Jon Meacham, a gun owner, on restoring the assault weapons ban

[one...two...tree 2,762]

First, some personal history. I am a southerner who grew up with and around guns. I own some still. My father gave me a .22 rifle when I was 9 and a single barrel .410 shotgun when I was 10. I have inherited many of my family's guns, including a rifle made by my great, great, great grandfather, which I will preserve and give to my son. One of the central memories of my childhood is of hunting — not well; I am a terrible shot — quail and dove and grouse on a farm on the Tennessee River.

video

Tragically, my mind has all too frequent occasion to return to that time and that place, to the smells of cordite and of home. Whenever there is news of a terrible shooting, I wonder why America has so miserably failed to enact even common-sense gun legislation. I am not advocating a total ban, even on handguns. But I am embarrassed and ashamed that so many Second Amendment true believers are unable to make sound distinctions between sporting arms that tend to be used responsibly and the vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death like that allegedly wielded by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

This is the type of gun that the shooter in Arizona is charged with using — a Glock 9 mm with an expanded clip that holds 33 rounds. What on earth could such a thing be good for except for rapidly ending as many human lives in as short a space of time as possible? Congress banned such clips in 1994 under President Clinton; in 2004, under the second President Bush, they were allowed back on the legal U.S. market. So were other assault weapons banned for the previous decade. Of course the alleged murderer in Tucson was by all accounts mentally ill and susceptible to substance abuse. Could he have put his hands on this kind of Glock and this kind of clip illegally? Sure he could have. But he didn't have to.

Here the system, such as it is, failed on two counts. First, there should be, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed, a strengthening of regulations that keep those with certain kinds of mental health and substance abuse records from being able to purchase firearms for a given period of time. We cannot control the dark meanderings of every disturbed person in America. But we can make relevant facts already in the public record available to gun sellers.

And we should not be allowing the sale of clips like this. The power of the gun lobby is such that the issues surrounding guns and ammunition have been notably absent from broad debate for 15 years or so. Politicians — including many Democratic ones — linked the 1994 Republican landslide to the passage of the assault weapons ban and decided, "never again."

How about applying that steely resolve to something other than electoral survival — like, say, the survival of 9-year-old girls and federal judges and congressional aides who are in a Safeway parking lot on a Saturday morning?

Now Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg are sponsoring legislation to restore the ban on such weapons. The argument from Second Amendment purists that such things will then only find their way to the black market is unconvincing. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. A ban on these clips would mark a step toward bringing order out of the chaos of the Tucson tragedy.

The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time. This pistol with this high-capacity clip is a tool of destruction. I say this as someone who does not want to give up my own guns — but who believes that with rights come responsibilities. Yes, liberty is precious. But so is life. It should not be so difficult for men and women of good will and good heart and sound mind to find the right balance between the two.

http://www.pbs.org/w...apons-ban/6413/

[HeatDeath 430]

"The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government..."

It most certainly is NOT, and anyone who seriously believes that statement in it's glorious unqualified ridiculosity deserves all the fascism, nay, absolute monarchy they can drink.

Edited January 16, 2011 by HeatDeath

[^_^ 5,021]

I am embarrassed and ashamed that so many Second Amendment true believers are unable to make sound distinctions between sporting arms that tend to be used responsibly and the vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death...

The only true threat to the security of a free state comes from other humans. No goose or quail or deer or bear is going to pose that threat. Only a human (well, many humans) can ever do that.

So in fact I believe the opposite is true. The 2nd Amendment does not protect sporting arms. It does, however, protect the right to bear arms with the goal of safeguarding the security of a free state. That means having to kill the people who would take it away.

Of course, I also happen to think the Second Amendment was made obsolete the moment we had a standing Army and no longer need to call up the militia.

[HeatDeath 430]

The only true threat to the security of a free state comes from other humans. No goose or quail or deer or bear is going to pose that threat. Only a human (well, many humans) can ever do that.

So in fact I believe the opposite is true. The 2nd Amendment does not protect sporting arms. It does, however, protect the right to bear arms with the goal of safeguarding the security of a free state. That means having to kill the people who would take it away.

Of course, I also happen to think the Second Amendment was made obsolete the moment we had a standing Army and no longer need to call up the militia.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first two paragraphs.

As for the third, I think it's an abomination that the US even has a standing army. The US lacked a meaningful standing army prior to the Civil War for a very good reason: History has shown us that, in the end, empires always turn their standing armies on their own citizens in a desperate attempt to stave off, by violence, their own senescence and dissolution. While the Oathkeepers movement is an awesomely positive step, and may prevent, or at least significantly moderate this eventuality, I would say that the presence of a standing army in what seems to be a gradually fading empire makes the Second Amendment more relevant than ever.

The NRA has the wrong end of the stick though. Pistols are worse than useless against rifle-equipped infantry, and even personal rifles would be useless against modern air-power. The only militia-level [in terms of funding and technology-base] movements that can even slow down a modern first world military do so with explosives. Widespread knowledge of the production and use of explosives is what is needed to keep the Second Amendment relevant, and is exactly what has been successfully marginalized and stigmatized in modern society. If one was of a conspiratorial frame of mind, one might almost wonder if the NRA was started as an attempt by those who hate and fear the Second Amendment to distract people from and undercut the true and only effective means to express it.

Edited January 16, 2011 by HeatDeath

[^_^ 5,021]

I agree wholeheartedly with the first two paragraphs.

As for the third, I think it's an abomination that the US even has a standing army. The US lacked a meaningful standing army prior to the Civil War for a very good reason: History has shown us that, in the end, empires always turn their standing armies on their own citizens in a desperate attempt to stave off, by violence, their own senescence and dissolution. While the Oathkeepers movement is an awesomely positive step, and may prevent, or at least significantly moderate this eventuality, I would say that the presence of a standing army in what seems to be a gradually fading empire makes the Second Amendment more relevant than ever.

The NRA has the wrong end of the stick though. Pistols are worse than useless against rifle-equipped infantry, and even personal rifles would be useless against modern air-power. The only militia-level [in terms of funding and technology-base] movements that can even slow down a modern first world military do so with explosives. Widespread knowledge of the production and use of explosives is what is needed to keep the Second Amendment relevant, and is exactly what has been successfully marginalized and stigmatized in modern society. If one was of a conspiratorial frame of mind, one might almost wonder if the NRA started as an attempt by those who hate and fear the Second Amendment to distract people from and undercut the true and only effective means to express it.

That does sound conspiratorial. But then again, your statement that empires use their armies to defend themselves against their own people can not be dismissed either. After all, it has been true many times in the past.

+1.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Fortunately our rights are not subject to opinion. Non issue.

[james&olya 1,121]

The only true threat to the security of a free state comes from other humans. No goose or quail or deer or bear is going to pose that threat. Only a human (well, many humans) can ever do that.

So in fact I believe the opposite is true. The 2nd Amendment does not protect sporting arms. It does, however, protect the right to bear arms with the goal of safeguarding the security of a free state. That means having to kill the people who would take it away.

Of course, I also happen to think the Second Amendment was made obsolete the moment we had a standing Army and no longer need to call up the militia.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The only true threat to the security of a free state comes from other humans. No goose or quail or deer or bear is going to pose that threat. Only a human (well, many humans) can ever do that.

So in fact I believe the opposite is true. The 2nd Amendment does not protect sporting arms. It does, however, protect the right to bear arms with the goal of safeguarding the security of a free state. That means having to kill the people who would take it away.

Of course, I also happen to think the Second Amendment was made obsolete the moment we had a standing Army and no longer need to call up the militia.

Fortunately our rights are not subject to persoanl opinion and the Supreme Court has determined what the Right means and who it applies to. Other opinions are acedemic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He's obviously a GOINO.

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

Congress banned such clips in 1994 under President Clinton; in 2004, under the second President Bush, they were allowed back on the legal U.S. market. So were other assault weapons banned for the previous decade.

they banned the sale of them, it was not illegal to own them.

[HeatDeath 430]

Which is stupid, because anybody with a Grade 7 education and $100 in their pocket can go down to Home Depot and get all the supplies they need to manufacture clips as long as they want. I guess we'd better ban sheet-metal benders while we're at it.

It says something about how consumerist society has become when even the lawmakers assume that that just because something can't be bought, it can no longer be legally acquired.

Edited January 17, 2011 by HeatDeath

[natty bumppo 289]

Which is stupid, because anybody with a Grade 7 education and $100 in their pocket can go down to Home Depot and get all the supplies they need to manufacture clips as long as they want. I guess we'd better ban sheet-metal benders while we're at it.

It says something about how consumerist society has become when even the lawmakers assume that that just because something can't be bought, it can no longer be legally acquired.

tin snips .... brazing tools .... hammers ... and of course vises. what more is really needed? springs aren't very hard to make either ....

oh about vises ... i think sin taxes will need to be expanded to cover these ...

[sjr09 155]

After tragedy, Arizona eyes more gun rights

'I don't think it really changes anything,' GOP state lawmaker says of shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn...rime_and_courts

[james&olya 1,121]

Which is stupid, because anybody with a Grade 7 education and $100 in their pocket can go down to Home Depot and get all the supplies they need to manufacture clips as long as they want. I guess we'd better ban sheet-metal benders while we're at it.

It says something about how consumerist society has become when even the lawmakers assume that that just because something can't be bought, it can no longer be legally acquired.

You have way more confidence in the average person with a 7th grade education than I do!

[natty bumppo 289]

a 7th grader could easy do this ....

or are you implying 7th graders are more stupid than 7th graders 30 years ago ...