Posted on 09/11/2007 9:52:52 AM PDT by JZelle
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
(Excerpt) Read more at lneilsmith.org ...
I tried. You’re nuts.
it means the right to bear arms is conditioned on whether it leads to our security or not. Giving every person the right to blow up our country is not what the founders were talking about!
Under the present circumstances, I would consider that rather harsh. If nukes had been developed a hundred years earlier, what would the Confederate Army have done? What would the Union Army have done to Richmond?
Was the bombing of Japan in August of 1945 wrong? Was it ineffective?
If the Japanese had invaded the US, as I believe they did Manchuria, and had installed a puppet government, as I believe they did in Manchuria, would it then be appropriate to "blow up DC"?
No...you don’t blow up one of our own cities.
But you’re not going to be able to blow up Japan either. That is why we still need a strong military. I mean you don’t let the average joe make these kinds of decisions.
Your debating skills are leaving me absolutely breathless.
Let's hear something from you regarding which arms shall be permitted to the people and which shall not.
You claim nuclear weapons are out. I presume that includes so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons of a yield below, say, 10 kilotons.
Fine.
Now, what is the limit on conventional explosives? A ton. A pound? A tenth of an ounce?
Aircraft? Out completely, or shall the people have the right to keep and bear single-engine biplanes. How about helicopters? No?
Rifles. Another poster claims "sniper rifles" are in the gray area, but hunting rifles are okay. Which rifles do you claim are protected?
How about body armor? Are all types permitted or prohibited or somewhere in between?
Crossbows?
Armored vehicles? Cruise missiles? Small cruise missiles? Short-range cruise missiles? Grenades?
Molotov cocktails? Gasoline? Glass bottles? Cotton rags? Matches?
Do you propose that all these various topics be addressed in a Constitutional amendment or will we just leave it to a liberal Congress to decide?
You've taken it upon yourself to declare that weapons which utilize nuclear reactions are somehow of a different character and therefor do not deserve the protection provided by the Second Amendment. What are the others?
If I remember correctly, in World War II the British learned of the imminent bombing of Coventry in sufficient time to warn the populace. They did not because such a warning would have revealed that the British had succeeded in breaking the German codes.
Innocent civilians have died in almost every war that ever existed, and in almost unimaginable numbers in the twentieth century. What do you think is happening in Iraq?
And just whose cities were destroyed in the US Civil War?
I believe that Harry Truman had virtually sole responsibility to decide whether to drop nuclear weapons on Japan. Few consider him much outside of "average".
How about the right to carry a Barlow knife in school? Every boy needs one.
Now tell me which hunting rifles shall the people have a right to keep and bear and which sniper rifles the people shall not have the right to keep and bear
~~~~~~~~
I would completely do away with the term “hunting rifle” all together. As far as I’m concerned, they are all self defense weapons that are also useful as hunting implements. I guess what I would do If I were king for a day is this: I would trade 50 caliber sniper rifles for 3 round burst M16 “assault” rifles. What I mean is I would let them ban or severely restrict 50 cal in exchange for unfettered access to by all “assault” weapons including full auto rifles to all legal law abiding citizens.
Nothing I have said so far took issue with the merits of your argument (I’ll save that for a later day), but for the lack of savvy shown in presenting your argument by arguing for the most extreme position possible. For every person who might be swayed by such an argument, fifty will be left scratching their head and wondering what planet you came from. Perhaps it explains the failure to get signatures for your petition. How much easier it is to stand on the fringe and spout extreme arguments, than it is to actually get something worthwhile accomplished.
If you truly believe that the sane, rational men who established the Constitution and BOR would favor personal ownership of tactical nuclear weapons, then my earlier assessment of your sanity stands.
he was the president of the united states!
Without coordination of the national military you have no defense against major invasions. You’re just going to have an anarchy that will destroy the country.
As Hamilton wrote (Federalist 29):
“It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.”
“If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”
But we don’t even have any militia, let alone a well regulated one. Instead we have a free for all which doesn’t really serve the country well as most good guys won’t bother with a gun while the not so good guys are interested.
I think that would be reason #45699 for homeschooling
And yes - even though I have to admit I paused when I first extended the concept to nukes, and had to think long and hard on that subject - I have to say even privately owned nukes are and should be protected.
Before all your detractors jump on me as another nutcase, I hope they will consider the very important aspect of the civilizing effect of private weapons ownership. Today we are living in an increasingly uncivilized world, so the thought of nukes in the hands of those predators out there naturally causes grave concerns. However, the breakdown of civilization is in large part due precisely to the disarming of law abiding, peaceful and responsible citizens - turning the population into easy prey is precisely what increases the numbers of predators - just like in nature - of which we are of course part even if we like to think of ourselves as removed from it. That little toy handgun in the purse has saved many a woman from rape, effectively civilizing the world around her. The same is true at every scale. Nuclear armed US and USSR did not directly confront each other creating another hot world war. They kept things relatively civilized.
As regards muslim fanatics - what difference does it make if they have nukes or box cutters - they can kill just as many people either way as we are reminded today. In fact, I would rather they identify themselves and their intention by carrying around nukes rather than be afraid of anyone carrying a pen knife onto a plane.
It should also be pointed out that fighter aircraft, 2000 pound bombs and suitcase nukes are rather expensive - limiting the market to those who have assets sufficient to need such protection.
Finally, should the day arrive that suitcase nukes are readily available and affordable, I have little doubt that there would immediately follow a big market for some lovely little invention that remotely disables any triggering device or some such counter-measure.
I would also point out to your detractors that it as not so long ago - 40 odd years ago - that I, not yet a teenager, openly carried a rifle to and from school in New York City on the subways without anyone thinking twice about it (my school had a target range in the basement)
So yes, even privately owned nukes ought be protected under the second amendment. As to why some responsible citizen might feel the need for one, I would trust them to assess their own needs. Trying to imagine such a need, perhaps in the not too distant future some rancher in a desolate area along our southern border might be facing invasion by some well armed drug gang from the south equipped with armored cars, rpg's and the like. What weapons of self defense might he need as a last resort?
Our founders were not stupid. The history of mankind has proven over and over that security and safety lie in the private possession of arms - whether a stick, a knife or the most advanced weapon available in the world of the day for surely anyone intending you harm will acquire and use the best they can get.
Perhaps I will repeat what I said in hopes that the meaning will sink in.
I have already stated that I think it a bad idea for just any person to possess nuclear weapons.
And one would rightly conclude that I agree with you that the Founders would not favor such a measure.
But that in no way changes the fact that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, there were no arms in existence which had such a character. Therefor, what they wrote covered EVERY type of arms in existence or that would come into existence.
Surely you don't claim that cannons were excluded, do you?
Surely you don't claim that machine guns would be excluded if they wrote the amendment today, do you?
The arms protected at the time included explosive mines of considerable power. You don't claim these men were so ignorant as to have overlooked them, do you?
To say that nuclear arms have insufficient selectivity to be effective in war is to state that dropping those bombs on Japan was not justified.
I asked in another posting whether an amendment allowing four-year-olds to vote would be Constitutional? Would it be a good idea? Would our Founders agree with such a proposition?
And finally, if our Founders HAD implemented an amendment granting the vote to four-year-olds, would we be justified today in deciding that such a measure was ridiculous and permit Congress to legislate despite the amendment? Or would we be bound by the necessity of amending the Constitution?
When Paul Revere rode through town yelling, “To arms...to arms!”, I am quite sure no one grabbed an explosive mine or cannon. They grabbed a firearm and mustered to an area where the army had larger munitions available. I’m curious about what support you have for your belief that the 2ndAm was written to include every weapon or destructive device known to an 18th century soldier?
I think so to.
Instead of teaching our grade school children how to put a condom on a cucumber, we should be teaching them how to load M16 magazines and how to align the iron sights. I'm grow weary of adopting only those standards suitable for the lowest common denominator.
At the risk of further ridicule, I would propose that every citizen be armed at the age of ten. They should carry their arms wherever they go.
There will certainly be some thinning of the herd while the ignorant come to grips with their responsibilities, but the resulting emphasis on individual responsibility would more than compensate.
The path we are on now will result in the ultimate socialist paradise, where everything not explicitly allowed is prohibited and everything allowed is required. What a sad nation it will be.
The founders certainly did not leave silent the discussion of heavier weaponry. They said “arms”, meaning any military weapon. Even today: ARMS: “1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.” Well understood by a human being, power to counter the forces a miscreant tyrannical government could marshal to threaten citizens with. Any other interpretation is simply moronic.
Gee...Where to start...
The colonists were, prior to the Declaration of Independence, subjects of the British Crown. They objected to taxes levied upon them which the government claimed were needed to offset the expenses of provisioning the armed forces which were needed to defend the colonies.
Every single person who took up arms against their own British government were criminals in the eyes of that government and would have been hanged if not for the success of the Revolution.
Those who took up arms against their own Army, the Redcoated regulars, were not themselves an army, but a militia; that is, people who take up arms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.
The militia of Concord and Lexington most certainly did have larger arms of various types. The whole point of the British expedition which ended in the battles of Lexington and Concord was to confiscate those arms. It was most certainly not just a stack of rifles.
What I believe Paul Revere shouted was, "The Regulars are coming!", meaning the regular army of the British Empire. It was THEIR army that was confiscating the arms of the militia. There was no other "army" to which they could gather and gain arms.
About a year after the Battle of Concord, the various militias attacked THEIR OWN government's Fort Ticonderoga and took, by force of arms, cannon which they then dragged to Boston, arranging these large guns on the Dorchester Heights overlooking Boston Harbor.
In this dramatic manner, the militia, by force of arms, caused the evacuation of THEIR own government's occupying forces from Boston, along with THEIR own government's naval fleet in the harbor.
All of this happened PRIOR to the Declaration of Indpendence.
There is every reason to believe that EVERY weapon used by these colonists in the successful pursuit of their revolution, was among the arms which no future government would be allowed to confiscate or prohibit. Anything less makes a mockery of their efforts.
I’ve read this before. It’s right on the money.
Good job!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.