Murdoc at the NRA convention

I’m for banning handguns and requiring every household (except conscientious objectors) to have a rifle. That said, it looks like our friend Murdoc is having a good time at the NRA convention.

Murdoc has met with Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, who says things are looking up for gun rights.

Says Murdoc:

Another reason for the perceived cheer and confidence that Glenn saw probably had to do with the fact that this is a large gathering of like-minded folks, many of whom are bloggers with strong opinions. So it's not really a sample of Republican or Conservative voters, even, let alone any kind of cross section of America.

I mean, when the idiots in SanFransiscostan get together with their BusHitler T-shirts and march in protest of the war and the village destroyers, my guess is that there’s a mood of cheer and confidence there, too.

I would expect this event to be filled with a certain amount of cheer and confidence. And, truth be told, times are indeed pretty good for gun owners. But, as Reynolds notes, this could actually work against McCain and the Republicans.

Again, I’m no fan of handguns in the hands of all Americans. Even law-abiding citizens are too likely to go nuts if all had guns in their cars and SUVs.

So why can’t the National RIFLE Association stick to rifles?

Frank Warner

Comments

[jj mollo]

Shotgun.

[Christopher Taylor]

So why can’t the National RIFLE Association stick to rifles?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't.

[Frank Warner]

It's true the 2nd Amendment doesn't stick to rifles. The 2nd Amendment would allow you to keep a warship in port, if you could afford it.

But no one takes the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, so most of us just argue what we would like to do about weapons in the hands of regular citizens.

[Christopher Taylor]

The 2nd Amendment would allow you to keep a warship in port, if you could afford it.

Not exactly, that's not part of what it takes to protect your home or have a population familiar with weapons so that they can defend their country. The easy way to understand what the constitution means is to read what the writers of it said it meant. The Federalist papers are full of this information.

I understand not personally liking guns, but I do not understand wanting to pass laws ignoring the constitution to force your personal whims on the rest of the country.

[Frank Warner]

Christopher, the writers of the Constitution made it clear the right to bear arms was not simply to protect private homes or to make civilians "familiar" with the weapons of an army.

The right to bear arms was to let private citizens amass all the arms necessary for an full-standing army and navy. Essentially, the writers of the Constitution didn't want government to have the continuing expense of a full military establishment. They hoped regular citizens would take care of it.

That means that, under the 2nd Amendment, I am allowed to keep cannons, warships and, by extension into the modern age, nuclear weapons.

But that view seems so crazy these days that everyone refuses to take it seriously.

"Anti-gun" people try to say the 2nd Amendment is only for small militias or the National Guard. Not true. "Pro-gun" people try to say the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to all sorts of light firearms. Still not true.

The 2nd Amendment has no limit at all on the right to bear arms. Most Americans believe there should be some limit. The debate is where to draw the line.

[jj mollo]

Major American cities need the practical ability to control dangerous firearms. Police forces are getting desperate. Cities have tried to induce compromise after compromise after compromise, til the point where they are just begging for crumbs.

The problem is, how do you enforce the gun laws that exist? In the present environment it is impossible. What happens is that Joe Bloke, who is usually the same guy who sells beer to the kids, nevertheless has a clean record. He goes to a gun dealer out of town and buys ten guns, as much as he can afford. He comes home and sells them retail to the same kids who buy beer from him. Maybe he sells them to an ex-con as well, simply because the guy threatens to report him if he doesn't sell. Note that they usually test the guns in the back yard, so the cops often know what's going on anyway. Later, one of the kids shoots somebody and the cops trace the gun back to Joe. They know what he's been doing, but can't do anything about it. What does he tell them? He says, gosh, somebody stole my guns.

The police have no leverage, no traction. They're not allowed to stop people who they think are carrying concealed. They can't punish people who provide the guns to kids, felons and whackos. All the wrong people are getting guns without much trouble. It's insane.

It's worth something to go after major gun dealers who are breaking the law, but for the most part, these guys are following the rules. We need laws to manage the illegitimate middleman. These laws do not violate the spirit or the letter of the 2nd Amendment. One handgun a month, then the middleman can't even pay for his gas. A responsibility to report stolen weapons, then the middleman can't use his get-out-of-jail free card.

These middlemen are not major crooks. They are merely stupid and low on social values. If a few of them go to jail for abetting a murder, then the rest of them will take heed. This really is a case where deterrence could make a big difference. But the NRA is foaming at the mouth over slippery-slope arguments. What a pack of doofuses.

[Kevin]

Frank, I love you like a brother, but quit being such a hippie! Handguns are good!

Do you like wasps? Me neither. And just last week my grandfather shot one. In mid-air! With a pistol, I might add. So think twice before you become too anti-hand gun. Unless you like getting stung by wasps, I mean.

In fairness, I should mention that it's going to cost me about $40 to repair the hole in the front porch, and that he was very likely drunk at the time, but still. Handguns rock!

[jj mollo]

Never go after insects with a handgun. If you wing them, it just makes them mad. I recommend birdshot, or even salt. Less collateral damage. For Africanized swarms, use cluster munitions, but don't forget to neutralize the duds.

[Christopher Taylor]

Christopher, the writers of the Constitution made it clear the right to bear arms was not simply to protect private homes or to make civilians "familiar" with the weapons of an army.

The right to bear arms was to let private citizens amass all the arms necessary for an full-standing army and navy.

You left off one key part: it is to make the government nervous about the people so that they are less likely to attempt anything tyrannical.

However, the point still stands: read the founding fathers on the amendment (the anti-federalists are particularly useful here, I should have mentioned them as they were the driving force behind the bill of rights), and you will have fewer questions.

Every right is restricted by the amount of damage it will do to society: you cannot slander someone freely, no matter how much free speech you have. Yet your version of limitation (no handguns) would leave individuals helpless against criminals and actually endanger society more. Armed citizens can protect themselves, unarmed citizens cannot. And that means handguns, not hunting rifles.

Again, this is one of those areas where your being on the left is controlling your decision making processes more than reason and study.

[CJW]

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

V for Vendetta - People Should Not Be Afraid of Their Governments

Lock and load.