armed citizenry
2009-Aug-17, Monday 11:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerI dislike thinking about weapons, but they've been in the news and blogs lately, so think about them I have done. I don't intend this post to be persuasive, converting someone to my opinion. I do intend it to be informative, explaining my opinion so that a reader can understand my reasoning and could explain it to someone else if the occasion warranted. This post should probably be Friends-locked, but it's too important an issue to hide. It deserves more discussion, so I leave it open for search engines to find and catalog so maybe strangers can find their way here too.
I support the interpretation which claims that citizens have the right to carry weapons in case there comes a time when corruption has destroyed the legal processes of representative government to the point that they are no longer reliable, a time when the people need to rebel against their own government in order to reassert control.
In fact, I go farther. I insist that the citizenry should have access to every single Arm which is issued to any of its military personnel. Yes, I do mean assault rifles, grenades, portable missile launchers, and microwave beams. If the citizens are expected (as a last resort) to fight the military of their own making, then they need to be equipped with the same weaponry as their soldiers. Musket rifles and pistols will not suffice.
BUT...
I also insist on responsible stewardship of such weapons. I disagree that recent examples of people carrying weapons to political events (where no one was shot) are an example of responsible gun ownership. Here, I try to explain why I disagree.
Suppose one of these weapons that I suggest people should own is a flamethrower. Bringing the flamethrower into an area with dry tinder would be irresponsible stewardship, no matter how thoughtful and peaceful the person doing it. You do not take tools into an area where they have a higher than average chance of causing harm. Maybe good weapon training should begin in shop class in high school? (As the Mythbusters are sure to remind viewers: Don't try this yourself; we are taking responsible precautions with the tools we wield.) Don't take risks with other people's safety. Use your tools everywhere that is safe, and do not use them in places that are risky. Which begs the question, what places are risky for carrying weapons?
1) My simple definition tries to identify any location where we expect emotions to run high. My list includes: political rallies, sports events, medical settings (including abortion clinics), and religious events. Unless you are invited by the organizer, all of these locations are capable of organizing for professional weaponry by way of hired police officers or other guards. Some events even have national officials such as FBI or Secret Service. When professional guardians are present, it is irresponsible to bring additional private weaponry. Instead of helping, the extra weaponry just adds to the complexity of the situation that the professionals must monitor. It complicates rather than simplifies the cause of ensuring public safety.
2) The example that such bravado (and I mean that term with its negative implications) provides will at some point lead to copycats who are unable to duplicate the peaceful outcome. Well intentioned people may be trying to teach us all where to draw some philosophical line, but another person will see their example and continue it a tad farther than the original perpetrator intended. One-upmanship will happen. I'm certain. I explain my pessimism now...
These are the people that I grew up with. These examples are them at their worst, not their best. But here is the America that's watching pictures on television of people wearing weapons to events in which the U.S. President is attending...
[A] is a typical "born again" christian. He lost emotional control, though, when a young puppy piddled on the carpet in the living room. He threw the animal out the back door with notable force and subsequent yelping. [B], his son, was the only person besides me who went to the back yard to check on the animal, making sure enough time had passed to not gather notice from the many adults present. Years later, [B] attacked a man who made a pass at his girlfriend. That's all, just a pass. The man had his eyeballs knocked out of their sockets and he was in a coma, yet [B] simply dumped him alone at the bottom of some stairs and walked away. After months in a hospital, the man eventually woke up with brain damage. [B], appropriately enough, spent years in prison. [C] joined military comrades to go down to the docks "to find faggots to beat up". (Hunting people is group sport, ya know.) I don't know that anybody died, but I also don't know that everyone lived. [D] spent his life as professional guardian, wearing a gun in his daily duty. [D] now is participating in groups that seem under the impression that the Obama administration will take away their personal guns, take away semi-automatic weapons, or tax weapons.
This is the America that I grew up in. These are the fellow citizens that I utterly distrust to monitor their own emotional states and maintain self-control in tense situations. These are the people that I cannot defend as having a legal right to bring weapons into situations with high emotional content. Politics, sports, religion, medicine. These areas should not have guns. Especially when paid professionals are already there to offer reasonable protection from harm.
Weapons are protected in our constitution (so I believe) as a means for citizens to defend against armed government occupation. I believe that individually-wielded weapons of all varieties should be permitted to citizens to own and train. I do not believe that carrying dangerous tools into volatile areas is a protected activity. There are places that weapons should be, for personal security and national integrity, but there also are places that they should not be... for public safety.
If you bring out the weaponry "too soon", it'll encourage others to do likewise. See [A]-[D] above for reasons why I expect the worst to happen as a result. Some of them were professionally trained on weapons. I still completely distrust them to peacefully carry weapons in tense situations. Bringing guns to a presidential event is irresponsible gun ownership.
For what it's worth, the most powerful weapon that I have owned was a bb gun as a teenager. I was a decent shot with it too. I would easily shoot locusts (cicadas, 1.5 inch body length) from the tops of elm trees (2+ stories up) for the cats to eat when the locusts fell to the ground. I'm not philosophically opposed to having and using guns, but I do not even trust myself (given family history) to be a peaceful owner of weaponry. I suspect I know more about emotional self-control than a lot of people, so hopefully my distrust will carry some philosophical weight.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
I support the interpretation which claims that citizens have the right to carry weapons in case there comes a time when corruption has destroyed the legal processes of representative government to the point that they are no longer reliable, a time when the people need to rebel against their own government in order to reassert control.
In fact, I go farther. I insist that the citizenry should have access to every single Arm which is issued to any of its military personnel. Yes, I do mean assault rifles, grenades, portable missile launchers, and microwave beams. If the citizens are expected (as a last resort) to fight the military of their own making, then they need to be equipped with the same weaponry as their soldiers. Musket rifles and pistols will not suffice.
BUT...
I also insist on responsible stewardship of such weapons. I disagree that recent examples of people carrying weapons to political events (where no one was shot) are an example of responsible gun ownership. Here, I try to explain why I disagree.
Suppose one of these weapons that I suggest people should own is a flamethrower. Bringing the flamethrower into an area with dry tinder would be irresponsible stewardship, no matter how thoughtful and peaceful the person doing it. You do not take tools into an area where they have a higher than average chance of causing harm. Maybe good weapon training should begin in shop class in high school? (As the Mythbusters are sure to remind viewers: Don't try this yourself; we are taking responsible precautions with the tools we wield.) Don't take risks with other people's safety. Use your tools everywhere that is safe, and do not use them in places that are risky. Which begs the question, what places are risky for carrying weapons?
1) My simple definition tries to identify any location where we expect emotions to run high. My list includes: political rallies, sports events, medical settings (including abortion clinics), and religious events. Unless you are invited by the organizer, all of these locations are capable of organizing for professional weaponry by way of hired police officers or other guards. Some events even have national officials such as FBI or Secret Service. When professional guardians are present, it is irresponsible to bring additional private weaponry. Instead of helping, the extra weaponry just adds to the complexity of the situation that the professionals must monitor. It complicates rather than simplifies the cause of ensuring public safety.
2) The example that such bravado (and I mean that term with its negative implications) provides will at some point lead to copycats who are unable to duplicate the peaceful outcome. Well intentioned people may be trying to teach us all where to draw some philosophical line, but another person will see their example and continue it a tad farther than the original perpetrator intended. One-upmanship will happen. I'm certain. I explain my pessimism now...
These are the people that I grew up with. These examples are them at their worst, not their best. But here is the America that's watching pictures on television of people wearing weapons to events in which the U.S. President is attending...
[A] is a typical "born again" christian. He lost emotional control, though, when a young puppy piddled on the carpet in the living room. He threw the animal out the back door with notable force and subsequent yelping. [B], his son, was the only person besides me who went to the back yard to check on the animal, making sure enough time had passed to not gather notice from the many adults present. Years later, [B] attacked a man who made a pass at his girlfriend. That's all, just a pass. The man had his eyeballs knocked out of their sockets and he was in a coma, yet [B] simply dumped him alone at the bottom of some stairs and walked away. After months in a hospital, the man eventually woke up with brain damage. [B], appropriately enough, spent years in prison. [C] joined military comrades to go down to the docks "to find faggots to beat up". (Hunting people is group sport, ya know.) I don't know that anybody died, but I also don't know that everyone lived. [D] spent his life as professional guardian, wearing a gun in his daily duty. [D] now is participating in groups that seem under the impression that the Obama administration will take away their personal guns, take away semi-automatic weapons, or tax weapons.
This is the America that I grew up in. These are the fellow citizens that I utterly distrust to monitor their own emotional states and maintain self-control in tense situations. These are the people that I cannot defend as having a legal right to bring weapons into situations with high emotional content. Politics, sports, religion, medicine. These areas should not have guns. Especially when paid professionals are already there to offer reasonable protection from harm.
Weapons are protected in our constitution (so I believe) as a means for citizens to defend against armed government occupation. I believe that individually-wielded weapons of all varieties should be permitted to citizens to own and train. I do not believe that carrying dangerous tools into volatile areas is a protected activity. There are places that weapons should be, for personal security and national integrity, but there also are places that they should not be... for public safety.
If you bring out the weaponry "too soon", it'll encourage others to do likewise. See [A]-[D] above for reasons why I expect the worst to happen as a result. Some of them were professionally trained on weapons. I still completely distrust them to peacefully carry weapons in tense situations. Bringing guns to a presidential event is irresponsible gun ownership.
For what it's worth, the most powerful weapon that I have owned was a bb gun as a teenager. I was a decent shot with it too. I would easily shoot locusts (cicadas, 1.5 inch body length) from the tops of elm trees (2+ stories up) for the cats to eat when the locusts fell to the ground. I'm not philosophically opposed to having and using guns, but I do not even trust myself (given family history) to be a peaceful owner of weaponry. I suspect I know more about emotional self-control than a lot of people, so hopefully my distrust will carry some philosophical weight.
no subject
Date: 2009-Aug-18, Tuesday 10:44 pm (UTC)Although, as part of weapon's training, I would include training in the art of using the body (and the mind) as a weapon, as well as self-defense against all sorts of weapons.
The best defense is to avoid conflict (there are many ways to do this, the number one way is to show respect towards others, even if you disagree), if conflict cannot be avoided, then reason is the next line of defense, if reason does not work, then disarming and subduing is the next option. If this becomes impossible, then the use of force is reasonable.
It saddens me when people equate the use of force in self-defense with violence. The words "violence" and "violate" have the same prefix for a reason—someone who commits violence is violating the rights of another.
If we don't have the right to self-defense, then none of our rights mean anything.
no subject
Date: 2009-Aug-19, Wednesday 03:25 am (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raXKeQ5qFwo