Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Early next year the Supreme Court is going to hear a case related to its recent decision in Washington DC regarding the right to bear arms.

The question was this: Is it an individual right? Or is it some “militia” (hence state) right?

The decision, as you no doubt remember, clearly stated that it was the individual, not the city of Washington DC, which had a Constitutional right to decide who could own or bear arms. The city ordinance forbidding people to own handguns was tossed out. It was hailed as a victory by all those who believe that the Constitution forbids the government from interfering with the right of individuals to own and bear arms.

However, there's a small complication. Because Washington DC comes under the federal government, the decision applies, for the time being at least, only to the authority of the federal government versus the rights of individuals.

The upcoming case will decide the exact same question again, but this time it will settle the issue regarding cities and states, deciding once and for all whether or not the right to bear arms belongs to each of us, as individuals, or to the states, and hence also to cities and counties.

I have waited my entire life for the Court to act on this issue. As a boy I lived in New York City, where the Sullivan Act forbid literally everyone from owning a handgun. All my life I have chafed under the belief that cities and states interfere unduly with rights granted to every citizen of this nation under the Second Amendment.

I'm not a fanatic. I agree that there is good reason to keep guns out of the hands of those who are proven criminals. But I don't think it helps anything to disarm the public. In fact, i think it just makes matters worse.

It sure as hell didn't cut down the crime rate in Washington DC.

What do you think the decision will be in the upcoming case?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I notice, by the way, that the people who want to take out guns away all agree that “whatever the ruling may be it won't change current gun laws in any significant way.” (NBC News has helpfully made sure that comment has been aired about a half dozen times over the past couple of weeks. Ain't they sweet?)

I thought that was what the Supreme Court was for, among other things. To prevent the erosion of our rights by laws that go too far.

Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) says…

Remember Tom, celebratory gunfire is a felony!

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Hold your breath, folks!

It looks like the justices are about to vote that the right to bear arms is an individual right, just as we always thought it was.

If they do ALL laws which prevent us from owning and bearing arms, laws which have been shoved down out throats by gun-haters who really want to see all guns done away with (except the ones for the poor, poor drug dealers), ALL those %$#@! laws will be history. And since it would take an amendment to the Constitution, which would not have a prayer of being passed, to change that, we can start the celebration as soon as the decision comes down!

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

OK Mike, what is celebratory gunfire? Does it refer to firearms at ceremonies and festivities?
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Fred, it's Saddam standing on the balcony with the rifle. Remember?

patrandall (Pat Randall) says…

Fred.
Shooting a gun into the air on New Year's Eve or the 4th of July.
I believe it is called the Amber law in Ariz. as a bullet came down after being shot into the air and killed her.
I am not sure of the girls name.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

Tom. Saddam wasn't doing that in this country.. but I suppose there are idiots in this country who do it. Pat, I think that was the incident which spurned the law. I recall the bullet traveled about a mile before reaching the girl.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

In 1942 I believe it was, a jerk fired off a .22 rifle in Brooklyn. Although he fired a .22 short, not a more powerful round, it traveled all the way to Ebbets Field and hit some poor guy sitting in the bleachers. It barely penetrated his skull. I believe the penetration was so slight that the bullet still protruded from his head. It killed him. They caught the guy who did it.

Arabs do it all the time. These days you can see them all the time, firing AK's into the air in celebration. Nut cases.

The Army did some testing of what happens with boat tailed .30 caliber rounds. They went out in the middle of a lake and fired hundreds of machine gun rounds straight up in long bursts. The raft they were using had armor plate above it, of course. Interestingly enough, two facts came out of the tests: 1. The rounds NEVER came back down in the same place they were fired even though they were fired straight up; winds aloft carried them as much as a quarter mile away. 2. The bullets did not flip over; they came down tail first.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

Those crazy Arabs are asking for it. If a .30 caliber round comes straight down and hits me in the head, I'm dead! I hope that never happens to any one. Personally, I had enough of guns while I was in the Army.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

“I hope that never happens to any one.”

Happens all the time over there.

“Personally, I had enough of guns while I was in the Army.”

No me. I love the little trouble makers. They are one of the few things still made with genuine quality in mind (leaving out the ones with plastic stocks) and I genuinely enjoy handling things of quality.

Plus which, inasmuch as I can pierce an ear at a hundred yards I am looking forward to the day the doctor tells me I have an incurable disease.

Oh boy! Going postal. What fun!

I'm watching NBC News right now. They're having a field day, saying that John McCain is on the defensive because of JD. Think I'll go see my doctor. You never know….

:-)

And don't pick on me for having happy thoughts.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

OK Tom, you go your way and I'll go mine. But don't go postal. We need you here too much!!!
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Fred, I can honestly say that you're the first person I ever met that I strongly respected who wasn't much into guns. Nevertheless, your comments prove beyond a doubt that you are a person who deserves respect. There's nothing that says that everybody has to like guns.

Gee! Not even a nice little 30 caliber carbine?

:-)

Oh, and if go postal, I'll do it around here so you guys wont miss me. I might even get Pat to join me. (Don't worry shovelhead, I'll give you advance warning so you can take the taillight off your bike.) :-)

patrandall (Pat Randall) says…

Tom,
I have said before, don't like guns, can't see the fascination with them, but I do own a couple for protection and my daddy taught me how to shoot when I was about 6. Like riding a bicycle you never forget how.
My husband would have been happy if he could have had one of each kind ever made. I think he almost did..
One time in Mesa the doorbell rang about 2:00 AM. It was the police telling us we had to leave our homes as the river was flooding. My husband had answered the door, came back into the bedroom and started gathering his guns without saying a word untill I asked him why. Without missing a step he told me they had said to get anything valuable out of the house.
My grandmother and 3 kids were still asleep. Not that he didn't love us he was intent on saving the damn guns. Figured we could get to the car ourselves.
It was funny later but not at the time.
No matter how many laws are passed against owning guns the bad guys will still have them.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

Tom.
“first person I ever met that I strongly respected who wasn't much into guns.” Thank you for the comment Tom.

“Gee! Not even a nice little 30 caliber carbine?” That's what I was issued in the Army. I carried it only while standing guard in Vietnam.
That's the one I learned to take apart and re-assemble in the dark. It's the only weapon I ever held in my hands. No problem with the rifle.
I qualified as Marksman with it.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

“I have said before, don't like guns, can't see the fascination with them, but I do own a couple for protection and my daddy taught me how to shoot when I was about 6.”

I don't collect guns, except for my little old carbine, which I handled for so long in the Air Force (one of my jobs was to keep the troops current on their marksmanship) that I just like having one around. The others i have are strictly for killing people as needed.

“My grandmother and 3 kids were still asleep. Not that he didn't love us he was intent on saving the damn guns. Figured we could get to the car ourselves.”

That's the funniest true story I've ever read on this forum!

“No matter how many laws are passed against owning guns the bad guys will still have them.”

Which is why such laws are actually targeting us, not them.

Take this one: Someone gets a DUI and loses his right to bear arms. Where's the connection?

I can hardly wait. Once the court makes its ruling we can start disassembling more than a hundred years of unconstitutional laws. Including the one I just mentioned.

My axe to grind in all this is I don't want ANY of my rights to be taken away.

“I qualified as Marksman with it.”

The first time I ever fired the carbine happened when I was in the Air National Guard. Pulled the trigger and my top stock blew off—thirty feet straight up in the air. I got the thing back together and managed to keep it from either blowing up or falling apart. I fired a 128.

At the time I was a crack shot, a natural born marksman so they told me. The first weapon I ever fired was a .22 caliber eight round revolver. Zapped everything in sight after a friend (we were civilians, I was 16) told me about breath control, trigger squeeze, and sight picture. Later in the day I couldn't have hit you if I pressed the barrel against your chest. Developed a flinch. After I got rid of that I just could not miss. After teaching basics to shoot I truly believe that literally anyone can fire a weapon with great accuracy if he or she just follows those three simple factors.

Trouble is, we teach the troops how to aim and shoot. Then comes combat and we have to teach them to just point the thing in a general direction and shoot. Some things I have read about WWII said that was a real problem. Couldn't get the troops to shoot unless they could see something to aim at.

Glad you know the carbine, Fred. My first one was made by Chrysler. Used to be like Coke bottles, with everyone asking, “Hey. Where'd yours come from?”

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

“Pulled the trigger and my top stock blew off—thirty feet straight up in the air.”
Wow! That must have been a really shocking experience.

“Couldn't get the troops to shoot unless they could see something to aim at.”
I would have been in that category! In the Army, they gave us targets during basic training. In real war, I would want to see my target, but I know that it doesn't always work out that way. You may need to blast away at something in front, or in back of your target.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Watch the guys in the news. The training is much better now. They just hold the weapons over their heads, stick them up over a wall (for example) for an instant, fire a burst, and pull them back down. It's the classic scenario. People in center fire at enemy to keep his head down. People on flanks, usually just one, move in and kill from the side.

The tough ones to beat that way were the Japanese. They were incredibly well trained and disciplined. They would set up a series of fortified positions each of which supported the other. So if there were—say—four positions set up in an arc, the left flank position fired, not forward, but to their right flank to protect the second position in the arc, or perhaps even another one. And so on for each position. Each position had a perfect field of fire because they were not protecting themselves and so people were not coming straight at them and able to take advantage of whatever cover there was, but were crossing from left to right or right to left, which makes it far easier to hit someone. But if someone was charging hell bent for leather right at them the Japs did not fire at him, relying instead on the fire from the other positions which defended them. It takes (a) training, (b) discipline, (c) guts not to fire at someone who is charging at you, but if everyone does his part the system is almost unbeatable if the positions cannot be taken except from direct ahead. It takes a tank or tanks to keep all heads down, or the equivalent heavy weapons fire, so that someone can get in with a satchel charge. These days things are a bit better with wire guided missiles that can take out positions from a distance.

Anyway, the people we're fighting right now (Taliban et al) aren't trained soldiers, thank God. Most of them are just cowboys. But even cowboys are no joke when they're carrying RPG's around.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

The Japanese were no dummies. Declaring war on us in the first place was dumb. But they knew how to fight. The rebels in Afghanistan are killing our guys. That pisses me off. It reminds me of Vietnam. I'm really glad we finally got out of Vietnam.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Vietnam lasted 12 years. We could have ended it in 12 days. We were held back from fighting. People often think of wars as they were in the 19th century and before. Know what I mean? Two armies meet on some battlefield, whip up on each other for a day, and that's that.

War today is more a question of supply than of anything else. We were not allowed to stop the supplying of VC in the jungles. And we were not allowed to advance into North Vietnam, which was supplying them, where every human being in sight was the enemy, and we could have cleaned house inside of two weeks.

The worst part of it all is the fact that we were fighting to keep one group of North Vietnamese elite in charge of South Vietnam, while another group of North Vietnamese elite was fighting to take over South Vietnam. Communism had nothing to do with it.

The people of South Vietnam had no clue what was going on. They didn't want either of those two governments. They were dirt poor and only wanted to be left alone. As for democracy, they had no idea what it even was. And it's no surprise they didn't want to fight for it because what they would have gotten if they had somehow managed to “win” was the same old bunch of North Vietnamese dictators they had when they began. Which is what they have now.

Our choice in Vietnam was clear cut: Either fish or cut bait.

We didn't fish, and we waited until 40,000 Americans were dead before we cut bait.

Why? One president after another tried to save face, refusing to be the one who “gave up.” There was nothing to give up. We weren't fighting for anything this nation stands for.

Afghanistan is different. We are there at the invitation of the legitimate government. The rebels are not being supplied by an outside nation (Russia supplied North Vietnam). And the people genuinely want to be rid of the Taliban fanatics. Pathans (which is the correct term for people of the area) are hardy and independent, are not hard core about their religion, and exist in one of the poorest places on earth. We can actually accomplish a mission there, a mission worth accomplishing. When you send soldiers into action some of them die.

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

“Afghanistan is different. We are there at the invitation of the legitimate government.”

According to news reports, we are making some difference there. I hope it will be accomplished sooner than it took in Vietnam.
-Fred

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

“I hope it will be accomplished sooner than it took in Vietnam.”

There's no need to rush. The whole thing will transition into a situation like that in Iraq, where the Iraqis run the show and provide the troops, while we just stay in the background and provide moral and air support, at which we are good.

Vietnam was lost before it began. We were in there to keep China out. Russia was in there to keep China out. And the dictators in the north and the south played us off against each other.

The truth is we were suffered from the HST syndrome; e.g. don't get involved in a land war with China. It was the same old tune as Korea. The military knew how to “win” the war, and could easily have done it, but one president after another chickened out on the HST thing.

Who was right? Militarily I don't know, but morally the entire gaggle of Commander's in Chief are guilty of needlessly throwing away lives. Barry Goldwater had it right. Either get in there and fight or sit down at the table and find a way to negotiate a peaceful solution.

“According to news reports, we are making some difference there.”

And so we will as long as we keep in mind the type of people who live there—primitive, ruggedly independent, and determined to be left alone.