Sam Adams
Member
James, welcome to THR. Thanks for being open-minded enough to ask questions honestly, rather than to simply accuse or villify gun owners. I, and everyone else here, wish that all other anti-gunners would have the same attitude. I will try to address your questions briefly, without too much technical mumbo-jumbo. I hope that you find my opinions to be reasonably presented - we're not all a bunch of rude, ignorant rednecks or ex-military Rambos.
Guns have 3 primary constructive uses:
1) Personal protection against criminals;
2) Hunting, target shooting and various other sporting uses; and
3) Protection of personal freedoms against domestic or foreign tyrants.
The first of these is important, though not critical to the safety of the nation. Many arguments pro and con can be made about carrying around personal protection that is stronger than your anti-perspirant, but I won't get into them (others have, but this is a secondary issue to me). Suffice it to say that I believe that it is my personal responsibility to look after the safety of myself and my family, and that the police cannot possibly be everywhere (nor would I WANT them everywhere).
The second of these is fun/entertainment based (except for hunting where no other source of food is available), and are, therefore, not strictly necessary.
Constitutionally speaking, those activities are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. I, like most others here, love to target shoot, and I also happen to have a carry permit for personal protection. All of this is, however, very secondary to what I view as the primary purpose of firearms, to wit: the protection of my personal liberty and that of my family against the power of a domestic or foreign government.
You have indicated that you think a dictatorship or foreign invasion is unlikely. I hope that you are correct, and believe that you are - precisely because 80-90 million Americans own somewhere north of 1/4 of a BILLION firearms. All of that firepower is a HUGE deterrant to any would-be dictator or invader. Read The Federalist #46 by James Madison - it was specifically intended that the American People would be able to defeat any army that the proposed "powerful central government" could conceiveably raise, so as to prevent the imposition of a domestic dictatorship. So far, at least, it has worked. Take a look at another view from a somewhat more recent famous person:
Powerful stuff - Lincoln says that no foreign armies can conquer us - obviously because even in his day there were sufficient arms to defeat any such armies - but that we can allow ourselves to be enslaved. The agenda of those who admire the concept of the nanny state is, IMHO, just such a devise - even if not intended as such by most advocates. I, personally, worry a great deal about the powers being granted to the Executive and to various unaccountable bureaucrats by such laws as the Patriot Act. Given the wrong set of circumstances, a potential dictator could see such laws as the means of putting themselves in power permanently. The presence of literally millions of people skilled enough to deliver lead projectiles at high velocities to a man-sized target from 500 yards away, and with the equipment to do so, is a HUGE deterrent to such an action. Who knows, perhaps it has already saved us from a dictator, and we just don't know it - I recall some liberals unexpectedly expressing gratitude at the existence of a large body of armed civilians in 1974 (since they worried about what Nixon would do to maintain power), and many on this and other conservatively leaning boards wondered what would have happened if Clinton just decided that he wasn't going to leave the White House on 1/20/01.
As to foreign invasion, as recently as WW2 we faced at least a serious possibility of one from Japan. Admiral Yamamoto, who planned Pearl Harbor and the Japanese onslaught of 12/41-6/42 against much of Asia, eliminated this as a possibility. You see, he had been a military attache here in the 1920's, IIRC, and knew this nation better than almost everyone else at the higher levels of the Japanese government. He said words to the effect of "To invade America would be insane - there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." An exaggerated perception, to be sure, but one which saved untold misery and, perhaps, our very freedom.
Regarding 9/11 - if the terrorists knew that passengers could be armed on board (as was the case, IIRC, before the early 1970's), then they never would have hijacked those planes. If they knew that the pilots were armed, they never would have hijacked those planes. Had Todd Beamer and the other passengers been armed, they'd have shot the hijackers and the plane would've landed safely. As for small holes in the aircraft body causing explosive decompression - it looks good in the movies, but it isn't the truth. All civilian jets are built to military specs by law (they're part of the reserve air fleet in case of war), and both fighters and bombers have routinely returned safely from missions with dozens or hundreds of holes, each of which is larger than what a mere handgun might put into a plane's skin. 9/11 proves the opposite of what you have concluded - guns SHOULD be on planes.
As for me - I'm Jewish. I've been told that my grandparents counted the number of relatives that they knew to have been alive before 1939 who they never heard from again, and came up with over 100 cousins, aunts and uncles. My wife's uncle has a tattoo on his arm from Birkenau (the work camp adjacent to Auschwitz), and was a "guest" at 3 other concentration camps. He witnessed the murder of his father and brother, and every other member of his family was murdered except him - he was shot along side his father and brother, but survived because it (obviously) wasn't a fatal wound and he was buried by the dead bodies of those around him - he waited until dark to escape. All of this, and lots more, was perpetrated by the "most civilized" European nation. Let me tell you a not-so-secret secret: Mankind is not a terribly civilized animal when the chips are down. Also, human nature doesn't change when you cross an ocean - some in the US are as capable of such activities as those people in Europe 60 years ago. If you don't believe that, see a documentary entitled The Tenth Level, which is about a psychological study done in the 1960's. I won't go into the details, but a substantial portion of the test subjects inflicted what they thought was "intolerable pain" on others (see it - it is quite disturbing). The long and the short of it is: I am a law-abiding citizen, not dangerous to anyone unless they present a threat to me. As such, any government that wants my guns is up to no good. Therefore, as a human being, as an American and as a Jew, I will not be disarmed until my firearm is warmer than my body.
You might also want to check out my taglines for some short snapshots of my philosophy.
I hope that this has helped answer your questions.
Guns have 3 primary constructive uses:
1) Personal protection against criminals;
2) Hunting, target shooting and various other sporting uses; and
3) Protection of personal freedoms against domestic or foreign tyrants.
The first of these is important, though not critical to the safety of the nation. Many arguments pro and con can be made about carrying around personal protection that is stronger than your anti-perspirant, but I won't get into them (others have, but this is a secondary issue to me). Suffice it to say that I believe that it is my personal responsibility to look after the safety of myself and my family, and that the police cannot possibly be everywhere (nor would I WANT them everywhere).
The second of these is fun/entertainment based (except for hunting where no other source of food is available), and are, therefore, not strictly necessary.
Constitutionally speaking, those activities are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. I, like most others here, love to target shoot, and I also happen to have a carry permit for personal protection. All of this is, however, very secondary to what I view as the primary purpose of firearms, to wit: the protection of my personal liberty and that of my family against the power of a domestic or foreign government.
You have indicated that you think a dictatorship or foreign invasion is unlikely. I hope that you are correct, and believe that you are - precisely because 80-90 million Americans own somewhere north of 1/4 of a BILLION firearms. All of that firepower is a HUGE deterrant to any would-be dictator or invader. Read The Federalist #46 by James Madison - it was specifically intended that the American People would be able to defeat any army that the proposed "powerful central government" could conceiveably raise, so as to prevent the imposition of a domestic dictatorship. So far, at least, it has worked. Take a look at another view from a somewhat more recent famous person:
Powerful stuff - Lincoln says that no foreign armies can conquer us - obviously because even in his day there were sufficient arms to defeat any such armies - but that we can allow ourselves to be enslaved. The agenda of those who admire the concept of the nanny state is, IMHO, just such a devise - even if not intended as such by most advocates. I, personally, worry a great deal about the powers being granted to the Executive and to various unaccountable bureaucrats by such laws as the Patriot Act. Given the wrong set of circumstances, a potential dictator could see such laws as the means of putting themselves in power permanently. The presence of literally millions of people skilled enough to deliver lead projectiles at high velocities to a man-sized target from 500 yards away, and with the equipment to do so, is a HUGE deterrent to such an action. Who knows, perhaps it has already saved us from a dictator, and we just don't know it - I recall some liberals unexpectedly expressing gratitude at the existence of a large body of armed civilians in 1974 (since they worried about what Nixon would do to maintain power), and many on this and other conservatively leaning boards wondered what would have happened if Clinton just decided that he wasn't going to leave the White House on 1/20/01.
As to foreign invasion, as recently as WW2 we faced at least a serious possibility of one from Japan. Admiral Yamamoto, who planned Pearl Harbor and the Japanese onslaught of 12/41-6/42 against much of Asia, eliminated this as a possibility. You see, he had been a military attache here in the 1920's, IIRC, and knew this nation better than almost everyone else at the higher levels of the Japanese government. He said words to the effect of "To invade America would be insane - there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." An exaggerated perception, to be sure, but one which saved untold misery and, perhaps, our very freedom.
Regarding 9/11 - if the terrorists knew that passengers could be armed on board (as was the case, IIRC, before the early 1970's), then they never would have hijacked those planes. If they knew that the pilots were armed, they never would have hijacked those planes. Had Todd Beamer and the other passengers been armed, they'd have shot the hijackers and the plane would've landed safely. As for small holes in the aircraft body causing explosive decompression - it looks good in the movies, but it isn't the truth. All civilian jets are built to military specs by law (they're part of the reserve air fleet in case of war), and both fighters and bombers have routinely returned safely from missions with dozens or hundreds of holes, each of which is larger than what a mere handgun might put into a plane's skin. 9/11 proves the opposite of what you have concluded - guns SHOULD be on planes.
As for me - I'm Jewish. I've been told that my grandparents counted the number of relatives that they knew to have been alive before 1939 who they never heard from again, and came up with over 100 cousins, aunts and uncles. My wife's uncle has a tattoo on his arm from Birkenau (the work camp adjacent to Auschwitz), and was a "guest" at 3 other concentration camps. He witnessed the murder of his father and brother, and every other member of his family was murdered except him - he was shot along side his father and brother, but survived because it (obviously) wasn't a fatal wound and he was buried by the dead bodies of those around him - he waited until dark to escape. All of this, and lots more, was perpetrated by the "most civilized" European nation. Let me tell you a not-so-secret secret: Mankind is not a terribly civilized animal when the chips are down. Also, human nature doesn't change when you cross an ocean - some in the US are as capable of such activities as those people in Europe 60 years ago. If you don't believe that, see a documentary entitled The Tenth Level, which is about a psychological study done in the 1960's. I won't go into the details, but a substantial portion of the test subjects inflicted what they thought was "intolerable pain" on others (see it - it is quite disturbing). The long and the short of it is: I am a law-abiding citizen, not dangerous to anyone unless they present a threat to me. As such, any government that wants my guns is up to no good. Therefore, as a human being, as an American and as a Jew, I will not be disarmed until my firearm is warmer than my body.
You might also want to check out my taglines for some short snapshots of my philosophy.
I hope that this has helped answer your questions.
Last edited:
