It seems that the second amendment is the one right that isn't quite a right.
I was born and raised in New York City. All throughout my childhood I wanted a gun. When I was very little, I had a cowboy gun that shot caps. As I got a little older, I graduated to BB guns, and eventually paint ball.
I finally decided to go through the process of applying for a firearms permit. This process involved meeting with my local police department, going through a background check, psych check, getting fingerprinted, etc and so on. Months later, the Police called me and told me I could pick up my license.
I went from the police station to the gun store and immediately purchased 2 beautiful hand guns. One is a Kimber Gold Match II 1911 45 ACP, the other is a SIG P232 .380, both in shiny stainless steel. These are not just guns, these are highly refined machines, works of art.
The Kimber Gold Match
I was nervous my first time at the range, especially because someone near me was shooting a magnum which is really loud. Each time it would go off, I would jump. But I calmed down and after pumping out 300 rounds between my two guns I started to feel more comfortable.
Since obtaining my license and guns, I am starting to become aware of the many gun control laws that exist, as well as those they are trying to now pass. While there are many rights afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights, it seems that the second amendment is the one right that isn't quite a right.
Imagine if the media needed to go through a background check in order to publish the news? Or if to celebrate Christmas, you needed to first obtain a permit from your local police captain. Would it really be a "right" against illegal search and seizure if in order to qualify, you must never have been in a psychiatric hospital?
However, the second amendment in no uncertain terms guarantees the people of this great country the right to keep and bear arms, yet this "right" is subject to substantive regulation by the government. Further, it is the target of ever increasing regulation by the gun control lobby.
As I stated earlier, I grew up in New York City. I bring this up for two reasons: It is a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country, possibly the world. Secondly, it is a city with a great many people hurt or killed by guns each year.
Throughout my life, I was told that it's near impossible to get a license for a gun, and a CCW (carry license), is impossible unless you are a cop. Yet growing up on the gritty city streets, many of my friends had obtained guns, all illegally. One friend would carry a Tec-9 (a type of machine gun) disassembled in his hipsack. Another sold guns illegally, and had brought with him to work on occasion a 45 semi, .380, and a Tec-22 (similar to the Tec-9 but shooting 22 caliber - smaller and quieter). I've been around people shooting 25 caliber semis in the basements of apartment buildings for target practice, and I've even been shot at once in Bushwick Brooklyn (thankfully they missed).
I could have bought my guns illegally via one of the many channels that are readily available to anyone so inclined. However, I am an upstanding citizen, and I want to abide by the laws. But when it comes to gun laws, I really have to start wondering who the target of those laws are?
In any given state at this moment, there are attempts to limit the number of guns that you can buy or to classify more guns as assault weapons, or to reduce the bullet capacity of magazines even further. Interestingly, none of the friends from my old neighborhood care about the enactment of any such laws, nor will they be affected by them.
My guns came with spent shell casings, which are on file with the government. Should my gun ever be used in a crime, the police can pretty quickly identify where the bullet came from. My fingerprints are on file, as is my picture, address, etc. I keep my guns locked up and safe, and when I take them out, I follow all of the safety rules, NRA, range rules, etc. Many of my gun toting friends from the old hood slept with guns under their pillow. Ask them about NRA Rules and they might ask back, "What are those?"
Does it help the average citizen to face such impediments to owning a gun, even though criminals have absolutely no problem obtaining one for themselves? Did the teens who murdered those four students in Newark, NJ earlier this summer go through the process of obtaining a license for the murder weapons they used? And might those NJ teens still be alive if just one of them happened to have a gun?
Independent studies repeatedly show that victims who are armed and resist crime fair better both in terms of harm received and property lost than victims who are unarmed and do not resist. Is that really a surprise? Anti-Gun nuts (my term for people who think I am a "gun nut" for owning a gun) widely cite the census bureau NCVS study, which is at odds with these numbers. But who is seriously testifying to a government employee, with the ability to arrest you, that you used your gun to resist a crime?
Some say that the idea of a militia has come and gone, and that the power of the American military renders the second amendment obsolete. Without getting into the word game that seems to dominate much anti-gun rhetoric, let me say that the second amendment mentions both Militias (which at the time was meant to empower everyday citizens), and The People (which means all Americans, i.e. We the People...).
Others are quick to point out that were the government to let loose the dogs of war against the American people, we wouldn't stand a chance against them. As evidenced by our current Iraq imbroglio, an armed populace isn't so easy for an all powerful military to contain, at least without a full on massacre. Although I don't expect the next Tienanmen Square to happen here in the US, I have to wonder whether it would have occurred at all in China were the people there armed.
Sure, we would all prefer to live in a world without guns, but we live on Earth. The framers of our constitution did not make the decision to add the second amendment in haste. They did so based on a history of weapon control in Europe, which was almost always succeeded by a government power grab and tyranny. As such, our forefathers explicitly guaranteed the citizens of this great land the right to bear arms. We can continue to disarm the people in violation of the 2nd Amendment, but be clear that criminals will always get guns one way or another. In my opinion, the best kind of gun control is when you use both hands.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
Well it should, Emmy, that's who I'm talking about, after all.
Dave
27 - bliffle
This is very boring.
28 - Catey
... my hyena..
#16, maybe when you get some on the left, then some on the right, they organize and arrange to meet in da middle of (what you think is)your own private conversation here...
...and by virtue of the fact that it is one of those issues that can so rarely draw both sides of the political spectrum into something that resembles solidarity on a major hot topic.
29 - Mark Schannon
I chose guns as a topic in the other thread after considering abortion, gay marriages, immigration, etc. and decided (stupidly) that guns might generate the least hysteria. As I tried to say in the comments, the article is less about guns than about how people reach opinions, the power of emotion and values to distort are so-called ability to "reason," and is it possible to overcome those and find some degree of compromise on these never-ending circular issues.
I fear the answer, at least based on the posts that never seem to end on my article, is no. Alas.
But, we'll always have (or soon have again, I hope)
In Jameson Veritas
30 - Catey
..."decided (stupidly) that guns might generate the least hysteria"
Oops! guessed wrong eh Mark? :)
31 - Ray Ellis
You tried, Mark, and I applaud you for that. People never read past the word "guns." That in itself speaks volumes about the state of society.
32 - moonraven
Ms. Gunsight:
All folks do not have to give up their guns because my nephew (for your info, lardbrain, we are an NRA family) got shot.
All folks have to give up their guns because completely irresponsible morons like yourself think they should have them.
Enough said. Guns are only for killing folks.
33 - sr
Your an NRA family. If you say so my dear.
34 - moonraven
Check my post on the other thread, my not-so-dear.
I am not repeating my NRA history here just because you are too fucking lazy to read both threads.
35 - REAL soldier...
My God! I'm am absolutely sickened by the mindless, thoughless comments of the anti-gun nuts responding to this blog.
"Don't you care about the children?" "We are an NRA family.." PLEASE!
Get a clue. "The Obnoxious American's" blog is excellent, articulate and well-thought-out.
He speaks the truth here. The problem with most of you anti-gun idiots is that you've never set foot outside of your air conditioned shopping malls and guided excursions to "exotic locales" to see what the world is really like. I've been there. I've been to places in the world that would haunt you forever and you know what links most of the dictator-ruled hellholes together more than anything else? Gun control. Absolute government power begins by taking any ability for self-defense from the LAW ABIDING public. Of course this never stops the criminals. No matter how "locked down" the country may be the criminals will still get guns (and explosives and whatever else they want) and they will victimize the now defensless law abiding folks who've given up their right to self defense in the hopes that the government will protect them.
Get a clue. I hope you all appreciate the cushy, privledged life that the few of us who've served have given you. While you're sipping your next latte at the mall think of those of us out there who've put our lives on the line for you...the soldiers and the cops who do it every day. The majority of us are PRO GUN because we understand human nature. We understand what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment to our constitution....and we've sworn an oath to support and defend it.
36 - Ray Ellis
And so it begins. . . yet again.
37 - Clavos
Doc,
Get the beach chairs and cooler.
I'll be back in a few minutes with the beer.
Care to join us, Ray?
38 - sr
MR I just love it when you talk dirty to me. Please tell me more my dear. Im sitting hear naked with my six guns strapped on waiting for you.
39 - moonraven
Unfortunately, you don't have anything that I would be interested in.
I only accept men who don't need anything to bolster their virility.
And they must be 40 or less.
40 - sr
Well I tried my sweet little wallflower.
41 - Ray Ellis
40 or less? That leaves me out.
42 - moonraven
REAL soldier:
You have never been out of your dad's house.
The only "gun" you have held is your metaphorical one.
Thirteen-year-old gun freaks: Columbine all over again.
So fucking glad I don't live in the US.
Here in Mexico nobody tries to justify running around with illegal guns (only police and military are allowed to have them legally). They just have the illegal guns and the hell with it.
You mealy-mouthed excuse makers make me want to puke.
43 - Harold
moonraven: "Guns are only for killing folks."
Unfortunately, "some people need killing", or rather stopping, the only proven method known being the application of (hopefully legal) lethal force upon them.
If you are ever faced with someone intent on killing or raping you or yours, would you call the police to stop them? Wouldn't seem to be moral in your calculus, seeing as how they use guns, which you assure us are only for killing.
(In the US, neither civilians nor the police are allowed to use guns to kill per se, only to stop.)
44 - Ray Ellis
Nice speech, Harold. Ridiculous, but nice.
People in the US are allowed to kill-- deadly force is perfectly legal in Texas. I don't think there are any laws anywhere in the US that say you can't kill an adversary, but you can wing 'em.
I also wonder why you guys always use a rape scenario to justify using a gun. That's all well and fine, but these scenarios always seem to imply that you come bursting through the door just in time to stop the rape.
Fantasy lives abound, don't they?
45 - Clavos
"Here in Mexico nobody tries to justify running around with illegal guns (only police and military are allowed to have them legally)"
You are obviously unaware of the thriving industry of organized hunts for foreign (primarily gringo) hunters, who have the option of either using the operator's guns or of obtaining permits to bring their own guns with them.
In either case, the guns are legal and not owned by either police or the military.
FYI, my father and I both legally owned numerous guns (including handguns) in Mexico for decades.
46 - David
This is supposed to be a free country. We are the closest country to it.
First, the all powerfull US Military does not nullify the second amendment, it reinforces it's necessity.
Second, this is a free country, if I want to own and use a firearm and I am not causing someone else harm, those who just don't like guns, or just don't like me enjoying shooting can bite me.
47 - Ray Ellis
David, what the hell are you talking about?? Are you planning an all out assault against the US military? And do you always repeat yourself?
48 - Clavos
Having been a member of the US military and an active participant in one of its decidedly unstellar endeavors, the invasion of Vietnam, I can tell you unequivocally that the US military is anything BUT "all powerful."
For more contemporaneous evidence of my point, witness the mess in Iraq, where OBL and his merry band of cave dwellers are refusing to succumb to the "all powerful US military."
49 - REAL soldier...
LOL....Classic! Now we have folks in Mexico (and God knows where else) jumping in on a US constitutional debate!
Awesome! Let's talk about gun rights...or CRIME and crimial use of guns in Mexico shall we? :)
That's frigging beautiful! Haven't you heard the one about people who live in glass houses?
Back to the topic here. The blog is an excellent one and, since it's written by an NYC native, it presents a perspective on gun control that we don't often hear. Usually we only here from Bloomberg and his ilk with their $billions.
I grew up in very different circumstances from the blogger. I was raised in the Midwest - around guns. I don't evern remember the first time I actually fired a gun. They were always there...like shovels, rakes or cars. But I DO remember my father and grandfather teaching me how to use the tool responsibly...our blogger didn't have this benefit but my hat is off to him for educating himself. You know, in over 40 years around guns I cannot personally think of anyone I know having used one to kill a friend, loved one or ANYONE who wasn't a combatant or criminal. Interesting.
Go ahead and have your debate with the vast number of clueless. At the end of the day you should take a look around you and see how it really is. Or better yet....get out there and actally do somthing about it. Rather than just ranting on-line.
50 - Ray Ellis
Why don't we not have this debate, Real? I'm from Texas,and we're pretty well versed in guns, too. We also know when somebody is blowing smoke. Say something meaningful, or shut up. There's no debate here-- you're just ranting.
51 - REAL soldier...
You're not making any sense Ray... or at least I'm not following.
Are you for or against private gun ownership in the US? (in case you missed it..I'm FOR)
Are you an advocate of people OUTSIDE the US meddling in discussions on our our constitutional issues?
Not sure why you seem to be attacking me here or what your line about "something meaningful" is referring to.
I don't see much "meaningful discussion" going on here at all.
52 - REMF
Re #46;
David, just for the record, which branch of the military did you serve in? Where and when?
53 - Clavos
"LOL....Classic! Now we have folks in Mexico (and God knows where else) jumping in on a US constitutional debate!"
Just for the record:
I live in Miami.
I am a US citizen.
And, I am a Mexican citizen.
And, I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam debacle.
Do I have your permission to "jump in" on your us constitutional debate, realsoldier??
Just curious.
54 - REAL soldier...
Clavos...I think you missed the point. You said "US Citizen" that is the key.
Did you take this as some sort of racist, anti-Mexican tirade? If so you are dead wrong.
If you are a US Citizen (or a resident alien) and you are subject to the laws of the nation, and PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, you are certainly welcome in the debate....in fact you'd better actually read what's going on and vote intelligently. It's your duty as a citizen to pay attention. You swore an oath to that at one time if you're a Vietnam Vet...
This isn't about race or country of origin. The US is a nation of imigrants. But, if you're not a citizen, or even if you are a citizen and you CHOOSE not to live here, then butt out.
Did you actually read what I was saying? Or did you jump to some conclusion about me?
As for the BLOG and the discussion...it's about GUN CONTROL, remember?
Thanks for your service to this great nation.
55 - Clavos
I didn't miss any point, you did.
You wrote:
""LOL....Classic! Now we have folks in Mexico (and God knows where else) jumping in on a US constitutional debate!"
You jumped to the conclusion that, because moonraven lives in Mexico, and my moniker is in Spanish, PLUS I commented about owning guns in Mexico, that neither she nor I should be commenting in a debate about the us constitution.
moonraven has posted in the past, here on BC, that she is a us citizen.
I was pointing out to you that you're off base with the above comment, and you proved it with this remark in your next comment:
"...even if you are a citizen and you CHOOSE not to live here, then butt out."
ANY us citizen ANYWHERE pays us taxes, which reason ALONE (Not to mention the bill of rights) entitles them to comment on ANY us issue.
BTW, though born in Mexico, I was born with both my citizenships, and still am a citizen of both nations.
I will comment (and live) where I want, when I want.
56 - Ray Ellis
I was busy, Real. Did you say something?
It's not a question of my being for or against private gun ownership. But I am foursquare opposed to reactionaries like yourself owning so much as a pellet gun.
Since we are part of a global community, and since we don't have any problem with dealing in other countries' affairs, I have no issue with them asking questions about how we conduct our affairs.
I saw nothing meaningful in your comments, and thus, I don't see what you're bringing to the table. Your hyperbole just doen't give me a good feeling.
I trust that answers your questions.
57 - STM
Besides which, and because Americans love to think of themselves as leaders of the free world, why the fu.k shouldn't the rest of the free world be able to tell Americans what we think of a ridiculous set of gun laws that were designed to keep a standing militia during the late 18th century in the lead up to the second war with the British. I'd wager the founding fathers would be turning in their graves and feverishly rewriting the 2nd amendment if they could see what it's become: carte blanche for every second lunatic in America to pack a gatt. Do you really think that's what they had in mind?
To be so deluded as to believe that the proliferation of guns in the United States doesn't add up to the real reason behind the developed world's highest rate of gun homicide (nearly four times that of New Zealand, which comes in second and is also a violent place in parts) smacks of supreme arrogance and not a little ignorance.
I don't oppose gun ownership, and grew up around them and have used them. But I do support some form of control, particularly in regard to quick-firing weapons that can be used for mass murder (and are, as we've all seen too many times).
I love that NRA rationalistion: Guns don't kill people, people kill people - people with guns, though, mostly. It's your country, true, but it's not as civilised or as free as you'd like to think. Any time I visit, it's on my mind and it's something I don't think about normally. It must be on the minds of many law-abiding, gun-owning Americans, because protection is often the catch-cry for their need for gun ownership.
As for realsoldier's position in regard to people outside the US not having the right to an opinion on this issue, a) why the fu.k not (it's a free country and so is mine) and b) this is not an American website - it's an international one, by the publisher's own admission, and any opinion or position is therefore open to discussion by anyone from anywhere with an opinion or a discussion.
Lastly, I'd wager London to a brick that anyone who feels the need to call themselves REALsoldier probably isn't or wasn't.
58 - REMF
"Lastly, I'd wager London to a brick that anyone who feels the need to call themselves REALsoldier probably isn't or wasn't."
Dittos.
59 - Clavos
SS,
You're back!! How goes it, my friend? Tudo bem?
I take it you're back home in SYD; you're feisty as ever.
Good to "hear" from you.
60 - STM
Mate, I had a wonderful time over there. The Portugese are a lot like Aussies: laid-back, relaxed, love a beer and a bit of bullshit and most speak a bit of English :) The weather's virtually identical too, so a few times I was walking around and forgot I was somewhere else.
I never got to Cascais because of the limited time in Lisbon and the tourism mob suggested Sintra instead. I was planning on taking a cab from Sintra to Cascais as it's not that far and then the train back to Lisbon from there but just ran out of time. Still, Sintra and the old palace at Queluz (the Portugese Versailles) are pretty amazing. No doubt about where I was there.
I got stranded in Frankfurt by Qantas on the way home after they blew an engine on the run up from Singapore and subsequently had to fly another one up from Sydney. I couldn't work out why they couldn't use that plane to fly us all home and then fix the engine on their own time, not ours. As a result of the overnight landing and take-off curfew at Sydney airport, we were also stranded in Singapore so the trip took four days all up and I arrived home yesterday morning (Sunday).
And, yeah, I'm still feisty - especially with people who want to suggest that I can't have a say on the constitution when my right to do so is actually protected by the constitution, US citizen or not.
I still love America though.
61 - Dr Dreadful
Sounds like you missed all the excitement back home then, mate, or it would be interesting to get your take on the APEC summit. From what I've heard, most Sydneysiders are livid as hell that the CBD got turned into Stalag 17 just to keep a few protesters away from Bush.
His classic performance at the Opera House was a good laugh, though.
62 - Dr Dreadful
Clav,
Good beer choice this time. I think I need a cushion for the beach chair though. This is going to be a long one.
63 - STM
I had Portugese TV on in the background one evening, and then heard "John Howard", "Sydney, Australia" and "APEC".
I rushed out from the loo, and Howard was on - still not risking a second facial expression and droning on about the "Australian people". What would he know about the Australian people? He's not one of us anymore - he's now just a garden gnome with eyebrows that reach the front door half an hour before he does, and is just masquerading as a Prime Minister.
He's a goner, smells like a goner, is even more unpopular after APEC because Aussies hate tall poppies who disrupt their lives to big-note themselves, and on that Portugese TV news report, I still didn't see his top lip move.
They also fenced off Bondi Beach. That is, really, just political suicide.
64 - Dr Dreadful
They FENCED OFF BONDI???!!! Shit - why didn't they just paint a giant American flag on Uluru while they were about it? Fill all the pub cellars with Bud Light?? Close the SCG and reopen it with an NFL franchise??? Make you all drive on the wrong side of the road???? Remove the Union Jack from your flag and add another 43 stars????? Make a crassly obvious Hollywood rip-off version of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert?????? (Oh wait, they already did that.)
Sorry... genuinely-shocked rant over.
Mr Howard [thinks]: "Hmm, let me see. What damn fool stunt can I pull to absolutely guarantee losing not only the election but my own seat as well? I know..."
Really over now.
I love Australia and the kind of shit that happened to your city this week truly offends.
65 - STM
It's not a problem to have APEC in Australia or foreign heads of state visiting, including George W. Bush. Problem was, Howard wanted to show off Sydney and his big house on the harbour and it's not the capital of Australia. That's what Canberra's for (and why it's away from the rest of us).
It was, however, extremely disruptive (and they even had to have a special law enacted in the NSW Parliament to change the gun laws so the Secret Service men could guard Bush (in Australia, even American agents are foreigners, and foreigners can't have guns).
They should have had the stupid thing down in Canberra, where the only process that would have been disrupted was the production of vast quantities of hot air and wind.
66 - Clavos
"They should have had the stupid thing down in Canberra, where the only process that would have been disrupted was the production of vast quantities of hot air and wind."
Which, in all likelihood, would have been enhanced, rather than disrupted.
GW would certainly have done his part, without even being aware that he was doing so.
67 - Henry Bowman
You mention the gun-banners dragging out the NCVS. Next time, shut them down by telling them why the NCVS is irrelevant. The NCVS is not primarily designed to measure the success of self-defense. For example, they only proceed to question people about with-gun self-defense if they answer yes to the question, "Have you ever been the victim of a person-on-person crime?" The catch is that people who successfully defended themselves tend not to consider themselves victims,m so they are never asked about their success. The survey ends up polling only those resisters who were unsuccessful. The NCVS is by far the outlier among over dozens of polls which are set up in a more objective fashion to measure with-gun self-defense.
68 - moonraven
Real Soldier:
I suggest you bring along a roll of toilet paper when you visit this site: to wipe the shit off your face.
case in point: I am a US citizen. Ergo, I will jump in on any fucking US debate I choose to.
You aren't even old enough to vote.
69 - The Obnoxious American
Henry Bowman:
You're right, and the link where I talk about that has much more detail on why the NVCS is invalid, which talks about all of the points you touched on. But you are absolutely right.
STM:
As I intoned in the article, when you are in the US, you should be worried about people who have the illegal, unregistered guns, not normal citizens who have their license. Trust me, there are plenty of the former out there and they are the perps in the vast majority of crime.
MR:
States tend to have three positions on CCW licenses:
No issue: Under no circumstances will a state issue a ccw license to someone out of law enforcement
May Issue: If the local municipality decides to allow you a CCW permit they "May" issue you one. This is entirely up to the DA and usually only for retired/off duty cops, DA's etc.
Shall Issue: So long as you have no criminal record or phsych issue, you will get a CCW permit.
In the NY tri state area, even if you get a CCW in NJ, you can't bring your weapon to NY or CT, and NJ is a may issue state, it's basically impossible for someone like me to get a CCW.
To the person talking about the children:
I see lots of children at the range learning how to be responsible with guns. That's the approach I favor over making them ignorant about guns (and possibly desiring one like I did to the point of obsession when I was a child).
70 - moonraven
As I indicated on the other thread, I grew up shooting rifles and pistols of many kinds, and I also taught teenagers firearms safety and shooting when I myself was a teenager.
The problem of guns--and the reason why I got rid of mine when my daughter was born instead of keeping them to instruct her in their use--is that you have to teach EVERYBODY how to use them and keep them safely or you might aswell not instruct anybody.
One person who has NOT been instructed is all it takes to get hold of a gun and kill or seriously wound another person. The case of my nephew, which some asshole crassly pooh-poohed, is not an unusal one at all. Every day several accidenst exactly like what happened with one of my brother's rifles take place in the US.
It makes more sense to get rid of guns than to instruct 300,000,000 plus folks in the US.
71 - sigfried and roy
the problem is not all 300 million will get rid of the guns, and so long as criminals have guns, so should the law abiding citizenry for self defense. more, if other countries have guns (especially all those illegally packing mexicans on our border that you mentioned) than thats even more of a reason for americans to have guns. untill all people have no access to guns, i am still going to want mine.
good article obnoxious
72 - Ray Ellis
Good to see that wholesale racism is alive and well in America. I guess brown really is the new black.
73 - Clavos
"I guess brown really is the new black."
Dead on, Ray.
74 - sigfried and roy
uhhh, i wasn't making a racist comment, merely taking what moonraven said - "Here in Mexico nobody tries to justify running around with illegal guns (only police and military are allowed to have them legally). They just have the illegal guns and the hell with it." - well if they have illegal guns and they are coming ovr the boarder, thats just another reason we should also have guns. I like mexican people especially the women
75 - moonraven
Siegfried,
That was just complete bullshit--trying to cover your naked ass.
Mexicans don't need to take their guns across the border. One by one they are taking back what used to be part of Mexico.
Learn Spanish [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]