Posted on 03/19/2010 6:43:57 AM PDT by marktwain
All too often, it is apparent in news articles involving the Second Amendment, guns, concealed carry, hunting and shooting rights, gun control, etc. that the writer is completely unfamiliar with the subject.
When an Ohio radio show producer began working on a story about the U.S. Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago, she decided that she would not only use the suit as an opportunity to learn more about Ohio's firearm laws, but also as an opportunity to overcome her fear of guns.
From the Willoughby, OH News-Herald:
Anne Adoryan wants to help people think before they fear.
But, before she can do that, she first must face her fears.
Adoryan is a producer for a law radio show. She is researching the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, which could address if Second Amendment rights extend beyond federal to local and state laws. In short, the Second Amendment establishes the right to bear arms. Otis McDonald has sued the city of Chicago for an ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within its borders.
The Supreme Court has listened to oral agreements and will probably not make a judgment for several months.
The court already has struck down a similar law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds that it is a federal enclave but has not ruled on any place that is also subject to city and state laws.
Adoryan is using the suit as an opportunity to learn more about Ohio's firearm laws. The only problem — she's afraid of guns.
"I don't have a direct relationship with guns, and I think that's one of the reasons I'm afraid of them. And it's one of the reasons I want to learn more about it," she said.
This is the kind of wisdom and self-awareness that grassroots gun owners look for in a journalist, but rarely ever see.
Adoryan's experience with firearms is limited to one time she went rifle shooting with a former boyfriend. She said she's not necessarily scared of using guns, just scared of the power they have and how she would react to them.
Even after she had a few days to prepare herself, she was still nervous when she met Wednesday with two people from Sherwin Shooting Sports in Eastlake.
"I'm not shaking as much as I was earlier this week," Adoryan said. "I've calmed down because I thought about it more, rationalized it more, but I'm still apprehensive."
Leah Madachik, a firearms trainer at Sherwin, is not so different from Adoryan. She grew up in a household without guns, partly because her grandfather shot himself.
"I was terrified of guns before I got involved with them," Madachik said.
Madachik first worked with Sherwin as a model. Then, some of the guys who worked there took her to the shooting range so she could better understand what she was modeling. Now, she's comfortable with guns. She teaches the class needed to carry a concealed weapon and carries a handgun herself.
Madachik assured Adoryan that the best way to beat fear was with knowledge.
"It's very easy to overcome that fear, though," she told Adoryan. "The more you know about it, the less afraid somebody is going to be of it."
Adoryan talked to Madachik and Blake Frederick, the owner of Sherwin. She asked questions about the McDonald suit, Ohio firearm and CCW laws, and guns, in general.
After detailing their discussion, the story goes on to sat that Madachik took time to show Adoryan different handguns and explained the differences between semi-automatic handguns and revolvers as well as double and single actions. Then, she took Adoryan to the range.
Adoryan fired three different handguns. She hesitated less each time she pulled the trigger.
"You're a deadshot," Madachik exhorted after Adoryan nailed one bull's-eye.
Adoryan admitted that she still had some trepidation after her interview and experience on the shooting range.
"Even after the first round or first few, it was still a shock every time, especially when I switched guns," she said.
"The more I learn about guns, the more I learn there is to learn about guns; and the thing that scares me the most is people don't know all of this. Even the people who own guns may not, apparently, know all there is to know about guns.
"So while I feel very comfortable with the people who are here on the range working with me, it seems like a much different thing to go into the real world and function in the same plane as other people who are carrying handguns around."
Anne Adoryan deserves a great deal of credit for doing her homework on an issue she knew little about, and yet was tasked with covering as a news item. We can only hope other self-respecting journalists will follow her lead.
For more on Adoryan's learning experience, click here.
The day of annual training (run by the National Guard during the birth month) would cover mobilization information and record updates, basic Constitution class, basic first aid and basic M-16 weapon safety and firing training. In exchange, the individual would receive a fixed amount of money. Those that fail to show during their birth month would be required to make up the training the next month but not be eligible for the money. Those that fail to show up would not be eligible for any Federal benefits or jobs until they made up the training.
Excellent Idea!!
Yes, exactly my point. Simply amazing.
One other thing: I have found that women usually turn out to be pretty good shots. They don't have the ego thing, and they listen to their instructors (as long as it's not the husband/boyfriend). And they usually have pretty good hand-eye coordination. It's not universal, but it's pretty widespread, I think. I'd love to see more ladies carrying, and let's stop these punks from thinking they can prey on females, and get them to fearing that a pretty girl may be packing.
Big difference between protecting and establishing.
Typos rear their heads at the most inopportune times, don’t they?
“Madachik first worked with Sherwin as a (gun)model. Then, some of the guys who worked there took her to the shooting range so she could better understand what she was modeling. Now, she’s comfortable with guns. She teaches the class needed to carry a concealed weapon and carries a handgun herself.”
Where do I meet her? And are there pics? A former model, a gun enthusiast, and a CC holder? I am in love!!!! WRITE ME Madachik! ;)
What part of the 2nd don’t you understand?
Seems to me like the part that says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the least understood.
Consider these words from the 16th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
They are pretty much like the words from the 2nd quoted above. They have the same structure. But, I have heard of no one who thinks there are not limits to the words “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…” Nobody I ever heard of thinks “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…” includes the right of citizens of one State to vote for the elected officials of another State.
But at least some people think “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has no limits and is inclusive up to the keeping and bearing of nuclear weapons.
The words “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” need to be better understood. Those words are going to be discussed and those who support 2nd Amendment rights should do a lot of the discussing—rationally if possible.
“But at least some people think “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has no limits and is inclusive up to the keeping and bearing of nuclear weapons.”
I recall a thread where folks were debating this, and someone said by “arms” they meant things carried personaly by a troop. So automatic weapons, hand grenades, TOW missles, etc. (But not tanks or jets or A-bombs).
But someone else mentioned how private ships (privateers) had their own cannon. Which is mot a “personal” weapon.
As one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from our government, I’m pretty sure our Founding Fathers would want us on a bit more level playing field instead of mainly limited to hunting rifles and shotguns.
Of course the original Patriots were fond of “trading up” to the King’s cannons!
Thanks to all who pointed this out... Thanks, ShadowAce.
One argument (which I rather agree with) is that it permits all arms of a discriminate nature - those that can be used for their expressed intent without infringing on the rights of others outside the conflict.
Basically, anything short of a WMD, which cannot be used discriminately - you cannot fire one off at an attacker without causing problems for others.
No, no they didn't. Now, the result may have been a better understanding of what she was modeling, but I can guarantee that wasn't the reason they took her there.
I am a firm 2nd Amendment supporter but haven’t touched a firearm since the mid-1970s. I appreciate the craftsmanship, but don’t like the noise and kick.
hearing protection and light loads are our friends...
Sound suppressors are legal in many states (though quite annoying to buy as there are many legal hoops to jump through) and recoil is much, much lower than in the past.
i cant help but think that if they woulda had some NBC arsenal that theyda used it...just like yer tag, overwhelming firepower was the expectation written into the Constitution imo...
realistically though, that whole anti gun argument is a strawman for what we would think appropriaate or 'doable' in most all our daily lives...
Yeah, but they were also big on respecting others’ rights - so it’s a workable proposition.
That said, that’s about the only restriction that could be reasonably placed on the right as the Founders knew it.
“No, no they didn’t. Now, the result may have been a better understanding of what she was modeling, but I can guarantee that wasn’t the reason they took her there.”
I could have been one of the reasons, certainly. Maybe not the principle one....
“That said, that’s about the only restriction that could be reasonably placed on the right as the Founders knew it.”
Maybe not.
Some might point to Jefferson, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms…”, Sam Adams “...who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...” and the early State declarations of rights which used words like “defence of themselves and the State”.
They might then take the position that reasonably “the right of the people to keep arms” is restricted to those who are free, peaceable, and not intent on something other than defense of themselves and the State.
Further, did “the right as the Founders knew it” extend to a man on the gallows or to an innocent-till-proven-guilty man on trial? Or was it reasonably restricted?
Also, going into the early part of the first century of the Republic, my understanding is that carrying concealed arms was outlawed some places because carrying arms openly was legal and the only known reason to carry them concealed was to take advantage of your fellow man, or so they thought reasonable.
I live near NRA headquarters and when I have the time and money, I will go down there, get plenty of advice and try out a few pieces.
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.