ny32182
Member
The following article by a Mr. Skip Eisiminger, english and humanities professor, titled "America has quaint notion on guns", appeared in the Clemson University school newspaper last week. I was thinking of sending in a resonse if I can find some good, but not over the top replies to some of his points. I was hoping some people here could provide some inspiration. So, without further delay...
---------------------
I vividly recall the day my father announced that a family friend, another Army officer, had been awakened the night before by a noise downstairs. In a sleep deprived stupor, he’d grabbed his .45 from the bedside table, stumbled to investigate, spied a shadowy figure moving about in a suspicious way, and killed his wife of 15 years. Dad turned in his .45 the next morning. I suppose that if my father and I had done a lot of deer hunting, I’d have the blithe attitude toward guns one of my Georgia cousins has: his father built their home around a six foot tall, 2.2 ton gun vault, and its still not big enough to hold the family’s arsenal.
The hot-cold attitude toward firearms in our family reflects an ambiguity that has log been part of American culture. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mixed signals sent by small town Southern law enforcement. A friend of mine who teaches at Presbyterian College tells of a biologist who annually volunteers for the thinning of the Clinton squirrel population. One Thanksgiving at 6 a.m., the professor located his 20-gauge shotgun, donned his orange vest, unleashed his dog, and started walking the half mile to campus. He hadn’t gone a block when a police sedan pulled up beside him. “Damn,†the biologist thought, “Here I am with a loaded gun within the city limits, 20 extra rounds in my vest, and no hunting license.†He need not have worried. Without stopping, the officer rolled down his window and said, “Hey, mister, you’d better get your dog on a leash!â€
Some have traced our gun schizophrenia to the Constitution itself. The Second Amendment states, “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.†If a student today submitted this sentence to me, I’d circle the commas following “State†and “Armsâ€, question the archaic capitalization of the three nouns, but otherwise it’s grammatically correct and clear. Which is not to say that it’s logical; for starters, what is there in the people’s right to wield arms that insures a well regulated militia, not a ragtag posse? The Second Amendment, while once relevant and necessary, is now outdated. The prospect of a million fit sharpshooters driving in from the suburbs answering the call of President Bush is a quaint and dangerous notion. The improbability of a Swiss-style militia working on a country as large and divers as ours is one reason there’s a professional, not amateur, armed force seeking to restore order in Iraq at present. I understand the Framers’ concerns about a standing army, but their fears derived primarily from absolute monarchs and despots, not a President who can be impeached or voted out of office.
The US Constitution is a flawed human document, but as one who has long advocated tighter controls especially on handguns, I must sadly conclude that the Second Amendment does guarantee ordinary citizens some gun ownership. But since the AK-47 has usurped the musket, the most powerful armed force in human history has mushroomed from 840 men(all the first Congress allowed), and our “men and women in blue†have replaced the virtually nonexistent colonial police force, some revisions to our national “mission statement†are needed. Recall that during the two weeks that D.C. sniper was killing 12 innocents, guns killed another 1,200 Americans who died all but unmourned. Society and technology change, and the documents that govern us should evolve as well.
We might learn a lesson from the Germans who hunt and compete in marksmanship contests just the way Americans do. However, when a shooting contest or the hunting season rolls around, our German cousins go to a state-regulated vault and secure their weapons, not the den, the attic, or a box under the bed. Does this cause some inconvenience? Of course it does, but it may account for fewer than 100 German citizens on average being killed a year by guns as opposed to over 10,000 a year in this country. Somehow, we have to take the casual out of casualty.
---------------------
I vividly recall the day my father announced that a family friend, another Army officer, had been awakened the night before by a noise downstairs. In a sleep deprived stupor, he’d grabbed his .45 from the bedside table, stumbled to investigate, spied a shadowy figure moving about in a suspicious way, and killed his wife of 15 years. Dad turned in his .45 the next morning. I suppose that if my father and I had done a lot of deer hunting, I’d have the blithe attitude toward guns one of my Georgia cousins has: his father built their home around a six foot tall, 2.2 ton gun vault, and its still not big enough to hold the family’s arsenal.
The hot-cold attitude toward firearms in our family reflects an ambiguity that has log been part of American culture. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mixed signals sent by small town Southern law enforcement. A friend of mine who teaches at Presbyterian College tells of a biologist who annually volunteers for the thinning of the Clinton squirrel population. One Thanksgiving at 6 a.m., the professor located his 20-gauge shotgun, donned his orange vest, unleashed his dog, and started walking the half mile to campus. He hadn’t gone a block when a police sedan pulled up beside him. “Damn,†the biologist thought, “Here I am with a loaded gun within the city limits, 20 extra rounds in my vest, and no hunting license.†He need not have worried. Without stopping, the officer rolled down his window and said, “Hey, mister, you’d better get your dog on a leash!â€
Some have traced our gun schizophrenia to the Constitution itself. The Second Amendment states, “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.†If a student today submitted this sentence to me, I’d circle the commas following “State†and “Armsâ€, question the archaic capitalization of the three nouns, but otherwise it’s grammatically correct and clear. Which is not to say that it’s logical; for starters, what is there in the people’s right to wield arms that insures a well regulated militia, not a ragtag posse? The Second Amendment, while once relevant and necessary, is now outdated. The prospect of a million fit sharpshooters driving in from the suburbs answering the call of President Bush is a quaint and dangerous notion. The improbability of a Swiss-style militia working on a country as large and divers as ours is one reason there’s a professional, not amateur, armed force seeking to restore order in Iraq at present. I understand the Framers’ concerns about a standing army, but their fears derived primarily from absolute monarchs and despots, not a President who can be impeached or voted out of office.
The US Constitution is a flawed human document, but as one who has long advocated tighter controls especially on handguns, I must sadly conclude that the Second Amendment does guarantee ordinary citizens some gun ownership. But since the AK-47 has usurped the musket, the most powerful armed force in human history has mushroomed from 840 men(all the first Congress allowed), and our “men and women in blue†have replaced the virtually nonexistent colonial police force, some revisions to our national “mission statement†are needed. Recall that during the two weeks that D.C. sniper was killing 12 innocents, guns killed another 1,200 Americans who died all but unmourned. Society and technology change, and the documents that govern us should evolve as well.
We might learn a lesson from the Germans who hunt and compete in marksmanship contests just the way Americans do. However, when a shooting contest or the hunting season rolls around, our German cousins go to a state-regulated vault and secure their weapons, not the den, the attic, or a box under the bed. Does this cause some inconvenience? Of course it does, but it may account for fewer than 100 German citizens on average being killed a year by guns as opposed to over 10,000 a year in this country. Somehow, we have to take the casual out of casualty.
Please, tell me, Skip, how would locking my guns up in a building far away from where I live reduce crime or accidental deaths? In my years of handling firearms on an almost daily effing basis, I have never come close to accidentally or deliberately harming another person. NOT ONCE.
