Gun-toting is central part of American identity

Breitbart (Wire source is Agence France Presse) ^ | 3/16/08 | n/a

[kiriath_jearim]

Guns were an essential tool in frontier life when the United States was formed hundreds of years ago, and even today the right to carry them remains a fundamental part of the country's identity.

Hence the heated emotions surrounding an issue that comes before the Supreme Court this week -- how modern society should interpret gun rights that were written into the Second Amendment of the Constitution during a very different era.

The deadly impact of gun-toting criminals in recent years has made its way into the nation's conscience with a spate of gruesome mass shootings, particularly at schools and universities.

But the massacres, such as the nation's worst school rampage to date when a 23-year-old South Korean gunman at Virginia Tech University killed 32 people including himself last year, have largely failed to rouse any widespread movement against the right to bear arms.

Instead, the local press in Blacksburg, where the shootings occurred, focused on the opposite notion after the fact -- whether the killings could have been prevented or reduced if students or professors were allowed to carry guns in class.

America's love for guns "comes from the history and the geography of the nation, the fact that it was a very decentralized, sparsely populated frontier-dominated culture without a sense of a sovereign government," said William Vizzard, a professor of criminal justice at California State University.

The reason that even some liberal Americans will not take up the cause for abolition of guns is a relic of that older time, a "political cultural trend from the frontier society that was very self-reliant," Vizzard said.

When the first colonists arrived on what are now US shores, it was an every man -- or at least every group -- for himself mentality that ensured the strong survived and which fueled settlers' fights with Native Americans already on the land, the French arriving from Canada, and the Spanish moving up from Florida.

And once the United States gained its independence from Britain the founding fathers determined that an armed population was the best way to resist takeover by dictatorship or aristocracy, according to Eugene Volokh, law professor at University of California Los Angeles.

The United States' third president Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and one of the main authors of the US Constitution of 1787, believed firmly in this principle.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land," Jefferson wrote. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

And the Second Amendment to the Constitution, added in 1791, assures that: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

According to Justice Joseph Story, the "right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers," he wrote in an academic paper.

However, he noted that "among the American people there is a growing indifference to any sense of militia discipline," and questioned "how it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization."

Today, a large part of what pushes millions of Americans to join the powerful gun lobby the National Rifle Association (NRA) is a "you're not-gonna-tell-me-what-to-do reaction to government," accord to Vizzard, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

In addition, sheer consumerism plays its role.

"Each culture develops its interest in something, and in the United States' consumerism, guns are just a part of that."

[robertpaulsen]

"Congress would retain the power to outlaw the writing of books."

I never said that. I don't even know that Congress HAS that power.

I was discussing the protection of a right. YOU are the one who assumes that if a right is not protected it's immediately illegal.

[stevio]

Thank you all for your service to our country.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen quoted: To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people” ..."

Your quote is too non-specific to establish what you claimed; that women were denied Fourth Amendment protection from warrantless searches. Since we already know that women were denied the vote, that alone would be sufficient to justify the wording you quoted.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "YOU are the one who assumes that if a right is not protected it's immediately illegal."

No. I specifically said, "Congress would retain the power to outlaw the writing of books."

I never suggested that they would or would not do so.

Back on point...Using your interpretation of your library amendment, Congress would retain the power to outlaw the writing of books. They would be free to exercise that power whenever a majority of Congress and the President decided to outlaw the writing of books. And nothing in your library amendment, according to you, would prevent them from doing so or justify the Supreme Court in denying Congress that power.

[Cobra64]

Protecting our eyes and ears is very important, but of secondary importance. We shouldn't be so hung up over it as to be "paralyzed" if we forget. I was taught four "rules of gun safety". Eye and ear protection are conspicuous by their absence. I note for the record that my instructor(s) are, and I am, a big proponent of proper eye and ear protection. All IMHO. 123 posted on 03/17/2008 11:30:26 AM MDT by ArrogantBustard You are absolutely correct. The most important are: 1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. 2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. 3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. followed by: 4. Know your target and what is beyond. 5. Be sure the gun is safe to operate. 6. Know how to use the gun safely. 7. Use only the correct ammunition for your gun. 6. Wear eye and ear protection. 7. NEVER use alcohol or drugs before or while shooting. 8. Store guns so they are NOT accessible to unauthorized persons. 9. Be aware that certain types of guns and many shooting activities require additional safety precautions. This is from my NRA Certified Range Safety Officer training presentation.

_____________________________________________________

Sheesh!

Leave it alone.

I don't even know these people. Why the lecture?

By the way, this is me shooting a stainless steel Sig Sauer P226 ST in 9mm parabellum.

As you can see:
I am wearing eye protection.
I am wearing hearing protection.

Observe photos below:

My hearing protection is Sordins MSA Supreme Pro Super Max electronic ear muffs that cost $350.00. If you do not know what electronic shooting muffs are, look it up.

And everyone I shoot with wear hearing and eye protection. Observe photo below.

Some people in the picture at that particular moment do not have their hearing protection on because the range is cold and the instructor is speaking. And not everyone has electronic muffs.

Furthermore, the instructor is Bruce Gray who has these as his credentials:

9-02 IPSC World Shoot 13, South Africa, Seventh place, second USA, Silver Medal (USP9)
8-02 World Speedshooting Championships, California, 2nd IDPA (USP Expert)
8-02 USPSA Race Gun Nationals, Oregon, 23rd (USP Expert)
7-02 USPSA Factory Gun Nationals, Illinois, 13th, 7th in category (USP Expert)
9-01 Golden Bullet Championship, California, 1st overall (USP Expert)
5-01 Oregon Open USPSA Championships, Oregon, 1st overall (USP Expert)
9-01 Toys for Tots Charity Invitational, California, 1st overall (USP Expert)
8-01 World Speedshooting Championships, California, 2nd IDPA (USP9)
7-01 USPSA-2, Arizona, 14th, 4th in category (USP Expert)
10-00 IDPA Western Regional Championship, California, 1st overall (USP9)
9-00 IDPA Nationals, Mississippi, 7th, 1st in category (USP9)
5-00 NRA Bianchi Cup, Missouri, 2nd , 1st Barricade Event, 2nd Practical Event, 3rd Shootoff, 2nd Jackpot, (USP Expert)

"Free Republic is becoming a nanny site. Pretty soon we'll have seat belts on motorcycles."

.

.

Where was the hearing and eye protection in WWII, Korea, Vietnam?

[Uri’el-2012]

I see your Instructor is wearing a pair of Peltor 6s
Just like the one I have worn for over ten years

[papertyger]

Kudos!

I see from the picture you’re keeping your thumb off the trigger ;o)

[supercat]

Presuming that one is safer because the gun is unloaded has caused many deaths.

That a firearm was last observed two seconds ago to be unloaded does not give one license to handle it carelessly. Nonetheless, there are plenty of situations where an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded one. While most pistols are drop-safe, many rifles and shotguns are not.

Further, a firearm which is left unattended runs a risk of being in a fire. If a round is chambered, it will likely be fired with the same velocity as if someone pulled the trigger. Hope nobody's downrange.

If a firearm is stored in a fire safe or other airtight enclosure, storing ammunition with or in it may turn the safe into a bomb. I don't know exactly how much ammo would be required to pose a risk, but why chance it?

There's nothing wrong with keeping a firearm loaded if it needs to be kept ready for use (though IMHO unattended firearms would be best left with a round unchambered or, in the case of revolvers, with the cylinder open). Keeping a Barrett .50 in the closet with a round chambered, however, would seem to pose a needless risk to firefighters.

[Cobra64]

Kudos!

I see from the picture you’re keeping your thumb off the trigger ;o)

I ambidextrous, and never ride the slide catch/lock/release lever with my other thumb either!

Actually I'm a pretty fair shot.

[supercat]

"So why have you implied elsewhere that only militia members are protected?" Because that's the logical conclusion drawn when reading the second amendment.

Would there be any limits to Congress' authority to declare that anyone and everyone they wanted to disarm was "not part of the Militia"? If so, what are those limits? If not, what could the government do in the absence of the Second Amendment that it cannot legitimately do in its presence?

[robertpaulsen]

"Using your interpretation of your library amendment, Congress would retain the power to outlaw the writing of books."

As I said before, I don't know where Congress would get that power.

"They would be free to exercise that power whenever a majority of Congress and the President decided to outlaw the writing of books."

Not library books. Those books have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well stocked library. And per my amendment, a well stocked library is necessary to the security of a free State.

[Cobra64]

I see your Instructor is wearing a pair of Peltor 6s Just like the one I have worn for over ten years

Did you only wear one? You should be suspended for a week due to not wearing officially approved and sanctioned NRA head gear. I don't like Peltors; they clip range commands.

Regardless of my sarcasm, and in all seriousness, the NRA makes it impossible to find an NRA range. Their website is almost worthless. Everything is geared towards instructors. None of the clubs have google.maps or Mapquest links attached. I gave up and take my kids out into a farmer's field (with his permission of course) and teach the safety and marksmanship myself.

[robertpaulsen]

"Would there be any limits to Congress' authority to declare that anyone and everyone they wanted to disarm was "not part of the Militia"?"

Where would Congress get the power to totally disarm the citizenry? Not even DC did that.

"If not, what could the government do in the absence of the Second Amendment that it cannot legitimately do in its presence?"

Well, we don't have state Militias as the primary military force anymore, so it's really hard to say. Given the current military arrangement, I don't any difference.

[William Tell]

supercat said: "Nonetheless, there are plenty of situations where an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded one. "

I don't think we are in disagreement at all. My statement had to do with "presuming that one is safer".

One can unload guns all day long, without having to presume that any particular one is unloaded. The actual fact of being safer will depend upon two things; first, does one continue to presume that the guns are unloaded and 2) are the guns, in fact, unloaded?

I think it is a mistake to "presume that the gun is unloaded" and expect to be able to handle it as if it was loaded. I simply "presume that it is loaded" and also handle it as if it was loaded.

It's a very subtle mental distinction, but one which I think is vitally important.

I attended a four-day FrontSight training course last year. One very interesting thing was that each of us was expected to sign a very lengthy agreement about how we were going to do "dry practice" when away from the range. Dry practice is critical to developing good trigger control.

Note that FrontSight has adopted the term "dry practice" as opposed to "dry firing". If the gun is dry, then there will be no firing.

Some of the terms of the agreement involved dedicating both a time and a place for practice. The gun is verified to be unloaded prior to beginning the practice. Only the designated target is utilized for dry practice. When the dry practice session is over, then the designated target is put away and no further practice is permitted.

This very elaborate process had to be implemented because several people, staying at local hotels, had failed to make the proper presumptions about whether their guns were loaded. At some time during the process, THE GUN HAD BEEN UNLOADED.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Not library books. "

I see. Does that mean that the writers have to do their writing IN A LIBRARY, then?

[supercat]

I don't think we are in disagreement at all. My statement had to do with "presuming that one is safer".

Ah. It is reasonable in many cases to presume that one will likely be safer if one unloads a firearm. It is dangerous, however, to presume that unloading a gun has made one safer. Would that be a fair description?

[supercat]

"Would there be any limits to Congress' authority to declare that anyone and everyone they wanted to disarm was "not part of the Militia"?"

Where would Congress get the power to totally disarm the citizenry? Not even DC did that.

You didn't answer the question. Could the Congress use its powers over the militia to exclude anyone and everyone from it they didn't want to possess weapons? What would prevent them from doing so?

[robertpaulsen]

"Could the Congress use its powers over the militia to exclude anyone and everyone from it they didn't want to possess weapons?"

No.

"What would prevent them from doing so?"

The people at the polls, for one. Possibly the President. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that the was no rational basis for completely disarming the public. The states could claim a second amendment violation, in that they would be unable to form a militia. Disarming the citizenry could even jeopardize national security, subjecting members of Congress to charges of treason.

[supercat]

Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court could rule that the was no rational basis for completely disarming the public.

Ah, but I didn't say completely disarming the public. Merely disarming all those people Congress didn't want to possess weapons. Is there some minimum set of people whom Congress has to let keep weapons? If so, who is in that set?

[robertpaulsen]

"Merely disarming all those people Congress didn't want to possess weapons."

Then you get into Equal Protection and Due Process issues.

"Is there some minimum set of people whom Congress has to let keep weapons?"

I have no idea. Where are you going with this? What's your point?