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....
It does.
It was. Historical fact.
If you don't like posting irrelavent court decisions, then don't do it.
Still having reading comprehension problems I see?
Stupid little troll. Wants to own himself a passle of negros and can't have people gettin' uppety and thinkin' they've got Rights even the State can't take away from them.
Give it up Roscoe. We won't put the facilities back in place for you to own a plantation.
Thanks for another non sequitur.
Of course, then Lockyer might cut your stipend off if you aren't agitating enough. Poor you...
Thanks for the racist non sequitur.
Thanks for the strawman.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Post all the judicial ruling you want. Those courts are in error every bit as much as you are. The Judges and States are bound by Art 6 Para 2. AS IT EXPLICITLY STATES.
If you don't like it, secede from the Union.
Quips the Prince regent of Strawmen.
Run along troll.
And it doesn't bind the states to the Bill of Rights. Anarchists don't like law. Or facts it seems.
RAtification is listed quite clearly in the Constitution. Where, in the Constitution, do you find a requirement for Amendments to the Constitution to be "incorperated" by the Courts?>[? Besides in your fevered imagination of course...
Really? Cite the text of the Second Amendment that limits it's scope to just Federal actions.
bttt
Actually, it does.
Art 4, section 2. Art 6 para 2.
Unless, of course, you want to just plain old ignore "Supreme law of the Land" as you are wont to do.
I'd rather be accused of not liking "law" as opposed to your obvious stance of not liking us surfs to have protected Rights.
Dislike born of ignorance.
So when you become aware of historical facts that suggest meanings that are not explicit in the Bill of Rights, you are comfortable relying on them.
But the enumeration of carrying arms among the "privileges and immunities" that Dred Scott might enjoy in a non-slave state is not convincing to you that "privileges and immunities" includes the right to keep and bear arms.
Here is the text from the Dred Scott case, decided in 1857, that describes "privileges and immunities". This case invalidated the Missouri Compromise and threatened to permit newly admitted states to decide for themselves whether to tolerate or abolish slavery. Just eleven years later the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, using this same phrase, to extend those "privileges and immunities" which were denied to Dred Scott.
"For if they [slaves] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. "
There's some history for you. Did the Supreme Court just make that up about being able to "carry arms wherever they went"? They showed some sensitivity to limitations on speech, using the phrase "upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak". There is no such qualification for the right to keep and bear arms.
On the same terms that a state's white citizens might pursuant to state law. Racial equality.
Surely that wasn't your idea of a trump card?
If anything, your odious pushing of an anti-Constitutional agenda is by far the more treasonous position.
Your copy of the Dred Scott decision must have some footnotes mine doesn't have. I see no suggestion that the exercise of the right to carry arms was conditional. Perhaps you could point it out.
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.