The day I took a gun to school

[terryg]

Article in the Washington Post. Interesting read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RPBrown]

The good old days.

I remember in the 60's having a rifle or shotgun on the gun rack in my truck that was parked in the school parking lot. We would head out after school for some rabbit hunting. But then again, this was Fort Worth and that was the norm. We refinnished stocks and even custom made a stock or 2 in wood shop.

Now if you even thought of bringing in just the stock, you would create a mass panic.

Thanks liberals. Its for the children you know.

[SQLGeek]

In the not so distant past, in the early 90's, I remember bringing a blue toy MP5 to gradeschool as a part of my Halloween costume. Nobody said a thing other than I had a neat costume. Now a days I'd probably be put on a terror watchlist for such an act. Oh and did I mention this was in the San Francisco Bay Area?

[jmra]

Nice story but I don't think the guy gets the concept of the 2A at all.

[J.R.@A&M]

When I was in college I saw a guy give one of his class presentations (Speech Communication class) on cleaning a shotgun, which he demonstrated right there in class with a beautiful over/under. I don't think anybody gave it a second thought. That was the summer of 1983 in College Station.

[SQLGeek]

Nice story but I don't think the guy gets the concept of the 2A at all.

I finally read the article since I was finally in the mood to see what somebody from the WaPo had to say about guns. You're right. Evidently only the hunters would get any say in his "solution".

I really would like to know what other rights these types of people would be willing to put to a vote. I bet that'd be an ugly read.

And why, oh why do I keep reading the comments on these types of things?

[The Annoyed Man]

I’d put those six folks in a room, give them plenty of beer and pizza, and encourage reasonable discourse. No politicians, no lobbyists, no newspeople, no shrill talk. They wouldn’t be allowed to leave until they came to agreement, like a jury.

I don’t know about you, but I’m willing to live with whatever they decide.

There are giant gaps in his reasoning—canyons, really—among which is the glaring one that a guy who doesn't own guns, doesn't particularly like them, doesn't hunt, but will vicariously shoot someone else's shotgun once in a great while (thereby qualifying himself as a "good shot"), is completely content to let part of the Constitution be revisited and decided by 6 people who are neither scholars on the Constitution and who may not be passionately in favor of preserving it. I was in a camera store just yesterday morning and I met a woman, probably around my own age, who is here in town from Connecticut for a family wedding. Turns out her husband is an NRA pistol and rifle instructor and a hunting safety instructor. He has a large collection of guns, including AR15s, and he is an avid hunter. She is a hunter too, and they are both very much pro-2nd Amendment. He is mad as hades at the fascists in his state, and she likes it here in Texas. She said she keeps asking him if he wants to move out here, but he has strong emotional ties to the land there, and he doesn't want to leave. Their rights have just been crushed because people like the author of this article allowed that to happen.

Apparently, he doesn't think much of the actual Constitutional process. And he believes that 6 people, including 3 from any vehemently anti gun town, would be enough to hammer out the answer, when many more Founding Fathers than that—men of education and enlightenment who had just been through the nation's defining war of independence—was what it took to actually craft the amendment. And, he tries to make the argument that guns are about hunting. He says he appreciates the "suppleness" of a good shotgun (sounds like he thinks its a sexual object), but I and millions of other Americans appreciate the stark efficiency of an AR15, which raises next gap (more like a giant disconnect) in his thinking.....

He says he thinks that guns are tools, but he is willing to let 6 people, 3 of whom are literally unqualified and 3 of whom might be qualified, decide what constitutes a tool, and what isn't a tool. And, if a tool is too efficient, he is willing to let those same questionably qualified people decide whether we should be allowed to own it. He wants 3 antigun people, and 3 other people who, statistically speaking, probably don't own an AR and have never fired or handled one, to decide the fate of millions of Americans who legally bought theirs? I don't think we'd get a just answer. The only just answer is "you get to keep yours and do whatever you want with it, and we agree to stop trying to prevent other law-abiding citizens from buying one from anybody who has one for sale, if that's what they want." He puts three "hardline against" in a room with three "moderate never really thought bout it much," and he proposes that those who "moderately thinks favorably" or is "hardline for" will get a square deal.

I find his attempt at thoughtfullness actually thoughtless in the extreme. I wonder if he would be so careless about his 1st Amendment. Would he put three militant atheists (the equivalent of the passionate but poorly informed antigunner) in a room with three tepid Anglicans (the religious equivalent of someone who uses the Bible the way a country-club republican uses a $40,000 shotgun, prominently displayed over the mantle, but almost never fired) to decide the limits of 1st Amendment protections for a Baptist evangelist. That's just dumb.

Here's what I personally hope would happen. The three roughnecks from the farm would administer the three gun-grabbers a severe beatdown and pin notes to their chests saying, "you keep coming after my guns, and the next time I won't be nearly so gentle. Now go have a qualified dentist look at that tooth."

I am completely unwilling to let 6 people chosen from a list of people which meets the approval of someone who is has no skin in the game's outcome, decide once and for all if I will be allowed to express a right originating from God—or for those so inclined, a right which is naturally mine simply because I live and breathe—a right which exists REGARDLESS of what Leviathan thinks about its expression. THAT is exactly the kind of statist thinking that has created the cesspool we live in today.....in which there is no longer any moral clarity over issues of fundamental human rights because someone is always either offended by the clarity, or is not willing to accept the personal responsibilities that come with such clarity.

The author proposes the absolutely classic example of three wolves (antigunners) debating with three sheep (indifferent to moderately pro-gunners) about what's for lunch.....and the choices are lamb or sheepdog. I'm not having any of that nonsense.


....other than that I have no opinion in the matter.

[SQLGeek]

Would he put three militant atheists (the equivalent of the passionate but poorly informed antigunner) in a room with three tepid Anglicans ...to decide the limits of 1st Amendment protections for a Baptist evangelist. That's just dumb.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think he, or at least people that think like him, more than likely would be OK with that.

[The Annoyed Man]

Would he put three militant atheists (the equivalent of the passionate but poorly informed antigunner) in a room with three tepid Anglicans ...to decide the limits of 1st Amendment protections for a Baptist evangelist. That's just dumb.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think he, or at least people that think like him, more than likely would be OK with that.

He would be, but the Baptist evangelist would certainly NOT be OK with it. The Baptist might be inclined to obey Luke 22:36 and go about evangelizing anyway.

I'm a Baptist, BTW, and the AR15 is the modern day sword. I have one, specifically to preserve my freedoms of speech, religion, and free association. It is a better tool for that purpose than an over and under shotgun.

[jmra]

Would he put three militant atheists (the equivalent of the passionate but poorly informed antigunner) in a room with three tepid Anglicans ...to decide the limits of 1st Amendment protections for a Baptist evangelist. That's just dumb.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think he, or at least people that think like him, more than likely would be OK with that.

He would be, but the Baptist evangelist would certainly NOT be OK with it. The Baptist might be inclined to obey Luke 22:36 and go about evangelizing anyway.

I'm a Baptist, BTW, and the AR15 is the modern day sword. I have one, specifically to preserve my freedoms of speech, religion, and free association. It is a better tool for that purpose than an over and under shotgun.

This A/G guy agrees.

[SQLGeek]

He would be, but the Baptist evangelist would certainly NOT be OK with it.

Of course not. My point is that there are a lot of people whom really don't care for the Bill of Rights or whom believe it only applies to certain chosen people. The 2nd Amendment isn't the only one but it's the perhaps the least "popular" right now in the mainstream so it's the easiest to attack, mischaracterize and claim that it is no longer needed any more. It also just happens to be the lynchpin for the rest of the BOR. If the 2A is "repealed", which others will be behind it? The 10th? The 4th? The 1st is probably the most cherished by the elites right now but that one would eventually be deemed as unecessary anymore, too. I know you know all of this, TAM. I am simply agreeing with you while expounding upon my own thoughts on this.

There are too many willing to throw it all away for something else. I see it in many of my peers, from highly placed judges, those in the media and those in government.

[RoyGBiv]

....other than that I have no opinion in the matter.

The way I read it was.... "I'd rather have 6 ordinary folk make the decision than 536 idiots from the executive branch"
I didn't take the rest too literally.

maybe 'cause it's Friday... or maybe I'm going soft.

[jimlongley]

That reminds me of when I took a bolt action rifle to school because I was going to give a speech about it in speech class. But that was around 1970.

Did the same in 1965, for a presentation in Public Speaking class. Although it was common to see students leave the school at lunch time (in season) and rabbit/bird hunt on the adjacent farms, I still had to obtain permission to bring a gun into the building. I submitted my proposed subject, "Guns and Gun Safety", and was told I would have to be met at the door by the principal and he would carry the gun to class and stay through the presentation and then the gun would have to be removed from the building immediately. I always thought that was funny because many of the cars in the parking lot had guns in them, and those of us who walked or bussed to school usually kept our guns in someone else's car.

Anyway, on the appointed day, I drove to school and left it in the car until class time and then I got it and stood outside the door with my '03-A3 Springfield in hand and waited for the principal to come get me. When he did he opened the bolt and checked the chamber and finding no rounds in the chamber he closed the bolt, then he walked me to the classroom holding the rifle at high port, just like he had been taught in the military. Everyone who saw us just assumed that I had done something else wrong.

When I started my presentation I began with the usual, "Always make sure the gun is unloaded", and switched off the magazine cutoff, and proceeded to rack the bolt and eject five (dummy!) rounds onto the floor. The principal almost had apoplexy and I was in trouble again. I did get to finish my presentation though.

[RoyGBiv]

When I started my presentation I began with the usual, "Always make sure the gun is unloaded", and switched off the magazine cutoff, and proceeded to rack the bolt and eject five (dummy!) rounds onto the floor. The principal almost had apoplexy and I was in trouble again. I did get to finish my presentation though.

Smart***