ARMED CITIZEN: A Question...

[RS Davis]

Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

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.

Do you believe this to apply to all weapons, or just firearms? Does this include fully-automatic weapons?

Thanks.

- Rick

[Armed Citizen]

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.

Militia being the lever here eh ? The militia could be any group of people from any neighborhood joined together for a common purpose. Example: in the early 1980's a snow storm hit St. Louis and paralyzed this city for 3 days. No police service, no movement whatsoever. Neighborhoods joined as a group to survive now didn't they? One small group managed to pool resourses and find ways to check on each others well-being. From there it was an outreaching effort. A single vehicle was used to get to the store after others made calls, knocked on doors, and visited elderly, to find out what was needed. That was a modern day 'militia' in prime example. Another example would be when hurricane Andrew destroyed chunks of Florida. Lastly, the riots in LA as store owners protected their property. Each event had the reward of the 'militia' jumping up and taking whatever measures were needed to preserve the lifestyle they wanted to protect. All were done with little or no assistance from the local Police.

Now that we've got that straight, onward.
Americans have this inbred flaw within them from to many John Wayne and even Hopalong Cassidy movies. They don't like injustice. They hate it even more when the helpless are in dire need of help. They will prove this over and over by running into burning houses to save babies, old folks, and cats. Good Samaritans abound on the highways today even with images of 'Ted Bundy' still lurking.

Do you believe this to apply to all weapons, or just firearms? Does this include fully-automatic weapons?

Not hardly 'all weapons' in the total sense. No F-16 or F-18 aircraft, apache helicopters, or smart bombs would qualify. Let's just limit ourselves to what's available at a common gun show. Very very few apache helicopters, 50 cal machine guns, nor howitzers are legally sold at these gun shows.

Long version or short ?
I'll just try a short version so I can toddle off to bed.

I believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment would be limited to hand held, single operator, or operator fed, types of firearms. You can load a magazine or feed the weapon will all sorts of mechanisms. But, there is only one operator to pick it up, to aim, and utilize such firearms. Joe 'average' Citizen doesn't own extraordinary nor powerful firearms. And then, you would get an argument about anti-tank weapons from the hard nosed para-military groups.

Yes, all average people should have the opportunity to have and keep firearms. Should it be for hunting, sports, home/personal protection, or even serious competition.

I doubt that you want to hear about hunting or sport shooting so I'll just stay in the personal protection arena. In that I'll have to explain a little. Everyone should feel safe as they go about their day. Then, there are criminals that want what you have. If, you understand that, you've passed step one of the whole concept of carrying a concealable handgun. Next step would be the most logical; can you kill or maim to protect yourself, loved one, or even protect a total stranger ? Should your answer be negative, then, you have no reason to ask to carry any handgun. Lastly, would be to find out how well you understand and operate a handgun. There is no magic words that can call back any bullet once it leaves the barrel of a firearm.

Today a key word is legally owned. While fully automatic firearms are 'weapons' in my book; it is a great way to transform money into noise. JOKE: Can you tell me when any fully automatic weapon needs to stop firing ? REPLY: When I can light my cigar on the barrel. Average citizens have no need for such weapons unless they have spent some time learning how to use them effectively. REPEATING, Proper instructions and training is needed with any fully automatic weapon. Verifying ownership is doubly hard today even with a multitude of war souvenir. Certainly not to the street corner teenager for any reason.

To close I'll give this small test and you will pass if you answer 'yes' to all questions:

• Can you prove you legally own the firearm ?
  
• Have you had proper instruction to the use of this firearm ?
  
• Are you proficient in the use of this firearm ?
  
• Are you a legal citizen of the U.S.A. ?

Is that enough or would you like more ?

[RS Davis]

Armed said:

To close I'll give this small test and you will pass if you answer 'yes' to all questions:

• Can you prove you legally own the firearm ?
  
• Have you had proper instruction to the use of this firearm ?
  
• Are you proficient in the use of this firearm ?
  
• Are you a legal citizen of the U.S.A. ?

Is that enough or would you like more ?

But are any of these things you mention above mentioned below?



As one of the prime motivators for the 2nd Amendment was a last and final check on the power of government, wouldn't limiting the scope of the weapons available to people just handicap them in that capacity?

If, as Jefferson said, government becomes destructive toward the ends of securing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" it, are they going to have much luck with six guns?

- Rick

[Armed Citizen]

Why did I have a feeling this was coming ?

We've moved into the 21st Century and law enforcement is very sensitive to those that would attempt armed rebellion in the United States. (ex. Wounded Knee, Ruby Ridge, & Waco) Class warfare could result should there be any attempt for all firearms being confiscated. Criminals will always have guns and law abiding citizens will always try to obey the law. But, when anyone tries to restrict the legal ownership by 'bleeding heart' diatribe or rhetoric peppered with promises of utopia, that simply won't work. American gun owners as a whole won't stand for registration with and eye towards collection or confiscation of a birth right. In the wisdom of the founding fathers, they saw the need for citizens to always being able to protect themselves.

In the first reply I mentioned the snow storm. During that snow storm there were numerous break-ins of stores and homes. Few made media coverage here in St. Louis, but, I've heard of citizens holding criminals for several hours before law enforcement could collect those ill-fated yet determined bandits. There were no executions but several were bumped or bruised and held at gunpoint.

I read a couple more recent stories and one is even a 'convert' from a once avid Gun Control lady. -LINK- -LINK-

If you should apply the 'well regulated' in today's terms you could say the government has done that and found mistakes. Just as they did with the Volstead Act- 1920. It's been tried and tested that whenever there is an error in a law the 'pendulum' always swings back to normal at a later date. That's called democracy in progress. Just as Affirmative Action has now tasted bitter fruit and is in the transition phase of normality with those that see themselves as not finding merit in being given what can be earned.

Hope this answers your question Rick. It's late and I'm going to find a snack before bed time. I've never been much at this thing called philosophy.

[RS Davis]

[Armed Citizen]

more.. .. .

Fortunately, there are over 50 million gun owners in the United States. There’s still some hope, so long as you don’t try to "interpret" the infamous Second Amendment, but ignore it. Because if you read it carefully, you’ll see it has nothing to do with giving anybody but the State the right to bear arms:

"The second amendment of the United States Constitution 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.’ Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against .....

more.. .. .

They’re what we on the left/right/anarchist/libertarian fringe might call The Mainstream. They’re the 100 million people who voted for Gush Bore (not including myself, my grandmother and the 15 or so other people who voted Nader just to be spoil-sports). Whether they’re for gun control, outright prohibition, tougher registration laws (yeah, registration; why don’t I just send my photograph, fingerprints and letter of intent to the FBI?), it all boils down to writing a letter to your congressman or some such nonsense. Now, I don’t mind having a lobby group like the NRA to do their bit for the right to bear arms. Just like I’m happy to have the ACLU around to protect my right to speak. The thing is, they’re both missing the point. Whether the NRA wrangles lighter gun control legislation from THE MAN is as irrelevant to my ownership of a weapon as the ACLU’s lawyers’ haggling with THE MAN over my right to speak. THE MAN and his shredded Constitution have nothing to do with my decision to defend myself from HIM or talk trash to HIM. They might, the NRA on the Mainstream right, the ACLU on the Mainstream left, both be doing a disservice by perpetuating the charade that this is some sort of society or democracy, that we do everything all fair and legal around here.

Circumstances change. Governments change. The Law is cold and hard, yet malleable. A tool of self-defense is cold and hard, but if properly maintained, won’t turn on you, as THE MAN has, as HIS laws have. For verily, they are HIS laws. Always have and always will be subject to HIS red pen.

The constitution is a blueprint for a State that might have one time existed as a democracy, but is now little more than THE MAN’s organic cannon-fodder farm. While some Mainstream "liberals" believe the "right to bear arms" refers to an organized militia (but not a free militia: the police, or worse, the National Guard), and Mainstream "conservatives" refer to the constitutional right to bear arms as an expression of individuality, both are batty to think THE MAN has anything but contempt for their interpretations of HIS Constitution.

The Mainstream "left," Democrats usually (as opposed to the real left) is essentially asking a State armed with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and using those weapons to pursue aggressive policies worldwide, to "protect" them from civilians who may or may not attack them personally. Is not each individual obligated to protect himself? Is it fair to ask a cop, who is essentially a mercenary for THE MAN, to sacrifice his safety to protect yours? On the other hand, the Mainstream "right," Republicans usually, represented by groups such as the NRA, like good children, seek permission from THE MAN (via laws etc.) which THE MAN, being the ultimate enemy of liberty, has no right to give.

more.. .. .

Knowing that unlike Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, HE cannot subjugate an armed populace by force, THE MAN resorts to propaganda. And you’ve gotta hand it to HIM, between Hollywood, Washington D.C. and Madison Avenue, HE’S developed the most effective propaganda system the world has ever seen. But as WWII; Hungary, 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968; and Vietnam/Cambodia 1964–75 proved, even propaganda has its limits. Eventually, when the people recognize how deeply they’re being had, and resist, the State resorts to force.

I’ll be damned if I’m going to ask THE MAN, who’s pursuing death and destruction at home and abroad with a multi-trillion dollar Military/Police apparatus, for permission to defend myself against . . . THE MAN. For permission to speak out against THE MAN.

That’s like asking Himmler for a bar of soap and "permission" to shower.


January 29, 2004

Adam Engel

[Armed Citizen]