Kevin has an interesting debate with a guest poster about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. I suggest you go read it. (Each post has, at least, a link to the last, if you’d like to go to the beginning.)

I’d like to make a comment on a post by Alex (the guest poster/debater), titled “A few More Points“:

Straw Buyers and Large Volume Purchases

This dovetails off the first point. You cannot argue that, even if you interpret the 2nd to mean “any individual can own guns”, somehow the 2nd amendment prohibits placing a limit on how many guns a person can purchase at one time (or in a fixed time period like a month). Allowing someone, as in the case of Williams v Bemiller, MKS et. al, to purchase 87 guns, pay cash, and step aside to let his girlfriend fill out the papers, is not a “right” guaranteed under any provision of the constitution. You have the right to arms (under that interpretation) but not to an unlimited quantity of arms. Limiting the purchase of handguns to, for instance, 1 per month does not stop any lawful citizen from exercising their right to obtain arms. It also doesn’t preclude the collection of multiple arms, over time, or the assembly of a cache of weapons (I would argue that even under the “you have a right to arms” interpretation of the 2nd, it doesn’t guarantee that- but let’s say for the sake of argument that it does). All this does is remove the privilege of rapid assembly of, say, 87 Saturday Night Specials. Why not limit the number that can be purchased, since this case showed the damage one trafficker has on a population (10,000 traceable guns recovered in crimes from one dealer- that figure is truly stunning- how could they remain an authorized dealer?)

The case also demonstrated the willingness to look the other way for obvious straw men purchases. If the first point I made about the industry policing itself were followed, and the second point about the limits on numbers of weapon purchased within a time period, the straw man approach would become much less effective and, presumably far less prevalent. A panacea, no. But a start in the right direction, unquestionably.

Why the “industry” is required to obey the existing laws, I have no idea. Usually, when industries police themselves (see the motion picture rating system or the ESRB), it’s to discourage the government from passing laws. Once the laws are passed, it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce the law, not the industry’s.

That’s a minor point, though. The line that caught my eye was this one: “You have the right to arms (under that interpretation) but not to an unlimited quantity of arms.”

Now, let’s imagine the outcry if someone on the right said something similar: “Under the current Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, you have a right to an abortion, but not to an unlimited quantity of abortions.”

Somehow, I don’t think that’d go so well. What do you think?

Also, while I’m substituting links for real content, you should go read this post from Erica at Jewbavitcher:

But what makes me madder is THIS. Like Bec (who wrote a kick-*ss letter about this), I trick-or-treated with my UNICEF donation pushkes in tow. I brought in money to that damned organization. Like Bec, I thought the United Nations was an organization whose mission is for the good of all humanity, an organization “united” against poverty, “united” against war, “united” against genocide, and “united” against terrorism.
Turns out, the UN is also “united” against Israel ever being elected to a long list of UN bodies, including the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Labour Organization’s Governing Body.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.