Guns...For the Children

Sierra Times ^ | Lewis J. Goldberg

[Sir Gawain]

Guns...For the Children
By: Lewis J. Goldberg
Published 06. 20. 02 at 20:37 Sierra Time

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

Roots

The Second Amendment sealed into the law of the land the fact that American society is a society that not only tolerates guns, but was built upon their ownership. The Colonials who fought in the Revolution did not run to the local armory to get an 'issue' weapon, they reached in their closets. Apparently this lesson is not lost on the advocates of 'more gun laws,' who do not want another revolution.

At the onset of the Revolution, citizen militia outnumbered Colonial 'Regulars' more than two to one, and of the 200,000-plus individuals that fought in the War, more than half were simply men grabbing their rifle and heading out the door.* The men who crafted the Bill of Rights understood and lived with these simple facts, and they included a codified, permanent acknowledgement of the right Thomas Jefferson articulated in the Declaration of Independence to "...alter or to abolish it [the existing government,] and to institute new Government..." And since 'government' is power, the only way to overcome power is with more power.

During Revolutionary times, it should be noted that while 'quality' may have varied, the citizen militia possessed the same design of firearm that the Redcoats had. Were the Colonials armed with swords, the British would have shot them to pieces. So easy it is to gaze wistfully at picture books depicting scenes of our own glorious revolution, and to be thankful for the sacrifice those brave men made, but likewise so willing to deny the living the same tools of honour taken for granted by the first Americans.

The 'Kill Me' Generation

Today's 'philosophical elite,' which is to say everyone with a paid voice, printed or recorded, from the media to the halls of Congress, is doing their level-best to drive the public into the suicide of disarmament. The fact that such nonsense sells is testimony to Santayana's maxim on the fate of men to relive history when it is ignored. The sheer suicide of 'weapon-free' societies is well documented, but like the smoker who reads the warning as he lights up, the facts make no difference [not to disparage smokers, as I plan to start smoking when I retire...it's a slow death, and I'll already be old.]

We have, in fact, become the 'kill me' generation. Anyone who can read should know that violent crime in the twin 'gun-free' paradises of England and Australia has gone up since the ban. When there is a power vacuum, someone will rush in to fill the void. Governments do it as they become more repressive against a timid population, and likewise criminals find easier prey in disarmed societies [and some may beg to understand the difference between the two situations.]

Regard the following:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

The preceding quote is from Robert A. Heinlein's 1942 book, Beyond This Horizon in which Heinlein has a brief moment of common sense [or plagiarism, since the same thought is expressed, regarding the manners of the American South, in Alexis DeTocqueville's 1835 book Democracy in America.]

...Shall Not Be Infringed

The Bush Administration recently announced, through the Department of Justice, that henceforth the Second Amendment shall be interpreted as an individual right [as opposed to a collective right of 'militias' to bear arms, as had been the case since 1939.] Since during the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the 'militia' could have been any able-bodied male between 17 and 45... hence just about everyone [and when things get really bad, women, kids, and geezers start shooting too.] In any example of period writing, the right is clearly referred to as an individual right.

This means that Conservatives are rejoicing, no?

No.

Solicitor General Ted Olson also said that the right is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

Let's examine this interpretation by Mr. Olson. Breath deep and read together:

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.

One is left to wonder what purpose the phrase "shall not be infringed" has within the Amendment if the government [remember them?...they're the folks from whom the Second Amendment is supposed to protect the people.] Where does Mr. Olson get this concept? Expediency is the answer...the same type of expediency which the Amendment process was supposed to guard against.

"But-but-but....we can't let murderers and psychos have guns...in public...with decent folks like us! [tremble.grmfff.snort.]"

How long do you think murderers and psychos would last on the streets if all society was armed? Remember DeToqueville's observation? Here are some suggestions for Constitutional gun reform:

• Assault Rifle Bans - All such restrictions should be struck from the books as unconstitutional. The public should be allowed to purchase any weapon they can afford. To be consistent, we may have to include nuclear...can't figure out how to stay true to the Constitution while banning government's ultimate weapon.

• Convicted Felons - If a man cannot be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't let him out of prison.

• Age Restrictions - If you can reach the counter, and Mom or Dad says its okay, then it should be legal to purchase a weapon at any age. In the old days, parents used to send their kids to the store to buy cigarettes too.

• Waiting Periods - Get rid of them. The shiny new bazooka should be yours once the cash hits the counter.

• Dealer's Licenses - Get rid of them too. It's an infringement, and an instrument of control.

• Restraining Orders - It has become popular for judges to prohibit 'significant others' who are under a restraining order from their partners to own a firearm. This is a clear violation of the Constitution. Both partners should retain the right to own a gun, and the 'abused' one should have the good sense to kill the abuser if he comes 'a calling.

Which brings us back to the title of this essay, 'Guns...for the children.' And why not? It's Constitutional, and in a society that truly had its bearings straight, the parents would be armed, and their children would be brought up respecting firearms, and even...yes, even using them; for target shooting, hunting, and even, if need be, self defense.

The Second Amendment comes from a day in which the courts of law were the courts of last resort. The court of first resort was people working with each other to iron out their differences. There was a line of common decency when once crossed, got one of the parties killed or injured. Today's 'professional pinkunderwearmen' cringe at the thought of such behaviour, preferring instead the system which provides tens, or even hundreds of thousands of jobs in the prison and court systems, lines the pockets of attorneys, and babysits millions of people, who, in a better time, would have been weeded out of the gene pool by their own foolishness.

Many liberal-minded folk would remind us that we have emerged from the supposed barbarism illustrated in the preceding passage, and that for society to be truly peaceful, we must stay the course of progressivism and fight to eliminate all weaponry, that even the criminals won't have them. But then, that still leaves the biggest of history's criminals unchecked, and such is why the Second Amendment was conceived.

---

*All figures for Colonial and British troop strengths taken from the United States at War website.

[Zon]

Thanks for the link. I've used a similar rationale but could certainly benefit by another writer's thoughts on the common sense logic of the issue.

[Destructor]

I take it you're an ex-con?

[wardaddy]

Yep...arson...lol

Methinks you dig the flame bro. Your homepage looks like you've been beaten on by some of FR's resident nutcases...

Good Luck and remember the moth!

[HiTech RedNeck]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." The preceding quote is from Robert A. Heinlein's 1942 book, Beyond This Horizon in which Heinlein has a brief moment of common sense [or plagiarism, since the same thought is expressed, regarding the manners of the American South, in Alexis DeTocqueville's 1835 book Democracy in America.]

Sounding forth this philosophy is, however, not necessarily conducive to gaining support for permissive arms policies. If there is a serious risk that a cross word to the next person in the supermarket line will get you shot, and therefore you keep mum, anyone with sense would call that terror, not politeness. We tolerate mutual terror when there is nothing better we can do, such as in the balance of global nuclear arms. But as a vision for an individual society it has a certain dis-appeal.

I would hope that rather the realization that one can exercise deadly force with ease would have a sobering effect. When people feel powerless, anger builds.

[El Gato]

In a nutshell, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to actually use those arms. But the exercise of one's rights assumes that no one else is denied their rights as a result of your actions. Thus while you have the right to defende "hearth and home" from criminals, you haven't the right to blow up your neighbor's home in the process

It's criminals in the government that the second amendment was really aimed at. In those days individuals could own cannon, and ships aremed with such cannon. They were the ultimate weapon of the day. Otherwise the power given by the Constitution to Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal would make little sense.

Yes, you cannot blow up your neighbors house, but you can't shoot it full of holes either. If you would ban the means to do former, then logically you could ban the means to do the latter. Realistically, how many could afford a private nuke. As for those that could and wanted to, would a mere "law" stop them?

[El Gato]

However, I don't agree with the ideas of letting convicted Felons, and children have firearms. Convicted Felons have a high rate of repeat offenses

True, but does the law against it stop any that want a firearm from having one? Besides even convicted felons are subject to the predation of other criminals, whether they have gone straight or not. It is immoral to remove such protections as they have in prison, while denying them the means to protect themselves.

[TYVets]

The US is not referred to in this statement, but it fits.

If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.

[El Gato]

There's also another argument that uses the fact that "arms" (rifles, pistols, etc) was defined separately from ordinance (cannons, etc) in colonial times, and extending that logic to today, large ordinance type weapons would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

Do we not call treaties to reduce capital weapons, be they nuclear or merely big boats with really big guns, "Arms Control Treaties", and have we not done so for over a century? Do we not have an "Arms Control and Disarmament Agency", that does not concern itself merely, or even pricipally with small individual weapons? "Small Arms" or "individual weapons" can be distinguished from the other types of arms or armaments, such as cannon, mortars, attack aircraft etc. but the line is often somewhat indistinct.

[Pyro7480]

BUMP for later reading...

[mamelukesabre]

How bout guns for really old people? For father's day, my 89 year old grandfather got a red ryder bb gun. He loved it. We were taking turns shooting pop cans all afternoon.

[Eagle Eye]

I don't FEEL that you should have any rights. I feel like you should serve the rest of us.

Go ahead and flame me, but that's the way I feel.

If a man cannot be trusted with a gun, why let him out of prison? If a man has paid his debt to society, then restore his rights. Criminals will get arms no matter what, if they so desire. Probably quicker and more cheaply than you or me. I don't care who has a gun as much as I care about the way they use it.

As a teen, I often carried in my car and thought nothing about it. Of course, I grew up with a small range in the basement and practiced unsupervised. And, other than military duties, I've never even pulled a gun on anyone.

But you have your FEELINGS and I have my reasons. BTW, your home page makes it look as if you have a very thin skin and get your feeling hurt quite a bit. Odd thing for someone who invites flames.

[Eagle Eye]

Excellent post.

"Shall not be infringed" MEANS shall not be infringed, not just some infringements here and there.

[wardaddy]

Our founders were pretty explicit about the second amendment. It's all that defends us from predators, outside agressors and tyranny here inside our own gates. Felons who have completed their time should not have that basic right infringed in my view. Most of the felons I've known....pot smugglers mostly....are EXACTLY the kind of folks I want around me WTSHTF.

Destructor may surround himself with the local law abiding sterling citizens should he prefer. I like my company ruff when things get dicey. Down here in the South...we have lots of rough sorts....we like it that way.

[Snow Bunny]

Thanks for the ping. Good article !!!

[Redcloak]

Yes, you cannot blow up your neighbors house, but you can't shoot it full of holes either. If you would ban the means to do former, then logically you could ban the means to do the latter.

The difference lies in the ability to avoid doing damage to your neighbor's home. With a firearm, it is quite possible to avoid doing damage to innocents. Even with an artillery piece it is possible to aim for the target and miss what you don't want to hit. A nuke is virtually impossible to employ without doing colateral damage. It cannot be used without infringing on another's rights. Thus any such indescriminant weapon is not protected by one's right to keep and bear arms. The same would be true of chemical weapons or biological weapons.

[TC Rider]

For the Children?

How about a nice Henry Arms Golden Boy .22?

..and if your family is on a budget, the mini-bolt .22 is nice for $169.00

[wardaddy]

Puff the Magic Dragon, a tried and true children's favorite!

Sorry I couldn't resist....besides the Dakota has always occupied a soft spot in my heart.

Regards

[Twodees]

Was that a pic of "Puff"? It isn't showing on my browser. Thanks for the ping. I like Lew Goldberg's articles. Have you seen his new site "The Patriotist"?

[wardaddy]

It was this pic of Puff from Nam:

Maybe it will stay up this time....it's a Geocities jpg link that may time out or just break.

I was just joking about favorite guns for "children"...as in Puff "who lived by the sea"

Failed humour regards to ya 2Ds...

[wardaddy]

I give up....linking pics from my own webhosting page versus just linking a photo address would appear to be a bit more viable but alas I'm at the crib and can't access my host page from here...sorry....I've wasted enough of JR's bandwidth. It was a nice pic....like a rainbow arc from a C-47.

Is it as hot in VA today as it was in Nashville...97 and sticky...yuck?