Family Discussion

[Nivek]

Was clearing up some space on my hard drive today, and came across an email from my Dad. It was part of an very long-winded (and rather heated) discussion about firearm ownership. I bought my first gun for home defense/CC and haven't looked back since. My Dad doesn't agree with my beliefs on the necessity of owning a firearm, and we have mutually agreed to disagree.
Anyway, thought I'd post this excerpt from our emails, and see how you all respond! (For age/time reference, I am in my mid 20's, my dad in his 50's)

...

1) It was born of a different time . . . during the birth of a nation in a strange & foreign land when it was necessary to defend your house, family & belongings from irate Native American Indians whose land, people & way of life we raped & pillaged simply because we could. Then we all took up arms to defeat the British, among others. Back then everyone needed to have guns because that was the main source of the army's light weapons during the Revolutionary War and other conflicts - you went to war with the gun(s) you had in your possession. So, our forefather's intent was to protect from the New World natives (savages, in their minds) & invading armies, etc., not necessarily have the population wandering around with concealed weapons!

2) The 2nd amendment should be updated to fit the current era. Back when it was drafted & written into the Constitution, our forefathers had not even dreamed of automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, drive-by shootings, drug-infested gang shootouts, etc. - what a change since then. Their intent was NOT to have everyone armed while walking down the street to protect against robbings, muggings, etc. - it just wasn't much of a consideration back then.

3) I passionately think that we should outlaw fully automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. How we do that is a very difficult thing. One doesn't need to fire off a 20-round clip to kill a deer - that's not sport, it's animal abuse & cruelty. The sport is in being able to stealthily stalk the deer (or whatever animal) and kill him with an expertly aimed single shot. Then use the meat, etc. as sustenance for your family/community - let's do away with the wholesale slaughter of animals just so you can mount the head! Also, I don't think anyone should be able to buy a gun that shoots more than one round with one squeeze of the trigger. What's the need for it? The military/police are the ONLY ones that need that kind of firepower! Will there be people that would abuse a law banning automatic weapons? You bet, but at least it would hopefully narrow the field a little bit for law enforcement.

 

[Patriotme]

Is your father named Helmke? He would almost have to work for the Brady Campaign in order to get things more wrong or to list more stereotypes.
It's good that you can agree to disagree. Time is better spent educating those that are undecided on the issue and exposing them to a positive shooting experience.

 

[War Squirrel]

For your first one, much of what you say is true. However, just because we are a nation of standing armies now does not mean that we are now immune to invasion and irate groups of people. We need/have a right to them just as much now as we did back then, only the situations have changed. For instance, look at Iraq, Africa and Vietnam, or even the LA race riots. In all of these places, groups of citizenry have risen up to fight back against gang rule, mobs, invasions and other unfortunate events. As the Boy Scouts say, "Be Prepared!"

For #2, look at what Pitt said, "Necessity is the plea for infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." We don't have a necessity to rid ourselves of guns, we have rights to keep and bear them. Besides, what type of person do you think performs "gang shootouts" and "drive by shootings"? Criminals! People who already have no regard for the law or for human safety. Besides, everyone WAS armed and walking down the street. The only major shootings back then were rebellions and duels between gentlemen.

And for three, the 2nd protects your rights to keep and bear arms. It never mentions hunting, it says that it is for the "security of a free state". As for abusing such tools, there are thousands of legal machine guns in private hands across the country, and very few have ever been used for an illegitimate purpose. The ones that are used for an illegitimate purpose are being used by criminals in the first place. Making them illegal won't help.

This was a fun one, thanks for posting!

 

[happygeek]

Heck, there's automatics in private hands in England (http://www.ligali.org/pdf/home_office_gun_crime_the_market_in_and_use_of_illegal_firearms.pdf). Out of their sample size of 80 convicts, 6 were in possession of automatics, at least 4 or 5 of those were of the machine pistol type.

Oh, and then there's this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-weapons-used-by-london-drug-gang-664711.html).

 

[cambeul41]

You were cleaning up your hard-drive and came across an e-letter from your father?

How long ago was it written, and how compelled do you feel to respond?

If the real need to respond is low, but the itch to do so is there, might I make a suggestion?

Start working on a letter to your father that may never be sent but which serves as an outlet for your feelings on the subject. I have one that is really meant for myself that I call "Why do you think you need to carry a gun?" It starts this way and goes on for 25 single-spaced pages -- so far. It is a great way to vent, yet hurts no-one's feelings.

Why do you think you need . . . . ?
Need to? I don’t. Why on earth would you think I think I do?

I’m sorry, I am forgetting my manners. Before we go further, let me say, "Welcome to America! Are you enjoying your stay?"

My essay / letter no longer is aimed at anyone in particular but is on going with additions, revisions, and touch-ups every once in a while. So far it has only been shared with my wife and a sister, both of whom are gun fanciers.

 

[M-Cameron]

what need is there for automatic weapons......?


i can think of a few.....
what happens when the govt' passes the fair monetary distribution act in 2034...where by your entire check goes straight to the govt' and they distribute money based on who needs it the most........

or how about the new America act in 2051....where by they revoke the citizenship and deport any person they deem "not suitable"...

...ide imagine a full auto would come in handy then......

 

[General Geoff]

1) It was born of a different time . . . during the birth of a nation in a strange & foreign land when it was necessary to defend your house, family & belongings from irate Native American Indians whose land, people & way of life we raped & pillaged simply because we could. Then we all took up arms to defeat the British, among others. Back then everyone needed to have guns because that was the main source of the army's light weapons during the Revolutionary War and other conflicts - you went to war with the gun(s) you had in your possession. So, our forefather's intent was to protect from the New World natives (savages, in their minds) & invading armies, etc., not necessarily have the population wandering around with concealed weapons!

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

2) The 2nd amendment should be updated to fit the current era. Back when it was drafted & written into the Constitution, our forefathers had not even dreamed of automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, drive-by shootings, drug-infested gang shootouts, etc. - what a change since then. Their intent was NOT to have everyone armed while walking down the street to protect against robbings, muggings, etc. - it just wasn't much of a consideration back then.

Has he ever read anything written by the founding fathers?

3) I passionately think that we should outlaw fully automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. How we do that is a very difficult thing. One doesn't need to fire off a 20-round clip to kill a deer - that's not sport, it's animal abuse & cruelty. The sport is in being able to stealthily stalk the deer (or whatever animal) and kill him with an expertly aimed single shot. Then use the meat, etc. as sustenance for your family/community - let's do away with the wholesale slaughter of animals just so you can mount the head! Also, I don't think anyone should be able to buy a gun that shoots more than one round with one squeeze of the trigger. What's the need for it? The military/police are the ONLY ones that need that kind of firepower! Will there be people that would abuse a law banning automatic weapons? You bet, but at least it would hopefully narrow the field a little bit for law enforcement.

I think your father does not understand the current law as it is written, and believes it is easier to legally obtain a machine gun than it actually is. That said, he also seems to be ignorant to the fact that the police have no duty to protect an individual, and thus the individual is, at the end of the day, responsible for his own safety. Machine guns are quite useful for repelling attacks made by large groups of humans. Ergo, machine guns are quite useful in the hands of private citizens. I don't understand where he gets the notion that law enforcement or the military should have special privileges in regards to arms.

 

[Warhawk83]

Does your father genuinely think people hunt with a full auto and dump the clip into whatever game they may be hunting?

 

[Nivek]

You were cleaning up your hard-drive and came across an e-letter from your father?

How long ago was it written, and how compelled do you feel to respond?

If the real need to respond is low, but the itch to do so is there, might I make a suggestion?

Start working on a letter to your father that may never be sent but which serves as an outlet for your feelings on the subject. I have one that is really meant for myself that I call "Why do you think you need to carry a gun?" It starts this way and goes on for 25 single-spaced pages -- so far. It is a great way to vent, yet hurts no-one's feelings.



My essay / letter no longer is aimed at anyone in particular but is on going with additions, revisions, and touch-ups every once in a while. So far it has only been shared with my wife and a sister, both of whom are gun fanciers.

It was an older email that I'd copy-pasted to a word doc. I did send a rather lenghty (and well written, I hope) reply. This entire conversation took place a couple Christmases ago, so it's old news, but I wanted to see how others might respond.

 

[Nivek]

Does your father genuinely think people hunt with a full auto and dump the clip into whatever game they may be hunting?

Haha, I hope not. He's never been a hunter, so maybe he just doesn't get it. What has always been weird to me is his apparent lack of overall gun knowledge. The guy spent 12 years in the Air Force, so you would think he would at least be familiar with the different types and how they are meant to be used.

Loving these replies! Keep them coming!

 

[Beatnik]

1) It was born of a different time . . . during the birth of a nation in a strange & foreign land when it was necessary to defend your house, family & belongings from irate Native American Indians whose land, people & way of life we raped & pillaged simply because we could. Then we all took up arms to defeat the British, among others. Back then everyone needed to have guns because that was the main source of the army's light weapons during the Revolutionary War and other conflicts - you went to war with the gun(s) you had in your possession. So, our forefather's intent was to protect from the New World natives (savages, in their minds) & invading armies, etc., not necessarily have the population wandering around with concealed weapons!

Yeah, 'cause New York City didn't exist in 1789, and Philadelphia didn't exist, and neither did Boston, Concord, Baltimore, Annapolis, Fairfax, Richmond, Charlotte, Charleston, Savanna, et cetera.
AFAIK none of these cities passed non-race based gun control measures prior to the 20th century.

2) The 2nd amendment should be updated to fit the current era. Back when it was drafted & written into the Constitution, our forefathers had not even dreamed of automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, drive-by shootings, drug-infested gang shootouts, etc. - what a change since then. Their intent was NOT to have everyone armed while walking down the street to protect against robbings, muggings, etc. - it just wasn't much of a consideration back then.

I don't think there was any restriction on personal ownership of artillery back then.
That means that individuals potentially had the capacity to blow up a whole house from a half mile away.
Also, I don't think there was much in the way of restriction on seafaring vessels like we have now - so it was within the realm of possibility that an individual could purchase a ship and arm it militarily - and if you'll notice, almost all of those cities I mentioned after #1 were ports...
...so his argument falls flat.

3) I passionately think that we should outlaw fully automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. How we do that is a very difficult thing. One doesn't need to fire off a 20-round clip to kill a deer - that's not sport, it's animal abuse & cruelty. The sport is in being able to stealthily stalk the deer (or whatever animal) and kill him with an expertly aimed single shot. Then use the meat, etc. as sustenance for your family/community - let's do away with the wholesale slaughter of animals just so you can mount the head! Also, I don't think anyone should be able to buy a gun that shoots more than one round with one squeeze of the trigger. What's the need for it? The military/police are the ONLY ones that need that kind of firepower! Will there be people that would abuse a law banning automatic weapons? You bet, but at least it would hopefully narrow the field a little bit for law enforcement.

Well, the fact that SCOTUS ruled that they have no duty to protect has already been mentioned, so I'll leave you with this: I'll pray that your dad doesn't end up being one of the senior citizens getting beaten to death on Youtube by the only people he wants to be armed.
Have him check out some of those videos, and then ask him who will get them under control, when they're the only ones who are armed.

ETA: nobody "passionately thinks".
There are exactly three sides of this debate.
Pro RKBA,
passionately (and illogically) anti-RKBA,
and those who just haven't put any thought cycles into it.
You got a long row to hoe here.

 

[Kitchen_Duty]

Hey finally found your thread finally after you sent me a text. I remember when your dad came over to your house and all of your conversations that we had on watch about it near the maneuvering area... (enough hints on who i am??)

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, there's ignorance and there's arrogance. If someone wants to learn, given the oppurtunity they will. But if your father is not willing to learn there is nothing you can say, read, cite, dance, or scream to change his mind.

Just like when my roommate and my house got broken into. That night he asked me for a firearm and I almost had him convinced that it might be wise to invest in his own and I would go shooting with him to practice. His father talked him out of it (go California mentality). So instead of having his car destroyed by constant ramming by meth heads, they could be in jail right now facing trial. Some people are hopeless, some are on the line. The people on the line are worth going for. I don't think your dad fits that bill at all man.

If you ever decide to come to my side of the water, give me a call.

 

[Baba Louie]

1) It was born of a different time...

By very liberal minded men who followed the concept that armed men are free men, unarmed men, not so free. In the original draft of the 2nd, Madison followed VA's RKBA Constitutional clause which had a C.O. relief for those who wanted an "out" and who let other men fight for their "freedom". Said C.O. clause was removed by the Senate during their debate.

2) The 2nd amendment should be updated to fit the current era.

Every man back then was a member of the (well regulated) Militia and had to show up equipped w/ arms when the call came to defend their freedom. So pretty much, most free men were armed unless circumstances of their choice dictated otherwise. "Updated to fit the current era"; to my mind, we would all have military grade weaponry and ammo and training to go with it. I don't think your Pa would ever agree to that level of freedom (tho the Swiss have few issues with it in their nation) as it is too scary, too much responsibility.

3. I passion...

See 2. above. I will add that I feel we should also have mandatory militia service and training (call it the draft) like the Swiss or the Israelis, where everyone serves, learns, is equipped and stays current on their quals (monthly community shooting matches... sounds like fun). Letting only the Police and Military have them? Even they are human and while mostly noble men and women, every once in a while even nobility gets stressed out...

Keep it "Everyman".

Keep in mind, "Freedom" (a free state)

But then again, I'm a dreamer. Even Madison knew that some would conscientiously object. Let 'em object. We're armed. They? Not so much.

 

[ultradoc]

Soon after I got my c.c.l. I showed my folks. At first they thought is was a commercial drivers license. 'Why did you get this' they asked. I explained and they were content. They have known for years that I enjoy guns so it wasn't a hugh suprise to them that I did get a license to carry. While I was a small boy my grandpa [who was a county coroner] told my folks 'don't let you kids have a motorcycle or guns'. The motorcycle story is that they were on their way to dinner one night and my grandpa was called to a motorcycle accident where the biker had died. So I can understand the motorcycle thing. But grandpa was also a hunter. That was the story I was told to by my folks. It was never brought up again. I guess I didn't listen too well. I have owned and own numerous guns and bikes. Oh. And after grandpa died I got his Reminton 12ga. :]

 

[devildave31]

"2) The 2nd amendment should be updated to fit the current era. Back when it was drafted & written into the Constitution, our forefathers had not even dreamed of automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, drive-by shootings, drug-infested gang shootouts, etc. - what a change since then. Their intent was NOT to have everyone armed while walking down the street to protect against robbings, muggings, etc. - it just wasn't much of a consideration back then."

I'm not so sure that I buy the idea that the founding fathers would not have envisioned automatic weapons. There are Naval Deck Guns that were of standard small arms calibers that were multiple barrel/multiple fire weapons that date back to the 1600's. I can't believe that there was no one who hadn't at least wondered about a way to fire repeatedly without manual reloading, regardless of the fact that it wasn't effectively used for a long time to come.

For example, this is a link one of my most cherished books, which covers the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Guns-14th-Century-Present/dp/0873492889

 

[leadcounsel]

The basis of the 2A is an "idea." That idea is a level playing field. It is not based upon any certain technology or they would have said "only muskets." To follow along, if you used your dad's anology, the 1st Amendment would only include spoken words and quill and ink pens on parchment. The forefathers never envisioned the internet, tv, computers, etc. Arguably, the 1A is more dangerous with the speed of spoken and taped words. Imagine the damage you can do with lightning fast communication!!!

As far as hunting with machine guns, I don't think anyone advocates for that. More importantly, he has been brainwashed by the Brady bunch to believe the 2A is about hunting. It's not. It's about effective home, state, and country defense from tyrants.

 

[Vector]

No personal offense intended but your dad sounds like a politically correct, ultra liberal.
That opinion is not even related to his stance on gun ownership.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Exactly, Leadcounsel. The 2nd amendment is about one thing and one thing only: Killing Tyrants and their henchmen...

That's not the nicest way to say it, but it's the truth. And once people realize that all tyrants have historically given their henchmen the best weapons available, it stands to reason that the citizenry should also have the best weapons available. The purpose is to fight and WIN against oppression right? Why should we be handicapped?

That's the key for them to see the light. It's about resisting oppression and you can't agree on anything unless they understand that. The ENTIRE Constitution and Bill of Rights are about preventing oppression and enabling the populace to throw it off if it ever does take hold. It's harder to do that when they have better weapons than you.

As for the "they never could have imagined Machine guns, so we can restrict the 2nd amendment" argument.

Okay then... they never imagined the internet, automated printing presses, telephones, cell phones, cable TV, Ham Radio, wireless networks, laser printers, fax machines, loudspeakers or copy machines did they? Heck, Morse Code wasn't around for another 60 years! Does that mean the 1st amendment can be restricted?

The founders also never imagined that we'd have almost 1.5 million people in our military. Nor would they ever imagine how large the average family home would be in 2010. How will they be housed? Surely American families don't need ALL that space. Does the third amendment apply in this day and age?

You could do this with pretty much anything in our founding documents.

 

[awgrizzly]

It's rather strange. It seems to me your father is complaining about an imagined reality.

What's with the full automatic thing? They are illegal, and the exceptions to this are so highly regulated that those who are allowed to own them are not a threat.

Back in the days of our forefathers things were not a tranquil as he may think. There may not have been drive by shootings (unless you consider riding a horse driving), but the times were rough and there were ruffians aplenty. However, the reality of drive by shootings today only further serves to justify gun carry.

Kudos to you dad, he has a complete right to believe as he does (as do you), and should be encouraged to speak his mind. It makes for interesting discussion and needn't be a source of anger and hostility. The second amendment is a reality. Your father can freely choose not to own a gun, but he simply has to live with the fact that many others choose differently.

 

[fatelk]

Some folks who have their minds made up are completely unwilling to listen to reason, so it's best to start with undeniable facts. A very simple response would be to point out the factual errors in his argument.

1. Machine guns are highly regulated, and have been since 1934. Misuse of legal machine guns is basically a non-issue.

2. Hunting with machine guns is not legal. Hunting with semi-automatics is generally restricted by magazine capacity.

3. As to the argument that hunting with "assault rifles" will blow the animal to pieces, it's worth noting that this type of weapon uses ammunition that is normally less powerful than more traditional hunting rifles.

I have heard these same arguments before, often from hunters, and usually from people who think they know it all. They usually have no interest in even listening to your side of the argument, so about the only thing you can do is point out the obvious factual problems with what they think they know.

 

[hardworker]

Some folks who have their minds made up are completely unwilling to listen to reason,

I know this is gonna end badly but I have to point out that many gun owners exhibit the same stubbornness that we accuse the anti's of. I'm not saying the anti's are right, but I do think that in the spectrum of gun ownership opinion, either extreme is a bad place to be.

 

[awgrizzly]

messed up again, please delete (it's tough getting old)

 

[Sgt.Saputo]

No one noticed this yet?

20-round clip

I must agree with what was said by awgrizzly.

I want to ask, do you really think the men who decided what rights we should have were dumb? I think our forefathers were smart enough to know that in the future everything would advance, including firearms. But maybe I'm worng...

 

[awgrizzly]

No one noticed this yet?


I must agree with what was said by awgrizzly.

I want to ask, do you really think the men who decided what rights we should have were dumb? I think our forefathers were smart enough to know that in the future everything would advance, including firearms. But maybe I'm worng...

I'm an outcome oriented sort of guy. Considering what this country has become and the alternatives, I'd have to say that our founding fathers were successful beyond their wildest dreams. With all it's faults, this unique nation has become grander than any other that has ever existed on the face of this globe (and there have been many grand nations). The issue of owning machine guns and a-bombs pales in comparison. How dumb is that?

 

[mljdeckard]

You know you won't change his mind, right?

What he is taking for granted is that if we hadn't had the right to keep and bear arms for the last 200 years, this country would have been shaped very differently. Many paths this country might have taken were avoided entirely because the population is armed.

The founding fathers DID advocate carrying arms on a regular basis. Thomas Jefferson in particular. If he reads The Federalist Papers, it is very clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to make sure that the population was armed to protect themselves from harm and to serve as a buffer against tyranny.

The reason for the Second Amendment is not to hunt or protect yourself from crime so much as to ensure that the government cannot take control of the people by force. To attempt to do so would be so bloody and expensive as to guarantee it won't ever be attempted.

Does he really think that the world is less savage now than it was when this nation was founded? Governments have disarmed and killed more of their own citizens in the last hundred years than in both world wars.

Does he realize that one of the main reasons that Japan didn't invade the mainland of the U.S. after Pearl Harbor was the armed populace?

If being armed at the time The Constitution was written meant that all men should have a service-ready arm, what has changed? When did this arbitrary standard pop up that suddenly the military should have better guns than civilians? Was it when lever guns were patented that could unleash the fury of more than a dozen rounds without reloading? Or when it was discovered that you can put a rotating cylinder into a pistol and let it shoot repeatedly? Or was it when smokeless powder and jacketed bullets allowed a mortal man to shoot accurately out to the staggering distance of one thousand yards? All of this technology is too advanced and dangerous to be allowed into the hands of common men. Who knows what they would do with it?

It is interesting when people think that the Second Amendment is the only one that is confined to the time and technology of when it was written. you might suggest to him that the internet, printers, or any writing implement created since 1787 is not what the founding fathers intended, and should not be protected. If he thinks that the Second Amendment should be updated, does he also think that the internet should be restricted so as to prevent treason and panic-driving communication? Surely the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned such things as text messages or Flash Mobs.

We just did update the Second Amendment. In The United States v Heller.

Crime most certainly was a problem in early America. And there have ALWAYS been bad gangs, neighborhoods, and drugs. There were entire communities of major cities that were addicted to opium in the 19th century. There were entire cities which had no law other than the organized crime elements that ran them. What people perceive as tough law enforcement now was borne of figures like Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, and others who managed to commit violent crimes between states for YEARS without getting caught, even flaunting it. Modern times are not so terrifying as he seems to think they are.

Ask him if he knows how many people have been killed by legally-owned automatic weapons in the last seventy some-odd years.