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....
cars
The Second Amendment itself clearly addresses the issues of freedom and the protection of same by the RIGHT to bear arms by the citizenry as part of a militia, if need be. So the courts have said.
You & the courts claim our RKBAs is not an individual right. -- The constitution clearly says it is a right of the people, not to be infringed. -- You've been trumped, and been shown to be an anti-constitutional propagandist.
It is important to remember that your individual RKBA is protected by your state, not the federal government (which is why gun laws vary from state to state).
All officials in the USA, fed/state/local, -- are sworn to enforce, protect & defend the Constitution [which includes the 2nd] as the supreme Law of the Land.
Again, you've been trumped, and been shown to be an anti-constitutional dupe. -- Give it up paulsen.
Xena's Guy and Bacon Man went to the gun shop last weekend . . . XG came home with an AR-15!
Y'all need to get him to the range when I'm stuck in P-ville.
"Using your car analogy, the state does certify you to drive, requires cars to have serial numbers, requires cars to be registered, etc."
You only have to have a license, registration, insurance, etc. if you drive it on the public streets. You don't need it if you drive it on your personal property or if you strictly race it on a closed course. They also don't do background checks on criminal history or mental health when you go to buy a car.
"The citizens of the state, acting through their elected representatives, may place reasonable restrictions on any of our rights"
That is assuming that the rep is actually acting as the citizens wish. Quite often reps act in contradiction to the electors wishes. Don't give me the old they elected the rep, because quite often a candidate will say one thing and do another. Yes they can be voted out, but quite often we have to decide who the lesser of two evils is.
Since you've argued both sides, you don't need me.
And even better.....I don't know how many I own.
Three. Handgun, rifle, shotgun.
Not at all. I said the RKBA is an individual right protected by the states' constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution.
"All officials in the USA, fed/state/local, -- are sworn to enforce, protect & defend the Constitution [which includes the 2nd] as the supreme Law of the Land."
Yep. But nowhere does Article VI, Section 2 say that the second amendment applies to state laws -- because it doesn't. The second amendment protects the RKBA from federal laws.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that is unconstitutional to tax a right, neither may the citizens of one state void the constitution. Enumerated rights protected by the US constitution deserve a strict scrutiny test - i.e. if someone is going to lose those rights it must result from due process (i.e. a court judgement against them individually). Don't expect any further response from me no matter what attempt at argument you make. I am familiar with your erroneous postion and consider you a borderline troll.
Nothing 'borderline' about robertpaulsen.
Not at all. I said the RKBA is an individual right protected by the states' constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution.
Just a few days ago you claimed:
" -- under the second amendment, Congress can pass any RKBA legislation they wish that does not affect the forming of a state Militia. --"
330 posted on 07/31/2006 11:37:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
~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.
You just can't admit that you will take most any position to 'win' an argument, can you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All officials in the USA, fed/state/local, -- are sworn to enforce, protect & defend the Constitution [which includes the 2nd] as the supreme Law of the Land.
Yep. But nowhere does Article VI, Section 2 say that the second amendment applies to state laws -- because it doesn't.
Article VI clearly says that "-- any Thing" in the "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding --"; the Constitution [and all its amendments] are our supreme law.
You simply will not accept that fact.
You are an irrational democratic 'majority rules' zealot who will use any 'spin' you can to advocate gun control.
No, handle them til you feel comfortable with them so if you should ever need to use one you use it correctly. Just like any other tool you may use.
Course if YOU care to use one like a moron you will join many others that do shoot theirself or someone other then the intended.
A couple of years ago on vacation I took my family up BIG RED mountain. A mountain in south west Colorado. We were up about the 14,000 foot level and were looking down a valley from a ridge at a very large herd of elk. Most beautiful. Like Manatees, I'd like to find what they taste like,
.
You'd be surprised. I've browsed gun threads on DU, and as much as I hate to admit it, there are some DUers who are great advocates for the 2nd Amendment despite being dopey on everything else.
"The citizens of the state, acting through their elected representatives, may place reasonable restrictions on any of our rights"
looscnnn 'buys into' the spin:
That is assuming that the rep is actually acting as the citizens wish.
You assume paulsen's "reasonable restrictions" are based on constitutional due process. -- Not so. -- His vision of 'due process' is that a majority can prohibit anything at any time for any reason; -- and if you are shown in court to have violated that prohibition, -- you are guilty & due process has been served.
Correct so far.
"i.e. if someone is going to lose those rights it must result from due process (i.e. a court judgement against them individually)."
Oops. Wrong.
When the U.S. Supreme Court applies the strict scrutiny test, the government must show that the challenged law serves a compelling state interest and that the law is necessary to serve that interest.
"Don't expect any further response from me no matter what attempt at argument you make."
I don't care one way or the other. You're not the only one who sees these posts. Given your attitude, however, you should look up the phrase "cognitive dissonance".
"I am familiar with your erroneous postion and consider you a borderline troll."
I am familiar with yours, and consider you to be merely ignorant. And, given your response, it appears as though you are quite content to remain that way.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the truest statement I have ever heard you utter. We DON'T need more Constitutional illiterates like you spreading the VPC propaganda.
When it comes to the second amendment, I said Congress may not infringe the formation of a state militia. If Congress did pass a law that had that effect, that law would violate the second amendment and be ruled unconstitutional.
In all U.S. history, no federal law has been found to violate the second amendment.
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.