Interesting Ideas, Your opinions/Thoughts?

U

Uncle Buck

New member
A friend wrote this piece and I found it interesting. He wishes to remain anonymous right now, but may weigh in at later date. Some people will probably be offended by the use of language/stereo-types, but I would welcome all comments if the moderators see fit to let this thread stand.



Some time ago, I wondered about something I'd like to know from the anti-gun crowd: "Whereas you claim you want 'reasonable' and 'common-sense' controls, and whereas the Supreme Court has indeed rules there is an individual right to defensive (not [just] "sporting") arms, exactly what sort of arms would you 'allow' private citizens to have as secured by the Constitution? If you are true to what you say, you will have some sort of answer. If you want to talk, then you have to establish some sort of baseline. Or are you simply disingenuous liars?"

In November of 2012, I posted an article entitled, "What MUST we stand for?" In it, I listed "THREE key elements of public policy matters which I believe 'our side' ought to concentrate in holding the line against 'the other side'". Element 2 was the following:


2. Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.This does NOT mean the preservation of personal preferences or desires, does NOT include issues such as hunting or collecting of items which just happen to be weapons. Also, "carry"-type issues are recognized as being a bit more complicated than some goomer saying, "I gits ta carry a gun!"

So, even before the recent attention on this issue, I was both a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights AND one who put the matter into its higher scope and perspective. And it is from exactly that point that I post these ideas. The two schemes presented below are thoughts developed with the aim of securing the basic means to the end for which Second Amendment provision were intended. When the Heller decision came down back in 2008, my thought was that the pro-gun side should use the leverage it had from that decision to 1. set some sort of baseline with the anti-gun side (since pro-gunners tend to be individualists, and thus not politically reliable); and 2. do a trade-off with liberals on First Amendment issues--e.g., "Okay, you can ban short-barreled rifles and shotguns, but the news coverage supporting the enemy will be declared sedition".

Folks, it is inevitable that some changes will occur in this area. Purism is NOT the order of the day. Purism is suicide right now. Real and viable ideas for arrangements are needed, or a catastrophic failure will occur. You negotiate things in your personal lives all the time. You have to be willing to do that here, even if you "jus' kinda think" we shouldn't have to do so.

(On a related point, regarding pro-gun critics of the NRA: I love these people who are criticizing the NRA specifically for inaction, when the NRA is the only reason they have any right to arms at all. Those people are uneducated and unfamiliar with the reality of our political system. They have no long-term vision, only a vision of what they want personally. Many other groups are "no-compromise." Yet they are also "no-accomplishment". If some of the self-assured purists led the fight, we would be down to rolled-up newspapers as our arms. Subtlety, picking your fights, and consistent politics (like the "friendly incumbent" policy) is how things are done in our--and frankly any--political system. So please, folks, let the NRA do its job. They are the ones who got us Heller and McDonald. They are the ones who fought while others just sniped at them and drew money. They are the ones who can deal with this.)

More recently, I posted another article entitled, "People ought to go about this whole Second Amendment/gun control issue the right way". In it, I argued for the need to use to "use every ounce of creativity, thinking out of the box, and frankly quirky imagination to resolve" the issue at hand. Too many--actually, most--in the Second Amendment community see that "right to arms" as nothing more than a personal preference. They want it for self-focused reasons. I, on the other hand, see the right in terms of its intent--the defense of home and homeland--NOT personal indulgence. With that higher view in mind, I offer two approaches with which I have toyed around with force years, which might serve as a way of resolving the current threat to the Second Amendment. Neither is perfect, preferable, or complete, but I hope they will point the discussion in the right direction.

OPTION 1--"STATION IN LIFE": Allowed weapons dependent on station in life (I am NOT an egalitarian). Four-tier (plus one subset) system:

1. "Urban schmuck": Pump shotgun (.410 and/or 12) for home defense, plus pistol-caliber carbine (probably HiPoint-esque) for home as well as homeland (and community) defense.

2. "Rural schmuck": All of the above, plus full-power rifle due to land expanse, threat from four-legged critters, and longer emergency response time.

-- Subset--"Police": Full-size sidearm. (CAVEAT: This is based on the current practice of allowing police to be armed at all.)

3. "Military" (active and veteran): All of the above, plus "assault weapons," as they have the training to use them.

4. "Elite" (e.g., Donald Trump, or at least his corporations; "private security" firms, etc.): All of the above, plus whatever is suitable.


CARRY: Small pistols only with permit, extensive training, and certain restrictions. Adding to this a possible "derringer allowance"--all people allowed a derringer of no more than two rounds--would be interesting.

CAR CARRY: Depends on whether the Supreme Court comes to consider motor vehicles an extension of the home for applicability of Heller.

SCHEME 2--"OFFICIAL 'MILITIA RIFLE'": (I first suggested this one right after the 2008 Heller decision) Settle on a weapon "competitive on the modern battlefield" (suitable for modern combat, but not an "assault weapon"). The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms. Thus, declaring the flintlock musket the official militia arm would, given its obsolete nature, not be legitimate and in fact constitute an Amendment 2 violation. However, something more akin to the Saiga--basically an AK in less ominous configuration--with a magazine of a capacity more reasonable than the 10-rd limit, would seem suitable for people whose militia function would be (aside from general "resistance to tyranny") home defense, aiding with local law enforcement, and low-grade security or other support for trained military personnel in a domestic military action. As technology advances, re-evaluations would be undertaken to suitably upgrade what is designated the HDR.

Such an official weapon would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.

Below is a partial list of conceived considerations in selecting a "Militia" or "Homeland Defense Rifle". It attempts to take practical, tactical, and political realities into consideration.

- For pro-gunners:
Some "edginess" requiring concessions from anti-gunners ("Uh, we got dem to change!").
Military connection ("Hey, dis is a Aay-Kay!").

- For anti-gunners:
Simple appearance (few evil features).
High "sporting" utility (heavier caliber, size, furniture).
Full length (limited "assault" value).
- For utility:
Minimal maintenance (this is for common schmucks who won't put much labor into the matter--GEN Washington had the problem in his day, and this is not just about active shooters).
Single-round power (limited magazine capacity and possibly number requires more powerful round than 5.56mm).
Mil-spec durability (pretty hunting rifles just won't handle the pressure).
Effective in untrained hands when used within logical role of "militia" (common people not trained, modern warfare limits militia role to support).

One possible model for a HDR (mentioned above) would be a Saiga 308 with 16-inch barrel and (at least) 15-round magazine (and improved stock, in my opinion) for "Homeland Security rifle"? It has "militia" function capability, bridges gap between conventional and "black rifle" in appearance, yet points to distinction of schmuck civilians from military class. And the 15-round magazine would make brain dead rednecks think they won something--"Hey, dat's..., uh..., like, five whole rounds more'd'n before!" The five-round gain, AK mechanism, and increased "sporting" use ("I wants ta hunt, too!") will make this an easier sell to them.

NOTE: In 2008 I had considered the SKS (disregarding caliber)--semi-auto, 10-round fixed box magazine, bayonet, not all that concealable--as an HDR model. In truth, though, this would be giving far too much to the anti-gun crowd.

STORAGE: "Homeland Defense"-type arms would be required to be locked away and secured in ones home, etc. "Personal Defense" and "Property Defense" weapons would not. The HDs could only be accessed for specific purposes. In the event of a riotous threat (ala Koreans in 1992 LA riots), they could, of course, be used, as the dire nature of the situation calls for it and it would constitute more of a Homeland (Community) Defense situation than a Property Defense one (sorry, libertarians and individualists). VERY stiff penalties would apply to violations, and allowing misuse of ones HD arm(s) by another party would incur a strong presumption of criminal liability. In the event a straight HDR scheme is put into effect, then only high-capacity magazines would be safe-stored, as the guns themselves and other magazines must be available.

REGISTRATION: Whatever unburdensome registration is deemed necessary can be done, but the records themselves are left UNcomputerized and stored in a secure facility not subject to normal government search. The NRA or some such private outfit would run the facility and evaluate requests for identifying gun owners. "We've had a mass school shooting, with evidence included. We have such and such info on the weapon used. Please identify the one to whom this weapon is registered. Thank you very, very much," would probably, if the story checks out, lead to a search of records and necessary information provided. On the other hand, "Uh, yeah, like, there was a shooting or something, and the police chief here wants to harass someone with a gun. Give us somebody," or "We kinda think such and such a weapon might have been in the area when a little old lady was mugged," probably would not. In the event of government incursion into the facility or a similar risk of catastrophic loss of confidentiality, the facility would have appropriate self-destruct means (remember, it's NOT computerized, so cannot be hacked).

TRAINING: Mandatory training in high schools in the law of self-defense (make uniform nationally), basic gun safety, and (with restrictions and some limitations) a very basic instruction and practice with a long arm of some sort.

Either scheme, especially the HDR one (and there is range for merging much of the two*) will force anti-gunners into a tight situation. On the one hand, they can't complain too much, seeing as how it subjects the Second Amendment to restriction, and at least in the HDR scheme, meets most substantive objections to "assault weapons". It also forces them to acknowledge Heller and McDonald, as well as the intent of the Second Amendment and the function/purpose of its right. At the same time, it offers some law enforcement tools and obstacles to nutcase mass murders. Ultimately, it would settle the issue in our society (at least for ten years). Pro-gunners don't want to fight political battles. They are too selfish. This would appeal to them by allowing them to bow out of the issue with a secure knowledge of their weapons' status. Sincere anti-gunners will get some of what they want, and the disingenuous ones will be exposed. And most of all, constitutional integrity and "the security of a free state" will be maintained.

This is NOT an issue of "rights" so much as it is an issue of "responsibility". Look at it from the perspective of ones responsibility to be PART of the security of our country, etc., not a weakness of it. Securing ones own home, person, and property aids society. On the other hand, merely having an attitude that one has a "right" to something only contributes to the general decline of responsible behavior. And quite frankly, when a people lose their sense of responsibility (in other words, become liberal or libertarian), those people lose freedom. They become much like an irresponsible teenager who has the keys to the family car taken from them. And, if they complain too much or demand too much, those teenagers find themselves being treated as kindergartners, because that is exactly how they will be acting.

So, for the sake of the safety of the country and each of us, look at this from a perspective beyond yourself. Pro-gunners, shed the libertarian disregard for natural responsibilities to the national and local community, and to each other. Anti-gunners (if any ever read this), drop the anti-American agendizing and accept the reality of our Constitution, our heritage, and our universe. And everybody, try to work for the RIGHT thing.
Please consider.

Saiga 308 with factory 8-round magazine.
*In old England, peasants were at one time REQUIRED to maintain both a pike and a spear. The pike was a large, heavy weapon, and the spear was a lighter weapon. One could contend that in a modern-technology parallel, the HDR would be analogous to the pike, and a carbine and/or shotgun analogous to the spear. Providing for both as recognized "militia arms," thus, would have precedent and have a reasonable basis.
 
The trouble with his propositions (no matter which one you look at) is that all of them depend on the right to keep and bear arms no longer being a right.

Such proposals would be tantamount to saying that urbanites can use computers while rural dwellers can only have landline phones and newspapers. The good government men, however, can have laptops and smartphones.

The second proposal would be similar to telling me I can only use a computer with 4GB RAM and specific processors to use the internet or do whatever other speech related activities I so desire, simply because it fits the purpose satisfactorily and I don't *need* anything more powerful.

Furthermore, public opinion is divided enough that I don't see any serious legislative threats from the federal government, and the states capable of or willing to restrict gun rights any further can do so at any time they choose, anyways (see my home state, the wonderful New York, for Exhibit A). We aren't in such serious jeopardy that such discussions should be considered as "last resorts."

Finally, we aren't going to defend our rights successfully by willingly giving parts of them up (whether gun rights or other rights).

Folks, it is inevitable that some changes will occur in this area. Purism is NOT the order of the day. Purism is suicide right now. Real and viable ideas for arrangements are needed, or a catastrophic failure will occur. You negotiate things in your personal lives all the time. You have to be willing to do that here, even if you "jus' kinda think" we shouldn't have to do so.
Click to expand...

This isn't the language one uses to defend a right. It's perfectly fine, and often necessary, when handling the practical matters of something like finances (especially on a national level). Changes (restrictions) are not inevitable if we continue to make the incremental changes and successes in our favor like Heller and McDonald. We need to be active and responsible proponents of a natural human right, not compromisers, if we ever hope to maintain our rights for the future.
 
I am the one who wrote this up. Here is my response:


The trouble with his propositions (no matter which one you look at) is that all of them depend on the right to keep and bear arms no longer being a right.

This is probably the key error in Buffalo Wing's reply. He and so many others treat the right to arms as little more than a guarantee of a hobby. It is not about that. It is about a collective community function--the militia. Any military veteran will tell you that individuality is contrary to unit function.

1. 2A: "Well-regulated militia" -- Me: "...even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation..."
2. It is still a legal right. HE JUST DOESN'T GET HIS PREFERENCE. If the Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting, it ain't about any other hobby, either. In fact, the right is made stronger by the official recognition of specific arms indeed being constitutionally protected.


Such proposals would be tantamount to saying that urbanites can use computers while rural dwellers can only have landline phones and newspapers. The good government men, however, can have laptops and smartphones.
1. It's better than being down to 7-round pistols.
2. Urban and rural realities are different in terms of arms.
3. Government already has monopoly on modern artillery, etc.
4. Political realities (contrary to what he says later) simply do point to the American people wanted more regulation. What I propose is a way to appease the idiots who would go too far, while retaining the ability to defend home and homeland.


The second proposal would be similar to telling me I can only use a computer with 4GB RAM and specific processors to use the internet or do whatever other speech related activities I so desire, simply because it fits the purpose satisfactorily and I don't *need* anything more powerful.
1. BW: "activities I so desire" -- Ultimately, the militia function is not about "activities I so desire". It is about activities contributing to "the security of a free State"--the defense of home and homeland. BW's simple statement here goes back to the key error--focus on personal preference. He sees it solely as a right, and not a duty or responsibility.
2. Me: "...even as an active duty soldier does not have a 'right' to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the 'unorganized militia' would be subject to regulation..." -- Authorities decide such things as configuration of weapons and the size of magazines. The standard combat load today in the Army is 210 rounds in seven 30-round magazines. No 100-round drums. The Army made a judgment call and set the policy.
2. Non-military personnel do not have the same skill as military personnel. They have never had the sort of displinine that military experience puts into people, and they by and large lack the knowledge they would need if they led a fight. (Sorry, A-Team reruns and Nutnfancy vids just don't qualify.) Simply put, they can't "assault" very well, and the militia purpose is better served by them having coordinated with arms as I described.
3. Political realities can be conformed to in my plan. It is not dependent on pipe dreams.


Furthermore, public opinion is divided enough that I don't see any serious legislative threats from the federal government, and the states capable of or willing to restrict gun rights any further can do so at any time they choose, anyways (see my home state, the wonderful New York, for Exhibit A). We aren't in such serious jeopardy that such discussions should be considered as "last resorts."
1. He's delusional regarding the federal government. The polls are shifting, and people find the idea of a bunch of mismatched individuals with their ARs overthrowing a tyranny ludicrous. In truth, the best way to resist a tyranny is not with long guns in a stand-up fight, but rather very small arms and certain, uh, extreme measures directed at government agents and their families. Too many pro-gunners need to get real.
2. He's the defeatist one on the state governments (remember McDonald).
3. The idea is to head off the "serious jeopardy" while retaining the ability to perform the duty for which the right exists. If we go to what I suggest, we retain the means to the basic purpose. If we insist on "no-compromise," the people of the country will turn against us, and we lose everything. We have burned up a LOT of public goodwill as it, and burn more every time some hayseed in Tennessee spouts off.


Finally, we aren't going to defend our rights successfully by willingly giving parts of them up (whether gun rights or other rights).
1. Again, too much focus here is on "rights," not function. The truth is that we aren't going to defend home and homeland by stubbornly refusing to be politically realistic.
2. I did suggest working trade-offs on "liberal" rights (First Amendment). In fact, some Second Amendment proponents make the same mistake as First Amendment proponents--taking them way too far.
3. Another trade-off possibility would be to secure such things as concealed-carry reciprocity.
3. The right is made more productive, as the plans guarantee appropriate armament of the people. What isn't secure is personal preference, about which the Second Amendment is NOT. This is the distinction he and so many others seem unable to embrace. Such is the societal result of individualism.
4. Second Amendment concerns are on the down side in public opinion. Stubbornness will drive them against us. Pushing or holding for too much WILL eventually drive the people against this right. That is reality.


Quote:
Folks, it is inevitable that some changes will occur in this area. Purism is NOT the order of the day. Purism is suicide right now. Real and viable ideas for arrangements are needed, or a catastrophic failure will occur. You negotiate things in your personal lives all the time. You have to be willing to do that here, even if you "jus' kinda think" we shouldn't have to do so.

This isn't the language one uses to defend a right. It's perfectly fine, and often necessary, when handling the practical matters of something like finances (especially on a national level). Changes (restrictions) are not inevitable if we continue to make the incremental changes and successes in our favor like Heller and McDonald. We need to be active and responsible proponents of a natural human right, not compromisers, if we ever hope to maintain our rights for the future.
1. BW needs to look at the polls.
2. Notice he is not addressing my idea of how to handle registration.
3. CREDIT: At least he thinks incrementally.
4. The militia is actually more powerful under my proposals than it is today, as there is coordination of arms. Current individualism not only makes that difficult, it actually leads to attitudes resisting this. The old "militia codes" of the post-Revolution period laid out restrictions and guidelines as to what qualified for militia use. In our time of mass production and more complicated weapons, we need coordination and standardization.


The right to arms, while boiling down to arms in the possess of an individual, is about more than the individual. He needs to learn think of the purpose for the right, and not focus on the right itself. And unless he thinks he can fight off a national or community enemies all by his lonesome, he needs to learn to think in collective terms.


========================


VANYA:

I don't believe this
I will not read it again
Ain't no militia

Nice haiku, but that last line kinda hangs out there and points to what I'm suggesting. That said, it is in fact backwards. A militia has regulation and discipline. My ideas would make it MORE of a militia than anything we have had in America in generations. But discipline and regulation are the last thing the largely libertarian-minded Second Amendment community wants. And that individualism is why we are suffering the losses we are.
 
The Heller case specifically states that the right to bear arms is inherent, and that it is an individual right. It also specifically states that it is a violation of the constitution to outlaw an entire class of firearms that are in common use. The rest of this is a lot of capitulation and noise.

The majority of gun crime is related in some way to the war on drugs. That's why murder rates are so high in urban areas. There is no rational argument against a law abiding citizen owning a semi automatic pistol or rifle with more than 7-10 rounds in any city, regardless of crime rates.
 
Hopefully the Supreme Court will follow their logic in Heller and disregard public pressure.

As for it being capitulation, I would disagree in that it solidifies "militia arms" as guaranteed, and sets as official arms those which can be effective by a largely-untrained and undisciplined populace. We have a Bill of Rights, but not a Bill of "Wants". A militia needs cohesion and coordination.
 
OK, here's a longer response...
TommygunNG said:
My ideas would make it MORE of a militia than anything we have had in America in generations. But discipline and regulation are the last thing the largely libertarian-minded Second Amendment community wants. And that individualism is why we are suffering the losses we are.
Click to expand...
It's not only "the... libertarian-minded Second Amendment community" that doesn't want to be part of such an organization, it's the American people in general.

I don't think one can do better than to quote one our most knowledgeable members on this subject:
Tennessee Gentleman said:
...The militia is DEAD. The states and really the American People killed it. The bad truth is that most people do not like the military life and want no part of a compulsory (which it was in 1789) militia. George Washington wrote about it and even the citizen militia champion TJ [Thomas Jefferson] himself was forced to admit that the militia was ill-equipped for war. It was a republican (small r) ideal that never came to pass.

Gun folks want the militia so they can own military weaponry to play with but no one else wants one. Al is right, ask your governor why you can't be in one and he/she will point to the suffering state budget which unlike the Fed MUST be balanced (unless you are CA) and they won't pony up the money.

If you want to hedge against tyranny VOTE! Be politically active and join the NRA. That will do more for freedom than the Tommy Gun in your closet (that you probably don't know how to use in modern combat).
<snip>
The militia spoken of in the 2A were the State Militias and today that is the National Guard. The unorganized militia spoken about in 10 USC 311 is nothing more than a pool of individuals who may be used to fill the ranks of the organized militia which is the National Guard. The unorganized militia has no rights, duties or responsibilities.
Click to expand...

TommygunNG said:
...sets as official arms those which can be effective by a largely-untrained and undisciplined populace
Click to expand...
From the syllabus (summary) accompanying the full text of the Heller decision:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
<snip>
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the [unorganized] militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.​

The court ruled that there is an individual right to possess any weapon in common use, and that right is independent from service in, much less the perceived needs of, a (hypothetical) organized militia.

So, quite apart from anything else, it appears that what you propose -- restricting the weapons individuals are allowed to possess according to some sort of classification system -- would be unconstitutional under Heller, and implementing it would require Heller to be overturned.

I sincerely don't think we want to go there.
 
I'm in so long as I get to take the "elite" class on character creation.

;)

Your whole problem is this:
Look at it from the perspective of ones responsibility to be PART of the security of our country, etc., not a weakness of it. Securing ones own home, person, and property aids society. On the other hand, merely having an attitude that one has a "right" to something only contributes to the general decline of responsible behavior. And quite frankly, when a people lose their sense of responsibility (in other words, become liberal or libertarian), those people lose freedom. They become much like an irresponsible teenager who has the keys to the family car taken from them. And, if they complain too much or demand too much, those teenagers find themselves being treated as kindergartners, because that is exactly how they will be acting.
Click to expand...

Most of us are simply not interested in living in your authoritarian utopia.

The idea that: "if you are not a statist for me, you are against me" does not fly. "Liberals and libertarians (and throw in whatever other group will be up against the wall next) are bad.... me good."

This goes against every single precept upon which this country was founded.

All of your bad ideas (and trust me they are mostly all bad and seriously flawed) flow from this concept.
 
Nothing in the proposal,or whatever it is, seems reasonable to me. Why assume any rights need to be surrendered?
 
Thanks but No Thanks!
I'll take my purest views and the wisdom of our forefathers over your idea or any other modern interruption of the second amendment.
 
TommygunNG, As a 66 year old Vietnam veteran, a Life Member of the NRA, a retired government attorney after 36 years of service, and a carry permit holder I find your proposals to be illogical, hypocritical, discriminatory (but not racial or sexual) nonsense which implicitly assume only you have the necessary knowledge, judgment and expertise to craft perfect firearms law. Your implicit assumptions are proven false by your posts as documented in the first replies to the OP and your posts.
 
Holy Schamolley, TommygunNG!

Your idea takes the Collectivist View and the Statute of North Hampton to a new order of significance!

You sure you don't want to run this past the Brady's or the LCPGV (LCAV's new name)??? They won't like it, but it has enough schmaltz that they might just take and refine it!

Let me clue you in: Heller, McDonald, Woollard and Moore shot down all those arguments. Relying upon Miller for any of these ideas was thoroughly shot down by Scalia in Heller.

Good Grief...
facepalm.gif
 
There are just too many things wrong with these proposals to list. Anything short of enforcement of existing laws is unacceptable. In fact, some of the existing firearms laws are, in my opinion, unacceptable and unconstitutional. When did we stop reading the last phrase in the second amendemnt? - ... shall not be infrigned." So what's with all the infringement?
 
Holy cow... I'm not even sure where to start defending my statements.

I'll start with the militia as it was historically understood, I suppose, since Tommy concentrates so much on that. The militia had a requirement to provide their own weapons. There were typically requirements along the lines of how much ammunition they needed to be able to provide themselves. I don't remember seeing any law restricting what actual weapon a militiaman could choose for himself (though I'll happily stand corrected on that point if anyone can provide proof).

Furthermore, significant numbers of the Founders indicated that part of their support for the 2A lay in the ability of an armed populace to resist the tyranny of its own government. Government restrictions on what types of arms may be owned would fly directly in the face of that. It's very easy to show up and collect the required militia rifle if you know everyone has one (or that it's the only thing everyone has).

I'm not even going to touch the idea of class-based restrictions anymore. I'll only add that I actually hope someone tries it, legislatively. It will produce the strongest judicial support for the 2A seen yet, because if there is one thing that gets the courts hot and bothered, it's class-based restrictions on any right.

As for my concern about rights versus responsibilities, please note that all my comments about "activities" applied to my comments on 1A restrictions. However, since you want to tie the 2A so strongly to militia service in its only applicable purpose, surely you can admit that we would need to be able to engage in "activities" with our firearms in order to maintain proficiency with them and properly practice the responsibility that the right carries?

I'll take up your registration thoughts, too, if you want - I didn't perceive them to be central to your piece and didn't want to drone on ad nauseum. For starters, they won't work - ask the Canadians, or my homestate (see, oddly enough, Gov. Cuomo's ending of the statewide handgun ballistics registry which never solved a single crime despite its massive cost overruns). For seconds, the paper registration you propose can be as easily abused by the government for confiscation as a computer-based system. See the United Kingdom. For thirds, although it hasn't been established by the Courts yet, I see no reason why a registration system should pass Constitutional muster. It's an infringement of the right with no positive furtherance of any legitimate government interests.

I may appear as a "defeatist" with regards to my home state, but it's only the state government's way of doing business that's made me that way. For my home state, I must place my faith in the courts at this point (which I do). For other states, and the country as a whole, I have far more hope.

As for the polls, they're inconclusive at best. Most people say they want universal background checks and that's about it. Amusingly, while a lot of polls do suggest support for a renewed assault weapons ban, the public seems to be hypocritically voting with its pocketbook on that subject at this very moment, as one can't find an AR-15 and 30 round magazines to save one's life. That's typical of the American voting public and shows why the polls may not really be so reliable.

I'll finish on two major thoughts. First, Heller already separated the 2A's protections from the prefatory clause you have attached so much of your argument too, as Vanya and others have pointed out. It's already well established as an individual right not solely focused on one's ability to be a militia member. Second, I do care about the collective applications of the right, which is why I take the individual applications so seriously. The Founders rightly understood that the militia was inherently related to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is why they saw fit to attach it as one purpose for the codification of the right. However, that doesn't change the fact that their language in the 2A is as individualistic as the Constitution gets (see other rights referencing 'the People'). You'll find my opinion to be very consistent across all of those rights, as well.

Edit to add, because I forgot after all of my responses: I, too, find your arguments to have a strong statist flavor. That's not the principle our country and our Constitution were founded on.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with his propositions (no matter which one you look at) is that all of them depend on the right to keep and bear arms no longer being a right.
Click to expand...

This.

If a "Rights are non-negotiable" stance is indeed suicide, then pass me the hemlock, buddy, for to say that Rights are in fact negotiable means that they are not rights at all, and we have whatever the other side sees fit to give us, eventually.

I'll take mine standing up, and I'll be armed, thankee.

You can negotiate everything you have away, until you are not of any use to the state ...... at which point you'll still take yours, any way they see fit for you to get it.

"Your benefits are right over there, Julia, in the ditch with the line of armed comrades lined up 10 meters in front of it."
 
The Heller ruling will be over turned just as soon as Obama picks another Supreme Court judge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I'll put up my proposed legislation here. All we need is an elected legislator to put it in and get it passed.

Any person not otherwise prohibited to own and/or possess arms has the right to own and/or possess and bear any arms carried by any military personnel at the present time, or any arms carried by military personnel at any previous time. No laws infringing upon this right shall be enforced from this time henceforth.
Click to expand...

Pops
 
Long before I ever heard of any gun grabber arguments my reading of the Second Amendment led me to believe that not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms was more about the average gun owner developing the gun handling skills that would serve him in combat.

In practically every account of the superiority of marksmanship displayed by American Riflemen in WW1, WW2, and Korea, that high level of skill was credited to these young men having learned to shoot at an early age on their own dime not through any government training. What they learned in basic training just honed those skills.
The Germans recognized this as well, and they recruited snipers from those who had engaged in hunting game in civilian life.
The British had many skilled Marksmen who'd learned to shoot well on rifle ranges at standardized targets at known distances, but relatively few who had ever hunted with a rifle, there was just not that many places for the common man to hunt unless he was a poacher. They made great use of Australian and South African troops who had hunted from an early age, and men who'd been employed as game keepers on estates in the UK.

If you want troops who can hit what they are aiming at in poor light or rain at unknown range then they will be those who started with a BB gun and worked their way up through the rimfire and finally the centerfire rifles. Same goes for those who can hit with a handgun despite fatigue , fear, or excitement.
The hands remember when the mind can not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top