2nd Amendment Upheld

russ_watters

I asked the questions before and no one answered:

1. Is such a thing possible in the modern world, with modern weaponry? [see below]
2. Is such a thing necessary in a country with an all-volunteer, ordinary citizen military?
3. Is such a thing necessary in a country where you essentially have a revolution every decade or so anyway? What good is a 30-06 against a B-52 or an M1-A1? The Vietnam war would have been very different had the North not been armed externally by the USSR. All the same, it is estimated on the low end that about 1.5 million Vietnamese died in that war.

Whether regular army or just a citizen militia, it works the same: you can resist until you are dead. So what kind of conflict are you expecting that would require millions of ordinary citizens to die?

turbo

As the US military knows, the enemy can force you to fight on their terms. A dedicated force with scoped high-power rifles can deny the streets and roads to soldiers that are not confined in armored vehicles. If you are a roof gunner in a Humvee, you would not last long with such sharpshooters hiding in the woods along the road.

No good at all. Nor would B-52's and M1-A1s be useful in detecting and neutralizing sharpshooters.


I am not expecting such a conflict, in part due to the deterrence posed by an armed citizenry. Still it is better to be aware and prepared. Remember, this country tore itself apart 150 years ago, and there is no guarantee that it cannot happen again.

russ_watters

Really? You don't think the 2500 miles of oceans on either side and the biggest navy in the world has a bigger impact? Bob made some good points there - in American thinking, if the enemy lands on our shores we've already lost. I would much rather pay professionals to protect the country (I was in the Navy, btw...) than entrust it to disorganized, armed vigilantes. Well times are different and the challenges facing our country are different. As Bob pointed out and that wik article discussed, the context in which the 2nd amendment was written is far different from today:

-Today we wouldn't think about going without a standing army.
-When the 2nd amendment was written, despotic rule was the fear and the US Constitution an experiment. Since the first try failed, there was a real and reasonable fear that that one would too.
-Slavery was an extremely divisive issue that was written into the Constitution, filling it with contradictions. The Constitution has no such flaw today and as a result, the regional divisiveness does not exist.

I'm not anti-gun per se. I just think that it is reasonable to reevaluate the point and purpose of the 2nd amendment to make sure it fits with the context of how the country/world works today.

kyleb

Ah, Turbo-1 suggested that all male citizens of age were required to serve England. But obviously, if our founders held that true, there would have been no revolution at all.
Heh, one could form all sorts of absurd arguments by that standard. For example sake would you like me to quote some sentences from you and rearrange your wording to accuse you of stating things you most certainly did not claim?
I most certainly do belive in those principles. But apparently unlike you, I recognize the necessity to have the means to defend ourselves from those who don't.
Not at all, just power is derived from the consent of the governed just as our Declaration of Independence states, but that consent can easily be usurped by an unmatched force.
Are you so scared by armed conflict that you would rather live in a society oppressed by a militant faction than take up arms against such threats to our freedoms?

kyleb

That does nothing to stop domestic forces from operating unregulated upon us, only an armed citizenry can stand against that threat.

denverdoc

To me the most telling policy indication occurred in Waco, TX. Collect too many weapons in one spot, and we will wipe you off the planet. And no an armed citizenty with handgums and rifles might work in Iraq, bt not here anymore--if it were a true insurgency, things would be get interesting. Clearly Cheney was willing to knock jets from the sky and was ordering same w/o much info on the situation.

turbo

A concentration of weapons (legal or not) is easy to target. A diffuse distribution of weapons is not only hard to identify, but very difficult to target and impossible to remove without causing significant damage.

Note: Cheney should never be allowed to handle a firearm again unless he is willing to attend and pass a course in hunter safety and also successfully completes a course centered around the dangers of alcohol and shooting. The fact that the organizers of the "hunt" managed to sequester Cheney after the shooting and shield him from inquiry speaks volumes about his condition and his competence. Normal citizens would have been facing charges of negligence after shooting someone in the face at close range.

denverdoc

I almost brought that up. I ws listening to a book--the author said both cheney and bush were both indisposed that fateful day and DC took 30' to find. I contrasted the situation with mine, Typicaly 0 to 15 minutes.

Anttech

Wasnt it Nash that came up with game theory, which is based around the greed and selfishness of people. Thats the whole idea behind pure capitalism. Wearing a gun is just an extension of this. If you want to believe you dont live in a *community* and you have the right to only think of yourself and protect only you, rather than the community then wear a Gun and provoke everyone around you.

Guns dont beifit the community on the whole, just certain individual.

SticksandStones

I'm all for letting people have guns, but one shouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in their house or on their property if children under the age of 18 live there.

turbo

That's unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted. Guns and ammunition that are stored separately under lock and key with trigger locks are very safe. Also, children should be taken to the range when they are old enough and be taught how to handle firearms safely. When I was about 10 my dad taught me how to field strip, clean, lubricate and reassemble his M1 carbine. When I could do it practically blindfolded while handling the gun with respect and with full awareness of muzzle direction, he took me to a local sand pit and taught me how to load the clips, how to chamber a round manually, how to sight on the target, and finally, how to release the safety and fire the gun accurately. After every lesson, I verified that the gun was empty, packed the clips and ammunition boxes, and when we got home, I broke out the cleaning rod brushes, rags and oil, and cleaned the gun thoroughly before putting it away. I never handled guns without permission until I was old enough (maybe 15 or so) to go to the sandpit myself after school with my own .22 rifle and practice. Although I learned to shoot initially with a semi-automatic carbine (the M1), discipline was drilled into me, and for decades I have hunted with either a lever-action Winchester loaded with a single round or my single-shot Ruger rifle. I will not take a shot at a deer unless it is a guaranteed kill.

Some non-gun/anti-gun people like to characterize gun owners as macho, aggressive, etc. This is far from the case. My nearest neighbor is a church-going family man whose adolescent sons say "yes, sir", "no, sir" and "please" and "thank you" with numbing regularity. They are happy kids, and he regularly works with them honing their archery and shooting skills. When he said that I could use his range any time I wanted, I brought up a couple of bricks of .22 LR ammunition for his boys as a "thank you". He was grinning from ear to ear as his boys thanked me very politely and asked for permission to break out their rifles to practice. He's doing everything right - reminds me of my dad's military-inspired discipline with firearms. His kids have the safety drill down to a T. When a family from their congregation showed up to sight in their new hunting rifles, the boys patiently explained to their teenage daughter that she could only release the safety of her rifle when it was pointed down-range at the target area with it's earth-berm backstop, and they explained that shooting at a bank that contained rocks could result in ricochet of bullet fragments. Their father covered all this and more again with the whole family, but I was impressed with the seriousness and the level of understanding that these young fellows exhibited. I could have given the same talk at their age, too. When I was their age, I once lectured my great-uncle about firearms familiarity and muzzle-safety after he did something that I realized was very unsafe. He had bought a new lever-action rifle and had no idea how to load it safely and we were about to embark on a deer hunt. My dad listened, nodded and asked me to show my uncle how to safely load his gun. I did so, and then he sent me across the road to a beech ridge about a mile in the woods and sent my city-slicker uncle in the opposite direction.

drankin

Great post, turbo. I'll bet you couldn't have learned gun safety from anyone better than you did from your father.

SticksandStones

The problem is that many people don't have that level of security with their guns. They may lock their guns, but then they'll leave the keys lying around. They might even put them in a safe, but that's useless if they etch the combination into the side. Worse yet, they may leave the guns completely unlocked and loaded, just waiting for someone who is depressed and irrational to come across and use them to take a life.

Given how many teenagers commit suicide and homicide each year (there was just a school shooting at a near-by high school last week!) I do not think it is at all "OK" to leave guns around where irrational teens may get hold of them and use them in a very, very negative way. Most teens today know better than to try and cut their wists or overdose on pills. A gun on the other hand, to a depressed individual, may be seen as a perfect way to end their misery.

If everyone just practiced common sense with their weapons I would say let everyone have a gun, but too many people don't.

turbo

Dad quit HS early during WWII and got into Airborne. He took his training VERY seriously. Airborne troops often carried M1 carbines with folding stocks, so when he got out, he picked up a surplus M1. Like I said, he made sure that I could strip, clean, lube and reassemble that gun in short order before he would train me to load it and use it safely. When I was around 11 or so, he bought a Ruger .44mag carbine and gave me the M1 to hunt with. The first time we went to the range with "our" carbines, one of his friends dropped in while I was taking the guns and ammo in the house and they stayed out in the yard talking. I had stripped, cleaned and reassembled my M1, so I tore down his new Ruger, and was in the process of cleaning it when he came back into the house and saw his new carbine in pieces on the kitchen table. He was pretty shocked and asked why I took it apart. I told him that his gun needed to be cleaned before we put it away. Of course, he had never torn down that gun and was pretty antsy, but I had laid out the parts as I removed them and I reassembled it in reverse order as he watched. We took our guns to the range the next day and his gun performed flawlessly. (thank god!)

SticksandStones

Your dad sounds like a good man. I wish a friend of mine's father had been that careful with his guns. Heck, I wish MY dad was that careful with his guns.

turbo

That's the key. Responsible people like my father, myself, and my neighbor and his young sons try to pass this knowledge and respect on to others. We do not tolerate irresponsible handling of firearms in our presence and we try to gently help and educate those whose training is inadequate. My father trained me with the M1 just the way he was trained in Airborne. He used to time me and challenge me to strip, clean, lube and reassemble that gun in shorter and shorter times with NO tolerance for sloppy muzzle awareness. When I was done, he would inspect the carbine and if it was not scrupulously clean, we'd start the drill again. It wasn't boot camp for me - I loved it, and I knew it was the gateway to rifle training so I did my very best. Training and discipline make home-stored firearms a WHOLE lot safer than "don't touch" and other defeatable forms of denial. Knowing guns inside-out helps kids avoid the foolish "forbidden fruit" fascination that makes guns so "dangerous" and attractive to those who are denied access and knowledge.

Kids who see movies showing gang-bangers holding high-capacity semi-auto pistols rotated 90 degrees out of proper sight-picture orientation and blasting away are getting the most inaccurate and dangerous information that you could expect. If I were invading someone's house, I would far rather face one of these idiots than a person holding a full-sized normal-capacity .45 ACP held with two hands and held low for short-range accuracy. Entertainment media are to be blamed (quite rightfully) for this crap.

turbo

Do you have any statistics for people who have established adequate security provisions, yet "leave the keys lying around"? Pardon me, but that sounds like a generalization that is predicated on a belief that guns are dangerous and that gun-owners are irresponsible. If a despondent teen wants to kill himself, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that without a gun. If you don't want depressed teens to commit suicide, it would be far more productive to talk to them and help them pull out of depression than to try to regulate away every possible means that they might employ to commit suicide. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.