Guns for Fun, Protection & Liberty

[Ross Barlow]

Guns for Fun, Protection & Liberty

straight-shooter Objectivists

by Ross Barlow

I think that more Objectivists might want to learn more about firearms, either in practice or theory, or both. First, they might be surprised to find themselves falling in love with the shooting sports as recreation. This could include target shooting with pistols or rifles, shotgun shooting sports or the various forms of hunting. For many Americans, going out to shoot is a family activity.

They might also learn the empowerment of self-protection/defense that a well-trained gun owner can achieve. And the theory of an armed citizenry as a safeguard for individual rights is an essential part of the Classical Liberal and American traditions of defending liberty against power.

Almost anyone can learn to handle firearms safely and effectively, but it is a great responsibility. Guns must be understood and respected. Expert training is very important, as is a mature attitude. Even experts must constantly renew their attitudes and habits when it comes to safety. And the possibility of ever using a firearm for self-defense must be thought over carefully with very honest moral soul-searching.

For many people, there is a cultural blind-spot regarding guns, in that they have no experience with them and they perhaps grew up in families where firearms were abhorred or in cities where laws forbid guns (thus causing guns to be only in the hands of criminals). They may understandably be afraid of guns. But the guidance of an experienced instructor or mentor can make you feel confident with them, open up a new world of experience and show you a great time.

You might say that guns are second-nature to me. I grew up with them. As a boy, I was taught to shoot safely by my father. As a Boy Scout, I was taught an even higher level of skills and safety. As a US Marine, the marksmanship training and accompanying safety procedures were taught to us with a radicalism that was almost religious in its nature. In Vietnam we kept our weapons cleaner than our bodies, cradling them close through rainy nights and keeping them out of the mud we lay in. As a longtime NRA-certified firearms instructor, I have taught many people about safe and accurate shooting. I do not tolerate unsafe gun handling. I love guns but they still scare me.

When I lived in my native state of Pennsylvania, which has enlightened laws about gun permits, I had a concealed-carry pistol permit (renewed after a fresh criminal background check every 5 years) and I carried a loaded piece practically everywhere I went for decades. I felt that it was my responsibility to myself and my family to have the skills and means of self-defense. We would often be at a desolate trailhead parking lot at midnight, and creepy characters would occasionally be about. When people see a gun at your side, they are quite civil and polite. Living in Thailand now, I feel almost naked because I can not carry a gun here.

More and more states in the USA are liberalizing (i.e., freeing up) their gun laws and allowing their law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. This is creating opportunities for taking your own personal protection into your own hands.

If you live in a state that allows concealed-carry, I urge you to apply for a permit, even if you do not plan to carry often, or right away or even at all. Or, if your state is just now considering the freeing up of statutes to allow the issue of concealed-carry permits, get into the political process to support it. It is one area where small victories for individual liberty are being won in the various states. It is one of the most encouraging trends in state law.

Finally, are you aware of the original meaning of the Second Amendment? Why do “the people” have the right to “keep and bear arms”? Answer: to protect themselves, their families and their communities from a government that has become tyrannical, i.e., arms in the possession of citizens are a counter-balance to government power. This is such a radical concept today that it scares people to even think about it, yet it is easy to document that this was the *original* philosophical meaning the Founders had in mind when drafting the US Bill of Rights. (I do not think Ayn Rand fully understood this, but she is not totally to blame, as it is buried in history.)

A “well-regulated militia,” in its original meaning and in the parlance of the Founders, is not the National Guard or a state-controlled militia (as many, many people will try to tell you). It is a term first used by the English Radical Whigs of the late 17th century (i.e., the kind of crowd that John Locke would hang out with) and first introduced prominently into American discourse by George Mason (“Father of the US Bill of Rights”) around 1774 when Britain and the Colonies were experiencing more and more tension. Mason defined the well-regulated militia to be “the whole body of the people” armed for their defense against their own government when it is threatening their liberties. [One highly recommended book on this subject is *That Every Man Be Armed: the evolution of a constitutional right* by Stephen P. Holbrook.]

Using Mason’s doctrine of a well-regulated militia (i.e., guns privately owned by the people and apart from government control) as their philosophical principle, American citizens armed themselves. You have heard of some of these groups: i.e., in Massachusetts, the Minutemen; in Virginia, the Fairfax County Independent Militia Company (with elected co-captains George Washington and George Mason) and the Hanover County Militia (elected captain, Patrick Henry). It is doubtful if Independence could have been achieved had this armed base not been in place early in the struggle.

Later, in the debates over both the ratification of the Constitution and the wording of the US Bill of Rights, the above concept was exactly what the Founders meant when they used the words “well-regulated militia.” It was well-regulated in that it was responsible to the community, and by electing someone like Washington as leader you had sober rationality running the program.

By thus having arms in the hands of citizens (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), the government had a very good reason to respect their liberties – as George III had found out in the years before. For this reason, many Americans would not ratify the Constitution without a guarantee of private rights for citizens to have firearms. In the words of Patrick Henry, “The great principle is that every man be armed” -- then government would have to behave.

Thus the Second Amendment is a foundational principle of a free society and is meant as a practical safeguard of the first order for individual liberty. Is it radical? Hell yes, but so is Objectivism.

So, whether as a fan of recreational shooting, an advocate of self-defense, a libertarian who defends the principles of individual liberty, or any combination of these, you just may find guns to be important and relevant to your life as an Objectivist.

Safe shooting.

-Ross Barlow.

[Judith]

Excellent article, Ross.

[Chris Grieb]

Excellent article. Ross. I have over the years come to conclusion that Ayn Rand got the issue of gun control wrong. She was not as strong a supporter of the second amendment as she could have been. I have seen the issue become more important to me. I hope it will become more important to all Objectivists.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Judith]

I have over the years come to conclusion that Ayn Rand got the issue of gun control wrong. She was not as strong a supporter of the second amendment as she could have been.

What exactly did she say on the issue?

I've never paid much attention to Rand's opinions on the issue since it's so important to me, but now you've got me curious. I don't remember her saying much one way or the other.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; If you will look at page 19 of Ayn Rand Answers there are different replies on the question. I was also at NBI where she and Branden were not opposed to gun licensing laws. The two replies in ARA are 1971 and '73. I heard my reply in 1966.

[Judith]

Judith; If you will look at page 19 of Ayn Rand Answers there are different replies on the question. I was also at NBI where she and Branden were not opposed to gun licensing laws. The two replies in ARA are 1971 and '73. I heard my reply in 1966.

Hmmm. I thought I had everything Rand had ever written, but I guess I don't have EVERYTHING her acolytes put out after she died. I don't have "Ayn Rand Answers". Can you give me an executive summary of the responses?

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Judith; She said in '71 that she did not consider the issue of primary importance. That she recognized that criminals would still obtain them. Her last line that "unless you ready to start a private uprising which is not practical." Her answer in '73 says that handguns can only be used to kill people not for hunting. My memory of NBI in '66 is fuzzy. I hope this clears things up.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[John Dailey]

~ Whatever Rand had said on this subject, let's be clear here: it is NOT implied/derivable-from her philosophy (not in any way explicated by anyone, much less her, that is.) Her primary social-concern was with how 'rational' individuals should deal with each other, summable up in her near-famous phrase punch-lining her story about the old West's courtroom doorway: "Leave your guns at the door." --- As to how rational individuals should deal with irrational ones (or 'neutral' ones accepting directives from irrational ones), Dagny's handling of a guard was one option; depending on the situation, there are often others (think Jack Bauer, Jet Li, or even Columbo; all depends on what one has practiced at...or not.)

~ I'll not debate the 'intended' meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but, I have no prob with 'carrying' and USING, when one thinks such is needed. However, there is a proper political place for limiting types of firearms. What individual 'citizen' needs a bazooka? Work from there, up-or-down.

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

Decades ago I had a letter published in "Reason" in which I stated that if one had the right to defend oneself one had the right to defend oneself with something. In our society that'd mean rifles, shotguns and pistols. For the inexperienced I'd start out with a quality double action .38 special revolver for the simple reason that it's safe without a safety while automatics are more complicated. Shotguns are extremely dangerous to have around for self defense even for experts. If you need that then get a big fenced yard with big dogs for valliant attempts on your physiological substance. Then you'll have time to get to the cabinet and lock and load.

--Brant

[galtgulch]

To all with a belief in the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms,

Given the "trouble" in the Middle East and the likelihood that the US will be withdrawing whether or not the Iraqi government and military and police will be ready to defend the establishment there what do you think of the following idea.

Hold one more election and offer hand guns and ammunition to anyone, man or woman who shows up to vote so they will be armed to defend themselves against the Islamic militants!

I think the numbers of voters far outweighed those who are considered "insurgents."

I think these voters are in favor of individual freedom and peace and trade and have the same rights as we do although they may be unaware of Objectivism or western Constitutional thought.

They must realize we have a common enemy in the Islamo Fascists but are not armed.

I doubt insurgents go to vote.

I know this will not happen but it appeals to my romantic side.

galt

[Judith]

She said in '71 that she did not consider the issue of primary importance.

Well, *I* do. In fact, sometimes I'm a single issue voter, with that single issue being gun control. I consider it to be fundamental to individual liberty.

That she recognized that criminals would still obtain them.

Well, duh.

Her last line that "unless you ready to start a private uprising which is not practical."

Tsk, tsk. And her with her deep admiration for the Founding Fathers.

Her answer in '73 says that handguns can only be used to kill people not for hunting.

Well, that's just ignorant and ill-informed. She obviously never saw anyone in Alaska or other big game territory go out hunting game or carrying for protection against big game with a huge revolver on his/her hip; guns WAY too impractical to carry concealed for personal protection and downright unethical to carry on the street because their ammo would be akin to that of a rifle.... Still, it's beside the point; or, perhaps an evasion of the point, which is that one shouldn't have to plead the excuse of hunting or sports to have the right to carry a firearm, delightful as hunting and sport shooting may be.

~ Whatever Rand had said on this subject, let's be clear here: it is NOT implied/derivable-from her philosophy (not in any way explicated by anyone, much less her, that is.)

Oh, I don't know about that; I'd think that the right to self-defense with the best weapons designed for individual use (as opposed to a nuclear warhead) that happen to be commercially available is something that -- one could reasonably derive from the philosophy -- is an individual right with which others have no right to interfere. Just like the right to keep one's income is derivable from the right to life, if not more so.

However, there is a proper political place for limiting types of firearms. What individual 'citizen' needs a bazooka? Work from there, up-or-down.

As long as we're talking about the kinds of firearms designed for individual use (as opposed to military use, such as bombs), I have to disagree. Pleading "need" is conceding the position that someone else has the right to deny my rights and concede me special privileges under certain circumstances. Who was it the other day who quoted, "It's not who's going to let me, but who's going to stop me"? Who has the right to stop me?

Did you know that right after WWII it was perfectly legal to walk into a store and buy a submachine gun? Did you know that the military routinely sold surplus submachine guns to private citizens? Did we have blood running in the streets during that time period? And now some fools are inconveniencing me by limiting the size of my magazines and the kinds of rifles and pistols I can buy based solely on whether they look scary. Please.

Did you know that about a generation ago high schools had shooting teams that practiced in the school basements and that the kids used to bring their guns to school for team practice? Did you know that when I was in fourth grade I was a girl scout and routinely wore my uniform with my knife attached to my belt to school on a regular basis? Did the blood run red in the school halls back then? Please.

And I'm deferring on military (bomb) issues only because I really haven't thought about them, not because I'm conceding them. Crimes should be illegal, not possession of substances.

For the inexperienced I'd start out with a quality double action .38 special revolver for the simple reason that it's safe without a safety while automatics are more complicated. Shotguns are extremely dangerous to have around for self defense even for experts. If you need that then get a big fenced yard with big dogs for valliant attempts on your physiological substance. Then you'll have time to get to the cabinet and lock and load.

I have to disagree with Brant.

For one thing, if someone is invading your house, it's a lot easier for the inexperienced frightened homeowner to hit a target with a shotgun than with a handgun. Shooting a handgun isn't like on TV and the movies -- shooting one accurately requires quite a lot of training, and under stress and in the dark most of that training will go right out the window.

For another, a shotgun has much, much more stopping power than a handgun; if you hit a crack-crazed druggie crashing through your window at 3 in the morning with a .38, he may go down a few minutes later -- if your shot was accurate -- but before that, he may still manage to kill or maim you and your family with a knife, a gun, a razor, a broken bottle, or a club. If you hit an invader with one or two rounds of 00 buck, he WILL be stopped, even if you manage even a partial hit, and even if he is clad in heavy winter clothing.

Third, you can choose your shotgun ammo based on your neighboorhood and the construction of your house so that it is unlikely to penetrate your outer walls and hit the neighbor's baby -- light buckshot, heavy birshot, whatever. You can also choose hollow-points for your handgun, but there is a slightly higher risk of perimeter penetration with them, and if you happen to have left in your magazine the ball ammo you used at the range that day, you have a much higher likelihood of perimeter penetratiion problems.

Fourth, contrary to popular perception, it's possible to be quite accurate with buckshot if you so desire. I've done some training with hostage/hostage-taker targets, with the hostage's head in the middle and the hostage-taker's head silhouetted behind it with only a few inches showing. The objectives are, within a few seconds from an unmounted gun position, (1) to hit the hostage-taker on the side called (left or right) without missing, and (2) not to hit the hostage. You would be surprised how, once one knows one's shotgun, one can easily and consistantly hit the hostage-taker from 15 yards or so without hitting the hostage, and I'm not talking about slug ammo -- I'm talking about 00 buck.

Fifth, a double action revolver can be extremely difficult to shoot accurately if you don't have big, strong hands -- for someone like me, for example. My first two handguns were a double action pistol and a double action revolver. I thought I was a lousy shot. Then I went and took a class and rented a single action pistol and suddently my groupings were the size of a quarter at 25 yards. I thought about having my triggers adjusted, but after a discussion with the gunsmith, I concluded that the gun models I first selected were designed to be that way and, rather than mess with them, I put them away in the safe for awhile and bought a good single action pistol. If you're concerned about safety, there are a lot of lovely pistols out there with multiple built-in safeties, such as the Springfields (lots of people call them double-actions, but according to their web site, they're actually single actions with a striker-fired mechanism) that have safeties in both the backstrap and the trigger so that the gun won't go off unless both are depressed, and yet have delightful light, crisp trigger pulls, or the 1911s such as the Kimbers with a simple, thumb-run safety and the most delicious trigger pull you'll find anywhere on a handgun.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

She said in '71 that she did not consider the issue of primary importance.

Well, *I* do. In fact, sometimes I'm a single issue voter, with that single issue being gun control. I consider it to be fundamental to individual liberty.

That she recognized that criminals would still obtain them.

Well, duh.

Her last line that "unless you ready to start a private uprising which is not practical."

Tsk, tsk. And her with her deep admiration for the Founding Fathers.

Her answer in '73 says that handguns can only be used to kill people not for hunting.

Well, that's just ignorant and ill-informed. She obviously never saw anyone in Alaska or other big game territory go out hunting game or carrying for protection against big game with a huge revolver on his/her hip; guns WAY too impractical to carry concealed for personal protection and downright unethical to carry on the street because their ammo would be akin to that of a rifle.... Still, it's beside the point; or, perhaps an evasion of the point, which is that one shouldn't have to plead the excuse of hunting or sports to have the right to carry a firearm, delightful as hunting and sport shooting may be.

~ Whatever Rand had said on this subject, let's be clear here: it is NOT implied/derivable-from her philosophy (not in any way explicated by anyone, much less her, that is.)

Oh, I don't know about that; I'd think that the right to self-defense with the best weapons designed for individual use (as opposed to a nuclear warhead) that happen to be commercially available is something that -- one could reasonably derive from the philosophy -- is an individual right with which others have no right to interfere. Just like the right to keep one's income is derivable from the right to life, if not more so.

However, there is a proper political place for limiting types of firearms. What individual 'citizen' needs a bazooka? Work from there, up-or-down.

As long as we're talking about the kinds of firearms designed for individual use (as opposed to military use, such as bombs), I have to disagree. Pleading "need" is conceding the position that someone else has the right to deny my rights and concede me special privileges under certain circumstances. Who was it the other day who quoted, "It's not who's going to let me, but who's going to stop me"? Who has the right to stop me?

Did you know that right after WWII it was perfectly legal to walk into a store and buy a submachine gun? Did you know that the military routinely sold surplus submachine guns to private citizens? Did we have blood running in the streets during that time period? And now some fools are inconveniencing me by limiting the size of my magazines and the kinds of rifles and pistols I can buy based solely on whether they look scary. Please.

Did you know that about a generation ago high schools had shooting teams that practiced in the school basements and that the kids used to bring their guns to school for team practice? Did you know that when I was in fourth grade I was a girl scout and routinely wore my uniform with my knife attached to my belt to school on a regular basis? Did the blood run red in the school halls back then? Please.

And I'm deferring on military (bomb) issues only because I really haven't thought about them, not because I'm conceding them. Crimes should be illegal, not possession of substances.

For the inexperienced I'd start out with a quality double action .38 special revolver for the simple reason that it's safe without a safety while automatics are more complicated. Shotguns are extremely dangerous to have around for self defense even for experts. If you need that then get a big fenced yard with big dogs for valliant attempts on your physiological substance. Then you'll have time to get to the cabinet and lock and load.

I have to disagree with Brant.

For one thing, if someone is invading your house, it's a lot easier for the inexperienced frightened homeowner to hit a target with a shotgun than with a handgun. Shooting a handgun isn't like on TV and the movies -- shooting one accurately requires quite a lot of training, and under stress and in the dark most of that training will go right out the window.

For another, a shotgun has much, much more stopping power than a handgun; if you hit a crack-crazed druggie crashing through your window at 3 in the morning with a .38, he may go down a few minutes later -- if your shot was accurate -- but before that, he may still manage to kill or maim you and your family with a knife, a gun, a razor, a broken bottle, or a club. If you hit an invader with one or two rounds of 00 buck, he WILL be stopped, even if you manage even a partial hit, and even if he is clad in heavy winter clothing.

Third, you can choose your shotgun ammo based on your neighboorhood and the construction of your house so that it is unlikely to penetrate your outer walls and hit the neighbor's baby -- light buckshot, heavy birshot, whatever. You can also choose hollow-points for your handgun, but there is a slightly higher risk of perimeter penetration with them, and if you happen to have left in your magazine the ball ammo you used at the range that day, you have a much higher likelihood of perimeter penetratiion problems.

Fourth, contrary to popular perception, it's possible to be quite accurate with buckshot if you so desire. I've done some training with hostage/hostage-taker targets, with the hostage's head in the middle and the hostage-taker's head silhouetted behind it with only a few inches showing. The objectives are, within a few seconds from an unmounted gun position, (1) to hit the hostage-taker on the side called (left or right) without missing, and (2) not to hit the hostage. You would be surprised how, once one knows one's shotgun, one can easily and consistantly hit the hostage-taker from 15 yards or so without hitting the hostage, and I'm not talking about slug ammo -- I'm talking about 00 buck.

Fifth, a double action revolver can be extremely difficult to shoot accurately if you don't have big, strong hands -- for someone like me, for example. My first two handguns were a double action pistol and a double action revolver. I thought I was a lousy shot. Then I went and took a class and rented a single action pistol and suddently my groupings were the size of a quarter at 25 yards. I thought about having my triggers adjusted, but after a discussion with the gunsmith, I concluded that the gun models I first selected were designed to be that way and, rather than mess with them, I put them away in the safe for awhile and bought a good single action pistol. If you're concerned about safety, there are a lot of lovely pistols out there with multiple built-in safeties, such as the Springfields (lots of people call them double-actions, but according to their web site, they're actually single actions with a striker-fired mechanism) that have safeties in both the backstrap and the trigger so that the gun won't go off unless both are depressed, and yet have delightful light, crisp trigger pulls, or the 1911s such as the Kimbers with a simple, thumb-run safety and the most delicious trigger pull you'll find anywhere on a handgun.

Judith

Judith; Let me emphasize that I don't agree with Rand's position and I in agreement with yours.

[Judith]

Judith; Let me emphasize that I don't agree with Rand's position and I in agreement with yours.

Yeah, I kind of figured that. I hope my rather passionate response didn't come across as shooting the messenger.

Judith

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ Regarding my view of Rand's views on guns being not implied by her philosophy, you responded

Oh, I don't know about that [interesting phrasing!]; I'd think that the right to self-defense with the best weapons designed for individual use (as opposed to a nuclear warhead) that happen to be commercially available is something that -- one could reasonably derive from the philosophy -is an individual right which others have no right to interfere.

~ Uh, yeah, one 'could'; one 'could' just as 'reasonably derive' that there is no implication about ballistic or laser weapons being necessary to one's self-defense any more than bazookas...in normal citizen communities. 'Could derive' is not an argument against my 'does not imply'...unless you're saying that her philosophy DOES IMPLY. Is that what you're saying?

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 11, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ I picked the obviously debatable starting point: bazookas; you picked the extreme all can agree on: nuclear warhead (I'd specify suitcase nukes, but...) I'm concerned with what, if any, limits should be d-e-f-i-n-e-d re individual's weapon-carrying. I'd have a prob seeing someone coming down the street carrying a light-weight flamethrower.

~ You brought up WWII machine guns. Sure, they were still allowable. My point about bazookas was, 'should they be allowed?' especially given m-g's use in the '20's-'30's (and, nowadays, their descendents faved by criminals.) True, blood did not fill our schools...then. So? They do now. That was 'then', and Columbine is 'now'. Our culture...and kids...have changed for the worse. I consider that relevent. This is the populace we live in, now; far different from the '50's which was, generally, a bit more gun-savvy.

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 11, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Judith:

Finally...

~ You bring up shotguns. I totally agree there with everything you said (an AR-15 or it's descendant is just as good, really, for homeowners. This was clarified in a hearing a decade ago [on C-SPAN] led by Schumer about 'assault rifles', when a 5-ft woman shared an experience of a night-time invasion of her home while her husband was away. One 'Ka-Chink' in the dark, and they noisely exited the windows they entered.) However, I wouldn't count on having Steven Siegal accuracy for most shotgun users.

~ I'll still stick with my Glock though. Revolvers, even the rare 7-round ones, for reasons you gave, are not my taste. Automatics, while allowed, are 'it.'

LLAP

J:D

P.S: In case you're wondering, I'm 'pro'-gun, but, not 'card-carrying.'

[John Dailey]

Query:

~ Anyone been catching HISTORY CHANNEL's Future Weapons program?

LLAP

J:D

[Judith]

~ Regarding my view of Rand's views on guns being not implied by her philosophy, you responded

Oh, I don't know about that [interesting phrasing!]; I'd think that the right to self-defense with the best weapons designed for individual use (as opposed to a nuclear warhead) that happen to be commercially available is something that -- one could reasonably derive from the philosophy -is an individual right which others have no right to interfere.

~ Uh, yeah, one 'could'; one 'could' just as 'reasonably derive' that there is no implication about ballistic or laser weapons being necessary to one's self-defense any more than bazookas...in normal citizen communities. 'Could derive' is not an argument against my 'does not imply'...unless you're saying that her philosophy DOES IMPLY. Is that what you're saying?

My breezily casual "Oh, I don't know about that" meant that I think that gun rights are fundamental and at least as important as property rights, and are probably just as derivable from the right to life as any other right that Rand asserted, but that since I'm not a professional philosopher or amateur pedant, I wasn't about to get into a technical advanced philosophical debate. I'm very, very serious about my right to self-defense. I consider it integral to my right to life.

Judith

[Judith]

~ I picked the obviously debatable starting point: bazookas; you picked the extreme all can agree on: nuclear warhead (I'd specify suitcase nukes, but...) I'm concerned with what, if any, limits should be d-e-f-i-n-e-d re individual's weapon-carrying. I'd have a prob seeing someone coming down the street carrying a light-weight flamethrower.

~ You brought up WWII machine guns. Sure, they were still allowable. My point about bazookas was, 'should they be allowed?' especially given m-g's use in the '20's-'30's (and, nowadays, their descendents faved by criminals.) True, blood did not fill our schools...then. So? They do now. That was 'then', and Columbine is 'now'. Our culture...and kids...have changed for the worse. I consider that relevent. This is the populace we live in, now; far different from the '50's which was, generally, a bit more gun-savvy.

I used the obvious example because it's one with which I can easily agree, probably, and with which most of the rest of us can probably agree. But when I consider that the military isn't (*DRUM ROLL*) -- The Military -- as an uberbeing over and above and separate from you and me and everyone else we know, and having some super wisdom and power and entitled to some special reverence and awe -- but simply a subset of us to whom we've delegated one of our jobs, that job being foreign defense, I ask myself, why should ANY public collective be entitled to use things that its bosses -- i.e., you and me -- aren't entitled to use? They fight for us because we pay them to. They defend us because we pay them to. Inherent therein is the conclusion that we have the rights to begin with, so that we can delegate them to the military. If we don't have them, they don't have them. Thus, it kind of bothers me to say that the military has rights to use weapons that we don't. On a gut level, I don't want my neighbor playing with nukes, but I can't quite justify how I have a right to prevent it, yet do have a right to delegate to the troops myself a right to fight with them.

As far as changing worlds justifying tighter gun laws -- well, there's an argument to make me see red. Damned if you'll ever get me to agree to put more restrictions on the law-abiding because somebody out there has chosen not to enforce existing laws against existing crimes. That's called punishing the innocent. And damned if you'll get me to agree that I should disarm in the face of increasing chaos; that's called exacerbating the problem. If you say that people were more gun savvy in the '50s, and propose that, because of that, guns should be restricted, I say in return, why not make gun education mandatory in the schools the way sex education is? Gun ignorance can quite literally be lethal.

Judith

[Judith]

~ You bring up shotguns. I totally agree there with everything you said (an AR-15 or it's descendant is just as good, really, for homeowners. This was clarified in a hearing a decade ago [on C-SPAN] led by Schumer about 'assault rifles', when a 5-ft woman shared an experience of a night-time invasion of her home while her husband was away. One 'Ka-Chink' in the dark, and they noisely exited the windows they entered.) However, I wouldn't count on having Steven Siegal accuracy for most shotgun users.

~ I'll still stick with my Glock though. Revolvers, even the rare 7-round ones, for reasons you gave, are not my taste. Automatics, while allowed, are 'it.'

The AR-style rifles aren't bad at all for home-defense. The AR-15, with its Remington .223 (or NATO equivalent) ammo in particular that is designed to tumble and fragment in the body and not penetrate lots of hard surfaces, is probably safe in an urban environment, as opposed to other rifles, and they're easy and fun to shoot. But Christ, don't get your moose rifle out unless you want to shoot a hole in the house of every neighbor's house for the next two or three miles in a row! (And, as the silly state [and even federal] legislators know, the little AR-15s sure are considered scary-looking by the media. Silly, considering how mild they are compared to a moose rifle. Maybe they should start making them in pink plastic with little flowers on them instead of that ominous monochrome black or olive plastic....) :devil:

There's a lot of debate out there regarding whether shucking a pump shotgun has a deterrent effect on an intruder ("Get-Out!") or simply tells him where you are. I don't own any pumps -- just semi-autos and an over-under. I've shot them on rare occasions, but they don't strike me as being as jam-free as people say they are, and they're simply too much trouble to run. If you want a lot of ammo in the gun, run a clean and trustworthy semi-auto; if you want 100% reliability, shoot an over-under or side-by-side and be sure not to miss with your two shots.

I've heard very nice things about the Glocks. Never fired one, but I'm told they're very similar to the Springfields with which I'm currently in love.

Judith

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ Re your last statement, I totally agree.

~ Now, about those bazookas and flamethrowers (nm suitcase-nukes), or, limits-in-general on citizens re weapons-carrying? You intimated a limit at nuclear warheads; uh, I agree. My concern is about...anything LESS than that undebatable item?

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Sorry you see *my* questions and concerns as causes to make you see red.

[Judith]

~ Now, about those bazookas and flamethrowers (nm suitcase-nukes), or, limits-in-general on citizens re weapons-carrying? You intimated a limit at nuclear warheads; uh, I agree. My concern is about...anything LESS than that undebatable item?

P.S: Sorry you see *my* questions and concerns as causes to make you see red.

I don't mean to put you off by my passionate statements. I hear arguments that remind me of some of these statements coming from those who would disarm the entire free world, and I start to steam.

Like Ayn Rand, I'm coming from a position where I see something very clearly, and things that seem obvious to me may not seem obvious to others that haven't seen and done what I've seen and done.

I've taken training classes at this place:

http://www.frontsight.com/

One of their policies is to allow media people -- no matter how liberal, leftist, antigun, etc. they may be -- free access to the place to film whatever they want -- on ONE CONDITION. The reporter has to take -- free of charge -- the four day Uzi course. Not just any course -- not the simple, accessible to everyman two-day handgun course -- not the children's safety course -- but the course most likely to scare people and make them say, "WHAT!! You can take courses in shooting MACHINE GUNS!! People shouldn't be ALLOWED to do that!" And the reporter has to take the four day course, not the two day course, to enable full immersion in the course. After that, they can write any story they want, accompanied by all the footage they've taken over the four days of however they want to spin it: nutcase rednecks training for Armageddon in the desert, or whatever. Why do they do this? Because they're quite confident that after four days, they can get a positive reaction to the series of questions, "Are you now safe and competent with a machine gun? Are the people who took the class with you safe and competent with a machine gun? Aren't these people a lot like your friends and neighbors? WOULDN'T AMERICA BE A BETTER PLACE IF MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU KNEW HOW TO USE THESE WEAPONS COMPETENTLY AND SAFELY?" Wouldn't it be better if more American families were trained to a level of safety and competence with weapons like these?

You see, once you've used weapons that look exotic and huge, they no longer seem so mysterious and sexy and violent. A knife is just like a screwdriver. A submachine gun is just like a hammer. They're all just tools. A flame-thrower is just that thing you carry around to kill the weeds in your gravel driveway. Can you kill someone with any of them? Of course. You can do the same with a nearly infinite number of other tools. Are we going to ban them all? Are we going to keep them out of the hands of all the people who use them properly on a daily basis just because a few miscreants might misuse them? Isn't that rather silly?

So to get to your question, I don't know where to draw it, and I don't even know if it's a proper question. It seems like question-begging to me, because it assumes that weapons control is a proper thing in the first place, which I don't believe. Aggression and the threat of aggression are the things to address, not weapons/tools and their possession.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Judith, my remarks about shotguns being dangerous to have around refers to potential accidents, mostly concerning other family members. And be careful of the AR-15 for it is easy to accidentally discharge and that .223 high velocity cartridge will blow off someone's head at close range. A double action revolver, of course, can be used in single action mode, but a single action Rugar is appealing. The real trick in home defense is alarms and dogs and someplace to retreat to. Don't be taken by surprise. Once you're in a gunfight no matter how good you are that's too much advantage to the bad guys.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

Addendum, re my 'Query':

~ Sorry. NOT THE HISTORY CHANNEL; correction: THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL. My bad.

--- So shoot me.

LLAP

J:D

[Judith]

Judith, my remarks about shotguns being dangerous to have around refers to potential accidents, mostly concerning other family members. And be careful of the AR-15 for it is easy to accidentally discharge and that .223 high velocity cartridge will blow off someone's head at close range. A double action revolver, of course, can be used in single action mode, but a single action Rugar is appealing. The real trick in home defense is alarms and dogs and someplace to retreat to. Don't be taken by surprise. Once you're in a gunfight no matter how good you are that's too much advantage to the bad guys.

Yeah, the safe room is an excellent idea, especially if you are designing your home from scratch. No sane person wants to get in a gunfight.

Judith