Are You 'Right' To Own A Gun?

DC Examiner ^ | 8/3/06 | Marc Danzinger

[steve-b]

WASHINGTON - We're going through one of those phases where people are reading the news and talking about buying guns.

As someone who's blogged for years under the pseudonym "Armed Liberal," you'd think that I'd clearly approve. And part of me does, in no small measure because it reflects a shift in the consensus away from "helpless citizen" toward "citizen with the intent to be more self-reliant."

And, to be honest, I see this issue largely as one of attitude. I've said in the past that the largest impact of gun ownership is symbolic, like a Sikh's knives. Owning a gun — and the attitudes that come with it — symbolize the notion that, first and foremost, we are adults who have the freedom to be entrusted with dangerous tools.

But gun ownership is not entirely symbolic, and there's the rub.

While I believe that everyone should have the right to own a gun (with the obvious exceptions of the criminal and the insane), that doesn't mean everyone should choose to own a gun.

That's because while I believe in rights, I also believe in responsibilities — and I don't think they can be separated. You want rights? Great. You have to take a good helping of responsibilities to go with them.

So let me take a moment and talk to the people who are reading the news and thinking of heading to the gun store.

First, go sleep on it. Owning a gun is an immense responsibility (one that too many people take far too lightly). If you own a gun, you are responsible for it 24/7/365; are you really prepared for that?

A gun is not a magic talisman that will make your problems go away by possessing it or brandishing it. While I'll acknowledge that many confrontations do end when the bad guy sees a gun, I'll suggest that assuming that will apply in your case is cargo-cult thinking at its worst.

So simply owning a gun doesn't by itself make you a whole lot safer; famed firearms instructor Jeff Cooper said that "owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a piano makes you a musician."

So you have to adopt a set of behaviors and habits.

Some are about the security of the gun — keeping it from being stolen, or from letting children have access to it. Buy a gun safe. Use it religiously. I had one firearm stolen from me 20 years ago, and it still weighs on me today.

Some of it is about self-knowledge. There's a little bit of crazy in all of us. Is yours fully under control? Are you sure? Would your friends all agree? What if the answer to that question isn't an immediate and obvious "Huh? Of course it is"?

And if you aren't 100 percent sure that five of your closest friends would answer the same way, think hard before you head to the gun store. Self-restraint is not a habit our modern life cultivates, but it is one that is simply mandatory for people who possess dangerous tools.

Some of it is about committing to some basic level of competence in order to make the gun a useful tool. There are classes you can and should take almost anywhere. They range from the big-time schools, like Gunsite (www.gunsite.com), Insight (www.insightstraining.com) and Thunder Ranch (www.thunderranchinc.com). To local instructors like Mike Dalton (www.isishootists.com/training.htm) in Los Angeles, NRA classes or other private classes at ranges throughout the area you live.

While it may seem cumbersome to think about all this, the demands really aren't that high. The gun is dangerous and valuable, so secure it. It can make bad attitudes and bad behavior deadly — make sure yours are well under control.

And finally, remember that owning a gun isn't nearly the same thing as being able to use one safely and effectively, so learn how to use it. If you can't comfortably go that far, please don't buy a gun. It's that simple.

If you can comfortably go that far, welcome to the community.

Personally, I need to get to the range this weekend....

[jmc813]

I just want you to stop lying to people by telling them that the second amendment protects their individual RKBA.

Was John Ashcroft lying when he claimed the same thing?

[tpaine]

~If~ you believed in an 'individual right', you would NOT agree that Congress could infringe upon it.

You've also agreed with & cited court opinions on the 'collective right' position many times over the years.

I've cited those opinions, yes. What, truth hurts? Shooting the messenger helps the pain?

There you go, admitting you've cited court opinions on the 'collective right', -- obviously because they agreed with ~your~ opinions on the 'collective right'.
Attempting to say you are only the "messenger", are typical of your methods to weasel out.

You just can't admit that you will take most any position to 'win' an argument, can you?

Not the point.

You just made it a 'point', above. How droll and pitiful can you get paulsen?

I just want you to stop lying to people by telling them that the second amendment protects their individual RKBA.

Only to you, and a very few demented others, is that a "lie".

It gives them a false sense of security and demotivates them from securing the protection of these rights at the state level.

You advocate that States have the power to prohibit guns, -- or most any thing else, -- every day on this forum, -- through 'majority rule'.
How can anyone "secure rights" if they are subject to a 'democratic vote'?

Why bother when tpaine says RKBA is already protected by the second amendment? -- You're Sarah Brady's best ally.

[Just a few days ago I caught paulsen virtually spouting the Brady line verbatim. It scored, as we see.]

[Dead Corpse]

Just a few days ago I caught paulsen virtually spouting the Brady line verbatim. It scored, as we see.

I noticed that.

[steve-b]

They were read and rebutted.

Er, no. I'll accept "read and disputed" or "read and ignored" -- either of those words, but not the word "rebutted" (which implies the presentation of a sound counterarbument), as a description of your past responses on the subject.

[glock rocks]

I had one firearm stolen from me 20 years ago, and it still weighs on me today.

I had to sell one of em 20 years ago, and that still weighs on me.

[steve-b]

Article VI clearly says that "-- any Thing" in the "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding --"

LOL! I note that robertpaulsen's ability to pound on the Supremacy Clause in one argument, and to pretend that it does not exist in another, raises an interesting historical question: did he teach Bill Clinton the art of semantic obfuscation, or did Clinton teach him?

[steve-b]

Frankly I think the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are meaningless. The true measure of an individual's political leanings is the amount of sovereignty he's willing to concede to a government.

Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
--"Lazarus Long" (Robert A. Heinlein)

[Dead Corpse]

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson as President: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

[robertpaulsen]

That doesn't make it Constitutional"

dot, dot, dot, in your opinion.

[robertpaulsen]

"Was John Ashcroft lying when he claimed the same thing?"

What exactly did John Ashcroft claim? Then I can tell you if he lied or not.

[Panzerlied]

"When it comes to the second amendment, I said Congress may not infringe the formation of a state militia."

I am curious? What in the 2nd amendment leads you to conclude that only congress is forbidden to infringe on the right to keep and bare arms?

[jmc813]

What exactly did John Ashcroft claim? Then I can tell you if he lied or not.

"While I cannot comment on any pending litigation, let me state unequivocally my view that the textand the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep andbear firearms.While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a “collective” rightof the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment’s plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."

Source

[robertpaulsen]

"What in the 2nd amendment leads you to conclude that only congress is forbidden to infringe on the right to keep and bare arms?

When the Bill of Rights was written, they were a restriction only on the federal government. After the ratification of the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually "incorporated" some of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states.

The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated (neither has the 3rd Amendment, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment). You can read it here, starting with Bar to Federal Action.

[Dead Corpse]

When the Bill of Rights was written, they were a restriction only on the federal government.

Which, as the quotations I posted from the ratification debates proved out, is a complete lie.

Also, incoroperation is a judicial fantasy. It is in no part of the Constitution, nor was it in the Debates mentioned that those Amendments required judicial approval before taking effect. The ratification prossess is quite clear and its effects are the same as any other law.

[robertpaulsen]

Thank you for the exact quote. He's not lying. He's stating his opinion. And his opinion and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

It carries no more weight than if Hillary is made President and her justice department said it was a collective right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been mute. But, every lower federal court in every case (save the 5th Circuit in one case) has said it's a collective right. I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would take note of that on any future second amendment ruling.

[Dead Corpse]

Further, you are using as a source a JOURNALISTS opinion page? Can you lose any more credibility?

[Dead Corpse]

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

You can spin it, but you can't win it...

[jmc813]

The U.S. Supreme Court has been mute. But, every lower federal court in every case (save the 5th Circuit in one case) has said it's a collective right. I would imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would take note of that on any future second amendment ruling.

I think that if Bush gets to appoint another Roberts/Alito quality justice, it would be a very good time to settle this in the SCOTUS once and for all.

[robertpaulsen]

"Which, as the quotations I posted from the ratification debates proved out, is a complete lie."

You're wrong. Madison tried to insert, "No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases" into the constitution and it was rejected.

[Dead Corpse]

Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to be implying. It wasn't because it was a bar of action on the States powers, but because they felt those Rights were already codified in other Amendments.

What are you going to try and spin next my little sock puppet?