[lit-ideas] Gun Rights as seen from NYC
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:07:54 -0700
Eric,
Beginning by noticing that you live in New York City and I live in rural San
Jacinto . . .
You wrote, "I wonder whether we should allow people - those people who don't
care about their walls and furniture to deploy M79 grenade launchers
(thumpers) loaded with canister rounds for home defense."
The Second Amendment, I believe, meant that the common citizen should be
entitled to carry the same guns as the "Common Soldier." The Common soldier
doesn't carry M79 grenade launcher as far as I know. Back in my day we had
BAR's. Browning Automatic Rifles, and both air and water cold machine guns.
But the "Common" soldier didn't carry these weapons. That is, a certain
number were issued to battalions and platoons. But the "Common Soldier"
carried the good old M1 and nothing else. He might be told to grab the BAR
when his squad asked him to and if so he functioned as a member of his squad
and not as a common soldier. I don't think that's changed. The M79 was
known as the "platoon leader's artillery." A platoon is issued more weapons
than are issued to the common soldier.
I don't think the "gun control issue" is the distraction you suggest. The
right to bear arms is a right that the Centralized Government people, the
people who long for the good old days when the duke took good care of his
serfs (aka Welfare Statism), want to deconstruct.
First of all, agree that the right to bear arms is a legitimate right; then
we can talk about the details. When I was a rifle instructor, I saw many
shooters I wouldn't want living next door to me. They kept making serious
mistakes. So I would want training. Further, owning a gun isn't an
obligation. You don't need to own one if you don't want one. If you can't
handle a car, don't drive. If you can't handle a gun, don't get one. I use
hollow point ammo, and I would never use a rifle for home defense, but
self-defense isn't restricted to home defense, at least not in my opinion,
and not I believe as the framers of the Second Amendment intended.
As to crimes of passion and street crime, did you know that in England
crimes with knives are way up? Knives are actually more suitable to
"passion" than guns, don't you think?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/07/18/knife-crime-spree-sweep
s-britain-leaving-victims-and-fear-in-its-wake.html Although the current
"spree" involves "youths." Only the most idealistic, befuddled, and
fog-bound would think that getting rid of guns is going to solve problems of
violence. Three or four "youths" with knives are going to be able to mug
the most formidable of unarmed Brits - IMO.
Also, let us remind ourselves where we live. People who live in large,
closed-in cities, may want to keep guns that are low powered and won't go
through their walls into their neighbor's house. And even in the old days,
many town sheriff's made the cattle drovers check there guns before entering
the saloon. They could pick them up again when as they left town. But,
once again, we aren't talking about a principle here. Our Right to bear
Arms is paramount. It doesn't infringe that right if you say, "yes, you
have that right, but don't bring your guns into the hospital, or the
airport, or the saloon." I don't see a conflict here.
My point of view is probably different from yours. Take the M79 rocket
launcher. You probably think it wouldn't be okay for the ordinary citizen
to own one unless the State gave permission. I believe the ordinary citizen
is not to be treated that way in the U.S. If suddenly we were inundated by
the Mexican Mafia you refer to and they have rocket launchers. We should be
able to decide at the local level to get them if we choose to. We shouldn't
have to seek permission from the State.
Lawrence Helm
-----------------------
Lawrence: You let the common citizen own rifles and handguns up to and
including the rifles and handguns carried by our soldiers and Marines and I
doubt very much that any 2nd Amendment Rights advocate is going to complain.
People should use hollow-point bullets so that rounds fired in self-defense
do not kill citizens blocks away. Also, I wonder whether we should allow
people -- those people who don't care about their walls and furniture -- to
deploy M79 grenade launchers (thumpers) loaded with cannister rounds for
home defense.
Cars kill people. Pollution kills people. Overwork kills people. Alcohol
kills people. The third subway rails kill people as do downed power lines.
Falls from buildings or into bathtubs kill people. Riptides kill people.
Drug allergy kills people (e.g., necrotizing eosinophilic myocarditis). So
do bears, snakes, and a host of animals. (In Brazil there's a common moth
whose "dust" can kill whole families, the babies usually dying first.) And
don't forget about the hidden lethality of political corruption...state,
local, federal.
We don't select which "issues" are worth the risk. Largely these are
selected for us by insurance companies that don't want to be troubled by the
expense of treating and burying us. Cigarettes were an early target, now
it's obesity. Meanwhile things that could also save lives, like a good
public health system (such as the US had in the 1950s) are ignored.
The gun control issue seems poised as a deliberate distraction. Gun control
won't stop Mexican mafia murders, though it may hamper crimes of passion.
Meanwhile, the corruptly operated chemical plant, the mismanaged superfund
site, or the illegally dumped toxic waste nearby is slowly growing the rare
cancer that suddenly blooms in large clusters of patients. Slowly the poison
the whole bloodstream fills...
Yours in William Empson lyrics,
Daredevil Sleeper
Other related posts:
