Diary inspiration here, here, here, here, here.
Back in my drinking days in Tennessee, during a discussion on the 2nd Amendment in a bar (admittedly not the brightest place to engage in such a discussion; again, this was during my drinking days), I remember a redneck once proclaiming, in a very animated fashion, that, "...to get a Voter's Registration Card, you should be required to show up at the Voter's Reg Office in a Sidewinder-equipped Huey." Since (a) I presume he wanted the ability to vote himself, and (b) I seriously doubt he owned any sort of helicopter, much less a missile, it's safe to assume he was engaging in hyperbole. But, very likely, not by much.
Please make the hop (unarmed, preferably) for a treatise on the only Amendment Bush hasn't rent asunder.
Disclaimer: the vast majority of my sources are from Wikipedia. I realise some distrust Wiki, and I agree that, in certain areas, Wiki is a controversial source. Specifically, Wiki pages on public (especially political) figures should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as a (very minor-league) Wiki editor, myself, I'm well aware of the enthusiasm with which the major players at Wiki monitor edits. Anyone can edit a Wiki page, with or without an account. ALL edits to Wiki pages go into a web page available to all Wiki editors, and if you think the "Kos police" are ruthless, try editing a Wiki page and insert some absurd (or, simply, false) information; that web page noting edits is monitored like the Space Shuttle on it's way to orbit. See how long it takes for your improper edit to be reverted. In my experience, it's minutes; sometimes seconds.
___________________________
Article II of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution (AKA the Second Amendment):
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
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's a fatal (pun accidental) flaw in the above: 'arms' aren't nebulously defined - they aren't 'defined' at all! It's understandable that cavemen were incapable of foreseeing nuclear weapons, but, IMO, our founding fathers demonstrated a serious lack of foresight by not envisioning the day when technological advances would produce weapons which had no business in the hands of private citizens, be they part of a (currently non-existent) "well-regulated militia" or not. Indeed, "...bombs bursting in air..." were in existence even then.
Few people, NRA members included, are aware of the TRUE reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. In the 18th Century, the brand-new nation called the United States of America had very little money, a very small population, relative to it's physical size, and a small and poorly-organized national defense force (12,000 men at the start of the War of 1812). The possibility of a more mature nation (England, France, Spain, Italy, to name a few) physically invading and subduing the US was not a 'remote' possibility - it was a real one. Given the resources outlined above, a situation where every citizen might be required to drop their plows, saws, hoes and take up arms to defend our shores from physical invasion was REAL. In fact, this very tactic was used in the War of 1812 - with disastrous results!
The American strategy relied in part on use of militias, but they either resisted service or were incompetently led. Financial and logistical problems also plagued the American war effort. Military and civilian leadership was lacking and remained a critical American weakness until 1814. Importantly, New England opposed the war and refused to provide troops or financing.
This strategy was neither competent, popular, nor successful. Further, it hasn't been used since. The thought of private citizens NEEDING to drop their keyboards, cable splicers, mortgage contracts and other tools used in most trades today, and taking up weapons against an armed invasion is so absurd that a movie featuring such a scenario, "The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming", was made in 1966 - 42 years ago. Only 10 years old at the time, I vividly remember that flick as the first time I ever laughed so hard, for so long, that my stomach hurt. I've been a huge fan of many of the movie's cast members ever since, including Alan Arkin, Carl Reiner, Eva Marie Saint, Brian Keith, and Jonathan Winters, to name a few. Even the cast gives one an idea of the absurdity of such an idea. The enemy: one (disabled) Russian submarine (loaded with keystone cops, at that). An actual, organized effort to physically subdue the US today in a manner which could be successfully met with small-arms fire by private citizens is simply beyond the pale.
The problem isn't whether or not private citizens should be allowed to own weapons, but rather WHAT weapons should be allowed. It's insane for a private citizen to be allowed to own an AR-15 or AK-47. While the AR-15 is nominally rated as a semi-automatic weapon, it is a ridiculously simple process to convert this weapon into an automatic. I worked at a hardware store in HS which sold guns; not many, but a few. My manager showed me the process in 1972. I won't expound on that, but anyone wanting this information would have no trouble finding it if they looked.
Presumably, the purposes of weapons ownership are twofold: hunting, and personal protection. A 'hunter' who needs an automatic weapon with a 30-round clip to take down ANYTHING, including boar, turkey, deer, buffalo, elephant - is beyond incompetent; s/he's a danger to any hunter within at least a 1/4-mile, likely further. Yet the NRA fights fervently for the right of 'responsible citizens' to own such weapons (in their semi-automatic, but easily convertible, form).
On to the other end of the scale: handguns. Handguns have only one 'legitimate' (sic) purpose: to kill other human beings. In the hands of a well-regulated militia, which, IMO, could be construed to include groups such as the police, FBI, and armed forces, such weapons are an unfortunate necessity. In the hands of private citizens, they are a disaster. According to the Violence Policy Center, handguns kill far more "good guys" than "bad guys".
Some excerpts from this site:
America's gun problem is a handgun problem.
The vast majority of gun death and injury–in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings–is carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers.
Surprisingly, only 25 percent of adults own a firearm.
About 10 percent of the adult population owns 77 percent of the total
stock of firearms.
Of all firearm-related crime, 86 percent involved handguns.
Since 1962, more than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
From 1990 to 1997, handguns...were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.
The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.
For all suicides, it is estimated that more than four out of 10 were committed with handguns.
People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home.
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—
* 1.3 unintentional deaths
* 4.6 criminal homicides
* 37 suicides
Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
(emphases mine)
Memphis (where I was born and raised for 35 years, finally fleeing to avoid being raised, as I like to say) has been (and remains) in the top 10 cities in the US in per-capita murder rate my entire life. New Orleans, with an even smaller (metro) population, had 209 murders last year. My last 5 years living in the US, I lived on the southern edge of a small (population 30,000), but admittedly gang-infested, town on the western edge of the Mohave Desert. In that arid climate, the only 'game' around were prairie dogs (which, in reality, weren't 'game' at all). Yet not one weekend went by in 5 years when I didn't hear gunfire, at night. In 5 years. In one spectacular case, 7 people were murdered over a testosterone- and alcohol-laced 'minor' argument, in a restaurant, celebrating (IIRC) a couple's engagement.
For 8 years I've resided in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada). Many Americans have the misconception that Canada 'bans' guns. This is simply not true. There is much more land open to hunting in this country than in the US, and a very active and avid hunting population.
Canada (Ontario, anyway) does monitor gun ownership - and bans handguns.
In Canada (and in an admittedly much more urban environment), I haven't heard one gunshot in 8 years. Hamilton, with a larger metro population than either Memphis or New Orleans, averages about 12 murders annually. Further, virtually ALL those murders are solved. When you aren't calling "3-strikes" on everyone who spits on the sidewalk, resulting in their being locked in a taxpayer-financed warehouse for the rest of their lives, you have the resources to deal with serious crime. 'Gas stations' here are known as 'gas bars'. Hold up a gas bar here with a gun - any gun, and without even using it - and that crime immediately becomes the top priority of local law enforcement - and sometimes the provincial, even national (the "Mounties") officials become involved. Further, you can expect a long sentence, relatively speaking, as Canadian prison sentences go, when you are caught, tried, and convicted.
I hope to make the subject of American prisons, and prison sentences, the subject of a future diary, but I'm having nerve surgery on my right hand (disclaimer: I AM left-handed, LOL) Tuesday (Feb. 19), so I doubt it will be soon. Maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months.