This diary, as with so many on this site, began as a comment to this diary. Unfortunately, it became something of a drive-by (no pun intended), as the exigencies of life intruded on my desire for debate. And so, after a couple of days of thinking about it, I decided to pen these thoughts.
The first reply to the comment was this:
Your question is wrong. (7+ / 0-)
Rights aren't based on needs.
Why do you need to practice religion? Throughout the years, theism has caused more damage than firearms have (I'm looking at the worldview here).
Why do you need free speech?
Why do you need free press?
What do you need your 4th or 5th amendment rights (what's left of them)?
I disagree.
And that is what this diary is about. Follow me over the curlicue d'kos for more.
Rights are defined as a "moral, legal or ethical principle", and as such, those rights are either conferred or granted upon us as a people, and as individuals. Wither they are human, civil or simply those in the Bill or Rights, a right is granted to us. While this may anger people to put it in such bold terms, it is true. A State with no rights granted to its people is a terrible one indeed, and while the people may hunger for rights, without the granting of rights, they have none.
A need is something necessary; it may be necessary to life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness, but it is something craved, necessary and, again, granted. The granting of a need may or may not come from the state, but nonetheless, it is granted. A need for food is granted by having the wherewithal to obtain food; a need for air is granted by the availability of it.
So; are Rights actually Needs? Well, of course they are.
Look at the First Amendment: do we need Free Speech? It is necessary for us to live in a free society; without it, we cannot consider ourselves free, and thus stemming from that basic need, and basic right, come all others.
Do we need freedom of religion, and freedom from an established religion governing the Country? Do we need to be tried by a jury of our peers? Do we need to be protected from illegal search and seizure? Are there any rights granted in the Constitution that we do not need? (Ignoring those struck down or repealed, of course.)
And so, with this in mind, the question I framed in my comment is still pertinent:
Why do you need semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines?
The fact is you don't. Semi automatic weapons (for the sake of clarity, I will define it for myself here as weapons that do not need to be charged between shots, such as a hunting rifle would; YMMV) are of no use for hunting (I know of precisely zero hunters here in rural Missouri who use an AR or SK variant for hunting) and no use for serious target shooting. Indeed professional target shooters use exclusively single shot weapons (or did, at least; I must admit I am not sure what the current rules are, but it was not long ago that single-cartridge pistols and rifles were the standard in competition shooting.
I support the Right to keep and bear arms; it is there in the Constitution. Arguments about the operating clause, the meaning of "well regulated", the intent of the framers and so on can only serve to clarify and enforce whatever meaning and limits society deems necessary (as with all Constitutional Rights), but Rights are based on Needs, and, just as no one needs to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I do not believe that anyone can demonstrate a need for a weapon capable of firing as many times per minute as one can pull the trigger, nor a magazine capable of allowing such activity to continue for a long time.