Well, I couldn't resist.
-----Original Message-----
From: Grimes, French C., AM1 (LHA-4)
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:10 PM
To: '
[email protected]'
Subject: Owning firearms should be a protected right
Ms. Blalock,
In reference to your editorial, I commend you on somewhat stepping past the modern “liberal” gut reaction that firearms are evil. I agree with your conclusion that; “Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.” You state a very valid reason for gun ownership which also happens to be my personal litmus test for should we get rid of guns. I will happily melt my 30+ guns to scrap just as soon as no other person in the world has guns or the knowledge to make them. Since that whole knowledge genie won’t go back in the bottle, I’ll keep my guns. I suppose the alternative to banning the knowledge to make guns is to ban the means. So again, as soon as somebody tells me how to ban fire, basic ores found in the earth and proposes a rational scheme to register all basic hand and machine tools that can be used to make a gun, then I’ll get rid of my guns. The point of my somewhat hyperbole laden ranting is to illustrate that guns are not going away ever. Someone will always have one or the knowledge and means to produce more.
That someone might be the “criminal” you refer to. I take it that by reference to “criminal” you are talking about your run of the mill all American felon, demographically likely to be a young male involved with drugs. I prefer to expand the definition of criminal. In the 20th century over 20 million people were murdered by their own government (Stalin’s Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Sudan today, et. Al) or someone else’s government(Nazi Germany for one). I would call that pretty criminal.
In the light of those 20 million murdered people the meaning of our right to bear arms becomes clear. We do not need to “protect” our right as you say. The 2nd amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms. What it does is to codify a natural right, the rights of self preservation and more importantly self determination. Those rights come forth from the same basic instincts that make any intelligent animal fight to its utmost ability to defend its life. We codify them in our Bill of Rights; if religious we call them God given rights. Regardless of name, those rights predate any form of government. The Bill of Rights spells out our right to keep and bear arms not to give us something, but to warn the functionaries of government to not try to restrict something greater than their government.
I will further expand on what the Second Amendment means. It is a form of doomsday clause written into our government. The self destruct button if you will. The second amendment is there to remove the government if it ceases to serve the people and ceases to honor the innate rights set forth in the Constitution. As stated in The Declaration of Independence we have that duty. From the Declaration:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
The writers of the Constitution included the 2nd Amendment with an eye towards Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration. Other founding documents also support the idea that the framers built in the right to keep and bear arms as a check to totalitarian government. In conclusion of this line of thought, yes I own guns for competitive sport shooting, occasional hunting, self defense, and for just plain fun. None of those uses is what the 2nd Amendment is about. It is about removing my government if that terrible time ever comes. Every time a politician or editorialist states that they don’t want to ban guns used for sport, self defense, or hunting, they bring the terrible time closer.
To your points of who should not be allowed to own guns, all the categories of people you list except “terrorist watch lists” are already prohibited from gun ownership. It would be nice to prohibit watchlisters, but who puts the names on the list? Do I get on because I think the 2nd Amendment is about removing your government? Innocent until proven guilty applies to American citizens on a watch list. If they are not citizens, why be on a watch list? How about be on a plane getting deported? That of course would be another long column about our failed immigration policies. There is a school of thought that believes felons who have served their time should be fully vested with rights of citizenship. After all, if they are too dangerous to vote or have guns why are they walking free? Keep the dangerous ones in jail. Mental illness is a touchy one. Currently the Federal firearms purchase form 4473 asks if the buyer has been adjudicated mentally defective. Beyond that, do we look at everyone’s private medical record? Is a nervous breakdown grounds for no guns for life? How about a self referral to a mental health facility after a nasty divorce? Quite a slippery slope.
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.
Should these automatic weapons be legal?
Yes, they should. When the founding fathers were scribbling our 1st amendment they had quill pens and candlelight. Can you justify your 60 word per minute computer and instant worldwide broadcast internet? Should the freedom of speech apply as long as we only talk about sports, traffic accidents, and cute furry animals? Or should it not be subject to restrictions of use, like the 2nd amendment should not be? Should you be able to write that your government is corrupt and needs to go without disappearing in the middle of the night?
The 2nd amendment was written without note to the type of arms because it was expected that a male citizen would have at home a militarily relevant firearm and have the skill to use it. Then it was a flintlock musket. Today it is a semi-automatic or selective fire magazine fed rifle. The purpose they serve is to provide a modern citizen with arms that are not obsolete if we ever have to face a foreign or domestic enemy. I will note that fully automatic firearms have been closely regulated since 1934. Those regulations tightened in 1968 and 1986 to the point where it is cost prohibitive for 99% of the populace to own a legal fully automatic weapon. I hope to see some of those laws go away, those guns that “spray bullets”, such as a belt fed light machine gun, are of great use in establishing a base of fire when engaged in small unit maneuver warfare of the type one could expect to encounter when facing an oppressive government. I will note that such use is a damn sight harder than picking your nose. Spraying bullets with a semi-auto is fun on a range, in life it is inaccurate and generally attracts the attention of someone who then uses slow aimed fire to terminate your foolishness.
So yes, I agree “A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people.” As unpleasant as that is, it becomes necessary when someone attacks your family, or attacks your way of life. All guns kill, single shot to belt fed automatic. Why we kill is important. Your idea of injuring an attacker will just land you in jail. Using a gun is using deadly force regardless of if the person dies. You don’t shoot them unless you had reason to kill them.
I would like to offer more points, but I have to go strap on a gun and defend my government’s ship for a few hours. As long as I freely keep my own guns at home, I know it is a government worth serving. I leave you with a thought that armed people are citizens, disarmed people subjects. Had the German Jews had guns they would have also had a choice about getting on the train. This is bore out by the example of the Warsaw Ghetto where several hundred Jews with minimal weapons tied up a lot of Nazis for several weeks. Sadly it was much too little, too very late. I never want to reach the point of too little or too late in this great country.
Here are a few resources I really enjoy. In the forum areas (of the second link) you will find many people with a wealth of opinions. Right now your editorial is being handled a little roughly in there, but I’m sure if you dropped in a presented an honest effort to learn why we care about gun rights you would be well received.
Regards,
-F. Grimes
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm
http://thehighroad.org/library/
.
Hope you don't really believe that.