Hi Jay,
So I'm surfing around and bump into your site by accident. A brief look and I think to myself - another motherfucking Obama hating well armed fanatic. But hey, MArooned is a good name, and the MA part is kinda clever...I should read more carefully. And I must say you seem like a smart guy, with some intelligent people commenting on your posts. I especially liked the Justice for All discussion - much more thoughtful than the usual talk radio crap, IMHO.
Anyway I am a history graduate student. I think American historians have missed the importance of the gun culture in the first hundred years, as well as the gradual disarmament of the general populace in the next hundred. So I some questions for you, and anyone else who might care to answer:
When the constitution was ratified the adult male population, (not including slaves and some other categories), constituted a militia. People owned muskets and rifles. Towns and cities typically owned some artillery. I suppose an individual could own an artillery piece if he really wanted to. The point is that an effective military unit could be formed at short notice without any assistance from the state or federal government. Hence the 2A was a tremendous barrier to government tyranny.
Over time this has changed. The right to bear arms is curtailed - we may only purchase certain weapons, certain kinds of ammo and so forth. The most effective weapons are restricted to the military. The functional equivalent to the old musket is the modern assault rifle - supplemented I would say by other automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-air missiles, grenades and grenade launchers, and so forth. The equivalent to the cannon is of course tanks, apc's, jet aircraft, and various kinds of artillery.
So the questions:
1. Is the populace, in comparison to the government, essentially disarmed?
2. Is the 2A effectively gutted by the government monopoly on the most powerful weapons?
3. Should the NRA be lobbying not just for gun rights but for the restoration of local militias armed with the most modern military weapons?
Tim
I dashed off a quick note to Tim with the following responses:
1. Essentially disarmed? No. We still have a wide variety of options readily available, and even more if one has the time, money, and/or connections.
2. Yes and no. To the best of my knowledge, private individuals can't own functioning tanks or fighter jets; however there's a pretty big discussion on the original intent of the founding fathers as to whether the 2A means all arms or just small arms. Personally, I fall into the "whatever you can afford and not screw up with" category, but that's me.
3. Should they? Hell yes. Will they? Hell no. The NRA is nothing if not practical, and lobbying for "ZOMG TEH MACHINE GUNZ!!!!" will bring them naught but pain. Better to work to repeal the dumbest of the dumb gun laws and halt further encroachments than to go out on a limb for FA (full auto) or explosives.
Obviously his questions merit further in-depth responses. I'll elaborate now.
1. Is the populace, in comparison to the government, essentially disarmed?
When you consider what weaponry the Armed Forces has at its disposal, it sure looks that way, doesn't it? Rocket launchers, tanks, bombers, grenades, machine guns; all of these are strictly prohibited to the average American (okay, we can own certain old machine guns; however all others are strictly prohibited). In a straightforward confrontation, Jethro and Grandpa with their lever-action rifles don't stand much of a chance against belt-fed machine guns and A-10 Warthogs.
There's one check to this: The number of active duty personnel is just over 1.4 million. There's some 150 million or so adult Americans. We outnumber them 100 to 1 in a pinch, and there's no guarantee that all 1.4 million soldiers would participate in wholesale slaughter and enslavement of their brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends. Rebels armed with crude AK-47 clones made in home-built forges kept the Russian Army at bay for nearly 10 years, however; millions of Americans with AR-15s and Remington 700s could certainly inflict massive casualties upon even the greatest fighting machine on the planet.
This does, of course, lead to an interesting thought question: What should we be allowed to own? In the time of the Founding Fathers, private citizens - the wealthiest ones, to be certain, but private nonetheless - could own armament equal to or sometimes surpassing that which was owned by the fledgling government. Should private citizens be allowed to purchase and own fully-equipped Harrier jump jets, M1-Abrams tanks, and/or anti-aircraft missiles? Given the purchase price of said items, and the likelihood that they would "fall into the wrong hands" (extremely low, IMHO; anyone with a spare $30 million to drop on a Harrier isn't going to sell it privately to the Crips...), I'm inclined to allow it, but with strict penalties for misuse.
2. Is the 2A effectively gutted by the government monopoly on the most powerful weapons?
That's a slippery one. The Second Amendment states:
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.There are some who argue that as long as the American people are allowed to own single-shot .22 rifles, the Second Amendment is intact (I disagree, most vociferously one can imagine). Others (and I fall squarely into this camp) firmly believe that "shall not be infringed" means what it means; that the average American should be allowed the same tools available to the government. If the private citizen can afford their own armored personnel carrier, power to them. If they want to stockpile machine guns, rocket launchers, or .50 caliber sniper rifles, go to town. Only punish the misuse of these items, not the potential.
That said, even now in the status quo the average American has a fairly staggering assortment of arms from which to choose. All sorts of self-loading rifles; large caliber, long range bolt-action rifles; intermediate battle rifles; fighting shotguns; and a staggering array of pistols are available to (most) Americans with little trouble. For those with money to spend, there's a large number of completely legal fully automatic weaponry out there; for less money even (but some hoops) there's non-standard weaponry.
The important thing is not what we have; it's that we have it.
3. Should the NRA be lobbying not just for gun rights but for the restoration of local militias armed with the most modern military weapons?
That's the million dollar question. At first blush, the answer is intuitively obvious: Hell yes. Any gun law - all gun laws - run counter to the Second Amendment. Every infringement is another chink in the armor; every law that strips the right to keep and bear arms from the lowliest one of us harms us all in our defense of our freedom.
But we do not live in a perfect world nor a vacuum. The NRA has to operate in the here and now, in the very real political climate that surrounds the gun control issue. Push too hard, or to fast, and the forces for evil (disarmament) will swoop in, eager to paint the NRA as extremists hell-bent on arming felons, white supremacists, and gangbangers with Uzis and bazookas. The mainstream media calls the NRA an "extremist" organization; of course, the NRA has some four million members out of approximately 80 million gun owners, meaning that they reach approximately 5% of their target audience. NOW has half a million members out of roughly 150 million women, or 0.3% of their target audience, yet they are never referred to as "extremist"...
For the NRA to insist on repealing the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 (heavy regulation of fully automatic weapons) or even the Hughes Amendment of 1986 (prohibiting the sale of new machine guns to civilians) would be folly; they would be smeared from here to the gates of hell by the myrmidons of the mainstream media. Heck, NRA members would be wise to question the wisdom of going after the FA laws when there are so many other heinous anti-gun laws (Lautenberg Amendment, anyone?). There are thousands of gun laws already on the books, as well as laws that deal with the misuse of any tool, not just a firearm, as a weapon again persons or property. While getting full auto weapons and explosives off the forbidden list is a noble goal and a step towards truly restoring the Second Amendment, it's political suicide.
The NRA is a lot of things, and stupid ain't one of them...
I hope I've answered your question Tim*. I know there's an awful lot more to be said on this topic and many more answers to your questions. I also know there's a good deal of my personal beliefs sprinkled into my answer - take those with a grain of salt, as I live in one of the most gun-unfriendly places in the US... Here's hoping others will join in with their own answers to your question, or at least their own personal take on things as you ask.
Thanks for writing to me - this was an excellent exercise - and for reading MArooned!
That is all.
UPDATE: Tim, not Tom. Curse you, "o", for being right next to "i" on the keyboard!
13 comments:
Interesting questions, and a noticeable lack of hysteria... refreshing.
1. Is the populace, in comparison to the government, essentially disarmed?
No.... and never will be unless subject to totalitarian control beyond my imagination. Even a total and enforced ban on civilian owned weapons will not leave us with a disarmed population. There are too many avenues for citizens to arm themselves in a functioning society. There are also too many ways for a military drawn from a civilian background to be thwarted.
It's a matter of will.... if people have the burning desire to fight for their freedom, they can do so. There will always be weapons available... they just might be unconventional, or stored someplace a little harder to get to.
2. Is the 2A effectively gutted by the government monopoly on the most powerful weapons?
Again, no. This has been proven over and over again for the last 80 years of warfare on earth. Short of scorched earth, it's extremely difficult for high tech military armament to control a population in a functioning society. When a few gallons of gasoline and $10 in small parts can make a horrendous antipersonnel device, Massed troops will never be safe. Spread those troops out amongst the population... and suddenly all those big scary weapons don't have as high a value.
Add to that a simple thought..... should US civilians be frightened of their own military? Should I be worried that my former students, now in service, will be back bearing arms against personal freedom? Should I be concerned that my neighbors boy will show up at my door in uniform, with a cattle truck in the background?
It's unlikely.
3. Should the NRA be lobbying not just for gun rights but for the restoration of local militias armed with the most modern military weapons?
A common mistake amongst those who have not been part of the culture... the NRA does not represent all 100,000,000 gun owners in this nation, nor all citizens. The member driven organization has it's role, but it's limited.
That kind of discussion is held at the individual and small group level... and manifests in voting swings each election cycle.
The real issue there is our election process, and how our society reflects on it. The electorate has changed over the last few generations, and the entitlement state has had it's effect. We have reached a point where there are as many or more voters beholding to government largess as there are actual positive tax payers. That is more a danger to our society than armed conflict amongst ourselves.
1. No. Ask the French in WW2, the Vietnamese, Afghans or the Iraqis. As long as I have a weapon reasonably capable of killing someone, I can use it to obtain the weapons of the soldier in question and BINGO. I now have a couple of frags and a F/A M-16 or whatever they were carrying.
The French and other resistance movements in WW2 were armed with German weapons almost exclusively.
2. It's been infringed all to Hell and gone. But it's not (yet)been gutted. The essential purpose of the 2A was to have citizens armed so as (in no particular order) 1. to hunt, 2. to protect themselves from criminals and 3. to prevent the implementation of tyranny by the central government.
So far, those things are still available except in places where handguns are essentially banned or banned for all but those who can afford hundreds of dollars in fees, licensing and expensive pistols. (If you think $125 for the class, $100 for a license and bare minimum of $300 for a pistol isn't prohibitive for someone making $8 an hour, you are smoking crack).
3. No. It would be incredibly stupid tactics to lobby for something that will freak out so many people (including many gun-owners sadly) and have ZERO chance of going anywhere. We're having to fight like Hell just to be able to keep magazines that hold over 10 rounds on a federal level.
It sounds to me like Tim is unfamiliar with the laws pertaining to civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons and other "class III" items.
In a nutshell, Tim, we can buy those things, but they are expensive, and there's a lot of red tape involved.
Go on YouTube and search "Knob Creek" to see what a regular person can buy if they had the money.
2) Tanks, Rocket launchers, grenades are legal under federal law and are legal under the laws of most states.
However, they don't contribute to crime so they are out of the media spotlight.
3) NRA is an orginazation to support manufacturers, not owners. They will not stick their neck out for machine gun laws.
Honestly, I'm okay with that. Any spotlight on how easy* it is to buy a legal MG will just ruin it.
*easy: having $5k-30k to spend, and 10-12 months to wait for the paperwork to be approved
I posted something related over on my blog Friday:
http://menrnotspuds.blogspot.com/
2009/06/to-keep-and-bear-arms.html
Thinking in real-world terms, the reality of Iran today shows what happens when a populace is effectively disarmed. As I put it to a friend yesterday, if the Iranian had guns they'd be mopping the floors with the crappy-assed government "militia", and that would force the Army to decide whether it's going to murder its own people. If Yes, well, I guess they were fucked from the start. If No, then it's "hello lamp post" for Khamenei and his salon of goons.
I view things similarly here. I'm not stopping a Bradley with my lever action Winchester, but I'm going to force them to make a decision should it ever come to that.
Not the ideal situation as far as the Founders were concerned I'm sure, but far better than it could be.
In reference to #3, I'd like to point out that the local militias still exist, at least on paper. In addition to the National Guard units, every State has the authority to set up State Guard units. Such units were traditionally organized at the County level, and were composed of a few officers commissioned by the Governor (the "Kentucky Colonels") plus anyone with a rifle who wanted to participate. Only a handful of States still do so, but the option is there.
"I hope I've answered your question Tom"
I think that should read "Tim" instead of "Tom." Only nitpicking :D
As an aside, private ownership of tanks and fighters is legal, as long as the arms are disabled.... the time to repair is left as an exercise for the student...
The student who sent you the e-mail is (with only a few exceptions) a member of the US unorganized militia. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html) The law gives the government a pool of people to draw upon in the case of a national emergency. In the past, those people attended drills. Today, they'd be drafted.
Some of America's best soldiers have come from the "militia;" Audie Murphy, Sergeant York, and others. They were effective partly because they already knew how to shoot.
By the way, US citizens can own tanks, fighter planes, etc. Some people collect them. You can own arms for the planes, etc., but National Firearm Act weapons must be licensed. The person who owns Dillon Precision Reloading owns his own planes equipped with machine guns.
Now to your e-mailer's points:
1) Are the people disarmed relative to the gov: No, it always gets down to boots on the ground. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto started with a handful of guns. With those few guns, they tied down an SS division and killed many Nazis. They eventually lost, but they died better in the Ghetto than in a camp.
2) Is the 2A gutted: No, the government would be reluctant to use jets, bombs, tanks, rockets etc. on small bands of people if those people could stay hidden and had the support of the general population. The government would be reluctant to bomb a city block to eliminate a cell of three people for instance. There are many examples of asymmetrical warfare (Iraq, Vietnam Afghanistan--especially for the Russians) to use as examples.
3. Should the NRA lobby for militia restoration: No need to partly due to the law cited above. The Federal government once supplied target rifles and ammunition to schools, Boy Scouts, and others to encourage marksmanship. I think the government should continue to encourage gun training. Dream on.
By the way, unlike your e-mailer, I am not a history grad student, but I have an M.A. in history among other degrees.
Sorry, John, but the National Guard is not a militia, and the State Guard (at least the one here in TN) is not allowed to carry firearms, so they aren't a militia, either.
I think Tim, especially being a history student, might appreciate Clayton Cramer's book "Armed America".
1) Dillon can have his guns in the planes... as long as he stays on his own land to use them. There must be a hole in the law that allows him to do that.
2) The NRA and the NFA link is interesting. Now remember, this was the NRA of old, so don't read anything that isn't there. Back when the NFA was being bantered about, you had the head of the NRA stating that they didn't have a problem with what the .gov was gonna do about the machine gun problem that the NFA was going to fix. I doubt that the NRA's position would change much with that today unless you load the E-board with people like the Nuge man and Dillon. Repealing those that law and the GCA of '68 would put the NRA with not a lot to do. Think about it - they derive some of their power by making the ATF look mean. What if the ATF wasn't there anymore?
Joe R.
Dillon has an 07/02 FFL+SOT, and thus can build whatever MGs he likes, including the miniguns on his helo. Dillon was doing legal MG conversions way before the reloading business.
Back in 86, when hughes (922o) was enacted, the NRA let it slide saying that it was so unconstitutional that it wouldn't last more than a few months without a challenge. 9th Circuit has ruled against 922o. The law is only one sentence but is written poorly - it can be interpreted as saying the govt will not take taxpayer money to register MGs. Well, MGs are regulated only by tax code - so if ATF cant take the tax money, then they shouldn't have a stake in what you build.
Bardwell has a ton of info on his site if anyone is interested in NFA case law, or is suffering from insomnia. It's dry reading, but man the angles and inconsistencies that those guys take are really something else.
Post a Comment