Skip to content

Upcoming Target Return

Thursday, 26 June 2008

In what must have been motivated by desired favourable decision in the handgun case, Beernut was given this as a birthday gift:


Today’s 5-4 decision understands the Second Amendment as protecting the right for individuals to own firearms. If it’s been a while since your last US Constitution class, let me remind you that the Second Amendment states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Until this most recent decision, the right has been seen as a collective one. Today, the majority of the justices severed the rights of the individual from the rights of a militia.

I am not keen on the idea that any individual can walk around packing heat. Doesn’t make me feel comfortable and it certainly doesn’t make me feel safe. As a Jew, I find hunting inhumane and reprehensible. The idea of causing pain to an animal for sport goes against our teachings. As for self-defense, statistics support the idea that people are more likely to be injured when they attempt to take the law into their own hands. And the injured are not always the perpetrators.

The decision did not give carte blanche to gun owners. Felons are not permitted to own guns. Assault weapons and sawed-off shotguns remain illegal. But why did the Court strike down the trigger-lock requirement? I cannot begin to understand how the Second Amendment advocates have difficulty with a safety feature??

Guns kill. The cliche that “guns don’t kill, people kill” makes about as much sense as saying “nuclear warheads don’t kill, people kill.” The purpose of a gun is to harm. To maim. To kill.

“But it’s just a toy.” “It doesn’t even look real.” “Come on, it’s just a squirt gun.”

I’ve heard them all. And you know what? Too bad. It isn’t JUST a toy. And it doesn’t matter that it isn’t real. And a squirt gun is still mimicing a GUN. There is nothing fun about shooting someone.

And it’s my house and my kids. And we have should have the right to determine which toys are appropriate and which are not in keeping with our values.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. Keara permalink
    Thursday, 26 June 2008 11:26 pm


  2. Friday, 27 June 2008 4:10 pm

    I do believe you guys are in agreement…

  3. Sunday, 29 June 2008 9:21 pm


    I grew up playing with toy guns and have never owned one or gone on any sort of shooting rampage. Water balloons yes, guns no.

  4. Jockbro permalink
    Tuesday, 1 July 2008 8:39 am

    The reason why trigger locks are problematic is because the NRA is the most powerful lobbying entity in Washington. And they feel that any regulations whatsoever are the first step down a slippery slope to the eventual eradication of firearms in America. If you read the comments made by Wayne LaPierre (NRA Executive VP) in the aftermath of the 5-4 decision you would be shocked to learn that he sees this as only the beginning. The NRA feels that the gun industry is far too regulated and that just about any law impacting gun ownership is unjustified.

  5. Wednesday, 2 July 2008 3:29 pm

    On this, I feel we may have to agree to disagree. I’m with you on needing trigger locks; Hubby and I had an argument about that when he was a police officer – he needed to keep his gun available at all times, he felt, since there was a police unit in our front yard. I felt that, even though the police unit might attract some attention, trigger locks needed to be on his guns at all times, and they needed to be in locked gun cases or a safe whenever home.

    However, non-realistic looking squirt guns never made me want to blow another human being away with a real gun. As a child, I just thought of them as more easily portable hoses. I played with squirt guns of all types as a child (okay, I think I may even still have a super soaker or two somewhere in the garage), and I have yet to commit any acts of violence.

  6. Frume Sarah permalink
    Wednesday, 2 July 2008 5:49 pm

    For the record, JockBro studied with Jens Ludwig while in grad school (Georgetown). Dr. Ludwig, now of the University of Chicago, is a leading authority on public policies related to gun violence and crime. So he isn’t just blowing smoke — he actually knows his stuff!

    I can appreciate the NRA’s position from an emotional standpoint. When one fears his or her rights are being encroached, it is a gut reaction to resist any and all attempts to control said rights. From a purely cerebral position, however, that is just a ridiculous arguement. “Because we are afraid that the firearm industry is becoming too regulated, we support throwing all common sense to the wind and have zero standards.” Does that make sense to YOU?

    As for Jack and Channah, give me some credit. I am not suggesting that a kid toting a neon-green water gun is going to grow up to become front page news for going postal on his or her college campus. (Though come to think of it, I am reminded of a 1985 family vacation to Vermont where ActBro’s obviously-not-a-real-gun-but-a-water-gun was confiscated by airport security at the Burlington International Airport…ironically after making it through the security at LAX with NO PROBLEM!).

    My problem is this; I don’t think that shooting someone should be a game. Even though it is make-believe. Something about it just feels wrong. Kids shoot guns every day somewhere in the world and kids die as a result. And it’s not a game. And though my kids think I don’t understand that it’s just a game, I can’t find a way to be comfortable with it. Because ultimately I don’t feel that it’s a game…

What's On Your Mind??

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: