wind from whatever sail I was using, but I must say that what the Founding Fathers said about liberty, freedom, and the right to bear arms still remains in context today.  In truth, our government has gotten way too big, and what little power the people have these days is more an insult to the constitution than a tribute to it.  This perversion of the spirit of the Founding Fathers can be seen in many issues these days, but it remains very evident in the issues of gun control.  The basic freedoms guaranteed to our forefathers should be upheld by our generation, but our concessions to our ever-growing government have all but sealed off the days when a man and his family were free to defend what is his, no matter where he lived or what circumstances he lived in.

AND FINALLY for Flare's closing argument!

I shall first respond that the Supreme Court has said that the right to bear arms is not absolute in many court cases:

On Concealed Weapons:
Robertson v. Baldwin (1897) Excerpt:
"the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282]  to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed weapons;"

There goes any refuting against conceal-and-carry laws.

On Illegal Firearms:
United States v. Miller (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Basically, the only ownership of weapons that is protected the ownership that provides for the common defense.

It's an issue for the states only:
United States v. Cruikshank (1875):
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Basically, this ruling says that, although the national government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, it becomes an unremunerated right under the Ninth Amendment, leaving the power to infringe to the States if they wish to do so.

Many of our other rights have had limits placed on them for the sake of security. I.e. you can't yell "bomb!" in a crowded theater unless there actually is one.

The next few parts have info from the Brady Campaign website. (http://www.bradycampaign.org) Now, as far as the effectiveness of gun control laws are concerned in preventing gun violence, they only seem marginally effective because those laws do not cover certain legal loopholes in them. For example, an adult cannot give a firearm to a juvenile. However, they do not have to keep them out of reach of them either. This loophole can cause a school shooting if the child gets a hold on the unsecured gun. There are proposed laws requiring that guns be kept out of reach of children (and makes the parents legally responsible if the child gets the gun and kills someone with it), but the pro-gun lobby opposes those laws. (Why shouldn't parents be held responsible?)

Another loophole:
Private collectors and internet dealers do not need to go through the Brady Law for firearms dealing (except in California). Many criminals prefer the Internet/Gun Show route so that they can legally buy a gun. The NRA opposes fixing this loophole, saying that it is bad for gun show business. However, in California, gun shows are as alive as ever.

Loophole through Juvenile Long Gun Law:
Juveniles can wield shotguns and rifles for hunting, as they very well should be able to. However, this law also allows them to wield assault rifles created before 1994 (when the ban on assault rifles started), because those are also considered long guns.

High-Capacity Ammo Loophole:
Any magazine with more than 10 bullets cannot be imported or domestically manufactured unless it was made before 1994. Well, guess what? The foreign markets dumped pre-1994 magazines into the country and created a big problem. Although it is illegal in most places to hunt with these types of magazines, the NRA supports having magazines of up to 100 bullets.

The 5-day period was a sunset provision:
Remember the 5-day waiting period? It expired in November of 1998 and has been replaced with a not nearly as effective "instant check" system. Therefore, many ineligible people have had bought firearms and used them. Of course, the NRA opposes reviving the 5-day waiting period. This, of course, has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. They just want to profit off of death.

In essence, gun laws would work better if the loopholes were closed. Also, don't believe what the NRA tells you about the Second Amendment. They take a part of it out of context so that they can feed the gun companies the gold they need to profit off of death.