I don’t know where my thoughts fit. I may be a square peg- - -so be it.
My father quit the NRA , of which he had been a sporting member for half a
century. He shot game-birds and clay pidgeons. From the moment Charleton
Heston approved the possession of side-arms for CHILDREN, Dad quit the NRA.
Later, I was convinced that Mr. Heston was really promulgating a sort of popula-
tion control. Let the little delinquents, kill eachother off. Sorry Charleton. You understood human-nature better than the authorities did.
A link to the column you’re commenting on is appreciated, so we’re all on the same page. The most pertinent column seems to be What does “the right to bear arms” really mean? from several years ago.
Perhaps more likely is the current column on defensive firearms use, in which case you may also be interested in the other current thread about that column, defensive firearms use.
Cite please.
I support the right to arm bears.
I stand corrected. It was the general availability of AUTOMATIC
weapons that was not banned by the NRA. Minors are bound to “play”
with guns. Even “poor little Adlai” shot his own brother unintentionally but…
he lost the election for another reason, i.e. he didn’t have a First Lady.
Any guns are dangerous anywhere. Automatic weapons are NOT for sport.
That’s why my Dad quit the association.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that “Those of us who hammer our guns into ploughes, will plough for those who don’t.”
Oh, boy.
-
Automatic Weapons are NOT generally available.
(Cite) -
The NRA has no standing to do anything with regard to banning weapons.
-
Heston never approved anything for anybody, and if he did it doesn’t matter because while he may have been Moses, he was not a government official so his approval had no bearing on anything.
-
Given the expense of automatic weapons, their relative rarity, and their exceptionally onerous restrictions, they are good for nothing but sport.
Where, exactly, did you hear all of this stuff? Someone has to put this stuff in peoples’ heads. How they could get it so wrong is beyond me, unless it’s an intentional act.
Except that Jefferson experts can find no evidence that he said it. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Those_who_hammer_their_guns_into_plows gives one a-priori reason why he probably would not have, to which I myself would add that I doubt he would have used a well-known phrase from the Bible in such a snide manner.
Don’t feed the bears.
Stranger
Arm them. Don’t feed them.
If you search Google Groups, there were many discussions concerning the right to keep and bear arms around the period 1996-98, in which various quotes from the founding fathers were offered. I can almost document when someone offered a quote from Jefferson(which was not the quote attributed to him in your assertion), but the way the post read I can see how someone could confuse this issue.
To make it perfectly clear, somewhere in or about 1997, during a usenet discussion, the idea came up in someone’s mind that TJ said this. He didn’t.
But, once it’s on the internet, it gets passed along. And, to some people, it’s true.
Are you referring to the Assault Weapons Ban that the NRA opposed? If so, that had NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. It was a deceptively named bill designed to make people think it was banning automatic weapons. Instead, it banned a number of regular semi-automatic weapons that had various cosmetic features that made them look scarier than your pop’s hunting rifle, despite often firing less powerful rounds.
As far as the sporting uses of machine guns goes, I’ve been to public Hernando Machine Gun shoot a number of times, and I never saw anything that made me feel unsafe or otherwise made things seem wrong. A number of holes were put into a number of inanimate targets, and a good, safe time was had by one and all. The only tragedy was how expensive all the ammo was.
God, where to start. People have made such a mess of this debate everywhere in this country and have entirely over-complicated the facts. It’s as simple as this. Despite anyone’s theories, the founders of the Constitution obviously intended for every citizen to be able to have a firearm for THEIR defense. Yes, there is the whole thing about defense from a tyrannical government but, ultimately it’s about DEFENSE period. People just cannot understand that. For just a second, completely forget about the legal arguments, terminology used in the second amendment and just think about one thing with me. In a country of supposedly “free” people, if you are not allowed to have weapons with which to defend yourselves or your loved ones, then you will always be the subject of any criminal, tyrant, or other individual looking to usurp your rights and belongings. So can anyone honestly say that they think the founders did not intend for the second amendment to be primarily about an individual right? If so, you are just fooling yourself. By the way, the bill of rights is almost entirely centered around INDIVIDUAL rights.
As far as the whole militia argument goes, that is simply a ill-conceived ploy to try and justify taking away our right to firearms. Some people think the militia wording implies the State’s ability to form and arm a National Guard. First off, the National Guard did not exist until 1903, and the Constitution was created in 1787. Second, according to the Militia Act of 1792, a majority of adult males ages 18-45 were considered to be part of the militia by default. The meaning of the word militia was very different back then, compared to the modern definition.
Here is an excellent article with far more than I can type, and it really clarifies many of the fallacies and inaccuracies regarding gun control, the second amendment, etc:
One aspect I think people overlook is the BOR is intended to be an official document acknowledging the NATURAL human rights of every human being. People sometimes misunderstand that fact. The Constitution and the federal government do not grant ANY rights to anyone, they are simply what the founders felt were the natural human rights (God given rights) that EVERY person possessed. It also went on to affirm protection of these rights to EVERY citizen of the United States. In addition to this, everyone would do well to read the 10th amendment very carefully as there is another aspect here that gets overlooked far too often:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
What this means is that if the Constitution does not clearly state a right the federal government has, then the government has no right to regulate, abolish, usurp that right. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about federal regulation of the 2nd amendment or firearms in general, therefore technically any federal gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal. Again, it clearly states in the second amendment “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun bans and heavy restriction or regulation that act as effective bans are unconstitutional according to the last part of the second amendment alone. There is no need for discussion, it is clearly stated. Some people don’t like it because they do not like firearms and have a great deal of misconceptions about them. It is not up to them to determine my rights anyways just as it is not my right to “take away” their right to free speech, no matter how ill-informed.
Also, a majority of amendments in the Constitution dealing with the government and the states focus heavily on restriction of them both respectively as the founders had just overthrown England and naturally had fears of a tyrannical government or state usurping the rights of The People.
One last thing, and something I think any liberal/anti gun individual can really get behing. Opening up the Constitution for debate and attempting to repeal the second amendment makes the entire BOR and Constitution fair game in principle. We absolutely cannot allow this as Americans. I know many liberals, and they are sick and tired of their rights being usurped. Many people polarize the issue and then the facts get lost somewhere in between. Liberals talk about “fascist” republicans. Republicans talk about socialist liberals, etc etc. Heck, I’m a Republican but, I am absolutely disgusted with Bush and the shocking number of civil rights he has trampled on in office. I think the one thing that true liberals and conservatives can BOTH get behind is we all love our civil rights. Sure, we have different beliefs on a great number of subjects, however generally we all love the US, love our constitutional rights, etc etc. That is why I feel it is important for those that dislike firearms to understand the purpose of and necessity of the second amendment. Without it we are subjects, at the mercy of anyone that would take advantage of us. Also, opening up the second amendment to debate or nullification will have the effect of declaring open season on the entire bill of rights. We have actually already seen some of these rights being eroded illegally. The right to free speech for example. Under Bush we now have “free speech zones” in many cities, and other areas declared as non-free speech zones. That should shock and scare all of us. People, I implore you, please see the big picture here. The second amendment and firearms in general may not be to everyone’s tastes but, the rest of our rights are at risk if we allow the abuse of one of them. The second amendment is about allowing the individual to be self sufficient in their own protection, plain and simple.
Well said, sir.
Well said.
I think that’s a little disingenous. Leaving aside the specific issues of the OP, the NRA does have positions on gun laws and it does advocate its positions. It doesn’t legislate but it brings as much influence as it can on the people who do legislate.
I can’t imagne that the framers of The Constitution considered the 2nd ammendment to refer to people “defending themselves” from crime as we see it today. A flintlock musket would be an absurd weapon to stop from being robbed or raped. “Please Mr Mugger, wait til I load my barrel with powder, ram down a wad and bullet, and aim”.
Now whether the right for defense against domestic tyranny, or foreign invasion is individual or collective is ripe for debate.
“Militia” meant “militia”. It never at any time meant “a majority of adult males ages 18-45”, any more than, in a later era, “draftees” did. And, on the other hand, the National Guard is, without question, the modern successor in law to the old militias, historically created to satisfy the West Pointers’ desire to sweep the old Militia and Volunteer units into a nice dark corner where they would never bother the discipline of the Regular Army again.
The problem of the exact meaning of the, frankly, sloppy wording of the 2nd Amendment is a wretched one, especially in this age when the historic militias have been reduced to a tiny and unrepresentative vestige. I don’t know what the answer is, but I know that silly word games aren’t the way to find the answer.
In fact at the time the Constitution was drafted, there were no professional police forces, and little in the way of statutory law, as the American legal tradition extends from English Common Law. (Louisiana and French-controlled areas were governed by autocratic legal traditions prior to the institution of the Napoleonic Code, and Spanish-held areas were mostly governed by Roman Catholic Church-influenced authority.) Any enforcement of order came not from statutory authority of a police force but by the action of individuals or local militias and tribunals typically run by local authorities. So you are correct that the Second Amendment was not drafted with the specific consideration for personal defense, because that would have been an implicit and unquestioned right by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The question of personal ownership of firearms–for use in hunting, protection of livestock, and personal defense–was a non-issue for them because of this assumption, implicit in the statement. The importance of infantry arms in service to resistance against an occupying tyranny was. of course, their primary focus, hence the (non-exclusionary) conditional, “A well-Regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” One notes, however, that it is the established legal tradition with regard to constitutional law in the United States that a mention of “the People” in all other contexts refers to the rights of individuals rather than a collective or so-called states’ right; hence, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms,” (and the lack of a subordinating conjunction) must refer to an individual right without exclusion.
By the way, a flintlock is not the “absurd weapon” you describe for defense. Aside from the fact that a frequently used flintlock–especially one used for hunting–would often be kept in a loaded state, with practice one can load a musket in under twenty seconds. Travelers often kept loaded muskets and pistols in the case of attack by highwaymen or animal attacks. It wouldn’t be my preference compared to a modern self-loading pistol or rifle, but not as impossible as you describe, either.
Stranger
Arm the bears, and I think they’ll take care of feeding themselves. How did the saying go? Give a bear a fish, and it will eat for a day. Give a bear an AK-47… 
I’m not even sure where to start. There were paid “watchmen” in Boston as early as 1707 and the offices of Sherrif and Justice of The Peace preceded that. Common vs Statutory Law has no relation to whether or not police forces are professional.