| |
|
home | board | compass
| prayer | eCard |
07/03/2002 Entry: "Putting my head above the parapet..."
It has been a most interesting day, but possibly the most draining so far. Today we had the "total mall experience", venturing into the fleshpots of Orlando to visit 2 'outlet' malls, and then the more upmarket "Florida Mall". It was a full afternoon and evening, and I'll admit that if never see another mall again, it will be too soon. (But we did find one or two bargains!)I've had a couple of conversations in the last day or two about the vexed issue of gun control here, and thought I would venture a comment or two -- with great hesitancy and in all humility of course ;o)
It's my understanding that those who are most vehement about 'the right to bear arms' do so on the basis of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. This , they say, is an historic right which has been built into US law since its foundation. If this right is removed, what guarantee is there that other rights will not also be taken away. Individual freedom must have priority over the government's tendency to interfere in people's lives.The 2nd Amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."As an outsider to the US it seems to me that this is a statement in which the second clause depends upon the first; that is, the right to bear arms arises from the need for a well-regulated militia. But though such a militia might have been a necessity 200 years ago, it is clearly not so today. The freedom of the US today is secured by the institutions of democracy, which include the various branches of law enforcement and the military might of the only remaining industrial superpower. To this, maybe naive Briton, the 2nd Amendment looks entirely irrelevant to the present circumstances.But I think there is a deeper issue which is just as important at home in Britain as it is here in the US, and that is the relationship between individual rights and collective responsibility. When should one be over-ruled by the other? What I mean is this. Those here who want to retain the right to keep a firearm sometimes use the argument that such a weapon is the most efficient means of personal protection. The 'bad guys' have them - I need them to defend myself. But it is also true that the free availability of firearms means that the 'bad guys' are much more likely to have guns than they are in a nation where gun controls are stricter (like good old Blighty, for example). So an individual who exercises the right to keep a gun might be making themself 'safer', but is participating in a system which increases the danger for other people. [The equivalent scenario in Britain might be the individual parental decision about whether to give their child the MMR vaccine. Giving the vaccine might expose the child to a measurable individual risk, but not giving the vaccine certainly increases the risk to the wider community.I've gone on long enough for one night - I'll add more tomorrow. For the sake of balance, do glance at the site of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Replies:
Gizz - I notice that they're wearing "long pants" with their smiles. Don't they know it's summer?!
Andrew - aw shucks! Glad you're enjoying it.
Posted by Richard @ 07/04/2002 02:28 AM CST
Richard - Your dispatches from my homeland are among the best I've read. Perhaps, even, the best since Tocqueville. (Don't let it go to your head.) - Andrew
Posted by Andrew Careaga @ 07/03/2002 08:38 PM CST
I would assume that the Corbins are enjoying their stay, judging by the smiles on the photo on the church website...!
www.skettymethodist.welshnet.co.uk
:o)
Posted by Gizz @ 07/03/2002 06:49 PM CST
