RMSMC
URL: http://www.collegian.com/index.php/article/2011/01/012511_bowman
Current Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:17:56 -0600
Bowman: Guns, freedom and more guns
| 
Tools
Possibly Related
- I’ve had the time of my life, and Collegian, I owe it all to you May 7, 2012 | 11:07 am
- Start living the life you’ve built and dream big, graduates May 7, 2012 | 11:05 am
- Introducing the 2012-2013 Editorial staff and your new Editor in Chief May 6, 2012 | 10:37 pm
- What we do at the Collegian, we do for the CSU community May 6, 2012 | 10:35 pm
- Colorado State made the right decision expelling three football players involved in April 6 fight May 6, 2012 | 10:31 pm
Correction: The date referring to the Bill of Rights should be 1791 not 1751 as previously stated. The Collegian regrets this error.
I can confidently say that as young man living in America, I have never been in a situation where I look back and say “wow, good thing I had my gun.”
There is this antediluvian notion in this country that claims guns are a necessity for everyday life. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were adopted in 1791; it is now 2011.
The issue is this: The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in an era that we are so far removed from, it is ridiculous that we still abide by the same social norms that were accepted in the mid-18th century.
If folk from 1791 were present today, they would try to coax me into the idea that I had to marry in my teens to a girl detached from love, solely for economic and status advancement. And that I should find a plot of land and grow my own wealth, and instead of playing basketball, I should go fowling, angling, shooting or fencing.
I would tell such folk to go fly a kite. Unless that person were Ben Franklin, he had already done that…
“But Chadwick, it’s in the Constitution, so therefore it’s the American standard.” It’s not. We’re in a different time. Today, we tweet, abuse credit cards, watch “Man v. Food” and smoke marijuana, which my Grandma says “turns your brain into a sponge.”
The Second Amendment was necessary in its day. It has become irrelevant and far more detrimental to society than beneficial.
In the wake of the Tucson shootings, the on-going battle over gun control is again raging, and this is an opportunity for Democrats to take charge on legislation to restrict the access to the dangerous weapons.
Unfortunately, the red party-of-guns lives for the nostalgia of the day when you got on a horse and rode west to fend off bandits and foreign enemies, with a refined, yet pleasantly voluptuous and promiscuous lass you met at a saloon in St. Louis.
The reality is, with gun laws as lackadaisical as they are, we now have East St. Louis, which a prominent professor of this university claims should be declared a “disaster zone” due to its crime rates, poverty and history of violence.
Estimates from justfacts.com say that in 2010, roughly 47-53 million American households own a gun or 40 percent of the population. Of those gun owners, a Gallup poll reports that the reason they own a gun is to protect themselves against crime, the second reason is to use at the shooting range.
Some Republican lawmakers came out claiming that if there had been more guns at the supermarket in Tucson, the situation would have had a better outcome. No. This conviction is an utter malign belief and is highly counter-intuitive. Unless Jason Bourne was in Safeway that day, chances are those rip-roaring gun advocates would be so anxious to pop off rounds that the final outcome would have been not only more innocent by-standers shot, but most likely everyone who had a gun drawn. Point being: amid the chaos and calamity, how is Jared Loughner going to be differentiated as
the bad guy?
The logical concept is to separate everyone from their guns. Guns are a dead, obsolete technology.
“But Chadwick, I want my guns to shoot animals!” Wow. Okay, Elmer.
The Democrats need to do what is right in this situation. This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people, even when it is not the popular choice. The leadership roles that Congress and the President have taken oaths to uphold need to make decisions that are blatantly and obviously the correct ones, which will make for a safer country. A safer country, even when many citizens do not have the intellectual abilities to understand that it is the safest choice for them.
Editorial Editor Chadwick Bowman is a senior Sociology and Journalism major. His column appears Tuesdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.
Poll
Who of the following is not on the Board of Governors?
167 comments
1751? We adopted the 2nd amendment before the revolution? And it was no typo you repeated it 3 times. What a poorly written and thought out article. Try looking at different aspects of a discussion and not just assume that your shallow poorly researched idea is the only viable option.
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana (who was NOT born in “1751”), you idiot.
Quote from the article: “…roughly 47-53 million American households own a gun or 40 percent of the population.”
So all these American households either own a gun or they own 40 percent of the population? And this guy is a journalism major? No wonder so many people have turned to blogs and other news sources… our college-educated journalists can’t even turn out a coherent sentence, much less a coherent opinion piece.
Hey Chadwick, how do you propose to “force legislation on the people,” when it would clearly violate our constitutional protections from government? Don’t you suppose you might need to amend the Constitution first? (Or are you like Cheney and Rumsfield, with the view that such a pesky document should not stand in the way of your agenda?)
BTW, I think it would be difficult to come across as more elitist even if you were trying. You’re not going to reach many people with that attitude…
You sir are a complete moron…. 1751?
You are the exact problem with liberals, always claiming to be empathetic and compassionate but at the same time incapable of understanding the other party’s position. You do not have to agree, but this country was founded on the premise of individual liberty and freedom. Being able to own a gun has been a part of that since 12/15/1791. You don’t like it, bring it up with the supreme court like everyone else. D.C. vs. Heller was pretty clear on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, regardless of your libtard feelings.
I have never owned a gun, shot a gun, held a gun…. but I understand our Constitution because I have read it and understand the implications it has on our liberty.
Great article. The “1751” was mentioned once in error (not 3 times like these blowhards claim) and the rest of the message is clearly articulated, but could easily blow the minds of these ultra-conservative trolls who have somehow managed to have the time all day, every day to comment on college newspapers.
Wow. This sentence clears all doubt. You actually believe that the world should be run by the “smart” people (like you). All of the ignorant “normal” people should just get in line and do as they are told. Maybe you support reeducation camps for the “fools” that disagree with your enlightened viewpoints. Or perhaps a benevolent dictator is what you crave.
Again, wow.
Actually the 1751 was mentioned twice, Trevor.
This is not the best argued article. You mock your opponents (creating a straw man fallacy) and put poorly thought out arguments into their mouths so it makes it easier to try and pass off your opinion as something better. It’s a shame that this piece made it past the editor to be honest (not because of your view but because of your execution of the article; seriously, 1751?) The fact is guns are not dead, obsolete technology. The government will never remove guns from the military and from law enforcement so are you seriously arguing for the stance of “only the people in control should be allowed to have guns”?
If the 2nd amendment is so obsolete because it was written in a different time, what other amendments in the Bill of Rights are obsolete?
Yep! Grandma was right — sponge.
He’s trolling. If his writing and arguments were really this awful then CSU owes him a refund.
1751 ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?
You are a very uniformed, very opinionated person, this I know. You say guns at Tuscon wouldn’t be a good thing? Let’s look at Virginia Tech. A gun-free zone. First, let me get this into your head. If we make laws banning guns or restricting guns heavily, do you REALLY think that CRIMINALS will obey this law? With that in mind, back to VT. A killer, on a rampage, with no motive, and NO ONE to stop him. Had a student, or even a SECURITY guard had a concealed carry, this tragedy may have been averted, if not cut down significantly on the amount of deaths that occurred. Little did you know, or FAILED TO MENTION, that the two men who tackled the suspect in Tuscon, had concealed carries. They chose not to use them because they had the smarts to realize if law enforcement HAD shown up when they were trying to take down the shooter, the police may have mistaken either of the two men for being the gunman. These fine American citizens had the smarts to keep their guns from use during this incident. Referencing MOVIES to this article?? You need to turn off your TV for a few. You don’t have to be Jason Bourne to aim a gun properly. One shot is all it takes to take a shooter out. Obviously, you are a indoor person who probably eats McDonalds and Subway everyday. My family hunts for sport as well as food. The fact that you even refer to Elmer Fudd in that way is very offensive and I’m surprised that the lackadaisical crew at the Collegian allowed you to say that. You are obviously very liberal and decide to write an article without looking at both sides of the story or doing research before reporting for that matter. Yes, it’s a tragedy. But I feel SAFER on CSU’s campus knowing that a few students are packing (including me) concealed carries and may potentially avert or stop a tragedy such a shooting by a rampant gunman. Remember the students at CSU had the concealed carry ban REPEALED. So again, you are very uniformed on what people think. Criminals do not care about the law, so removing guns from society would give criminals with them free will to blast until they law enforcement shows up (which with doing research, is an average of eight to ten minutes), and by then many lives will be lost. Forcing legislation upon the people are you high (yes, you probably are)? That’s called socialism, not democracy. One of the reasons this country is the greatest is BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE THINGS FORCED UPON US. Guns are a dead obsolete technology? Say that to the MILLIONS of veterans who fought (and continue to do so) and DIED so that they could protect the constitution. That SAME constitution also gives YOU the right to your opinion and the RIGHT to express it. I think you owe them a little gratitude. I am ashamed to call you a fellow student. You separate everyone from guns and I hope you never are involved in something as tragic as Tuscon. Me? I’ll FIGHT to keep my CONSTITUTIONAL right. You don’t like it? Move to Canada. Get a haircut, hippie. And get real research, not “justfacts.com”. (Ever used the catalogs in CSU’s Library, you should have, you’re a “journalism” major).
“A safer country, even when many citizens do not have the intellectual abilities to understand that it is the safest choice for them.”
Sir, in light of your gross historical, grammatical, and logical errors, you are in no position to be insulting the intellectual abilities of other people. It is for the same reason you hold no authority to dictate how other people should live.
“This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people, even when it is not the popular choice. “
Golly gee! A call for tyranny.
“The logical concept is to separate everyone from their guns.”
How are you going to do that? Oh, you’ll have to send men with guns to take away the guns from men. Brilliant! Oh wait – your men with guns are outnumbered by the other men with guns….by about 100 to 1.
“Guns are a dead, obsolete technology.”
Actually, we are now living in a golden age of guns, in which many dramatic improvements are being made to the size, weight, magazine capacity, accuracy, reliability, safety, power, and other features of firearms.
Props to Patriot Henry.
“Sick or violent people will find a way to kill others with or without guns. Murder and assault do not require an automatic weapon – pretty sure that has been going on long before there were more than rocks and sticks for to do the killin’ with. That renders his argument pointless….”
A good point from a friend of mine.
Trevor: Great article. The “1751” was mentioned once in error (not 3 times like these blowhards claim)
1. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were adopted in 1751; it is now 2011
2. If folk from 1751 were present today,
3. it is ridiculous that we still abide by the same social norms that were accepted in the mid-18th century
I know it may be hard to find that last one in this mess. But mid-18th century is clearly aimed at the 1751 reference. By no stretch of the imagination could you connect that statement to the correct date.
Hi, Chadwick. I’m afraid my reply to your little screed would violate The Collegian’s policy barring comments of an “overly offensive, off topic, derrogatory [sic—boy, this paper is run by geniuses] or unnecessarily cruel in nature,” so I replied here: http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2011/01/future-looks-dim.html
Care to respond?
Response to this article: What a batch of “after- dinner hooey” Mr. Bowman has written. It reads like a parody of a know-nothing leftist diatribe. Mr. Bowman sees no reason to own a gun; therefore let’s chuck the 2nd Amendment and forbid everyone from owning one. No small leap in logic there. The Constitution is not a “social norm” Mr. Bowman. It isn’t some dusty document which we merely admire. it is in fact the Supreme Law of the Land, right this minute. Look it up sometime. And our constitutional rights, particularly those contained in the Bill of Rights, cannot be legislated away. That isn’t how the law works.
The U.S. Supreme Court exists to make sure that our constitutional rights are protected from comically self-aggrandizing, sophomoric types like Mr. Bowman, who imagine that they are among “the smartest, most intuitive citizens.” No, the smart people would actually be the ones who are sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, making sure that Mr. Bowman never gets his way. Apparently he is unaware of the fact that the Supreme Court has been slapping down legislation that encroaches upon the 2nd Amendment right and left lately, just like swatting flies. Exactly like swatting flies as a matter of fact, metaphorically as well as legally.So go right ahead and lobby for gun control legislation Mr. Bowman. Knock yourself out. That’s a good little time-waste, busy-work project for oblivious lefties to throw themselves into. Seeing as how it’s going to meet up with a legal brick wall.
What columns like this fail to consider is reality. Firearms are no more inherently dangerous than any other inert object. I wonder if Bowflex thinks ownership of knives leads to stabbings, cars to vehicular homicide and hydrogen to nuclear detonations. So sad this what higher education leads to, they do well enough on higher, but so poorly on education.
First of all, I must say that I was appalled at how poorly written the article ”Guns, freedom and more guns” was. Mr. Bowman’s grammar and sentence structure were clumsy and confusing, and the article is riddled with factual errors and flawed logic. Regardless of which side of this issue you agree with, I would sincerely hope there are those who can present a better argument than this. I thought the Collegian had higher standards.
The first ten amendments to the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, not 1751. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not meant to be “social norms”, they are meant to protect our freedoms. Everything in these documents is what defines us as a nation and sets us apart. Throwing even one Amendment out because Bowman feels it is an “antediluvian notion” would not only rob us of our freedom to protect ourselves and our families, but would also set a precedent that could be used to strip us of other freedoms.
The claim that the Second Amendment is “far more detrimental to society than beneficial” is totally unsubstantiated. A claim like this one should be followed by solid evidence. Instead, Bowman points fingers and starts name-calling. Instead of mentioning how many Americans own guns, why not take a look at facts concerning how many crimes are prevented by the presence of a gun? In the U.S., a gun is used to prevent a violent crime as many as 2.5 million times each year (americanfirearms.org).
Bowman doesn’t even mention the dilemma of removing all of those “obsolete” guns from our military or police forces.
As a Wildlife Biology major, I was particularly offended by Mr. Bowman’s jab at hunters. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (and every Wildlife Management textbook I have ever seen), “Hunting is an important tool for wildlife management. Hunting gives resource managers a valuable tool to control populations of some species that might otherwise exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other wildlife species, and in some instances, that of human health and safety.” Guns are the most logical, most effective tools for hunting. Name-calling still doesn’t win arguments, Mr. Bowman.
Finally, I think Benjamin Franklin already did an excellent job of addressing Bowman’s idea of the “safest choice”: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
looking forward to you personally separating any one individual from his or her firearms. best of luck.
Just WOW!!
I mean really, to put forth the idea of the Constitution to be out of date.
If that’s what you think, than I support the elimination of the 1A so that we don’t have to submit to such poorly written articles as this, from an alleged Journalism student. No wonder the education system sux.
Mr. Bowman:
I have read with interest your opinions on gun ownership and the Second Amendment and, typos aside, I must assert to you that you are dead wrong. Even a cursory study of history will reveal what happens to a population in which the government has a monopoly on force. Worse, you have to look no farther than Canada to observe what absurdities take place when the right to self-defense is eliminated. I know, I know, I can already hear your protestations about the need for a gun for self-defense. I must ask; do you consider a fight between a 120 pound woman and a 220 pound rapist a fair one? How about one between a 200 pound 80 year old man and a 130 pound mugger?
Before you close your mind completely, I respectfully request that you read Jeffrey Snyder’s essay “A Nation of Cowards”. It can be found at http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
and is worth consideration for a thinking man.
Not sure about this one. He starts off with the idea that the 2nd A is out of date. He never ventures into WHY it is out of date other than talking about his favorite social networking apps and the fact that he smokes pot and uses credit cards. None of those items relate directly to any amendment in the constitution. It is also funny that he uses an illegal activity (like smoking pot) to say that something else (having a gun) should become illegal… Please find logic before you get into writing about the news of day in the real world.
With that said, there is a way to get rid of guns or at least make them illegal. It’s called a constitutional amendment that repeals the second amendment. I know you are calling on politicians to create laws banning items you do not like to the point of allowing them to do so by ignoring the constitution what happens when they start on the first amendment?
You also note that they should do so stating (excuse his English here as this isn’t a sentence but I understand where he is going):
“The leadership roles that Congress and the President have taken oaths to uphold need to make decisions that are blatantly and obviously the correct ones…”
They never have taken oaths to upload leadership roles…
They swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. i understand that as a Sociology and Journalism student you may have never taken such an oath nor may you have an oath you hold as a solemn oath to fulfill, but even if they (the politicians) agree with you about this they have the DUTY to do it correctly (meaning an amendment) which they wont do.
You then state:
“This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people”
FORCE legislation upon the people. The greatness of this country is that politicians are representatives of the people. Not dictators or monarchs. They do not have the authority to force anything on the people that infringes on pre-existing rights. And if they do, there are remedies for that by voting them out and reversing the “laws”.
The 2nd A was placed in the constitution incase the government did begin FORCING things on the population. Don’t believe? how about hearing from the man that put the amendment in?
James Madison:
“the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
“to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
Well if you’re going to take the time to correct errors in dates why not take it a step further and correct other facts? How about this gem?
“Chadwick: The reality is, with gun laws as lackadaisical as they are, we now have East St. Louis, which a prominent professor of this university claims should be declared a “disaster zone” due to its crime rates, poverty and history of violence”
“Truth: East St. Louis, being in Illinois, effectively makes responsibility for one’s own security outside the home is illegal, because Illinois law forbids the carrying of defensive firearms, either openly or concealed, in public.”
How about just a general review of the article from the editors? Chadwick is certainly entitled to his view but this lacks even basic critical thinking skills. Almost every line in this mess is provably wrong and lack cohesive thought. Some of the lines don’t even make sense.
“This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people, even when it is not the popular choice”
And what is a society where an “elite” FORCE the rest to follow them – FACIST.
Thats right, scratch a liberal, you’ll find a wannabe little tyrant.
Get this bub – try that on us and you’ll wish you had a gun.
you little twit
Comments are closed for this item.
Dave
Flag this comment