The article is in Italics.
I have been involved in a number of dialogues in recent days with members of the National Rifle Association who have called to express dismay at what they view as my profound disrespect for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. They are even more out of sorts about what they interpret as my mean-spirited, even "hate-filled," attacks on NRA members.
As is almost always the case, the callers are courteous, calm and controlled. And the Contstitution buffs that they tend to be, they are quick to say that the First Amendment guarantees me the right to disagree with the NRA and to say so in the public prints.
Invariably we discuss the Second Amendment. Here they believe they
own the high ground. It reads:
"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."
Seems simple enough. Today's well-ordered militias are the National Guards of the several states and the nation's founders wanted them armed and free of the dictates of the federal government. Not to my callers, though. They say they are guaranteed the right to arm themselves along the lines of your average soldier. They make a big deal about the placement of commas, and they dredge up all sorts of essays.
Well, here's the problem, Mr. McLaughlin. According to the United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are -- 1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and 2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The exception listed above reads:
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
So, there is the organized militia, to whom Mr. McLaughlin refers, and there's the unorganized militia -- the rest of us.
Also, I point to this site, which contains quotes from founding fathers on the rights of the individual citizens of this country to keep and bear arms.
I assume the "all sorts of essays" is in fact one, found here. Is it open to interpretation? Sure, but we need to look at what the intent of the Bill of Rights was. It seems to have been an enumeration of those rights of the individual citizens of this country, and there's little reason to assume that the second amendment was any different from the first or the others. Some more information can be found here.
As for being armed like the average soldier, many assault weapons are federally banned in this country, and if they aren't banned federally, they're banned by the states. Guess what? An AK47 assault rifle uses 7.62x39mm cartridges, which are .3 inches by 1.5 inches. AK47's are illegal. However, hunting rifles with .308 calibre, .30-06 and .45-70 calibre cartridges are perfectly legal, and these are more powerful than the 7.62x39mm. They cause more damage. In fact, you can legally buy a rifle that uses .45-70 cartridges, which are much bigger and do much more damage than an AK47. Look at it this way: you can't buy a rifle that was made to injure a human, but you can buy a rifle that was made to kill a bear. Does this make any sense? Yes, the guns *look* different, but underneath, there's a barrel, a trigger and a hammer. In fact, an AK47 is harder to injure yourself with. It's pretty much the most idiot-proof gun currently made. And, by the way, you can get magazines for the aforementioned hunting rifles that hold as many cartridges as the AK47, so it isn't an issue of how many bullets you can fire out of the thing.
That's what the members do anyway. The NRA lawyers also bray about the Second Amendment but they take care not to bring it to court with them because it is a sure loser.
I'm curious about this, since there have been numerous court cases regarding the second amendment. Look here for info.
Time after time the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that the government has every right indeed to regulate the way arms are kept and borne. And that is not going to stop because to find otherwise is to invite armed anarchy.
That last sentence is fear-mongering speculation. It'd be nice to have proof, somewhere, that an armed populace is more dangerous. In fact, a major study showed that crime goes down in an armed society. Regarding an armed society, see this article.
Another good site to look at is here.
But they hold out the hope that some day America will elect a president who will appoint a Supreme Court eager to hasten the time when somebody in a crowded theater yells "Fire" and half the patrons yell back, "At who?"
This is the kind of thing that causes people to look poorly at the media. No facts, just fear. I'll say this: the day I'm in a crowded theatre and some crazed, illegal-gun toting screwball comes barging into the theatre and shooting up the place, I'll be hoping that one of my fellow gunowners has his pistol with him and can stop the guy *before* he kills someone. In fact, maybe that gunowner will be me.
Until that day comes, the courts and the commas remain on my side. And that's all the gloating I am going to do because I got a couple of calls recently from people who took literally an assertion that someday the nation's gun owners are going to be targeted by "jackbooted thugs and black helicopters." There are people out there, you see, who really believe in these things; people who see the government of the United States as a clear and present danger. And they called to say they were hurt by my remarks.
What about what happened at Waco? Ruby Ridge? The government makes mistakes. They aren't perfect. Where's the justice?
These are people who say that patriotic Canadians and Australians are being disarmed, even as you read. That trigger locks are a government plot to ban the sale of guns. And that licensing and registration are a pretext to identify gun owners so that when the time comes, they can be rounded up and carted off to political re-education camps. These are people who are going to hold onto their guns because they are going to need them when that inevitable day comes and they will have to defend themselves against the federal army. Nonetheless.
The disarmament of the Canadians and the Australians is real, recorded fact. I guess Mr. McLaughlin doesn't care enough to read about it in the papers. Reference here and here.
I won't say trigger locks are a plot to ban the sale of guns, but the second link above contains good information on problems with locking up your guns. Consider this: in demonstrations of gun locks in March of 2000, several people, including Governor Paris Glendenning of Maryland, had difficulties opening the locks on several handguns. If the locks don't work, either because they fail to lock the gun or they fail to release when needed, they are useless and far more dangerous than the guns themselves. The NRA Pistol Safety Certification teaches that gun safeties are not to be trusted, because they're mechanical and can fail. The same goes for trigger, slide and magazine locks. They can instill a false sense of security, and lead to carelessness. They can also fail when it comes time to use the gun, and this, obviously, can be fatal.
They are very sincere about this, like born-again Christians explaining why, for unbelievers, there's no avoiding hellfire. Sincere about their wounded feelings, too.
But the NRA wasn't particularly concerned about the feelings of Holocaust survivors when in used its Web site to compare gun control efforts here with the Nazi policy of disarming European Jews -- an assertion that U.S. Sen. Frank lautenberg says "cheapens the pain" of survivors and their families.
What about the feelings of those Holocaust survivors? Facts are facts: the Nazi party used the gun registration information to round up the people's guns early in their reign of terror. Are you going to call me an anti-semite? Are you going to accuse me of not respecting the feelings of Jews? Guess what: I am a Jew. Disarming the public invites genocide. It has happened multiple times over the past century, and it will continue to happen. The Allies during WWII actually had guns made to be dropped into countries that were taken by the Germans, to encourage the people to fight back!.
With all due respect to the heroism of the fighters in Poland's Warsaw Ghetto, there was just one instance in World War II when occupying German forces had to back off in the face of citizen resistance. That was in Denmark. When the Germans ordered Jewish citizens to wear a Star of David on their coats, just about everybody in Denmark, led by King Christian X, wound up weiring them.
The Germans backed off and Denmark's Jews were evacuated.
No guns. Just patches of yellow cloth.
The war on alcohol (1920-1933) failed miserably. The war on drugs is costing millions of taxpayer dollars and has been failing for decades. Are we going to fool ourselves into thinking a war on guns could possibly succeed? If you make it difficult for me to get a gun because of licensing and ownership laws, I won't be able to get one. What makes anyone think that'll stop a criminal, who has already bought several illegal guns, from buying another? Criminals do not follow the laws. Even if you could stop all gun manufacturing and ammunition manufacturing in this country, the criminals would illegally import guns and ammo just as they import drugs. Why should we think it would be any different? Please, if you have an answer, contact me. I'd love to hear it -- honestly.
People getting killed is a terrible thing, and those criminals that kill people need to be punished, whether they use guns, knives, bats, rope, or whatever. It's important, though, to keep our heads. We have to think rationally about this before we run off and do something that doesn't make any sense. We need to work not to keep guns away from children, but to teach them (and their parents, and everyone else) the proper use and handling of them. We need to teach them respect for what a gun can do, and we need to demystify them so that they aren't so curious they insist on trying to get their hands on a gun no matter the cost. My children are not old enough to fire a gun responsibly, but they can help me clean the guns. When they ask about the guns, I take them out, confirm they are unloaded, and show the kids the appropriate way to hold them, to point them (away from anything you don't want to hit), to check whether they're loaded. My children know not to touch an unknown gun. It's just responsible parenting. Let's educate people, rather than force them to give up their rights and security. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who are willing to give up essential liberties for security deserve neither." In the name of fighting terrorism, we are allowing illegal searches of our persons and property at airports. In the name of security, we are allowing the government to search our children's lockers, to perform strip-searches, to install X-ray machines and metal detectors, all so that we can pretend we are safe. The criminals know how to get around all these things, and they do, every day. These measures don't work, and disarming everyone won't work. I hope that we don't have to see this first-hand and experience the failure ourselves, because by then it'll be too late.