Posted on 08/03/2006 7:03:58 AM PDT by 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....
Perhaps you can clarify for the rest of us whether you believe that the failure to "incorporate" the Second Amendment is judicial error. Do you believe that the "priveleges and immunities" of citizens of the United States includes the immunity from infringement of their right to keep and bear arms?
Sure there is. My dad is about as liberal a guy as I've ever met, and he's been a gun enthusiast since he was 12. Also, one of the guys that I routinely go shooting with votes Green.
'and having children'
Exactly. Where is the responsibility of all these idiots who spawn these demons all over the US of A and then let them run at large, killing, stealing, selling drugs and living on the public teet their whole lives?
I'm not talking about Politicians but they are certainly included in the last paragraph. And they should share the responsibility of the mess they've made.
That's funny as hell!
Do you think I could get one of those from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show?
Ah, I see. Judicial activism is bad ... unless it's conservative judicial activism.
Up 'til now, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear any state RKBA cases since the second amendment only applies to federal law. Congress has only passed Commerce Clause laws when it comes to guns, and no one has yet to challenge those laws on second amendment grounds (except Miller).
Besides, who has standing to file a federal lawsuit? We would need a state or a state Militia member to say some federal law infringes on the formation of a state Militia -- a Militia which hasn't existed since the early 1900's.
Mr. Cooper knows more about guns that I ever will, but I have to point out here that one requires years of training to use, while the other requires minutes of training. Much like Samurai swords, which is why the Japanese banned guns. They didn't like the thought of the upset to a social order that had been carefully cultivated over centuries.
Where can I find that? Onviously you have since you're stating it as a fact.
I've already posted those links numerous times for you Bobby. Try and be a good little sock puppet and do as your told next time I post them for you.
Driving/operating an automobile has been deemed a privilege and not a right by the courts for years. Therefore it can be regulated in all manner of ways complete with taxes, fees, registrations, licenses, etc.
Actually, there are arguments against that reasoning, but really do deserve their own topic thread.
This is a common misconception, clearly contradicted by Article VI.. -- Which you have never been able to refute, -- nor have you ever been able to cite a rational constitutional opinion on that specific issue. -- Everyone ignores Article VI because it is irrefutable.
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.
Again, "incorporation" was a legal fiction invented by the USSC in order to ignore the clear words of the 14th on this same issue.
-- The 14th merely reiterated that our rights to life liberty or property cannot be violated at any level of gov't; -- exactly as Article VI said, -- before it became necessary [thru war] to clarify the issue.
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.
The USSC is in an "incorporation" box of their own making. If they admit the 2nd as written is our supreme "Law if the Land"; -- they admit that the gov't has been infringing upon it.
Which leaves us paulsen, -- wondering why you defend both non - incorporation, and the power of States to prohibit arms. Why is that?
The privileges and immunities of (small c) "citizens of the United States" have been defined over the years by the courts and they do not include the immunity from infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
When an amendment has been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court has ruled that the right was fundamental to liberty, and that due process clause of the 14th amendment compelled a state to protect it.
In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the court stated that the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states."
Nice history lesson. Thanks.
Yes, you are right to own a gun, even though I don't own one personally.
armed liberal = Government; almost worthy of a tagline. Thanks.
There are always arguments against everything. I was merely replyibg to an earlier assertion that driving and possessing firearms were equal.
When an amendment has been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court has ruled that the right was fundamental to liberty, and that due process clause of the 14th amendment compelled a state to protect it.
The privileges and immunities of (small c) "citizens of the United States" have been defined over the years by the courts and they do not include the immunity from infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
Gotta love it when he is reduced to small "c" citizenship arguments as well. -- I smell desperation..
Well, let's say a state did that. And it went to the Supreme Court. What would they have said?
Well, there was this rather famous 1833 case (right around the same time, huh?) of Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 in which Chief Justice Marshall (one of the Founding Fathers, by the way) gave the opinion.
"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated."
"Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."
"In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
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.