Right To Bear Arms

[Sukerkin]

This is a Blog forum on the BBC which is discussing the header article about the Second Amendment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html

Whilst there are indeed some foolish and judgemental posts from some non-Americans in the blog, the two vociferous attack-dogs by the names of ZanO and AllenT2 (if I recall their tags correctly) are doing an excellent job of illustrating how not to make a point :lol:.

On the other hand, some of the input from American contributors is very lucid and thoughful. Most persuasive.

Anyhow, have a read and see what you think.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Growing up in central Illinois, we often went hunting with our fathers during pheasant and rabbit season, and then were dropped off at school. I hung my game bag and shotgun in the cloakroom with my coat.

After moving to Colorado with my family in my teens (the late 1970's), most kids my age drove pickup trucks, and a rifle rack was pretty much obligatory. Generally there was a rifle, compound bow, or both in the rack in full view.

People did not engage in duels in the streets. I never heard of an accidental shooting. And no one freaked out when they saw a gun, recoiling as if it were a rattlesnake that was about to rear up and bite them all by itself.

People who did not grow up in America do not understand our gun culture. And they use 'gun culture' like it's a bad thing. It's not. I'm glad to be the product of a gun culture.

 

[Bruno@MT]

People who did not grow up in America do not understand our gun culture. And they use 'gun culture' like it's a bad thing. It's not. I'm glad to be the product of a gun culture.

It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any 'freeer' than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any 'freeer' than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.

I agree. It is a different way of living. One that we Americans understand and accept and prefer. What we find baffling is people from outside the USA who want us to adopt their non-gun culture. We don't want to be like you. We think you're fine, and if you're happy with your culture, that's cool. But we don't try to force you to be more like us, we'd ask the same in return.

 

[Archangel M]

The 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution as a LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT POWER. It wasn't about public safety, it wasn't about hunting and there wasn't concern over what the Europeans thought about it.

And it's still not my concern. My ancestors decided to leave the old world for a reason.

 

[seasoned]

It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any 'freeer' than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.

It is not about freeer, it is about freedom, of which our whole society is based on. Freedom of choice is essential in unleashing that that is within us to survive and prosper. It is the abuse of that freedom of choice that could be our downfall, sadly.

 

[Archangel M]

American "freedom" is based in the idea that our freedoms are inherent and NOT granted by the government. Government's only role is to limit or regulate NOT to authorize.

 

[Bruno@MT]

We are talking about 2 different things here:

1) I don't -want- you to change anything. I don't live in the US hence I couldn't care less.
2) In a discussion about a topic, I can have an opinion about said topic without it affecting me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

American "freedom" is based in the idea that out freedoms are inherent and NOT granted by the government. Government's only role is to limit or regulate NOT to authorize.

So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans. I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying "The Constitution gives me the the right to..." No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you. Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.

 

[Archangel M]

So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans. I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying "The Constitution gives me the the right to..." No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you. Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.

Yup. And that is what made America such a "grand experiment" back when it was founded. Unfortunately we seem to be devolving back into what all governments seem to devolve into.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yup. And that is what made America such a "grand experiment" back when it was founded. Unfortunately we seem to be devolving back into what all governments seem to devolve into.

We did a lot of things intentionally different when we were founded. Innocent until proven guilty, division of powers, an intentionally-weak federal government, and the concept of authority to govern deriving from the just consent of the governed.

Problems arise because the real power (we, the people) grow complacent, tired, overwhelmed, and stop taking part in the 'lively debate' and the 'daily struggle' to govern and steer our nation. We stop thinking "We have a problem, how do we solve it?" and start thinking "we have a problem, how will the government solve it?" Government begins to usurp power because the people step back and demand that someone else take care of them.

Ultimately, we remain the captains of our own destiny. But it's hard work, and a lot of people would rather someone else steer the ship.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some very good points above. I hesitate to pick out any in particular but Bill's comments bring out some highly salient issues - post#9 especially (taken in tandem with Angel's #7).

How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?

The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people. He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.

 

[Blindside]

The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people. He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.

That sort of confusion is natural in a chaotic situation. As part of my CWP class we talked about a local incident (Salt Lake City, Trolley Square Mall 2007) and what we would do. The general concensus was to get the hell out and defend you and yours from immediate threats, not to go hunting where the shots were coming from, this depended on the personality of the class member. If you can't get out you hole up and watch the entrances. Incidentally, the Trolley Square attacked was interrupted by an off duty police officer who was carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the mall's regulations. The officer pinned the shooter down in a store until other officers could arrive.

I think the point that there would be multiple shooters responding directly is highly unlikely, the simple fact is that most people don't carry.

 

[Archangel M]

Some very good points above. I hesitate to pick out any in particular but Bill's comments bring out some highly salient issues - post#9 especially (taken in tandem with Angel's #7).

How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?

The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people. He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.

I reconcile with Benjamin Franklin's quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As to that blog..I could just as easily theorize that the group of untrained gun owners could stop the lone gunman without undue danger. All that blog does is support a preconception of gun owners that the reader would like to believe.

 

[Makalakumu]

So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans. I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying "The Constitution gives me the the right to..." No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you. Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.

It's easy to make this mistake because our schools and our media beat this misunderstanding into our heads. I sometimes have to correct myself (or have myself corrected) when I really do know better. This misunderstanding, IMO, makes it a lot easier to "erode" our rights away.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?

It is difficult, isn't it? How do you tell a parent whose child was killed in a crossfire between a 'citizen' and a 'bad guy' that the citizen did nothing wrong, although their shots went wild and killed their child? I would not want to be the one having to explain something like this.

Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen, even very bad things, because we chose not to live in a nation that attempted to regulate whatever that bad thing is, or which denied the government the power to monitor, investigate, and otherwise interfere with bad things happening.

Wiretap laws means some bad guys get to have discussions about crimes without being detected. Freedom of religion means there are religions that want me dead, but they still have the right to believe that if they wish. Freedom of the press and speech means hate groups get to spout their hatred and foment violence and chaos. The right to bear arms means that some people who should never have guns will have them, and all that that implies.

We place limits on freedoms, even in the USA. Generally, those limits are placed where they infringe upon the rights of others, or are so clearly harmful to the immediate safety of others that such behavior cannot be permitted (the classic example is yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater - it's not protected 'free speech').

But in the USA, we are traditionally wary of placing limits on freedoms. We tend, as a nation, to place fewer restrictions that perhaps some other countries do (although that is changing). Part of that is because of our national reluctance to trust government with power, and part of it is because the rules put in place by our founders actually prevent it.

More freedom equals more danger. You can't be free and protected (or rather, you can, but only in the sense that an absolute power chooses to act benevolently). At one end of the spectrum is a society that holds all the power and protects its citizens against all dangers - even dangers to themselves in some cases. At the other is anarchy. The US exists somewhere between those two extremes, as does most of the rest of the world. But the US is a bit farther over to the 'more freedom, more danger' side than most.

Another point to consider is this: making guns more available to people increases the risk that they will be used the wrong way. On the other hand, making them less available to people only restricts access to the people that follow the law in the first place; it in no way restricts criminals who want guns but who cannot obtain them legally. Given that an armed citizen has a better chance to survive a gunfight with an armed criminal than an unarmed citizen, I'd choose to be armed if given the chance.

And my final point is this: making guns more available does not make them mandatory, but making them less available does serve to prohibit them. In other words, if you don't want a gun, don't buy one. No one is making anyone purchase one who doesn't want one.

 

[Sukerkin]

As to that blog..I could just as easily theorize that the group of untrained gun owners could stop the lone gunman without undue danger. All that blog does is support a preconception of gun owners that the reader would like to believe.

I was much more interested in the comments in the blog (which cover a huge swathe of opinion) than the short article that inspired them.

For me, to reiterate a stance I think I've made known here before, I have ever been a proponent of the school of thought that says that an armed society is a polite and orderly society.

But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged. Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way). Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was much more interested in the comments in the blog (which cover a huge swathe of opinion) than the short article that inspired them.

For me, to reiterate a stance I think I've made known here before, I have ever been a proponent of the school of thought that says that an armed society is a polite and orderly society.

But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged. Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way). Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.

From the move (EXCELLENT MOVIE!) "Nobody's Fool," with Bruce Willis and Paul Newman:

[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0097842/"]Judge Flatt

: Ollie, you know my feelings about arming morons: you arm one, you've got to arm them all, otherwise it wouldn't be good sport.

[/URL]

 

[Blindside]

But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged. Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way). Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.

And yet because it takes more skill to use the weapon it gives rise to classes in society who are dedicated to their use and often use it to dominate the rest of the society. And often aren't so polite.

 

[Sukerkin]

A valid point, Blindside. From such good intentions are 'warrior elites' born.

It would seem that when we seek for simple answers to complex problems there are none to be found.