Grizzlies and Guns

[omorka]

You feel so stupid when it happens , , , something that has been right in front of you all this time suddenly pops into focus, steps up and slaps you in the face . . . it doesn't happen to me that often . . . but:

The Second Amendment says nothing about guns.

The NRA is absolutely, truly smoking crack. If they were really serious about the amendment, they'd be fighting for every citizen's right not only to have firearms, but also to carry swords, spears, and glaive-guisarmes; to stockpile hand grenades and shoulder-launched rockets; to trade bombs, mustard gas, and napalm on the open market; even to build nuclear weapons in their backyard.

The gun control lobby has even better drugs. The Amendment has already been broken, and was the first time someone was turned down buying their own personal cannon/bomb/rocket launcher. They don't need to fuck around with dancing around the gun lobby; why are they bothering? If they can outlaw swords, they can outlaw guns; someone carrying either is armed.

Who thought that "arms" meant only firearms? Where does this half-assed idea come from? And how did it get so embedded in the public discourse that it took me twenty-nine and a half years to see through it?

And, could they twist around the First Amendment the same way?

What on Earth can we do when our Constitution clearly gives every citizen the right to own weapons of mass destruction? Which is more destructive, that or repealing one-tenth of the Bill of Rights? Can we tame the Second without strangling the First? (Or Fifth, for that matter? And where are the Third Amendment nuts?)

Dang. Some days it doesn't pay to pay attention.

"I can see; let me see clearly."

Comments

teacher, heal thyself

[teegarden.livejournal.com]

"teacher, heal thyself."

a quote i heard in my only college class to teach me squat diddly good about teaching (i wasn't an education major and had no certification classes). "teaching english in secondary schools" taught me much, though very concentrated form.

your elementary education plus your experiences watching television as a youth gave you the idea that "the right to bear arms" meant firearms. specifically, that early americans carried pioneer quality rifles and pistols. these "arms" were the ones they won the revolutionary war with. thus, the amendment meant firearms. things like other weapons weren't so useful in the war so we don't think of them nowadays.

but your point is utterly correct. the intent and purpose, as i see it, was to have the rights to be able to defend ourselves with armaments, to say that such things are legal and that we can own and use them. at the time, swords and knives and trebuchets and rifles all existed ... but the gunpowder-based weapons were considered superior then (and today) to blade weapons, so everyone focused on rifles and pistols. later, shotguns.

so i agree with your point about being blindsided by the intent focus on firearms only with regards to the 2nd. however, it was your own education plus your parents plus television which conveyed the idea that the firearms were the important focus.

however, one point in aside: the nra and most current hobbyists/sportsmen are keenly aware of the hobby of other weapons, such as archery bows and crossbows, knives of 1000 kinds, swords and rapiers and other dueling blades, blowguns with and without 100 kinds of poison (mostly anesthetics), axes, airguns, paintball guns, bb guns, pellet guns, tasers, mace, skads of self-defense devices as well as "self-defense devices." [note the distinction is a matter of my opinion, and probably not theirs.]

my father has owned the industry's best system for recycling shotgun shells (pour and grind your own shot, recycle and load your own shells) for almost as long as i've been alive. my brother is a better shot with a longbow (deer hunting, mostly) than with a .3006 rifle.

so, yeah, the nra and other outfits focus media attention on firearms, and incidents like columbine, etc, bring 'em to our attention, but quietly, the same rules and rights and arguments apply to the other weapons as well. maybe its because these other weapons require more skill usually than point-n-shoot guns (shotgun: how much skill, really, at 10 feet?) do.

friend of mine (jon benignus, remember him?) has a history degree and can tell you umpteen stories 'bout what a little skill can do combined with history's other weapons, almost all of which today are neither regulated, noticed, hard to make, expensive, or hard to learn.

:)

[brezhnev.livejournal.com]

There was a Pope way back when who tried to ban crossbows, back when they were a new invention. I figure that they (and swords, etc.) are sufficiently retro that nobody makes much of an issue about private ownership of them. Texas law doesn't let you carry swords around in public (or spears, or any number of other things), though I think it would be pretty cool if I could do that legally.

Anyway, I've thought about it, and it makes sense to include in the legal category weapons that could be used reasonably accurately by a skilled user against a single assailant. So the things that are prohibited now -- hand grenades, machine guns, excessively sawed off shotguns, nukes -- wouldn't meet that standard. But swords and crossbows should be OK.

But, I'm not a lawyer, so this and $2.99 plus tax will get you an Ultimate Cheeseburger.

[theoldone.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting dilemma. When the Constitution was written, weapons meant mostly swords and guns (at the time, swords were far more dangerous).
The Constitution doesn't specify what arms we be allowed to keep, so it should be within the right of the legislature to allow some weapon, but not any weapon. In the interest of sanity, we're probably better off with firearms, since they have prohibited automatic weapons and silencers. Only "quiet" weapons are prohibited (bow & arrows being the exception, since accuracy is a difficult to attain skill - crossbows are restricted).

[omorka.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I buy the "single assailant" part. The mention of the milita seems (to me, at least) to imply that the founders expected said arms to be used in keeping the peace against all comers - Native Americans upset about violations of their treaty rights, roving bands of British soldiers out of Canada, wily Frenchmen from Louisiana, etc. While atomic weapons might be outside of the purview of a militia, hand grenades (for instance) would probably not be . . .

I agree with you about the swords and spears. Honestly, if the law lets us carry a concealed handgun with the proper permits, surely it's not too unreasonable to be allowed to carry a halberd openly? It's not like anyone is going to be surprised by it - "whoops, I didn't realize you had a big pointy thing!" And they can just add to the sign that already prohibits handguns if they don't want them on the bus . . . There are days walking down Montrose that a polearm would certainly add to my peace of mind. A firearm, however, I would just worry that I would shoot myself in the kneecap with somehow.