WWJD*
SKS and Bushmaster M-4People are bringing shotguns to UFO sightings
in Fife, Alabama. I asked a guy,
"Why do you bring a gun to a UFO sighting?"
Guy said, "Way-ul, we didn' wanna be ab-duc-ted."
If I lived in Fife, Alabama, I would be on
my hands and knees every night praying for abduction
--Bill Hicks
Violence is not merely killing another.
It is violence when we use a sharp word,
when we make a gesture to brush away a person,
when we obey because there is fear.
So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God,
in the name of society or country.
Violence is much more subtle, much deeper
--J. Krishnamurti
But of all the Thompson gunners, Roland was the best
So the CIA decided they wanted Roland dead
That son-of-a-bitch Van Owen blew off Roland's head
--Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner, Warren Zevon
_________________
[WWJD: What Would Jefferson Do?]
Ranger is not your run-of-the-mill bleeding heart liberal; he is a gun-totin' liberal.
A staunch defendant of a totally unfettered 2nd amendment, he sees the right to bear arms as one of the "'high powers' delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power" [Cockrum v. State (1859)]. So he is always concerned when he sees the potential for government infringement upon those rights.
Gun ownership is currently circumscribed by arbitrary and hypocritical constructions. The proposed (and previous) assault weapons ban is one such restriction. The wording on the firearms acquisition forms depriving firearms rights to those who have been adjudicated mentally impaired, or to be a danger to themselves or others is another, due to its ambiguity.
He has discussed the arbitrary nature of an assault weapons ban in a previous post (Gun Nuts), so will address the issue of mental fitness here.
Ranger sees a potential conflict in asking a soldier whether a "lawful authority" recognizes the him as a danger to himself or others. By virtue of his training, a soldier could be construed as a legitimate danger due to his training in deadly arts.
If this is so, an affirmative answer could disenfranchise this entire class of citizens from firearm ownership. What about our returning "Wounded Warriors"? A warrior is someone who by definition kills instinctively, whether defensively or offensively. The "lawful authority" could be construed to be the U.S. Army, the very body which trained them in their combat arms skills.
Warriors are the killing agents of the U.S. government and military. They are a danger to others. Q.E.D.
Ranger's concern was Thomas Jefferson's, too: "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." But what if that country's most capable riflemen were barred as a class from weapons ownership? Based on the current federal question, that is not a far-fetched scenario.
The real question should be: Have you ever employed violence inappropriately or outside the military? Or simply, "Are you a nut job?" [By default that would exclude a lot of Marines, Special Forces, Rangers and SEALS, but at least not by virtue of their service, alone.]
Could the veteran hero-cum-criminal become reality? If we answered the question honestly and bought the gun, we might be. Nothing is beyond the pale. If the government decides to restrict gun ownership, this could be their avenue.
This is an ambiguous legal area that needs clarification.
[WWJD: What Would Jefferson Do?]
Ranger is not your run-of-the-mill bleeding heart liberal; he is a gun-totin' liberal.
A staunch defendant of a totally unfettered 2nd amendment, he sees the right to bear arms as one of the "'high powers' delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power" [Cockrum v. State (1859)]. So he is always concerned when he sees the potential for government infringement upon those rights.
Gun ownership is currently circumscribed by arbitrary and hypocritical constructions. The proposed (and previous) assault weapons ban is one such restriction. The wording on the firearms acquisition forms depriving firearms rights to those who have been adjudicated mentally impaired, or to be a danger to themselves or others is another, due to its ambiguity.
He has discussed the arbitrary nature of an assault weapons ban in a previous post (Gun Nuts), so will address the issue of mental fitness here.
Ranger sees a potential conflict in asking a soldier whether a "lawful authority" recognizes the him as a danger to himself or others. By virtue of his training, a soldier could be construed as a legitimate danger due to his training in deadly arts.
If this is so, an affirmative answer could disenfranchise this entire class of citizens from firearm ownership. What about our returning "Wounded Warriors"? A warrior is someone who by definition kills instinctively, whether defensively or offensively. The "lawful authority" could be construed to be the U.S. Army, the very body which trained them in their combat arms skills.
Warriors are the killing agents of the U.S. government and military. They are a danger to others. Q.E.D.
Ranger's concern was Thomas Jefferson's, too: "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." But what if that country's most capable riflemen were barred as a class from weapons ownership? Based on the current federal question, that is not a far-fetched scenario.
The real question should be: Have you ever employed violence inappropriately or outside the military? Or simply, "Are you a nut job?" [By default that would exclude a lot of Marines, Special Forces, Rangers and SEALS, but at least not by virtue of their service, alone.]
Could the veteran hero-cum-criminal become reality? If we answered the question honestly and bought the gun, we might be. Nothing is beyond the pale. If the government decides to restrict gun ownership, this could be their avenue.
This is an ambiguous legal area that needs clarification.
Labels: firearms acquisition form, gun ownership
posted by rangeragainstwar at 5:24 PM
14 Comments:
roland searched the continent
for the man who done him in
he found him in mombassa
in barroom drinking gin
roland aimed his thompson gun
he didn't say a word
but he blew van owen's body
from there to johannesburg
MB,
It's best not to say a word.
jim
I am a military groupie.
There, I said it.
Not the fawning, "oh.my.god.you.are.so.rambo.like.can.I.touch.your.pecs?"
No, more of the "why did you join, tell me your experience, and yes, the drinks are me."
For me, I'm a student of the human animal, and since military history used to be one of my main studies (note the operative phrase, "used to be.") I'm still curious about the men and women in uniform.
And one of the most interesting aspects of my discussions, and observations is this:
Most, not all, in fact I'll limit it to a few since the selection is rather limited due to the self-imposed geographical location I find myself in, of the people I talked too have no interest in humping a weapon anywhere.
This is especially true amongst the ones who were not involved in combat (combat vets seem to defy this generalization).
For these people, they played soldier before they joined the military, could name every weapon that every country made, rates of fire, the whole "hoo-ahh!" of the subject matter.
But once they got out of the military, the last thing they wanted to do was touch, much less own a firearm. In fact, their bdu's were generally used as gardening clothes, or given away.
The only remaining momento of their service was a nice, but wrinkly uniform.
Of the combat vets, I can only say is that for them, they have a view of firearms ownership that borders on complete and total reverence (present company excluded since I have not met you, nor do I know your personalities...sorry, just working with the ones I've met).
In fact, I only know of two who are not interested in touching a gun ever again.
So, no, I think as a cross section of society, soldiers are just like everyone else, just a whole hell of a lot maturer about firearms than their contemporaries in the civie world.
I would sooner go hunting with a vet humping a SAW than I would with a wide eye Walter Mitty explaining to me the details of his 7mm Whetherby.
(memories of a certain individual with a hair-trigger rifle that he handled like it was covered in olive oil comes to mind).
Come to think of it, I would trust the vet more.
MB,
Isn't that a great song? Such mock gravitas and solemnity, so tongue-in-cheek yet so violent. Brilliant.
As well, Minstrel Boy:
I am a merry ploughboy and I plough the fields by day,
Till a lightning flash came to me mind that I should run away;
I've always hated slavery since the day that I was born,
Now I'm off to join the I.R.A. and I'm off tomorrow morn.
So we're off to Dublin in the green, in the green,
Where the helmets glisten in the sun,
Where the bayonets flash and the rifles crack,
To the echo of a Thompson gun.
I leave behind me old grey coat, I leave behind me plough.
I leave behind me horse and mule, for no more I need them now;
I'll take my short revolver and my bandolier of lead,
And live or die I can but try to avenge my country's dead.
So we're off to Dublin in the green, in the green,
Where the helmets glisten in the sun,
Where the bayonets flash and the rifles crack,
To the echo of a Thompson gun.
There's one I leave behind me, a colleen I adore,
I wonder if she thinks of me when she hears those cannons roar;
And when the war is over, and dear old Ireland's free,
I'll take her to the church to wed, and a rebel's wife she'll be.
So we're off to Dublin in the green, in the green,
Where the helmets glisten in the sun,
Where the bayonets flash and the rifles crack,
To the echo of a Thompson gun. -- Dominic Behan
Dominic was brother to Brendan, that gentle soul who uttered those famous words, "I have a complete and utter contempt for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper, and the old men and women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer."
Ranger,
Please stay off the subject of religion. Everyone has a church, but gun worship doesn't rate very high in the overall scheme of things.
As for AK-47s, come down here to Mexico and see for yourself what these weapons, most of them purchased at American gun shows, do.
podunk paul,
Thanks for your comment.Let me respond.
I will stay on any topic that my skinny ass desires.So much for that.
I feel that Mexican drug violence is a greater threat to the average citizen than is that of terrorism.
The ak47 threat to the citizens of Mexico is palpable but there are several solutions that can deal with the problem without infringing on US gunrights.Presently one dealer is on trial for straw purchase ak's ending up in Mexico.He's on trial but the 500 plus weapons are still on the street.I personally abhor cheap AK's on the street but i'm unwilling to give up ground on this issue.My position is that the US gov't is responsible for the welfare of Americans and the same applies to the Mexican side.There are several ways to cut off the flow of guns to Mexico and this is fine but don't cut off legal guns to US citizens. We are not the problem-our taxes fund the solutions.
jim
podunk paul,
I want to add a thought.How many Afghans and Iraqis have been killed by US assault rifles and nobody is suggesting that the US govt cut off the flow of weapons to these countries.
jim
My personal take on the "arms free the citizen" is that a single yahoo with an assault rifle or submachinegun doesn't really worry me. Much. (other than the normal worry of every city dweller, which is "just how much of a nutjob IS that sonofabitch?") But it also doesn't do much to keep anyone free. It's not all that hard to kill someone with an automatic weapon, provided there are more of you than them so you can suppress their ass while you work around to drop a grenade or mortar or recoilless round on them.
The people who kept - or gained - their liberties through armed might, whether it was our own revolutionaries, the Swiss, whatever, won them through becoming an armed FORCE. I don't see a bunch of gun show autofire groupies going there.
I don't need an automatic weapon to hunt, and my over-and-under with buck and ball provides enough firepower for any intruder. I don't "get" the need for auto weapons, other than the purely fun shooting of them.
But this legislation is silly. It defines a class of weapons by military appearance, things like bayonet lugs, rather than inappropriate lethality. It will not stem the flow of illegal AKs into Mexico and it won't prevent the homicidal nuts from shooting up high schools. Let's move on to more important issues, Congress, thanks...
Ranger, I wouldn't worry too much at this time about most vets (1) even making the connection with military service when answering the question (I wouldn't); or, (2) being singled out as threats to the state. What to me is a threat to one of our essential liberties is the distaste that so many smart people have for firearms in particular and for those who own them in general. This distaste isn't really surprising when one considers what nutjobs many NRA members are. And a lot of those boys who go to the range or play wargames in their cammies are pretty scary. I steer clear of them.
I've got weapons, both long and short arms. I think I've posted before that I gave up on hunting years ago. And it wasn't for love of Bambi. I'm a meat eater and I know where the meat comes from. It was because I derived no pleasure from going out in the woods on a cold and rainy day before dawn, hoping to get lucky. I'd rather sleep in. So I'm fundamentally lazy and prefer to spend my "leisure time" in other pursuits. I also don't like the act of killing a living creature and I can afford to buy my meat. So, in addition to being lazy, I'm also somewhat of a hypocrite, although that's ameliorated by the fact that I don't condemn responsible hunters at all. You want to bag your own food, go for it.
Hunters aren't the problem. Nor are most guys like me who keep weapons to defend themselves. The unfortunate history of attempts at gun control in this nation tells me that it doesn't work one iota in keeping weapons out of the hands of the predators amongst us. So that's ultimately why I keep weapons: I don't keep them because I want to be ready to join the next revolution; I keep 'em because the state can't protect me and mine against the predators. If gun control worked, I might even consider giving up weapons. But it doesn't and I won't. Self-defense is a fundamental American right.
As an aside, you, MB and Peter referenced the Thompson, regarding which I have some passing familiarity: if it were known that every law-abiding citizen in America had one, I doubt there would be many home invasions. Nobody gets up after being hit by that slug.
Sheer, I think you're being a little simplistic, even cartoonish, in your attempt to categorize so-called non-combat and combat veterans. And I'm not exactly how you came to the conclusion that guys who were not in combat were military lovers before they were in and now hate weapons, and that those who were in combat were also military lovers, but still love weapons. Veterans are just people. Some have certain imperatives, others have different ones. I think you should explain your thesis a little better. Reverence? I don't revere shit, much less a weapon.
Podunk Paul: Are you a new censor on the beat here? I'm not exactly sure where your religion comment comes from (wasn't in this post), but, as Ranger notes, he can post whatever his skinny ass desires. Me, well, I've got a broader ass than Ranger, but my ass, too, is going to say whatever it wants. If you're hung up on religion, you don't even want to be around for some of the things I have to say. You know, like the Pope reinstating the guy who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened. Or the Pope saying that condom usage will exacerbate the HIV problem in Africa. Ah, religion. One of my favorite topics. Our Founders had a lot to say about it, too. You should check 'em out some time.
Well, Publicus, I didn't mean to bring up religion, at least in the conventional sense. But Americans, some of them anyway, invest guns with a mystic power, sort of like the attitude a priest has toward his altar hardware.
I think that FDChief summed up the situation perfectly. Self-defense does not require full auto fire and resistance movements must have organization and recruits willing to die for the cause. Weaponry is one of the last things to worry about.
Now let's talk about something else.
Publius,Chief,Paul,Sheer.,
There is certainly a lot to worry about BUT i wonder why the Obama people are trying to open this polarizing can o worms.It's another distraction just like the Bush Administration used to employ. Guns are a polarizing issue.
Nobody needs an auto weapon and this includes the police and law enforcement functions of our society.If a crummy newly minted sheriffs deputy can have a hi cap 9 then so can I.!!! I have no flex in this belief. It's not a matter of need -it's what the Constitution that I fought for dictates.
Paul, i'm like Publius and i do not worship at the NRA altar nor am i enamored with militia lore. My poisition is-either we are or we aren't -we can't pick and choose what amendments or freeedoms ring our bells.It's a package deal and you're either in or out.
Publius, it's clear that our only diff on this topic is the size of our asses.Mine got skinny by not playing golf and hanging out at the club.
Chief, a hellfire missile from a drone spells the death of self defense IF Sam wants you.We know these things , do we not? Our civilian readers have no idea of the violence that is holed up in a infantry platoon or even the FBI swat type units.
Paul, do we really have better things to talk about? If we agree that the govt has the right to dictate firearms restictions then what's the next increment?.Have you noticed the slow death of the 4th Amendment? But what the fuck -we got better things to think about.
Ranger Hruska
"Sheer, I think you're being a little simplistic, even cartoonish,"
Um...hmm...Publius, I think you missed my caveat...
"And one of the most interesting aspects of my discussions, and observations is this:
Most, not all, in fact I'll limit it to a few since the selection is rather limited due to the self-imposed geographical location I find myself in, of the people I talked too have no interest in humping a weapon anywhere."
You will also note the use of "generalization" since I'm also familiar with statistics, I'm guarded in how I apply a "rule."
As I pointed out, this is what I've come across...and due to the fact the pool is rather shallow, so should be the expectation of application...in short, my limited selection of vets do not represent the whole.
"And I'm not exactly how you came to the conclusion (shortened for space, but dealing with the whole paragraph)..."
I'm surprised that you arrived at this uncertainty...me, of all people...hmm...I thought you would know how I came to that conclusion, Publius.
Interesting.
I asked them.
"Reverence? I don't revere shit, much less a weapon."
And yet, you do. But let me explain.
Yours is a kneejerk response, without thinking about the word reverence.
For you, I can see you have a strong reaction, and yet...I think if you gave some consideration to what the word "reverence" means, you will find that you do, indeed, revere the spirit behind your beliefs.
And by beliefs, I am most certainly not referring to the standard faux Americanza expressions that many of our countrymen pontificate about.
No, nothing like that.
No...hmm...it's far deeper, a respect, a certain amount of awe, and knowledge tempered by experience that what you hold in your hand is more than a tool, more than a weapon, and it is that knowledge that leads to the reverence.
I am reaching for a word, and I come up with maturity...I'm not sure I can articulate any more than that without spending time thinking, but this is what I've seen.
Accept it or not, either way, it is what has attracted me to the people, not the uniform, but the people, and however they have come to that point in life, are at a...dam, forgive me for the use, but I don't know of any othe word to use to qualify this concept...zen-like peace.
Not all have reached that point, some may never...get to that point (I'm thinking of one who is still alive, and one who died...for some reason he never reached that peace...)
Do not short sell reverence, it is a useful description that says more than just respect...let me know if I just muddled this more...my thoughts are somewhere else now.
I thought I had dealt with the memory, but...yeah.
"Nobody needs an auto weapon and this includes the police and law enforcement functions of our society.
Amen, brother.
I have little respect for typical police marksmanship. That bring the case, I'd rather the local copper have fewer rounds to spray and pray in my neighborhood. Giving him or her a six- or eight-shot wheelgun seems to me an encouragement to:
a) think and talk their way into and out of situations rather than rely on their 9mm mouth,
b) AIM the freaking thing when they actually have to, rather than just emptying the damn magazine, and
c) treat the weapon for what it is - a tool - instead of a big metal cock that makes you the biggest man on the street.
One of the hardest jobs I had as an NCO and a drill sergeant - and the one I failed in most often - was the one of hammering into the new meat the idea that their bright shiny new rifle didn't make them invisible, invincible and bulletproof. ISTM that cops and automatic weapons have a similar relationship. Sad, but there it is...
Post a Comment
<< Home