A friend recently informed me of the Second Amendment March, “a national event that will take place in April, 2010 in Washington, D.C. and other cities across America.” From the website:
“The mission of the Second Amendment March is to galvanize the courage and resolve of Americans; to petition our elected officials against establishing anti-gun legislation; and to remind America that the Second Amendment is necessary to maintain our right to self defense.”
The website also states that…
The right to bear arms is the one right that protects all others.
As long as guns are the topic, I can’t help but to link this fantastic essay, Why the Gun is Civilization, by Marco, the Munchkin Wrangler.
Marco argues that “human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force…and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.” It is an interesting argument, and one that makes perfect sense. You can read the full essay for further explanation and enlightenment. I love this:
“People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.”
I want to get a concealed carry permit and a smaller gun (I wouldn’t be comfortable carrying my husband’s 9mm Springfield that we already have for home defense…too big for me, I think). I honestly hope I never have to employ a gun for self defense, but I am one who believes in the importance of being prepared.
Yeah, I want a RPG and a missile sile in my front yard!
The 2nd Amendment protects my right to have ANY weapon I want?
If you have a good shop around, check out a used FEG/ PA63.
They use the 9X18 Makarov ammo, and there’s lots of inexpensive ammo for them.
I got one for it’s small size, it is an easy carry. My wife has one as well, and while some people feel that the recoil is a bit harsh, she has no problem with it. June is on the light side with small hands, and loves her PA 63.
Oh, almost forgot, the PA 63s are very well priced running $180 to $230, depending on where you find them.
The last time I bought 9X18 ammo, I got 1000 rounds of Wolf brand for less than $200, although I would not use the Wolf for defense, it’s cheap practice ammo. Try Hornady (HORN918HP) for those times the pistol must fire.
That and get to a range or the woods and fire whatever you choose. Get use to the feel, controls, and noise. If your ever forced to use your firearm for self-defense, your nerves will be 1000%, your hands need to “know” what to do by experience.
Finally..Have fun with it, June loves her time at the range.
Thanks for the info and advice, klausrl! I’ll definitely look into the PA 63.
“Yeah, I want a RPG and a missile silo in my front yard!”
I want a giant non-sequitur in my front yard.
Did White Lily say anything at all about the scope of the Second Amendment?
That’s exactly my point Sobek. What is the scope of 2nd Amendment rights?
Arms that can be borne. That doesn’t include missile silos.
By “borne” you mean carried, right? So, an RPG is still fair game? How about grenades in general?
The purpose of this post is to draw attention to the Second Amendment March, and the purpose of that is to oppose anti-gun legislation…the statement I copied from the website says nothing about an anti-grenade or anti-missile silo in your front yard agenda. And the only discussion in the comments here, excepting yours, has been about hand guns to be used for self deffense.
“People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many.”
The other part of this point is that anti-gun legislation makes the vulnerable more vulnerable. Women, the elderly and the handicapped are all more vulnerable to attack than big, young, strong men. As is often said, the gun is the great equalizer. I want my wife to have a gun because it is really the only way she could defend herself against a 200lb assailant. Even for men, unless you want to gamble your safety, it is the only way to be sure of your ability to defend yourself.
As for the march, I will be there! To me, this is very exciting, because it will send a very clear message. Even though we have a President and an Attorney General who would favor another assault weapons ban, nobody has been willing to try it because of the vocal opposition. If people have been vocal before, this will be SCREAMING the message, “leave our freedoms alone.” My hope is that people who are not involved will see that there are a lot of people out there who believe in our constitutional rights and will be inspired to start making their views known as well. Also, I think this goes beyond guns. This march will be a statement on many levels that there are a lot of people out there willing to fight (politically) for their freedoms.
“So, an RPG is still fair game?”
Yes it is.
Godless American, what would you do with an RPG?
We could loan him ours.
I don’t need an RPG, I was just wondering at what point does the 2nd Amendment no longer protect our right to arms. I’d think we’d all agree that it doesn’t apply to nuclear weapons, but where does it stop? At least, I hope no one thinks we should be able to buy our own nuclear weapons.
“I’d think we’d all agree that it doesn’t apply to nuclear weapons, but where does it stop?”
Let’s take this from another direction. Do you think the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and carry a pistol?
Lily,
I’ll bet you didn’t think you would open this can of worms.
First off lets limit the ownership of missile silos to those who can spell it.
That being said, without getting too technical about the second amendment….I think it would be safe to include weapons that give a person a chance to defend themselves from a person carrying commonly available weapons.
To that end, yes atomic bombs are probably a bit much. A machine gun? Well not quite right for concealed carry. But lets talk about removing the legal handgun at such time as we can guaranty that no bad guy can come at us at any time.
For better or worse the genie is out of the bottle on this one. If you pulled every gun out there in to state hands and melted them down, I could go out to my shop and build a simple pistol in a day or two.
Bad guys will have them, and they don’t care about “Gun Free Zone” signs, so deal with it.
Take charge or be a victim, your call.
At least, I hope no one thinks we should be able to buy our own nuclear weapons.
Darn tootin’. Ya gotta make ‘em like I do. Buying is for sissies.
But more seriously, you have the natural right to defend yourself in the way you see fit. Normally common firearms are suitable for that purpose. If muggers start assaulting people from armored vehicles, then RPGs might be appropriate, but since that’s an unlikely scenario, nobody is clamoring for them.
Similarly, machine guns might be required if waves of assailants were storming your house, but again, that’s an unlikely scenario. So, given the threat level that exists for our citizenry, access to handguns, shotguns, and rifles is a moral right. And, of course, a Constitutionally-guaranteed one.
Here is one view on the subject: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.”
–A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
While the implements of our soldiers today are vastly different than in 1788, with such things as surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank missiles, etc. I asked what Godless American would do with an RPG for a reason. Unless the answer was “kill people” or “break into Ft. Knox” I really don’t care if he has one. There really isn’t a fundamental difference to me if my neighbor has a handgun, an assault rifle, a machine gun, or an RPG. If he is a violent criminal, I don’t want him to have weapons, and if he is a law-abiding citizen, I don’t care what he wants to waste his money on.
People make the same arguments about the number of guns people should be aloud to have. If somebody has 10 guns, is that reasonable? Should that be allowed? What about 30? 100? Ultimately, if they are law-abiding citizens, I don’t care how many they have.
Having rambled for quite a while now, there may be something different about having an ICBM on your property, but I don’t think that is an issue right now when we are fighting for the right to own a handgun in many areas.
Sorry for the length of the previous post. I think the fundamental principle behind what I am saying is that in a free society, the default position should be to allow people to do with their liberty as they wish, until they prove (by committing a crime) that they cannot be trusted with that liberty.
Sobek,
absolutely, definitely a pistol. I’d also reserve the right for business owners to decide if a pistol can be taken into their establishment, say a bar or something.
“I’d also reserve the right for business owners to decide if a pistol can be taken into their establishment, say a bar or something.”
So far I’m with you a hundred percent. And if we agree that the Second Amendment means something (as compared with, say, the District of Columbia or Chicago), then I’m quite prepared to leave the fine tuning of which weapons qualify as “arms” that can be “borne” to others. But the Amendment must have some content, and I would err on the side of law-abiding citizens to have more firepower rather than less.
All that said, I don’t see anything at all in White Lily’s post that really conflicts with your opinions. She didn’t discuss the scope of the right (probably because she doesn’t feel qualified to discuss the specifics of firearms), only the importance of the right.
I agree, I’m not arguing about the post, per se. I haven’t seen any real threat that the 2nd Amendment is going to be repealed, or that there’s really a chance that we’ll lose our right to bear arms completely. The only discussion I’ve heard is that automatic weapons might be banned.
I support the right to own weapons, but I’ve never had a discussion with anyone that’s a arms advocate about where we do draw the line.
I do think that a back ground check is in order for owning weapons. If someone’s been convicted of a violent crime, then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. Otherwise, sure.
I don’t think that the 2nd Amendment really protects all other Constitutional rights, though.
“I haven’t seen any real threat that the 2nd Amendment is going to be repealed, or that there’s really a chance that we’ll lose our right to bear arms completely.”
In 2008, we were literally one Supreme Court vote away from the Second Amendment meaning nothing whatsoever. And D.C. v. Heller left open enough wiggle room for future decisions to significantly reduce or entirely vitiate it.
Maybe you can argue that just because places like DC and Chicago want to ban guns doesn’t mean that places like Phoenix or Boise would do so, but a “right” that depends on the good will of state and local government is no right at all.
So, you don’t think that individual states have the right to legislate how they chose to when it concerns arms?
Well I’m glad to see you have all been having fun without me. I’ve been out on Lake Powell, with no service…deaf to the world. Still am, and it’s a pain to type on this little iPhone (I’m in the open channel right now), so I’m done for now.
“So, you don’t think that individual states have the right to legislate how they chose to when it concerns arms?”
Yes, no, and it depends.
Yes, because I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ridiculous incorporation doctrine, whereby they applied most of the Bill of Rights against the states in an on-going travesty of massive judicial over-reach.
No, because as long as the Supreme Court is doing that crap anyway, there is no disciplined reason to argue that the Second Amendment is the one amendment that doesn’t get so incorporated.
Depends, because regardless of the federal constitution, state constitutions provide important protections, but depend in every case on the specific language.
A great discussion…thank you all for your comments!
“Take charge or be a victim, your call.”
klausrl, that’s my attitude precisely!
The Bill of rights, and all other amendments, are part of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. States have no right to override the Constitution. Considering that most crimes take place outside the home, and that even after DC vs. Heller overturned the DC gun ban, you still can’t “bear arms,” I would say that DC, or other states and localities with similar restrictions are violating the Constitution. I am an advocate of States’ rights, but not at the expense of the Constitution.
You go girl.