News Should the 2nd Amendment be reinterpreted for modern times?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the interpretation of the Second Amendment and its applicability to residents of Washington D.C., particularly in light of a judge's ruling that it does not apply because D.C. is not a state. Participants debate the historical context of the amendment, with some arguing it was intended to ensure citizens could bear arms as a check against government tyranny, while others suggest it primarily pertains to state militias. The conversation touches on the complexities of gun rights today, questioning whether an armed citizenry is necessary in a modern context, especially given the existence of a professional military. Concerns about safety and the potential for violence in a society where everyone is armed are also raised, alongside comparisons to countries like Switzerland, which have different cultural and legal frameworks regarding firearms. The dialogue reflects a broader tension between individual rights and public safety, as well as differing views on the role of firearms in maintaining freedom and security.
drankin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

Can you believe that the contending judge said that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to Americans in DC because it's not a "state"? Is that nuts or what? What other Constitutional rights don't apply to Americans there according to this judge?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
2nd Amendment said:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I can believe it. The second amendment is all one sentence, and a pretty convoluted sentence at that. It sure sounds like it refers to the state's right to maintain their own separate army separate from the federal government - in other words, the National Guard.

As to Washington DC, maintaining a federal district, distinct from the states, to house the National capitol has always created a few problems on how to handle residents of Washington DC. Washingon DC isn't represented in the Senate and it only has 3 non-voting delegates in the House of Representatives.
 
Last edited:
BobG said:
I can believe it. The second amendment is all one sentence, and a pretty convoluted sentence at that. It sure sounds like it refers to the state's right to maintain their own separate army separate from the federal government...
I agree that it is rather awkwardly phrased, but it quite plainly declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", so I am at a loss as to how anyone can read it to suggest people are not afforded that right. Surely our forefathers knew of previous societies where an armed minority oppressed an unarmed populace, and acknowledged the need to protect against such imbalances of power in order to protect "the security of a free state"? We can't rightly regulate a militia from the wrong end of their guns.
 
What people...?

And are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment says militias should not be regulated or are you disagreeing with it saying they should?
 
russ_watters said:
What people...?

And are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment says militias should not be regulated or are you disagreeing with it saying they should?

And are you suggesting that only the people in the National Gaurd should bear arms since that can be construed as the regulated militia that the Amendment refers to?

I believe, just my opinion (I'm no historian), that everyone was armed back then. It went without saying. And that the Amendment was referring to the ability of an organized militia to also be allowed to be armed, but regulated. So as not be an organized threat against a Constitutional US.
 
i'm pretty sure in 1778 they actually had uses for their guns and used them more wisely. unless queen elizabeth decides to take out an old grudge on us, i don't think someone walking by the whitehouse will need a handgun to blow the brains out of a mugger anytime soon
 
drankin said:
I believe, just my opinion (I'm no historian), that everyone was armed back then. It went without saying. And that the Amendment was referring to the ability of an organized militia to also be allowed to be armed, but regulated. So as not be an organized threat against a Constitutional US.

I think what they were trying to prevent is a government that can just come snatch away all of the peoples means of resistance, and this was probably a safegaurd to keep the government from becoming a second england
 
Exactly, militias should be regulated, and an unarmed populace is in no position to accomplish that.
 
At the time that our constitution was written, people were expected to own firearms and to maintain adequate ammunition for same. This is today interpreted as a "right" by those determined to limit our access to arms. This is a very narrow and short-sighted interpretation. When our nation was born, male citizens of majority were required to serve England, and they comprised a citizen militia that were compelled to fight the French, the Indians, etc, as the Crown saw fit. The Constitution was drawn up in this spirit and clearly addressed the need of ordinary citizens to be armed in the defense of our country, lest we lose control of it. It's not a bad idea.
 
  • #10
drankin said:
And are you suggesting that...
I am only suggesting that it is not as clear-cut as some people like to see it. It is poorly worded.

For my personal opinion:
Turbo-1 said:
The Constitution was drawn up in this spirit and clearly addressed the need of ordinary citizens to be armed in the defense of our country, lest we lose control of it. It's not a bad idea.
No, it isn't a bad idea(see: Switzerland), though it may be out of date. Regardless, to me, "well regulated" would mean that while everyone can/should/whatever have a gun, the government still needs to make sure they use them safely/responsibly. That seems to me to fit with the spirit of this badly written one-liner, but allows for taking into account that guns today are a real safety/crime problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
drankin said:
What other Constitutional rights don't apply to Americans there according to this judge?

Although D.C. citizens are required to pay Federal Income Taxes, they do not have voting representation in either the House or Senate (i.e. Taxation Without Representation).
 
  • #12
Guns are a safety/crime problem? Maybe you meant to say that people with guns are a safety/crime problem? If that latter is what you meant, maybe we should look at what people you are referring to. Saying that guns are a problem doesn't make a lot of sense. Cars are a problem too if we apply that logic. If we go too far with it, breathing becomes a problem. You know the debate, you know stances, I'm sure you've been down this road before :)
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Regardless, to me, "well regulated" would mean that while everyone can/should/whatever have a gun, the government still needs to make sure they use them safely/responsibly.
How do get from "well regulated milita" to regulating everyone? And how do you suppose we can insure our militias remain regulated while lacking the means to match them at arms?
 
  • #14
A group of colonists separated from England and had to fight armed soldiers in order to boot the king's men off the shore. Obviously it was a good thing that they were not deprived of the weapons that allowed them to do this. In the spirit of the freedom they have just gained, they put it in their constitution that citizens can preserve the means to do to their government what they just did to the king if it becomes necessary. Wasn't it the spirit at the time, to enable the population to overthrow their government by force if it becomes necessary to do so? As in: treat us fairly, we are armed.
 
  • #15
drankin said:
Guns are a safety/crime problem? Maybe you meant to say that people with guns are a safety/crime problem? If that latter is what you meant, maybe we should look at what people you are referring to. Saying that guns are a problem doesn't make a lot of sense. Cars are a problem too if we apply that logic.
No need to play that game, drankin - your driver's license is for you, not your car. :biggrin:
 
  • #16
kyleb said:
How do get from "well regulated milita" to regulating everyone?
It is in the same sentence and as someone else pointed out, everyone was part of the militia.
And how do you suppose we can insure our militias remain regulated while lacking the means to match them at arms?
? You are suggesting that the only way the government can exercise authority is if it has the biggest guns? Besides being contradictory to what you are saying about the 2nd amendment - yikes!
 
  • #17
out of whack said:
A group of colonists separated from England and had to fight armed soldiers in order to boot the king's men off the shore. Obviously it was a good thing that they were not deprived of the weapons that allowed them to do this. In the spirit of the freedom they have just gained, they put it in their constitution that citizens can preserve the means to do to their government what they just did to the king if it becomes necessary. Wasn't it the spirit at the time, to enable the population to overthrow their government by force if it becomes necessary to do so? As in: treat us fairly, we are armed.
Could a citizen army effectively fight a modern military? Would it need to? If a high fraction of the population wanted to revolt, wouldn't it follow that the military would agree with them?

And as I pointed out in another thread, by some people's loose definitions of "revolution", we have one about once a decade anyway. No need for guns.
 
  • #18
Russ just doesn't like guns. He doesn't need a good reason either. I can respect that.
 
  • #19
I was just pondering the reasons for the amendment. This is often debated.

I guess the English didn't expect the citizen army to effectively fight them, but they did. And a high-enough fraction of the population wanted this, but they still had to fight the military. I guess the situation would be comparable to W or another president deciding to be president for life because "we are still at war". If he did that, the population might want to forcefully dislodge him even if the military supported him.

As it reads, other than the militia scenario, the right to bear arms does not seem intended for personal freedom but as a check against despots. And such a check require an organized militia, not maverick cowboys. I don't know what percentage of armed Americans are part of a militia.
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
It is in the same sentence and as someone else pointed out, everyone was part of the militia.
Drankin suggested that everyone was armed back then, which is generally true. However, who besides you is making the stretch to suggest everyone was part of "the militia", or even that there was some singular "the militia" at that time, and how did you come to those conclusions?

russ_watters said:
? You are suggesting that the only way the government can exercise authority is if it has the biggest guns? Besides being contradictory to what you are saying about the 2nd amendment - yikes!
I am suggesting that an armed citizenry is necessary to insure the security of a free state. In other words; a government can exercise whatever authority it wants when it's militias have the biggest guns, as a comparably unarmed populace is inherently unfit defend it's freedom against an armed faction determined to oppress them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Let's take this at face value. The framers of the constitution did not want the populace stripped of the right to possesses and bear arms. They had recently freed the colonies of British rule, not with a powerful standing army, but with a loosely-organized and diffuse "army" consisting of citizens who had previously been required to fight on behalf of the Crown in Nova Scotia, upstate New York, Northern Massachusetts (Maine), and countless more focused spots where the British felt their interests were at peril. The point is that eventually, the colonists wanted self-determination and they fought for it. The framers of the constitution knew that no form of government was free of corruption, coercion, etc, and they included the 2nd amendment as a way to prevent despotic governments from gaining absolute authority.

I can tell you that if an invading force moved into Maine, the sheer number of accurate high-power deer rifles and experienced marksmen would make it very tough for them to hold this area. They might have a great time in areas in which rifles are impractical and handguns are banned, but they would not do well here. A couple of guys flanking a major road with decent guns could deny that road to the enemy, at least during daylight.

The imperialists value military overkill with vast ranks of troops massed with superior firepower. Insurgents value tactics, intelligent disposition of assets, and the allowance of discretion on the part of the combatants... when to shoot, what or who to shoot, when to take cover, when to go to ground. The British army and navy were dominant on the world stage before and after the US revolution, yet they were no match for our lighter, more flexible forces. Does Viet-Nam ring a bell? The 2nd amendment does not convey us "rights" that can be withdrawn - it spells out the relation of the populace to those who govern in not-so-subtle terms.
 
  • #22
There are many reasons to want a handgun. The police and military have credible reasons. Others such as wanting to protect themselves from thugs, burglurs, and miscreants have a much more strenuous argument to make. The difference is obviously one of weildability-maybe the NRA has in its archives a case where man with handgun overcame 3 or more assailants during some worthy of Hollywood stunt man status of derring do, it don't fly.

The language was loose, and perhaps one of the dcument's bigger loopholes it failed to close. By design, maybe? Maybe someone wondered as an above post implies the future need to take arms against the fledgling gov't.

I would think to fairly characterize the war: it was fat cats here vs the taxes/control beyond. Curiously this is not the way it is depicted--more of a Marxst revolt--whch captures the imagination, but likely not the way it was. The founding fat cats sought first and foremost to protect their prosperity. And so they reckoned they could assemble forces in need, but were afraid of their own tenuous standing. Thats my best guess.
 
  • #23
russ_watters said:
No, it isn't a bad idea(see: Switzerland.)

the swiss can actually pull it off because they are one of the most civilized nations in the world. they are the highest ranked in the least corrupted in the world. Out of all the murder/crimes commited each year, almost all are commited by foreigners. Firing ranges are more common than donut shops and every man is required to have a rifle over a certain age. this is part of the reason why hitler never invaded them, because everyone was armed and it would be one hell of a battle.

In the US on the otherhand, if you give everyone on the street a semi-automatic, things will fall apart faster than an igloo during hurricane katrina. we're an uneducated bunch of people who have no idea what goes on other than women and booze. this lot is prone to jump to action without thought, and the national guard would have to be called in for the kind of riots we'd see
 
  • #24
denverdoc said:
There are many reasons to want a handgun. The police and military have credible reasons. Others such as wanting to protect themselves from thugs, burglurs, and miscreants have a much more strenuous argument to make. The difference is obviously one of weildability-maybe the NRA has in its archives a case where man with handgun overcame 3 or more assailants during some worthy of Hollywood stunt man status of derring do, it don't fly.

The language was loose, and perhaps one of the dcument's bigger loopholes it failed to close. By design, maybe? Maybe someone wondered as an above post implies the future need to take arms against the fledgling gov't.

I would think to fairly characterize the war: it was fat cats here vs the taxes/control beyond. Curiously this is not the way it is depicted--more of a Marxst revolt--whch captures the imagination, but likely not the way it was. The founding fat cats sought first and foremost to protect their prosperity. And so they reckoned they could assemble forces in need, but were afraid of their own tenuous standing. Thats my best guess.

The founding fat cats... how do you debate this? This reminds me of a King's X song. :)
 
  • #25
Ki Man said:
the swiss can actually pull it off because they are one of the most civilized nations in the world. they are the highest ranked in the least corrupted in the world. Out of all the murder/crimes commited each year, almost all are commited by foreigners. Firing ranges are more common than donut shops and every man is required to have a rifle over a certain age. this is part of the reason why hitler never invaded them, because everyone was armed and it would be one hell of a battle.

In the US on the otherhand, if you give everyone on the street a semi-automatic, things will fall apart faster than an igloo during hurricane katrina. we're an uneducated bunch of people who have no idea what goes on other than women and booze. this lot is prone to jump to action without thought, and the national guard would have to be called in for the kind of riots we'd see

LOL, a typical view of American's as "cowboys". This is not American reality my friend. I live here and would have zero problem with the idea of every responsible adult carrying a semi-automatic handgun (preferably made in Germany) with them at all times in public. They would be exercising their right in most of our states. And would make for a more polite, civilized existence, IMO. There are those who prey on those that believe the police will always be there to protect them. But typically the police are only there to clean up and make a report. Ultimately, your personal well being is solely your personal responsiblitity. This is something I love about this country :)
 
  • #26
drankin said:
LOL, a typical view of American's as "cowboys". This is not American reality my friend. I live here and would have zero problem with the idea of every responsible adult carrying a semi-automatic handgun (preferably made in Germany) with them at all times in public. They would be exercising their right in most of our states. And would make for a more polite, civilized existence, IMO. There are those who prey on those that believe the police will always be there to protect them. But typically the police are only there to clean up and make a report. Ultimately, your personal well being is solely your personal responsiblitity. This is something I love about this country :)

I live in southern california... Responsible adults carrying them around 24/7, i have no problem with. its some of these other people that I'm worried about... fat ladies giving other drivers the finger while dricving with their 6 year old in the passenger seat without their seatbelt on and all that other stuff, being able to carry around handguns worries me when they are introduced into that situation.
 
  • #27
And yes, its true everyone having a gun would reduce crime, but i don't think grandma will be carying a pistol as she walks down the street when she gets mugged. although, it would be nice if the people around her might be carrying some.

I don't know, i just think people around here would get to trigger happy and underestimate the deadly force its capable of.
 
  • #28
drankin said:
The founding fat cats... how do you debate this? This reminds me of a King's X song. :)
You lost me on the ref, but to think that the this country was founded by anything else, proves how well we the myth is entrenched,
J
 
  • #29
drankin said:
LOL, a typical view of American's as "cowboys". This is not American reality my friend. I live here and would have zero problem with the idea of every responsible adult carrying a semi-automatic handgun (preferably made in Germany) with them at all times in public. They would be exercising their right in most of our states. And would make for a more polite, civilized existence, IMO. There are those who prey on those that believe the police will always be there to protect them. But typically the police are only there to clean up and make a report. Ultimately, your personal well being is solely your personal responsiblitity. This is something I love about this country :)
Good god, americans can't be trusted with trucks. I am 50 years of age and the only time in the last 35 I have come close to a fight is when a belligerent pick-up truck driver thought there paint was scratched. Seriously true x 2. The notion that you could equally arm everyone and peace would happen is stupid beyond measurement.
 
  • #31
Ki Man said:
And yes, its true everyone having a gun would reduce crime, but i don't think grandma will be carying a pistol as she walks down the street when she gets mugged. although, it would be nice if the people around her might be carrying some.

I don't know, i just think people around here would get to trigger happy and underestimate the deadly force its capable of.

Like I said, responsible adults. That is another issue altogether :) All being said, if, totally hypothetically, if everyone was armed, no one would be throwing their middle finger around... I mean really.

Since I've obtained my license, I've realized that in order to retain my right to carry, I have the right to be CIVIL. All it takes is a single incident of malice including my firearm or the threat of, and I lose my right "to bear arms". We have system for the law abiding citizen and we have a system for those that don't abide. A single domestic midemeanor can take away your right to carry a firearm in this country.

In one of our "districts" you cannot even own a firearm (a Constitutional issue that is currently being disputed in our higher courts.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Ki Man said:
the swiss can actually pull it off because they are one of the most civilized nations in the world. they are the highest ranked in the least corrupted in the world. Out of all the murder/crimes commited each year, almost all are commited by foreigners. Firing ranges are more common than donut shops and every man is required to have a rifle over a certain age. this is part of the reason why hitler never invaded them, because everyone was armed and it would be one hell of a battle.
At best, the Swiss could have mounted a guerilla war from the mountains. Germany would have still controlled the things most important to them. That wouldn't be a great situation - it would be similar to the Soviets in Afghanistan where the Soviets controlled the cities, but had no hope of controlling the mountain regions. If Germany really foresaw that, then they were definitely the exception. Most countries would invade, anyway, thinking the resistance would have to die out eventually.

The bigger threat was that the Swiss would destroy the railroads between Germany and Italy before they retreated to the mountains. Then Germany would be rebuilding railroads (probably more than once in some places) instead of using them.

Switzerland agreeing to allow Germany and Italy to ship sealed railroad cars across Switzerland that would never be inspected made invasion more trouble than it was worth.

In spite of that, Germany still had invasion plans for Switzerland, but the rest of the war quit going so well, pushing the invasion off to some undetermined time.
 
  • #33
turbo-1 said:
I can tell you that if an invading force moved into Maine, the sheer number of accurate high-power deer rifles and experienced marksmen would make it very tough for them to hold this area. They might have a great time in areas in which rifles are impractical and handguns are banned, but they would not do well here. A couple of guys flanking a major road with decent guns could deny that road to the enemy, at least during daylight.
I don't think hand guns and deer rifles would pose much of a threat. People in Maine would have better luck if they learned how to make IEDs.

We live in a different world than the one that existed in the late 1700's. I'm not sure how gun rights fit in today.




In the language of the times, the 'bear arms' part definitely referred to serving in the local or state militia. The 'keep' part is the only part of the Second Amendment that provides any hint that the Amendment is intended to extend to individuals as well.

The goal was that the 'national' army would never become more powerful than the state militias. Remember, this was a union of independent states (as in nation states) and each wanted to be sure they could leave if things didn't work out.

That idea died out in the War of 1812 when state militias couldn't prevent the British from burning the national's capitol. Fifty years later, the national army was probably strong enough to repel foreign invaders, but definitely stronger than all of the state militias of the Confederate states combined.

It's hard to figure out how the Second Amendment fits in today all around.
 
  • #34
kyleb said:
Drankin suggested that everyone was armed back then, which is generally true. However, who besides you is making the stretch to suggest everyone was part of "the militia", or even that there was some singular "the militia" at that time, and how did you come to those conclusions?
Turbo-1 also suggested it. And besides, again, they are in the same sentence.
I am suggesting that an armed citizenry is necessary to insure the security of a free state. In other words; a government can exercise whatever authority it wants when it's militias have the biggest guns, as a comparably unarmed populace is inherently unfit defend it's freedom against an armed faction determined to oppress them.
Wow, so you pretty much don't buy into the whole "social contract" idea and all that political theory that is the basis for democracy, then? Political power is derived from naked force alone? Wow. I know a lot of people think that way, but wow, that's scary. I would hate to live in a society where that was true.
 
  • #35
turbo-1 said:
The framers of the constitution knew that no form of government was free of corruption, coercion, etc, and they included the 2nd amendment as a way to prevent despotic governments from gaining absolute authority.
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?
I can tell you that if an invading force moved into Maine, the sheer number of accurate high-power deer rifles and experienced marksmen would make it very tough for them to hold this area.
What good is a 30-06 against a B-52 or an M1-A1?
Does Viet-Nam ring a bell?
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?
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
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?
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.

russ_watters said:
What good is a 30-06 against a B-52 or an M1-A1?
No good at all. Nor would B-52's and M1-A1s be useful in detecting and neutralizing sharpshooters.


russ_watters said:
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?
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.
 
  • #37
turbo-1 said:
I am not expecting such a conflict, in part due to the deterrence posed by an armed citizenry.
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.
Still it is better to be aware and prepared.
I would much rather pay professionals to protect the country (I was in the Navy, btw...) than entrust it to disorganized, armed vigilantes.
Remember, this country tore itself apart 150 years ago, and there is no guarantee that it cannot happen again.
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.
 
  • #38
russ_watters said:
Turbo-1 also suggested it.
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.
russ_watters said:
And besides, again, they are in the same sentence.
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?
russ_watters said:
Wow, so you pretty much don't buy into the whole "social contract" idea and all that political theory that is the basis for democracy, then?
I most certainly do believe in those principles. But apparently unlike you, I recognize the necessity to have the means to defend ourselves from those who don't.
russ_watters said:
Political power is derived from naked force alone?
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.
russ_watters said:
Wow. I know a lot of people think that way, but wow, that's scary. I would hate to live in a society where that was true.
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?
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
Really? You don't think the 2500 miles of oceans on either side and the biggest navy in the world has a bigger impact?
That does nothing to stop domestic forces from operating unregulated upon us, only an armed citizenry can stand against that threat.
 
  • #40
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.
 
  • #41
denverdoc said:
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.
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
drankin said:
LOL, a typical view of American's as "cowboys". This is not American reality my friend. I live here and would have zero problem with the idea of every responsible adult carrying a semi-automatic handgun (preferably made in Germany) with them at all times in public. They would be exercising their right in most of our states. And would make for a more polite, civilized existence, IMO. There are those who prey on those that believe the police will always be there to protect them. But typically the police are only there to clean up and make a report. Ultimately, your personal well being is solely your personal responsiblitity. This is something I love about this country :)
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 don't 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 don't beifit the community on the whole, just certain individual.
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
SticksandStones said:
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.
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.
 
  • #46
turbo-1 said:
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.

Great post, turbo. I'll bet you couldn't have learned gun safety from anyone better than you did from your father.
 
  • #47
turbo-1 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #48
drankin said:
Great post, turbo. I'll bet you couldn't have learned gun safety from anyone better than you did from your father.
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!)
 
  • #49
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.
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.
 
  • #50
SticksandStones said:
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
72
Views
8K
Replies
70
Views
13K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Back
Top