Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Breaking The Liberal Mold
I find that many Republicans have a specific stereotypical "liberal" that they think of and use in their own personal mental maps whenever a "liberal" is needed to fill out the position of "bad guy" or "ACLU enemy".
This strawman is generally an effete, tree-hugging environmentalist who is a current member of P.E.T.A., a card-carrying ACLU member, someone who favors gun control, and persecutes good, wholesome Christian folks for kicks.
Forgive me if I don't recognize this person.
I am a liberal in the sense that I agree with and favor progressive political positions. I think that gay folks deserve to marry each other, that abortions should be at the woman who happens to be carrying the baby's choice, and that church and state should be kept completely and utterly separate.
However, I am a hunter. Yup. I own many firearms, and I enjoy hunting. I strongly support the Second Amendment and believe that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important civil liberties that we Americans posses. In fact, I am going Javalina hunting in February and I hope like hell that I can bring home a good-sized pig so that we can have a fantastic barbecue out in the backyard and feed the family well.
My take on firearms is that they stand as a proxy for our essential right to defend ourselves against our own government if it happens to go insane and get too big for it's collective britches. What the heck else are we going to do to defend ourselves? Take our government to court? Plus, firearms serve as an wonderful tool for connecting with our roots as a predatory animal. There is nothing quite like bringing down your own kill and securing and preparing it for your family. I think that it is healthy to step out of our artificially-constructed, scripted lives and re-connect with the human animal that lives within all of us. And no, I am not romanticizing it. I do not advocate a return to a savage, primitive lifestyle because it's somehow "closer to nature". That's bullshit.
In any case, I am going hunting in February. I will hopefully bring down a Javelina. I am really looking forward to it.
Does anyone else like to hunt or shoot besides me - or am I the only one?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
How do you cook a javalina?
I agree with what you say, but need to know how you plan to eat a javalina. The only time I've killed one, we took it to the butcher for advice. His advice was " I'd throw the stinky thing away." It did stink, we had it in my buddy's Blazer and had to drive with the windows down to keep the stench away. I wound up having it mounted.
If you're hunting in javalina country, there's probably feral hogs around. I'd recommend shooting one of those, they're plentiful, destructive to the environment, and quite tasty.
Keep up the good work!
How To Cook A Javelina
Hi MikeB,
Well, generally speaking when you shoot a Javelina you try and get the younger, fatter animals. They will be noticeably smaller than the old, grizzled boar of the herd. You don't want the big boar - too tough and stringy. Plus, you go for a head or neck shot to avoid getting blood-shot meat.
As for the stink, well, Javelinas use musk glands in their herd dynamics to identify each other and to mark their territory. It sounds like you guys punctured or squeezed the musk gland when you were cleaning it - or that you never skinned it and cleaned it before bringing it home! That'll kill the meat! No wonder the butcher told you to throw it out!
After you get your Javelina, you need to make sure that you skin it very carefully and avoid squeezing or puncturing the musk gland and getting the musk on the meat. If you do, it's awful and you can't eat it. You also need to try to avoid getting hair on the meat because the hair is infused with the musk as well. Making your skinning cuts from the inside and trying to remove the skin whole will keep a lot of hair off the meat. Wash it as soon as possible also.
After you get it home, rinse it well, then marinate the crap out of it. 8 hours in a good, spicy Italian dressing does wonders for the meat. You can also just crock-pot it for 12-16 hours, changing the water with fresh, hot water every two hours or so.
The last one we cooked we did in the crock-pot like described above. After 16 hours, we drained the water, pulled the meat apart by hand, and added Mrs. Inscrutable's secret recipe Inscrutable Barbecue Sauce™, and ate it on toasted buns as barbecue sandwiches. Yum! It was really good.
Javelina isn't a preferred food animal, obviously, and the Javelina hunt here in Arizona is more to thin the herds than to provide hunters an opportunity to feed themselves or their families.
How to cook a javalina
Thanks for the lesson Brent,
Yes, I shot the big boar, but didn't skin it. Never got that far.
I don't imagine I'll shoot another. One on the wall is enough, and my experience from years of duck hunting is that whenever all the recipes for a particular species start with "marinate the crap out of it" and then put it in the crock pot, they normally end with feed it to the dog.
It's OK though, where I hunt in Texas javalinas aren't real common but much tastier hogs are a nuisance. I'll stick to them.
Marinate The Crap Out Of It
Heheh... That's true! :) However, like I said originally, the Javelina is not a preferred food animal. The state of Arizona offers a Javelina hunt to thin the population for the benefit of their environment, and for the overall health of the species. The hunt is strictly regulated, with only a specific, limited number of tags awarded for each unit.
I put in for a Javelina tag every year because the unit we always end up getting is fairly close, it's beautiful high-desert country, and the Javelina is challenging and enjoyable to hunt. Plus I have no problem with assisting the state in managing this wild animal for the benefit of the environment and the animal itself.
Now, I also don't believe in hunting and shooting anything that I'm not willing to eat - so I had to figure out a way to make javelina tasty, or quit hunting javelina. It's a lot more work than, say, pork, but it turns out great! Last year we took a big crock-pot full of barbecued jav out riding and fed about 15 people. We told everyone right up front that it was javelina, and offered a taste. Then we made up a bunch of barbecue sandwiches and pigged out. (It's OK to say that because the jav isn't a pig at all. Heh.)
Talk about working for your food !
If you moisten your javelina with a 20 percent solution of selenium hydrofluorite, dip it in potassium hydroxide meal and then boil it in superheated liquid xenon for 6 months, you don’t even have to cut out those musk glands.
No ACLU or NRA, but very Liberal and Gun-Friendly...
I have been hunting exactly once in my life, and it was something I shouldn't have done. I was drunk, it was dark, we were in a moving vehicle and I was hanging out the window with a sawed-off double-barrel 20 GA. Fortunately for me the shells were duds. (Actually, one shot off looking like a cheap roman candle)
Had it blown, or worse, both blown, I'd have likely broke the shit outta my arm...
I would like to go hunting again but no one I know personally hunts.
I actually own two weapons, but I would never fire either one of them. One is an Italian Carbine of unknown (to me) manufacture. The other is a .410 (that the right way to write it?) shotgun that was my grandmother's... It probably could fire with a thorough cleaning, but seriously, no.
I am neither a member of the NRA or the ACLU, and both for the same reason; while I agree with the overall purpose for their respective existence, they both do things I consider too extreme to warrant my membership.
One example for the ACLU was the various crosses in CA. While I agree in separation of church and state, and find it offensive for government to support religion, most of these crosses have been in place for as many as 2 hundred years. The only reason government was supporting them is because of annexation. I don't put that in the same category as Judge Roy spending government on a shiny new set of commandments to hang in the halls of justice.
But hey, that's me. And this is America. And that's what's great about it!
And while I think we should own weapons as a preventive measure against a tyrannical government, I also think that any such effort would be nearly immediately put down.
The way I see it, the "militia" referred to in the Constitution is more akin to our modern National Guard, being of state loyalty vs. federal loyalty. However, the Natl. Guard is so beholden to the Army and federal govt. the likelihood of themn revolting is non-existent.
Anyone agree with this or am I way out in left-field?
vern
vgblog@thegillfamily.us
http://vernsblog.thegillfamily.us:8180/
National Guard, etc.
Recent development: The National Guard is now under complete federal control. State governors have little or nothing to say about how or when or where they're deployed.
Yet more of the glorious leadership of Our Beloved President Bush.
Just FYI.
And yes, with Waco in mind, I agree that any individual “revolt” by rifle-wielding citizens would be put down. I think the important effect is psychological, though. As long as the citizenry as a whole continue to believe they have a right to defend themselves, even against the government itself, that belief will permeate the relationship between the two groups, and maintain the respect.
...
Speaking of Bush and citizenry, I believe the greatest threat to American liberty to come along in the past half-century ... is the Bush White House.
I'm hoping this recent “screw all of you, I'm sending them anyway” move by Bush, which seems to me calculated to trap the Democrats into another box canyon (if they try to cut off funding, the GOP can crow about how they don't “support the troops” for the next several elections), will backfire.
If the president can create “signing statements” that have the force of law, what do we need Congress for? He can just dash off official proclamations at any time, and neither Congress, nor the press, nor the public can do anything about it.
“If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ... just as long as I'm the dictator.” —Washington, DC, Dec. 18, 2000
Members of Congress on both sides should start to take these words seriously and realize just how irrelevant Congress has become to American government, then act aggressively to investigate, prosecute, remove and imprison the anti-American cabal now running the nation.
Getting put down
It's always a good idea to check what happened in those regimes where everyone who wanted a gun could get one. The general rule in those regimes is that either some militia overpowered the government only to be more tyrannical, as in Italy and Germany, or the government outgunned the opposition, as in post-communist Russia.
Responding to all the comments here
I've always believed that gun ownership is really about backpressure.
Government officials should always have a healthy respect for (or be a teeny bit afraid of) the people they serve, so the idea that they rule us (instead of serve us) doesn't get too firmly entrenched. Guns in private hands is one tool for keeping that idea in the foreground.
I grew up with coon hunters and deer hunters in Texas, and have hunted whitetail and mule deer. Also went to Montana some years back for elk. I know the deliciously feral feel of getting an animal in your sights and the quivering desire to take it down.
That being said, I was a lousy hunter — put me in the woods with a gun or bow, and a safe zone materializes around me where generations of deer could be born, grow up, raise families, and die of old age.
I quit hunting decades back. I thought about it over the course of several years, and finally realized that I couldn't take pride in it. The argument is too long to go into here, but it's basically about safe, wealthy, powerful me pitting my vast advantages (and believe me, none of you have ever sat down and enumerated them as I have) against critters who live daily on the edge in an extremely demanding environment. All other arguments being equal, there’s an issue of bullying that became the deciding factor.
I’ve been ten yards away from a herd of 150-200 mule deer during a spring migration, and 8 feet away from a black bear who passed through my yard every night. I’ve petted a live wolf, an African lion, a red fox, a coyote, and a 650-pound grizzly.
After looking into the eyes of a grizzly, holding her huge paw while she takes marshmallows from your hand with nimble lips, killing doesn’t come close.
These days, for hunting, I have my camera.
More
And just as a followup, I'm never totally comfortable with people demonizing PETA. Not every one of them is the stereotypical human-hating nutcase; there is a healthy amount of compassion in the body of PETA supporters.
Conversely, I see a definite need for the NRA ... but I'm also not blind to the fact that they, in their own ways, can be every bit as extreme and unreasonable as PETA.
I don't dislike Peta because they hate humans
It's actually closer to the opposite, that I dislike Peta because they devote so much of their recourses to projects (like stopping people from eating meat) that will never fly when they could be using them in something that is more worthwhile (like, say, stopping poachers, preserving habitat, lobbying for stiffer penalties for people who kill other's pets and torture animals, etc). I guess I just see them as a bunch of small-timers who give animal lovers a bad name (not as bad as the more radical groups though). Of course stuff like this doesn't exactly make me like them.
I'll agree with that.
I'll agree with that. In fact, I only rejoined the NRA last year (after being a non-member for about 25 years) with misgivings because of their tendency to support any R over any D, and for a number of other positions they have taken. I have tried to convey my feelings on these matters to the organization, and figure that I have more credibility as a member.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
As a Native American said
If you want hunting to be a sport you should arm the deer (or in this case Javalina). Of course Javalina's are one of nature's better armed animals, and with deer we've eliminated their natural predators so we've got to do something to cull the herd. Although I for one would be in favor of reintroducing wolves and cougers to those areas where they've been wiped out, but I understand people are afraid of them for some strange reason which I, being a tree hugging animal loving PETA hater, cannot possibly comprehend.
I don't hunt, I confine my "savage" activities to virtual reality, there's just something about taking down a giant monster armed with nothing but a sword and bow that gives you a rush. But then I'm a girl, and genetically boys are the hunters while girls are the gatherers (this is why girls enjoy shopping, it's basically like connecting with our wild gatherer instincts).
Predator re-introduction
I agree with this in principle, but I think practical problems arise when these predators realize that they can either hunt wild game (an iffy and difficult proposition at best and a lot of work at the least) or they can get the very same or greater nutrients by taking down domestic animals or even better a domestic trash can.
Ya, things don't always go according to plan
With the domestic trash cans, it's not as if seagulls, raccoons and squirrels don't prey on them already. With domestic animals people really need to learn to either fence them in or keep them inside. Also feral dogs already pose a threat to domestic animals and humans.
Guns, the Government, Crime, etc.
Like most people in my milieu, I tend to associate guns with crime more than with self-defense. But it really depends on what kind of guns you're talking about. Rifles are useful for hunting, and it makes sense to allow honorably discharged troops to keep their weapons. Canada only controls handguns, and in Switzerland all men can keep their army weapons as long as they keep it properly secured; neither has the USA's insane gun murder rate. Ironically, the weapons that gun control bills do the least to control are the weapons that are most used in crime.
Guns provide a lot less protection from government than they used to. The mafia and the militias will always outgun you. In post-Soviet Russia, the people didn't suddenly become independent; instead, the mafia and the state monopolized the use of force.
Onions
If you look behind all of the veils of Law and civilization's lofty sentiments there is someone with a gun pointed at you saying in essence "Do this or I will kill you."
hunting for liberals
Just wanted to chime in as a self-described liberal who also enjoys hunting and eating wild game.
Shaggy Maniac
The Second in full
The Second Amendment says -
"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 to me that you get to keep a gun, not to be a lone wolf holding out against the evil government, but rather to be a part of a militia to defend said government against an outside threat, such threats were quite real in the era this was enacted, but have since become rather moot.
I am sorry I really have to disagree about the whole getting away from the 'artificially constructed' world through hunting since firearms are supremely artificial from the get go. Metal mined by huge machines in pits or holes in the ground smelted and then shaped. Same for the amunition. I would think that if a real connection to the natural predator was what you were after you would go with a group of other hunters and use spears and or rocks to kill your prey. That would be pretty adenaline producing I imagine.
I am fairly sure that there are places where people need to hunt in order to supplement their diet, but I think for most people who hunt in the United States it is nothing more than a luxury.
It certainly would be nice if everyone who owned a firearm was a responsible citizen and had taken a basic safety course, but alas it is not so. I would think though that carrying a gun would be more trouble than it was worth and if you cross state lines into New York or Massachusetts with a gun they can put you away for a very long time.
I do agree with the statement that guns do not kill people, obviously they don't. What they do is make killing people very very easy. No more than flexing a finger is required (though a good aim helps).
Jefferson disagrees.
A valid point, but in error. Here's how it was understood at the time:
That 'individual right' interpretation is the one taken by the Supreme Court in most instances, as well. Further, it fits with the classic liberal understanding of the Bill of Rights: as citations of the rights of individuals, not states. The classic conservative interpretation is usually that State's Rights are what are being protected from an overbearing Federal Government. Of course, that matter was largely settled during the Civil War.
I have always found it curious that on this one amendment the liberal and conservative positions seem to be flipped.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
With all due respect
To yourself and Mr. Jefferson, it may be that other Founders interpreted it differently. They were known to have some strong differences of opinion. Either way I just think it is interesting that when the firearms enthusiasts are shielding themselves from constraint by quoting the second amendment they very very rarely quote the amendment in full, including that first line. I suppose they do this so that it would not undercut their position. Certainly I would say that the full amendment implies that if you are not part of a well regulated militia sworn to defend a free state (whatever that state happens to be) then your right to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed, but hey what do I know? Luckily I live in a very low crime state where the likelihood of death by gunfire is pretty low. Others, however, are not so fortunate.
You are entitled...
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The courts (including the SCOTUS) have decided that the 2nd Amendment is not about a collective right (your interpretation), but rather understand it as an individual right.
If you do not agree with this interpretation, that's fine. But under our system of government, it is the SCOTUS and the lower courts which make such determinations of law and interpretation, unless and until such time as a change is made to said law (or the Constitution).
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Ah the SCOTUS
The very same people who selected George Bush to be president of the United States. Finding myself in disagreement with them fills me with a warm sense of pride. Hell, 80% of our species believes in imperceptible magic people so I have grown used to my opinion being in the minority. As for the Second Amendment - Nowhere did I state as fact that U.S. law agreed with me so I don't know where you are getting that 'entitled to my own facts' comment. I said the amendment as written implies membership in a militia defending a free state. If you'd care to dispute that by saying that as written it does not imply that then by all means make your case. If that first line is irrelevant then why the hell is it in there at all? It could just as easily say:
"An individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
No muss, no fuss, no ambiguity. Well no ambiguity except in regard to what exactly constitutes 'arms'. Now if the intent as you say is to enable citizens to resist government tyranny then we certainly would be entitled by this amendment to the arms which would allow us to do that. i.e. Armor piercing rounds, RPG's and assault weapons (to name but a few). Resisting with shotguns and hunting rifles would likely be an excercise in futility.
I don't believe in hell.
I am not a lawyer nor Constitutional scholar. But the people who are - whose job it is to determine what law and the Constitution mean - are the Justices of the SCOTUS (and by extension, the judges of the lower courts) under our system. Their judgment is that the 2nd Amendment, as written, in its entirety, means an individual right. The same way that they define the meaning of all other laws and the Constitution. That is a fact. Your opinion may agree or disagree with their interpretation, but that does not change what the meaning is within our system.
Am I happy with all of their decisions? Hardly. But under our system of governance, we need to have *some* independent body to make such judgment calls, or the system will break down into anarchy. If you disagree with their decision, there are mechanisms within the Constitution to effect changes.
On the issue of guns, however, as I pointed out in the first dKos diary I cited, that proposition (Federal gun control or bans) is a loser for Democrats. Simply, the majority of people in the US seem to like the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I think that the national Democratic leadership has learned this lesson, and is willing to leave the matter up to the States and municipalities.
And, you may be interested to know, the typical "hunting rifle", say a .30-06 or .308, is more powerful than your typical "assault rifle", and is more deadly in the hands of a skilled hunter than a military rifle would be. Likewise, a shotgun with rifled slugs (such are commonly used for deer and other large game) is an effective weapon against most body armour and even light armoured vehicles at ranges up to 100 yards.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Well Now
If these weapons are as effective as you say then A) Why aren't they in wider use by soldiers and B) What is the big deal about banning assault rifles if they are less effective than hunting weapons?
My assertion that the second amendment's arms bearing rights imply membership in a well ordered militia defending a free state is based on solely on my comprehension of the english language. I fully acknowledge that the SCOTUS, who in the final analysis have the armed backing (and implied use of lethal force) of a distinctly non-free state (the U.S.) have interpreted it differently. For them the amendment may as well be written:
"Because Mom needs two quarts of skim milk, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But in this Orwellian age I expect nothing different. War is Peace, Mission Accomplished and all that.
Thanks for the tip on resisting government assault. I wonder how bad things would have to get before I made use of such information?
Two answers.
A) Because it is easier to give a lot of soldiers weapons which throw out a lot of lead quickly. Snipers are extremely effective with larger calibre weapons, shooting one shot at a time - but it takes a lot more skill and practice. Hunters and sport shooters like those challenges, and do it for fun.
B) That's why the AWB was allowed to die a quiet death a couple of years ago: it dealt with only the "scary look" of some guns. It would be like passing a law against red cars, or ones with stylish wheels, since they "look fast". This legislation may not mean much in your area, but it severely hurt dems out here in the hinterlands in the mid and late 90s, alienating a lot of gun owners who are otherwise independents.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Ah
So the United States does not have an army full of marksmen it would seem.
Since the ban has, as you said, lapsed does this mean I can get a fully automatic weapon should I desire one? If not why not?
You really should...
You really should learn more about these matters if you are going to hold forth this way. Wikipedia has some good basic information, and would be a good place to start.
The Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons. Nothing. There is a great deal of confusion about gun terminology, and many who wish to restrict gun ownership deliberately contribute to this. A "fully automatic" gun continues to fire and cycle bullets & casings while the trigger is depressed, or until the magazine empties. Fully automatic capable weapons have been very tightly controlled since 1934 in the US, requiring an extensive background check (think "Top Secret" security clearance) and special taxes and fees. Since 1986 no additional fully automatic weapons have been permitted to be imported or sold to individuals in the US, driving the price up astronomically. Essentially, in order to own a fully automatic weapon as a private collector (there are only a few thousand), you have to be a licensed gun dealer and willing to spend $10,000 or more.
The Assault Weapons Ban limited ownership of a number of rifles which looked scary, but which were functionally no different than any other semi-automatic (one shot with each pull of the trigger) rifle. The criteria used in the now defunct ban were purely aesthetic, and those who wrote the legislation were reduced to simply listing specific models of certain guns - the manufacturers just changed the looks a bit and gave the gun a new model number/name, and they were again perfectly legal. Hence my comment in a previous post about outlawing some cars because they "looked fast".
Personally, I don't enjoy the styling of the so-called Evil Black Rifles. I don't like the styling of Hot Rods, either. It just doesn't do anything for me. But why make something illegal purely on aesthetic grounds? It just makes it look like you are trying to pull a fast one on the voters by seeming to be doing something about a perceived problem when you're not really. Or it makes you look like an idiot who doesn't understand the difference. In either case, the Dem push to get the AWB through hurt them at the polls in many 'red' and 'purple' states - needlessly. This helped usher in the era of Republican control of Congress and even the Bush presidency.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
I had heard
Some of the details of the 'assault weapons' ban and the ease of circumventing it, and as one who does not own a gun I had no reason to delve into the minutia of weapons terminology. It surprises me not at all that is was used as a political football (and used poorly at that).
If the second amendment is intended to put weapons into the hands of the general citizenry in order to enable them to resist (however poorly) a tyrannical government, and fully automatic weapons would be useful for said purpose (I assume) then how is it that access to these weapons is restricted? Is that not a flagrant violation of the second amendment and has the NRA attempted to lift these restictions to be more in line with the present interpretation of the amendment? When you said 'tightly controlled'. Tightly controlled by whom? The federal authorities or the state authorities?
Yet you feel...
Yet you feel perfectly justified in advocating legislation (or a re-interpretation of the Constitution) based on your lack of knowledge.
This is basic stuff, not minutia. This is like confusing a car and an airplane, because both transport people, have wheels and an engine.
If you bothered to do *any* research into the matter, rather than just relying on what others have told you about the evils of guns, you would have some handle on what the current status of gun ownership is, and which governmental body has responsibility for regulation.
I have in good faith attempted to educate, and have suggested at least one place where you might wish to start. You seem unwilling to go to even the trouble of looking at a Wikipedia entry. Do not expect people to take your opinions on such matters seriously, unless and until you bother to do your research. For my part, I am done discussing the matter with you.
Wishing you well in all other regards...
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Really?
I have not advocated any legislation at all. As far as my interpretations go they are based on my knowledge of the english language as I stated previously. If you'd care to challenge that then be my guest. A pistol fires bullets, a rifle fires bullets, an assault rifle fires bullets, a machine gun fires bullets. None of them fire candy or party favors. Your analogy to airplanes and cars is spurious. Bullets are propelled by the rapid expansion of gasses from chemical reactions. Typically they are made of lead. Bullets shatter bones, tear mucles and organs and puncture skin. Is there something there that you think I don't understand? Some way in which I am woefully ignorant? Some people in this country feel that giving everyone the means to easily kill their fellows humans is desireable, some don't.
I never said that guns were evil. In fact since there are far too many people on the planet it might even be argued that the more guns there are the better.
My logic in regards to the amendment is rock solid. If the purpose of the second amendment is to provide the citizenry with weapons to resist a tyrannical government and if fully automatic would be useful for that purpose then it follows that those weapons should be available to the general citizenry. In fact ANY weapon useful for a citizen resistance would be so protected. Once you start picking and choosing weapons based on rate of fire, ammunition capacity, range and penetrating power you have entered the realm of minutia.
I am not a member of the NRA and don't get their newsletters so I wondered what they were doing about this. I will not lose sleep due to lack of this knowledge.
"Wishing you well in all other regards..."
Yeah, that comes through clearly in between the times when you are putting words in my mouth.
One of the things blogs are about is opinions and I expressed mine. If opinions are unwelcome here then perhaps you should explicitly state that.
You are not alone.
I wasn't sure what your take on such issues was Brent, and when we were discussing my participation in UTI as an Associate, I said I'd not use this venue as a forum to hammer my views on 2nd Amendment issues.
But now that you've broached the subject...
I am a proud progressive. I belong to the ACLU. And I belong to the NRA. In other words, I support the entire Bill of Rights. I have my concealed-carry permit, and carry a firearm whenever allowed by law. I see this as both a personal and civic responsibility, and have discussed these issues extensively on the big liberal blog Daily Kos here, here, and somewhat here. The second one of those links probably sums up my thoughts on the matter best. I have been very pleased to see that the stereotype of the "gun-grabbing liberal" just doesn't fit with a large percentage of the people who frequent dKos, for many of the same reasons that you outline, Brent.
Hunting? I grew up hunting, did it all my life until about a decade ago. When my current situation changes again, I will make time to renew those skills, and get back to it. Basically, I believe that anyone who eats meat should occasionally have to confront the harsh reality that eating meat means that some animal has died. I think it just keeps us honest.
But the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about keeping the power balance between government and the citizenry. No, I do not have any fantasy that my few rifles, shotguns and pistols could stand up to full military weaponry, should it come to that. But having an armed populace means that any wanna-be tyrant can not just do whatever they want - they have to take into consideration what level of violence they are willing to confront, and what their military will have to do in order to overcome that resistance. That calculus makes it less likely that a dictatorship could be imposed quickly or easily.
I am not blind to the dangers of guns. My father was killed by a felon who should not have had the handgun he did. But that wasn't the gun's fault. Yes, reasonable precautions (in the form of laws) about who should own guns need to be in place. But by and large that seems to be the situation. And the experience of the 40-some states which have "shall-issue" CCW permits has been that the weapons carried by permit-holders have been used responsibly. Certainly, criminals still have guns. But just passing a law saying they shouldn't won't change that, and doesn't seem to be effective, based on some 40 years of laws in cities like NY and DC, or in those states which still strongly restrict gun ownership.
Yeah, I have opinions on this...;)
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
I shoot a bow, 20ga
I've only shot birds and squirrels, but I enjoy target shooting my Golden Eagle and my Remmy. I also think that the gun control issue should never be about shotguns and hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment isn't challenged by the freedom to have these.
If it's challenged by anything at all, and if we're even going to discuss anything, it only ought to be handguns and assault weapons. And, I actually do agree with stricter regulations on those. Basically, I think that federal registration of every gun ought to be accompanied by a ballistics report [manufacturer supplied], as well as the fingerprints of the buyer. And, I support going after the arms manufacturers who produce weapons that wind up on the black market.
I think the "War on Drugs" should be replaced by a "War on Black Market Guns". This is one of the factors that contributes to the sky-high murder rates of many of our cities. But, I find no conflict between changing the regulations and also strongly advocating the right to bear [traditional] arms.
tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Lucretius
Hunting
I've never been hunting but I have no objections to it and would sometime like to.
I have no objection to individual gun ownership and indeed see it more as a citizen's responsibility TO own a gun rather that not to.
A side note: A javalina isn't really a member of the pig family...it just looks like one.
ACLU? check. NRA? Check. GOA? Yep.
I'm not much of a hunter but I do like to walk around in the woods with a rifle.
I also very much enjoy target shooting. I'm an a socialist with anarchist leanings--and its that anarchist part of my worldview that gives me an appreciation for things like the value of an armed citizenry, and the truly radical ideas behind the 2nd Amendment.
I own a Ruger GP100 in .357 mag, an M1911A, a Taurus PT92 in 9mm (their Beretta clone), an SKS, a couple of pump action shotguns...
I support the ACLU, and the NRA, and the Gun Owners of America. I really like www.liberalswithguns.com
and also support Pink Pistols, and Oleg Volk's website.
Atheists definitely need their RKBA...
All Americans do.
how so?
How so? Yes, the second ammendment is designed to protect the individual's right to own weaponry (note that the second ammendment does not specify guns, so it could be argued that it gives people the right to own bombs, however this is highly infringed upon by the government), but that doesn't give people the civic duty to own guns (or bombs for that matter).
Opinion only
I see it as a citizens responsibility to own weapons for 2 main reasons.
The first and most important, I think, is the matter of personal responsibility. The job of protecting my life and limb is mine and no one else's and a gun is a tool to help accomplish that.
The second reason is that I believe that the people should have the capability to stand against an oppresive government should it become necessary and it's a moral obligation to do so. (When it becomes necessary is clearly a gray area) This actually goes twice for me since I've sworn to protect and defend the constitution.
opinions good
If we didn't have them, than this democracy would be merely a farce.
In the area where I live there is lots of gun violence, just recently a kid brought a rifle to my old high school and blew his head off (hey, I knew it would happen sooner or later). A report earlier this year showed there to be more homicides this year than there have been days. In short I come from an area where the negatives of individual gun ownership are obvious (although to be fair I'm a suburb girl, and most of the violence is in the city) and the pros are of course never shown because people behaving responsably isn't newsworthy. I would agree that people should be able to own guns, but there are good reasons for restrictions, and I honestly think there needs to be more precausions to keep arms off the black market.
I agree, it is an imperative that we try to protect the constitution. On the other hand it is inevitable that America will fall, and the larger and more powerful a nation the more likely it is to fall under the weight of its own stupidity.
Nail meet head
You hit it right on when you said this,
The unfortunate suicide you mentioned is just a suicide...if the kid hadn't had a gun he probably would have just swallowed paint thinner. Your black market comment was also on the mark. Most of the crime committed with guns isn't (as far as I'm aware) committed by legal gun owners.
Suicide
< humor >
Paint thinner?!?
Good lord.
I've toyed once or twice with the idea of putting up a website on suicide. List the options, detail the materials required, and describe the probable painfulness or speed. Plus, maybe a bit on the clean-up required by family members or innocent bystanders, and the likely appearance of the body afterwards (so you could decide ahead of time whether you wanted Open or Closed Casket).
And certainly an Attention Whore index for each scenario, so that those who wanted a quiet, innocuous End To Pain wouldn't find themselves mixed up with those who want to Make A Statement and get on the 6 o'clock news.
It would be a public service. Why, with a simple necktie and a bedpost ...
< / humor >
...
...
Speaking of which, I hate it when you hear about somebody like Ernest Hemingway committing suicide, and it comes across as "He was a pathetic loser," when the truth might have been that he was somebody who extended to his death the full and confident control he took of his life, and that his death was a private decision to not die in pain, helpless, and in the hands of strangers. For us to never be told that sometimes suicide can be just this kind of assertive personal choice, to hear ONLY the pathetic-loser/going-to-hell story, is a public disservice.
Personal responsibility.
The Supreme Court has actually ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals, that they are there in order to protect society. In other words, you are on your own in terms of your own protection. Which makes a lot of sense, since otherwise we would all have to be walking around with a police escort all the time.
Another, and perfectly legitimate, way to approach this problem, is to create the sort of society where there is no reason for any individual to be threatened in such a manner as to need protection. But until we reach that utopia, we're on our own.
As the Cornered Cat says in response to the question: Why do you carry a gun?
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Agreement ... and a little bit more
I've felt this way since I was in my teens.
You will witness scenarios a thousand times in your life where somebody commits a crime, and THEN the justice system is called in to do something about it, i.e., hopefully capture and see to the prosecution and punishment of the guy who did it.
You will very seldom witness a police officer preventing a crime. In many cases, in fact, they’d be putting themselves at risk legally for interfering with a person who had not yet committed any crime. (The issue of “pre-crime” was slightly explored in the 2002 Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report.”)
In fact, speaking for myself as a mostly non-criminal, the thing I really hate about all the increased security and rampant degradation of privacy in the Bush Era, is that I, who have no intention of blowing up anything or killing anybody, get to be treated EXACTLY LIKE THOSE WHO DO. Without the slightest sign on my part that I’m plotting the deaths of masses of people, I’m automatically suspected of just that intent. This is the lousy, exact reverse of what American ideals of justice demand.
Every cop car bearing the slogan “To Protect and Serve,” as they do in Los Angeles, is propagating a little lie. The “protect” bit is only in very general terms, and the “serve” bit is ... sometimes debatable. I’ve had the experience of being treated like a slimebag (on those few occasions when I needed to call the cops) even when I was the victim.
I’ve also noticed that police officers are prone to band together to protect each other anytime one of THEM is accused of a crime. In several local cases (upstate New York), 50 to 100 cops showed up at the courthouse IN UNIFORM, to demonstrate solidarity with the accused, and then between court sessions stood on the courthouse steps like so many thuggish blue-clad gang members there to intimidate witnesses. This was so starkly obvious that it was even remarked on several times in the local newspaper.
Okay, enough ranting about cops. (I’m still glad they exist. I just wish they had higher ethical standards.)
But then again, even if it WAS the job of cops to protect you, you as an individual can’t ignore the real-world fact that the only person there with you every minute during each 24 hours is YOU. No matter what other factors you might want to come into play, it is first YOUR responsibility to look out for you and your loved ones. Nobody else can do the job.
“Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size; When danger threatens call on me — I will equalize.” – seen engraved on Colt .45 pistol
Guns, yes.
Having said all that, it pisses me off that private citizens are, in many places, denied the right to carry pepper spray, tasers, or even a stout length of hickory.
Seems to me all the same arguments apply, and this additional argument: non-lethality (and yes, I realize you CAN kill someone with an axe handle).
Too bad the NRA doesn’t throw some serious weight behind THIS right-to-carry freedom, huh?
Even further agreement...
OK, let me take a turn preaching to the choir... ;)
First, I pretty much agree with you about cops...not to be bashing them (my dad and many of my friends were cops), but they are human and will behave like humans do, without the proper restrictions and oversight. Simply, give them power and they will use it, even abuse it if given a chance. That said, any cop will tell you that they don't stop crime - they show up and pick up the pieces after a crime is committed.
Second, the whole business about inverting responsibility for safety, and turning us into suspects. The legacy of the War on (some) Drugs, I'd say...and the result of a people who are scared and want safety. I think we learned all the wrong lessons from 9/11 - the solution isn't to treat everyone as a suspect, and thereby as cattle - the solution is Flight 93: make it impossible for a small group of thugs to intimidate a large group of *responsible citizens*. Some people have advocated just handing guns out to everyone on a flight - that's insane, and would undoubtably lead to countless injuries and deaths because of the number of accidental/neglegent discharges which would occur. However, handing each adult a billyclub might very well be the solution...
Thirdly, I concur about people having the right to carry other weapons legally, and many states which permit the concealed carry of firearms also allow other options (though insanely, many others don't). Sure the NRA probably should back these efforts (and they might to some extent), but they are the National Rifle Assn., not the National Pepper Spray Assn.
Jim Downey
"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
Packin' Heat
I lived in Flagstaff back a few years, working as a magazine editor there. Just two days after I moved there, I was in a supermarket pushing a basket down the aisle, and glanced up to see a guy wearing a pistol on his belt. "Are you a cop?" I asked. He knew what I was getting at, and replied. "No, Arizona has a right to carry law." Ah. I walked on with raised eyebrows, wondering how I felt about that.
A few minutes later, I had it. I felt safe.