The 2nd amendment is for progressives too
By Peter Hall of Haines, Oregon. In 2006, Peter ran for the Oregon Legislature in HD 60 "as a Democrat although I described myself as a progressive libertarian, someone who used to be welcome in the Republican party."
There has been a run on guns lately in my home county in Eastern Oregon. Some are afraid that a Democratic administration will ban assault weapons and hand guns. this is unlikely with all the more pressing matters, but it is not a paranoid view.
I spent most of the 2008 campaign in Montana, and it is amazing the numbers of people who would have voted for Obama if not for the gun issue. Even the reassurances of the governor and both senators were not enough to dissuade people from this view.
In Oregon, one man, Chuck Butcher, convinced the DPO to embrace the 2nd amendment. He explained to me that if our freedoms are taken away, it will come from the right, not the left, and maybe progressives are the ones who should be a little paranoid. If you look at the history of the labor movement, it is clear the value of being able to effectively defend yourself.
For me, the moment that really hit home was Katrina. It is clear we cannot count on our government to always be there to protect us. Our founding fathers understood this, and I believe the 2nd amendment was designed specifically to allow military style weapons in the hands of the public for those instances when defense of one's community can only be achieved by an ad hoc group because the government is unable or unwilling to come to its defense. The 2nd amendment is not for ordinary circumstances. It is there for the rare occurrences that hopefully never come to your community. This does not preclude some controls, but it is clear to me that our founders were not thinking of hunting rifles when they wrote the amendment.
The Democratic Party has a major opportunity to make the West blue (with the exception of Utah, that religion thing). Truly embrace responsible gun ownership, and we take a big weapon away from the right wingers (lame pun intended).
|
November 22, 2008 |
guest column | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: elizabeth | Nov 22, 2008 11:32:07 AM
What is your definition of responsible gun ownership?
Leaving a shotgun on the steps of a suburban home, like I had the pleasure of coming up while canvassing for Jim Gilbert out in Silverton?
One can responsibly use a gun about as easily as one can responsibly drive a tank down a sidewalk.
The prevelance of guns in New Orleans during Katrina did nothing to make the average citizen there safer. In fact, it could have led to more chaos & disaster on top of the already crisis-level situation.
Guns were not the answer - disaster aid & help were the answer, from the govt as well as other organizations like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.
When guns get in the mix, the chances of people really getting hurt goes up exponentially.
I'm all for the blue movement emerging in the West - but do not believe abandoning sensible gun laws & policy like that promoted by the Clinton Admin in the 90's or the Brady Campaign is at all an obstacle to the progressive trends we are seeing in the Northwest, Southwest, & Rocky Mtn West.
To abandon the Democrats logical & progressive policies/ principles on gun control would present a larger threat to the health, safety, & well-being of citizens than any limit on the 2nd Amendment would impose on the freedom of those same citizens.
Posted by: Joel H | Nov 22, 2008 11:44:55 AM
if our freedoms are taken away, it will come from the right, not the left
Perhaps, but what is certain (and more or less tautological) is that it has and will continue to come from authoritarians. Freedoms aren't taken away by ideologies, they're taken away by people seeking power, and if you think the Left is somehow immune from that, you must have been asleep for the whole 20th century.
Posted by: RichW | Nov 22, 2008 11:58:36 AM
I am all for "reasonable" gun ownership. I am also for "reasonable" gun restrictions. I think most people would agree that guns don't belong in certain environments. My employer, a hospital, doesn't allow them on the premises. What is needed then is a set of policies that define "reasonable". The folks at the far right (NRA) and the far-left (ban all firearms) shouldn't be able to capture the definitions.
As for hiking vs, hunting, the answer is simple. The hikers should learn what areas are open to hunting and avoid them. Also at this time of year in Montana, you had better make a lot of noise and be visible, not because of the right to bear arms, but because the bears' right arms.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 22, 2008 11:59:40 AM
For me, the moment that really hit home was Katrina. It is clear we cannot count on our government to always be there to protect us
Europeans seem to manage to get by without personal arsenals. Perhaps the difference was explained by Michael Moore in "Sicko." In France the government fears the people. In America the people fear the government. So what will they do with all their guns? There may come a day when some people wake up and realize they are under a fascist dictatorship and call for a charge on the barricades, but if they look over their shoulders they will find precious few following.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 22, 2008 12:26:28 PM
Betsy, Elizabeth, and Rich,
Take a clue from President-elect Obama. Nobody's ordering you to own a gun or to wander around in the woods during hunting season with a target painted on your forehead.
There are cultural, historical, and psychological reasons that we continue to cling to our guns. What the author is trying to point out is that you need gun owners and you need to see us as few defenders of liberty, not as some sort of whack job stereotype of atavism (though statistically it's a fact that gun ownership has been on the decline since 1977).
One perhaps small example of the usefulness of progressive gun owners would be during the early 90's when the OCA had elevated gay bashing to a fevered pitch. At least a few of us, myself included, were right there in the workplace demanding zero tolerance for hate speech and the ironclad offer to meet proposed gun violence with the same.
Not to argue that enacting any of these bellicose scenarios would be useful, but speaking to violent and fearful people on their own cultural terms is absolutely critical in advancing the progressive agenda toward a future where weapons of all sorts become niche anachronisms, and reason rules the day.
Every single gun owner that we can pry away from NRA propaganda and reassure with our own examples is a small step away from legitimizing violence as a the ultimate debating point.
Listen to your uncle Peter.
Posted by: joshuawelch | Nov 22, 2008 12:36:13 PM
This is an excellent discussion to have from a strategic standpoint for Dems. I fully support a ban on assault weapons, however the D's need to put some resources into communicating their actual position on deadly-weapon rights. I have spent many years of my life in rural America and there are large numbers of gun people that are misinformed about Democratic positions on the 2nd amendment. While phone-banking this year I had more than one gun-loving Oregonian tell me how the Dems will revoke the 2nd amendment. We could turn a lot of red to blue by simply getting the truth to these people. I think the argument that one might need an assault weapon in case the govt doesn't do it's job in a natural disaster is about as weak as they come. The cost benefit analysis of assault weapons on the streets is not even close.
Posted by: Neal Hawes | Nov 22, 2008 12:39:33 PM
"This does not preclude some controls, but it is clear to me that our founders were not thinking of hunting rifles when they wrote the amendment."
In 1776, when the Constitution was signed, the only weapons available were flintlocks, used primarly for hunting & secondary for battle. The founding fathers couldn't have been thinking about anything but single shot weapons when writing the amendment, because they didn't exist!
I don't have a problem w/ hunting weapons (I own several, pistols too), but I feel that if you need a military style or automatic weapon to ambush an animal, then you shouldn't be hunting! I sure don't want you spraying the woods down w/ lead when I'm hunting. Gun control is hitting what you aim at!
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 22, 2008 12:42:06 PM
In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, 55 percent of the gun-related deaths in the United States were suicides. There was nothing special about 2005, as suicides have been the number-one gun death for 20 of the past 25 years.
In 2005, 40 percent of gun-related deaths were murders; three percent were accidents, and 2 percent were legal killings, including when police shot criminals and those of undetermined intent.
95% of gun related deaths have NOTHING to do with law abiding, mentally stable citizens. Correct those problems and you have no gun problem
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 22, 2008 1:27:11 PM
i have zero fear of the govt taking away guns, instituting martial law, and any of these other nightmares some people are giving in to. which army do these people think will come and take away their guns? jeez, the level of fear & paranoia cuz there's now a black man about to become president is grotesque.
what i do fear, and with good reason because it's been happening for over a century-and-a-half, is the take over of the country by corporations. what good is your damn gun against a board of directors that meets in various parts of the world? how much use is a closet full of rifles when the banks & walk street melt down? we don't need to protect ourselves with arms; the country has needed that not one bit since we gained independence. what we've needed is an informed, educated, well-paid and properly governed polity. when the hell have we had that? and what frikkin good are guns towards that end? when the NRA starts advocating for public education and living-wage jobs, and stops worrying that the gummit gonna take away their armor-piercing ammo, then we might be getting somewhere. until then, they are gun nuts and doing far more harm than good.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 22, 2008 2:43:30 PM
This essay posted by darrellplant on another thread seems appropriate for this one.
Posted by: Eric | Nov 22, 2008 3:21:23 PM
I don't know what the big deal is about limiting the rights granted in Amendments. The first amendment doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or broadcast porn over the air.
There is not anything fundamentally wrong about abridging the second amendment in some fashion.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 22, 2008 4:43:45 PM
There is not anything fundamentally wrong about abridging the second amendment in some fashion.
The Second Amendment has been and still is abridged in many ways. Try taking a gun on board an aircraft or in a federal building.
Posted by: Kevin Starrett | Nov 22, 2008 5:24:12 PM
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument, when used to argue that people's rights to own the firearm of their choice should be attacked, just makes no sense.
If a person abuses the First Amendment, she is punished. (Or should be.) But there is no law that states that before you enter a theater, you must submit to an intrusive background check, ask police permission, and get a permit to enter the theater.
Similarly, you are not required (yet) to get permission to write a letter to the editor or post to a blog. If you abuse your right, there maybe a consequence, but there is not yet prior restraint, as there is in gun ownership.
I am continually perplexed by those on the left who regularly scream for "tolerance" for everything except a person's right to own what he damn well pleases as long as he's not hurting someone else. Instead, they constantly demand that their neighbors and countrymen give up something that only the "police and military" should have. But of course, they are all to eager to point out the abuses of the police and military.
When the police abuse their positions, this is decried (as it should be) but the anti-gun left is still fine with the cops they hate having things they would deny to themselves and anyone else. All authority should be questioned. But the left seems just fine condoning the expansion of government power when it comes to firearms.
Freedom is freedom. Those calling themselves "right wing" attack it one way, the Lefties attack it another way. But accusing gun owners of everything except kidnapping the Lindberg baby will not win them over. They are all around you every day. And 99.99 % of them never hurt anyone.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 22, 2008 6:06:30 PM
If a person abuses the First Amendment, she is punished. (Or should be.) But there is no law that states that before you enter a theater, you must submit to an intrusive background check, ask police permission, and get a permit to enter the theater.
But there are many laws that prohibit carrying guns - on commercial passenger aircraft, in federal and state buildings, in schools, etc. - with the agreement of the NRA.
Posted by: Joel H | Nov 22, 2008 6:47:37 PM
The first amendment doesn't allow you to ... broadcast porn over the air.
Sure it does. No part of the constitution, including the first amendment, prohibits citizens from doing anything. It's the FCC that disallows it. And it depends on the wavelength and protocol you're broadcasting in, really... you can broadcast all the porn you want over, say, 2.4GHz, but you mostly just can't do it between 54 and 746 MHz.
Posted by: Joel H | Nov 22, 2008 6:49:20 PM
And next year, you'll be able to broadcast porn on those frequencies, too.
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Nov 22, 2008 7:36:55 PM
Responsible gun ownership consists of this:
1. Prior to buying a gun, you take shooting courses to learn how to use and take care of your gun.
2. Buy your gun going through the ridiculous amount of paperwork and waiting periods that we currently have.
3. Store the gun in a case unloaded without any ammo and then store the ammo COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE GUN in another room.
4. Continue to take classes and go out for target practice on your days off to maintain your ability to use and take care of your gun.
That is what I see as "responsible" gun ownership.
Lastly, the whole dispute over the 2nd Amendment was pretty much currently resolved this past summer in that US Supreme Court case involving the DC gun ban.
However, I am quite certain that a 2008 US Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment will not stop individuals like Ginny Burdick from trying to ban all guns except the guns already in the hands of criminals.
Oh well, some have to have their ass handed to them to learn.
BTW, liberals should drop this issue. The 2nd Amendment is settled at the moment and barking up that tree will cause that tree to fall on you.
Posted by: jrw | Nov 22, 2008 7:59:19 PM
And some of us left sorts who've been raised around guns, own guns, and use them for hunting purposes are fully aware that gun control means that when you pick up your weapon, you're fully aware of where your muzzle is pointed and where your finger is in relation to the trigger.
And, oh yeah, the frothing fury it's possible to evoke in a right wing sort when you chime up that "I'm a progressive, left-wing Democrat and I just happen to looove my gun."
Or when you point out to them that their poster girl Sarah Palin hasn't the faintest clue about how to handle a gun correctly and safely.
The reaction? Priceless.
I was raised with guns, guns are part of my heritage, and I see no reason to give mine up because people who have not had the appropriate training see them as animate killers. A gun is a tool which is as good as the person wielding it. No more, no less.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 22, 2008 8:09:03 PM
@moonbat re: your last post
#1. Did it
#2. Filled out 1 page form, gave them my thumb print and waited 2 minutes for them to make the phone call.
#3. I will gladly do this if you make it a requirement that all scumbags phone ahead to inform the homeowner they are about to victimize that they are on their way. A 1-hr notice would suffice. Or, if you are unable to do this, when you can provide me with the power to "freeze" time so that I can adequately defend myself, you gotta deal.
#4. Done it and do it weekly(target practice that is)
Posted by: Young | Nov 22, 2008 8:48:44 PM
mp97303,
I understand your reply to my "#3." If you live in a neighborhood or city with high crime or feel insecure about your personal safety, then that is why we have "concealed weapons," which go by a different set of rules.
In my personal opinion, if you ever feel insecure then by all means keep it loaded and on you at all times.
All that I ask is that you keep one you want loaded and the rest unloaded and separate from the ammo so that the young hoodlum scumbags can't procure a loaded gun when they rob your house.
Also, be sure to drag his body inside the house after you unload 5 rounds into that cocksucking, stealing lowlife's back. I would suggest bringing him down with a shot to the leg first and then plugging him with a couple more rounds in the chest from the front so that it makes it all that much more harder for the DA to get ya.
God forbid that the courts put you away for defending your own property.
Posted by: Chuck Butcherc | Nov 22, 2008 9:07:14 PM
Assault weapons?? What are properly called assault weapons are already heavily regulated as machine guns, these are the military varients. What are miscalled assault weapons are "ugly" semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) rifles. The AR15 is the civilian version of the M16, it fires a small caliber bullet at fairly high velocity that is self loaded from a magazine.
As far as deadliness, a 30-06 hunting rifle is considerably more so. A 30-06 will for sure, no kidding, zip right through law enforcement style armor. Most hunting rifles will. What was that again about armor piercing bullets? There is nothing special about the bullets, they are just big enough and moving fast enough to go through.
The level of absolute ignorance regarding the things people propose to "abolish" in regard to rights is astonishing. I love it when the authoritarian gun banning mindset goes to work calling people ignorant rednecks while they engage in exactly the same thing. Whose hoops is it you're jumpiing through? You're parroting whom? You have exactly no correct factual information and choose to make proposals based on that? Perhaps it is less difficult to understand the scorn you are held in? Consider that assault weapons figured in 1% of firearm related crimes and your fear is what?
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Nov 22, 2008 9:08:02 PM
Oh, and for any "redistributive" justice favoring individual who disagrees with me, I fully believe in the "Castle Doctirine," meaning that if you willfully and rationally decide to rob my place of residence, then I believe it is my right to defend my place of residence with deadly force.
Think about the conscious state of mind and all the steps that one goes through when they decide to rob someone. These steps leading to the robbery ain't light and they are as sure as well illogical enough to force the owner of that residence to defend themself with enough force (be it deadly or not) so that the attacker will never, ever think about robbing them again.
If defense involves taking the life, then so be it.
If someone is to the point of robbery, then they are at a point where the cost/benefit analysis of saving them from a life of prison or early death is too high on the cost side.
Emotional-based appeals from bleeding heart liberals has never worked with me. If you want to convince me then shut up and show the numbers that "redistributive justice" works or otherwise shut your piehole and let honest, hardworking tax payers defend their residence at whatever cost from an individual who would want to willfully and consciously take from them while they are sleeping.
Posted by: YoungOregonMoonbat | Nov 22, 2008 9:10:15 PM
I meant restorative justice and not redistributive justice.
I apologize for confusing my terminology.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Nov 22, 2008 9:40:42 PM
"Europeans seem to manage to get by without personal arsenals." How many civilians were killed in Europe during WWII? And how many would have died had more of them been armed against the Nazis?
In the post Civl War American South the 10 guage shotgun was the best friend the former slaves had. It is the one thing that kept the night riders away in many cases.
TLG
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 22, 2008 9:53:33 PM
It's always been a bit of a running joke with some of my Dem friends that I'm a member of the DPO's Gun Owners Caucus, yet don't own a gun.
My husband wants to purchase one, but I have told him that we will not have a gun in the house until I have learned how to use one. As I'm home by myself (or with Abby) more often than not, I'm the one who would be most likely to ever have to use the gun. So it only make sense to not have one until I am no longer afraid of them and know how to use one.
My husband, an Army vet from the Gulf War period, is very comfortable with guns and knows how to use them. It's taken me a long time to get him to understand why I don't want one in the house until I can use it.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 22, 2008 10:41:22 PM
@moonbat
Actually, both of my guns are secured, loaded and accessible to only me. My handgun is in a gun vault that is opened by a microchip attached to my watchband and my shotgun is in a retractable clamping device attached to my bedframe. Both are as secure as any gun can be.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 22, 2008 10:48:59 PM
@Jenni
You can find an "intro to gun for women" class at just about any gun range or through a gun store. My mother sounded exactly like you but after several of these classes, she is comfortable around guns. Still doesn't like them, but comfortable none the less.
I assume that you live in the POrtland area, so there just happens to be a really great group that is just what you need. The Portland Firearms Training Team
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Nov 22, 2008 11:03:30 PM
Yea, I figured doing to a gun range for a training course would be the way to start out. I know once I handle one and am shown how to do everything properly that I'll be fine. It was the same fear I had of the lawnmower and cars before I was taught how to use them.
Thanks for the link. I'll check them out.
Posted by: George Seldes | Nov 22, 2008 11:52:07 PM
I'll take this opportunity again to recommend that anyone who finds BlueOregon valuable will find "Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from the Class War" by Joe Bageant well worth the time. He has a long chapter on guns and offers some pretty sage advice for Democrats on the subject.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Nov 22, 2008 11:59:22 PM
The author of this discussion topic makes it sound like the Democrats were reluctant to support the Second Amendment, and Chuck Butcher sort of made us do that. Hmmm, as a witness and participant in the Oregon Democratic Party's endorsement of the Second Amendment without qualification - I guess I see that historic event a little different.
All resolutions are submitted by County Party members to the State Platform and Resolutions Committee. When Chuck brought in the resolution, it received very strong support from myself and other members. We saw it then in 2005 as a direct attack back on the Republicant (they can't get anything right) theory that all Democrats want to take away everyone's guns. The resolution was passed out of the P & R Committee to the full Central Committee with a do-pass recommendation - unanimously.
The resolution then went to the State Central Committee meeting that was held in Medford in the summer of 2005. The debate on the floor reflected some of the views found in the responses here, but when it came to a vote, it was about an 85% vote in favor. Those against the resolution were mainly from the Portland and Eugene areas, but it appeared that the rest of the State was solidly behind the resolution.
If you look in the archives of Blue Oregon, you'll find my post on the passage of this resolution.
Posted by: LB | Nov 22, 2008 11:59:47 PM
As an independent left libertarian, I consistently vote Democrat except when they are cheerleaders for war, restrictions of civil liberties, or restrictions on gun rights.
Posted by: christopher | Nov 23, 2008 1:37:36 AM
Test to drive a car. No problem.
Test to own a gun. You are a freakin' commie scum trying to subvert America.
Posted by: George Seldes | Nov 23, 2008 1:40:22 AM
Great article in High Country News, with lots of comments:
"Why We All Need the Democrats to Abandon Gun Control"
http://is.gd/8EnS
Posted by: Scabbers | Nov 23, 2008 8:02:09 AM
I don't hunt myself, but I grew up in a liberal leaning family who have always gone hunting in the Fall. Some of my relatives liked Obama on most issues, but were worried about gun ownership rights. The recent Supreme Court decision on extreme Washington D.C. anti-gun laws eased some of their fears.
30 years ago Portland was a good deal less urban, and most of our neighbors either did some hunting or fishing every year. I went to a progressive church retreat this October and when we discussed our backgrounds, I was the only one out of 25 people who was actually raised in Oregon. Most came from urban areas out-of-state, and for some this retreat within a half-hour of portland seemed like wilderness to them. Portlanders should get out more and have conversations with folk in the rest of the state. Most gun owners are normal, responsible people.
Posted by: Ted | Nov 23, 2008 11:21:42 AM
Seemed like fairly productive and polite discussion until T.A. jumped in with his Limbaughesque tirade: "jeez, the level of fear & paranoia cuz there's now a black man about to become president is grotesque."
Let's play that race card early and often!! By the way, I voted for Cynthia McKinney.
According to T.A. the NRA... "...they are gun nuts..." Each and every one of you, a gun nut. You're not legitimately concerned about the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution or qualified to speculate on what the Founding Fathers might have meant when they framed the Constitution, because you're just a "nut." That's sort of like Rush Limbaugh saying everyone who is pro-choice likes to kill babies.
Not only does T.A. call those who disagree with him racistcs and crazies, he makes a totally stupid argument. He's worried about giant corporations and banks taking control of government. Government is sending our troops to some awful war to protect those corporation's (actually, super rich and powerful individuals) interests, where they are drinking unsanitary water compliment's of VP Cheney's Halliburton cronies and being poisoned by depleted uranium. Meanwhile, Blackwater and other private security firms that are equally tied to Bush, Cheney, Pearle, etc IN THE GOVT are taking more and more responsibility for things like policing peaceful gatherings of protest and free speech (the last DNC, for example). FEMA confiscates guns unconstitutionally during the Katrina disaster and Cheney and Bush comment publicly about how well they thought the whole thing went. They couldn't have been talking about their humanitarian efforts.
What army is going to take away our guns? You have zero fear of the government? After the government lied us into an unconstitutional war (not the first time, either)? After the opposition party did nothing about it, because those big corporations you hate sure weren't complaining? What we need, says T.A., is something he admits we don't have (good government), to protect us against big corporations and banks that control (and are the reason for bad) government.
If I can cast a net as big as T.A., and I'm not going to make accusations of racism or fanaticism, I would say that the anti-gun and anti Second Amendment movement can broadly be labeled the "it can't happen here" crowd. No matter how bad it gets and how fascist our government behaves, the USA is somehow impervious to the lessons of history. Nobody will ever be kicking down your door and unchained enough from unaccountability to loot your house, kick the shit out of you, and rape your wife. Americans can be conditioned and propagandized to do that in Iraq or Vietnam, suspending all moral sensibility, but never could that happen here you seem to believe.
I disagree. I think the Founding Fathers would disagree (especially in the context of what's been going on the last 10-20 years), too. ...And I voted for a black woman.
Posted by: Christopher Hoffman | Nov 23, 2008 11:37:03 AM
Why does anyone NEED an AR15?
There is no practical or functional difference between an AR15 and any other semi-automatic rifle. These rifles are simply targeted for their appearance because it's an easy sell to an uninformed populace, who then believe that the politician sponsoring the measure has actually accomplished something.
Common arguments are that these semi-automatic rifles are designed only one purpose, to kill people. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of target shooters, hunters (yes, can hunt with them) and competitive shooters whose entire sport depends on this configuration of rifle.
But the Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting. It's about defending ourselves, our families, and if need be our communities and country. There is rich, incontrovertible history articulating that a fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was to function as safeguard against future tyranny, both foreign and domestic. Surely we aren't expected to fight terrorists or tyranny with a five shot revolver.
Now we may be a long way from the need to exercise that capability at this time, but can anyone say with absolute certainty, that we will either never be attacked on the ground by a foreign enemy? And can anyone say with any certainty that our government will never cross the line in the future and turn hostile or violent against her own people?
Of course not. That's why the Second Amendment was number two in the Bill Of Rights, to stand as a bulwark against a government, should it go berserk. It's there to help ensure that the rest of the Bill Of Rights will survive the whim of ambitious, but narrow-minded politicians and ideologues who would damage it in the name of "improvement".
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 23, 2008 11:55:50 AM
"Europeans seem to manage to get by without personal arsenals." How many civilians were killed in Europe during WWII? And how many would have died had more of them been armed against the Nazis?
TLG: First of all there was a lot of violent resistance - Socialists, Communists and Social Democrats - in Germany to Hitler but they were beaten by the National Socialist thugs. Both sides were more or less equally armed with guns playing a relatively minor role to clubs and similar weapons. The leadership of opposing groups were neutralized and the opposition eventually collapsed. If the opposing groups had increased their arsenals to include more guns, then Hitler's thugs would have done the same and there would have been a civil war with a possibly worse outcome. In Eastern Europe there were a few brave souls with guns who attempted some sort of insurgency, but they went nowhere with Nazi retribution of 10, 50 or 100 executions for each German soldier killed. And, of course, there was the problem of their armies being overrun.
There have been recent events, notably in France, where opposition to the government succeeded without the use of guns. Farmers used a simple tactic of blocking roads with their tractors bringing traffic to a standstill in many locations. American farmers have held parades with their equipment in D.C., but they were ignored because they were too law-abiding to not block the highways. Civil disobedience is a card rarely played in America.
Afghanistan is a good example where an armed populace can be effective, but Afghanistan and America are two different places and Afghanis and Americans are two different types of people.
The Bush Administration with the complicity of half of the Democratic Party started an illegal war that has cost this nation hundreds of billions of dollars and contributed to the current economic crisis, but, except for a small minority, Americans have accepted this abuse. So what purpose would an armed populace serve if the vast majority is opposed to rocking their sinking boat?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 23, 2008 12:06:54 PM
Ted wrote (for some unknowable reason): "And I voted for a black woman."
oh goody. she's no doubt still weeping with gratitude.
i have no idea what you were writing, dude. perhaps some editing before you hit the "post" button would give you a tiny chance of making sense, but it's unlikely.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 23, 2008 12:55:11 PM
You know I have lived in Oregon for about 38 years now and the one thing I love about this place is being able to have the guns I have. One responder, Elizabeth wrote {One can responsibly use a gun about as easily as one can responsibly drive a tank down a sidewalk.} Well that might be her and some people she knows, but most the people I know do. The Government has slowly been chipping away at our rights, and now with this president, they will be after our guns. And if you think they’re going to protect you, well just look at who they helped with this bail out.
Posted by: Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Sussex | Nov 23, 2008 1:08:14 PM
I was there in 1978 with a group organized by President Carter and locals were positively proud of the fact that they were not going to prepare. We were trying to solicit for levee improvements and where told repeatedly "that's only a concern for white trash and nigroes". Katrina was not a natural disaster that the government couldn't deal with, it was the government using a natural disaster, with malice of forethought, to assault a community.
We need guns alright, but why wait until after the disaster? Seriously, the main contradiction your argument hits if you go deep enough is that if a self-defense militia is OK, then we need that militia to defend us right now from the daily, physical, emotional and financial abuses it is inflicting.
Let's get real. Like real on the ground reality today. Oregon has legal medical marijuana. Feds come and violate our laws by breaking in peoples' doors in the middle of the night, assaulting them, and the rendering them to a locale where they are in violation of the law for trial. Just why should I care more about looting after an earthquake than that?!?
If you worry about a Katrina style aftermath, then get your boot off the neck of the "other". The lesson from Katrina is that you can't force fit society every day, then expect it to function naturally and on its own when you remove the constraints.
We need guns for defense is just a gussied up version of "white flight". When you talk about urban sprawl and the environment, how many times do you talk about how "white flight" was the main cause. Yeah, it was the auto and post-WWII prosperity. Pseudo-progressives advance "progressive" ideas when the more obvious solution is fixing the problem.
Personally, I read the second amendment as the codification of that bit in the Declaration about when a government ceases to serve the needs of the citizenry it is their right to replace it. That requires arms. It says arms, not guns. Personally, I'm all for a citizen militia. With nukes. You won't fight Washington with guns!
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 23, 2008 1:15:21 PM
Betsy, Elizabeth, and Rich,
Take a clue from President-elect Obama. Nobody's ordering you to own a gun or to wander around in the woods during hunting season with a target painted on your forehead.
So, basically, they're your wild places. I'm all for sharing. When can we go nude?
Posted by: SCB | Nov 23, 2008 1:51:23 PM
Why does anyone NEED an AR15?
When my son recently purchased a house, we advised him he needed a few things, including a toilet plunger. He couldn't figure why he'd need such a thing - until he needed it.
While I don't own an AR15, and I'm not sure what it is, for the sake of discussion I will think that it is an automatic weapon with a high rate of fire. In my lifetime, our government has gone crazy and killed civilians. Not counting the Waco incident, not even counting Ruby Ridge - but only counting Kent State - to me there is enough proof that our govenment can go crazy that I need to consider a future potential where I might have to take up arms against my government in the defense of my liberty and freedoms. I'd probably be on the losing side, but on principle I will oppose any government that turns into a tyranny.
I have no fears that the Democrats will take my guns away. I own a couple, hardly ever use them, and then only to do a little target practice. They are always locked up and put away. I have them because you just really never know what the future will hold. Who knows, the way the current administration has wrecked the economy, I might need a rifle to go get me some food (e.g. hunt).
But I do fear Republican administrations. It wasn't the Democrats that took peoples guns away in New Orleans. The Democrats didn't build those empty prison camps that can hold way over 100,000 people. Brady (as in the Brady bill) wasn't a Democrat was he?
In fact, I won't be able to sleep well until Bush is out of office. I don't know that he doesn't plan on more than 8 years. I don't know that the current administration will follow the law - especially given the way they have broken it in so many ways - and leave office peacefully.
Yep - not only do I want to have guns, but I feel that to keep our democracy honest - I need to have a gun or two.
I don't see where the Democrats in fact are the threat here.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 23, 2008 2:08:23 PM
@scb:While I don't own an AR15, and I'm not sure what it is, for the sake of discussion I will think that it is an automatic weapon with a high rate of fire.
Just the opposite. It looks all "mean and nasty" but it is no different than any other semi-auto rifle.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Nov 23, 2008 2:12:45 PM
I agree with t.a. and Ted. There's plenty of reason to fear both big government and big corporatism. Arms are one tool that we can use for self-defense when necessary.
This argument over the Second Amendment is going nowhere. It needs to be re-written in some coherent form if it's going to be a guide for anything. And while we're at it, let's hold a Constitutional Convention to re-instate democracy, which has been devastated by the duopoly.
I didn't vote for a white man either.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Nov 23, 2008 3:41:59 PM
The history of the U.S. is not a history without it's blemishes. What was done to the African-Americans has been called our original sin and we have plenty of similar marks in our history, although not quite as disturbing. A long the way there have even been a talk of a coup once or twice in our history. One I know happened during FDR's time in office. I have read that there was also talk of one during the sixties and I believe that during Nixon's reign of terror the Pentagon moved troops away from Washington so that Nixon could not call them out if he was so inclined. Things got pretty tense during Nixon's day to say the least. Just maybe that is why we have the second amendment. Some day we might just need it.
TLG
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 23, 2008 4:37:59 PM
The Government has slowly been chipping away at our rights, ...
And the people have behaved like a bunch of sheep letting the government get away with it. If the people don't have enough initiative to squawk about this what makes you think they will pick up a gun and risk getting shot at? AT&T and Verizon were caught illegally going along with the government snooping on them. Congress didn't give a damn what they people thought and gave these corporations retroactive immunity - which is what they were paid to do. How many "citizens" do you think canceled their AT&T and Verizon contracts? How many of you people wanting guns to defend the nation against tyranny have contracts with corporations that own the government and have been screwing the people left and right for decades?
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 23, 2008 5:48:16 PM
The Left cannot embrace gun ownership. Gun ownership for normal people is based on trusting average people, and being willing for them to have power. That includes the power to defend themselves.
The Left is devoted to creating an infantilized public. The Left cannot trust average people, because their world view is based on the stupidity of average people, who must be nobly lied to by an elite who will make the public's choices for them.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Nov 23, 2008 6:17:42 PM
Libertarian Guy: "What was done to African Americans" was terrible, but our "original sin" was the genocide committed against indigenous peoples, a form of which continues even today. There are many sins of the state, and our failure to stop them is sinful also.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 23, 2008 6:36:12 PM
The Left cannot trust average people, because their world view is based on the stupidity of average people, who must be nobly lied to by an elite who will make the public's choices for them.
Have you ever watched O'Reilly, Kristol and their ilk on television or listened to the Limpbags on radio? It seems they have sized up the "people" and concluded they are willing to be lied to. The Bush administration did a good job selling the war on Iraq to the gullible. None of these people are from the left. What was it Mencken said about not losing money underestimating the intelligence of the American public?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Betsy O | Nov 22, 2008 11:21:44 AM
Great.
On a day where the newspaper talks about how we're supposed to make a bunch of noise and wear bright orange clothes when we're out hiking (thereby destroying the solitude and beauty) because hunters are accidentally killing people, a post celebrating guns. Sorry, usually I'm with you but I'm grumpy today about people dying. Try me tomorrow.