What’s the penalty for “shooting under the influence ”
Document Actions
- Email this
- Write Editor
- Print this
- Feeds
- Discuss
- Font Size: A A A
-
-
I have one very small quibble with Ed Quillen's
article "Cold Dead Fingers" (HCN,
4/28/08). Mr. Quillen seems to conflate "rights" and
"responsibilities" in saying: "Owning a gun is more than a right;
it is also a responsibility. ..." (I have trouble thinking how a
right can be something more than a right in this sense. It seems to
me that if something is a right, then it's a right, nothing more
nor less, and that's an end of it.) While rights and
responsibilities are certainly linked, they are also certainly
distinct. We have a number of rights, each of which entails usually
several responsibilities. And any right can be abrogated if we fail
to fulfill the attendant responsibilities. For example, our right
to drive an automobile can be taken away if we fail to respect the
traffic laws, and our right to liberty can be taken away if we fail
to respect the laws concerning certain kinds of criminal behavior.
Why can we not treat the right to bear arms in the same way we treat the right to drive a car? Register the gun as we register the automobile (with make, model, serial number, etc.), require appropriate education, the passing of a proficiency examination to get a license for it, and perhaps insurance of some form. Make it all subject to renewal every five years or so, require appropriate documentation when ownership changes hands, and so on. And if one fails to fulfill the appropriate responsibilities -- i.e. breaks the laws regarding the use of such weapons -- then the right to bear that type of weapon can be rescinded, as can any other right as noted above. We already do all of this with automobiles, trucks, airplanes, motorcycles, boats, certain kinds of tools, and certain kinds of professions: doctors, lawyers, contractors, even barbers and hairdressers. Why not with weapons?
Michael Stroup
Waimanalo, Hawaii
Why can we not treat the right to bear arms in the same way we treat the right to drive a car? Register the gun as we register the automobile (with make, model, serial number, etc.), require appropriate education, the passing of a proficiency examination to get a license for it, and perhaps insurance of some form. Make it all subject to renewal every five years or so, require appropriate documentation when ownership changes hands, and so on. And if one fails to fulfill the appropriate responsibilities -- i.e. breaks the laws regarding the use of such weapons -- then the right to bear that type of weapon can be rescinded, as can any other right as noted above. We already do all of this with automobiles, trucks, airplanes, motorcycles, boats, certain kinds of tools, and certain kinds of professions: doctors, lawyers, contractors, even barbers and hairdressers. Why not with weapons?
Michael Stroup
Waimanalo, Hawaii
Owning a firearm is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving a car is a privelege. Therein lies the difference.
Shall we have anyone writing anything, whether it be an email, an old fashioned letter, a letter to the editor, a magazine article, or book obtain a license? How about commentators? Shall we require everyone who wishes to exercise their first amendment rights to get registered, have a license, get permits each time they wish to exercise the rights of speech, undergo training, get proficiency in the craft of speech, and require insurance on every instance of speech? I think not.
I love the West, and I'm an avid environmentalist... and I own firearms.