Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Gun Rights for D'Cruz


Law-abiding adults, the Supreme Court has ruled, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that right is not unlimited, as the court made clear by citing several restrictions - including prohibitions against carrying weapons into a courthouse or a school - that would withstand legal challenge. The Texas and federal laws fit into this category. Eighteen-year-olds can and do fight for their country. And they are able in many instances to vote and partake of the full rights enjoyed by much older citizens. But there is nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government determining that a few more years of maturity - and the discipline and wisdom that hopefully come with such age - are needed before such a youngster is allowed to carry a lethal weapon on the streets. It takes some kind of gumption - or blind ideological fervor - to challenge such reasonable limitations. 
That says it pretty well, don't you think?

Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. " But there is nothing unconstitutional about the state or federal government determining that a few more years of maturity - and the discipline and wisdom that hopefully come with such age - are needed before such a youngster is allowed to carry a lethal weapon on the streets."

    So if the Army is ever needed to be deployed inside the states, all 18 year olds will have to go unarmed or be removed from the deployment? And we are ok with them carrying these weapons in other countries and on our military bases here, just not in public?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hates to break it to you, Anon, but your notion that military bases are jam-packed with soldiers carrying guns is laughable.

    Firearms are very tightly controlled on military bases. If you do, on occasion, see some troops drilling--it is with dummy firearms or firearms that have been rendered unuseable.

    Further, when troop are deployed--into combat--they carry weapons. They are going into combat. C-o-m-b-a-t.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sure what bases you've been on, Guy, but we didn't have any "dummy" or "unusable" weapons in our arms room. We trained/cleaned/handled those real, fully functional weapons almost every day, because that's what a combat unit does. What's actually fairly tightly controlled on Army bases is the ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We must close the combat soldier loophole.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That was my experience too, Colin. But the key word in Jadegold's comment was "control." The first anonymous commenter was wrong to imply that soldiers on domestic military bases carry weapons (inferring loaded weapons).

    ReplyDelete
  6. If that was Guy's first unsupported, factually incorrect statement, I'd be inclined to let it slide. Unfortunately, that's far from the case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Colin: your "arms room" or armory/magazine as its known on US military bases is a highly controlled facility.

    Want to get into big trouble in the military? Short of selling secrets, a real good way is to have a bad accounting for weapons, amoo, and ordnance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seeing as I spent some time as arms room officer and XO, I think I know one or two things about the storage and accountability of military weapons. One of which is that between the time that the secured, all-accounted-for arms room was opened in the morning, and when everything was turned in and verified at the end of the day, those fully-functional weapons could and did go just about anywhere on the post that our soldiers were training, cleaning, etc. As for ammo accountability, small arms ammo was pretty loosely regulated once it was issued out. While there was accountability by the round for things like 120mm rounds, TOWs and hand grenades, simply turning in a pile of brass that was roughly equivalent to what was expended was about all the accounting that was needed.

    Of course, none of this is really that relevant to the matter at hand, other than proving that you can't even get basic facts right. However, something relevant that I learned in the Army was that I could trust these so-called irresponsible and immature 18-20 year olds not only with my life, but also to quickly make correct rules of engagement decisions (analagous to use-of-force in a civilian setting) while under pressure in combat. If I had been the issuing authority for CCW permits then, I would have gladly given any of them a license to carry "concealed, lethal weapons" with no questions asked and no sleep lost.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Colin, Thanks for sharing some of your personal story which lends credibility to your opinions. You do sound a bit one-sided though with your assessment of the maturity of the young guys who were under your command. Weren't some of them just plain fuck-ups, weren't some of them really uneducated and low on the IQ scale? C'mon you make it sound like you were commanding crack troops hand picked for black ops.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike, the stereotype of "Bubba Gump" toting an M-16 in defense of truth, justice and the American way in some far off land is just that, a stereotype, at least in today's Army. All of my soldiers were high school graduates, and I even had a pair of college graduates among my junior enlisted men (although it would be tough to find someone in the 18-20 y.o. range that had a degree). Although some were smarter than others (and as 19D scouts, their average GT score was higher than the average for an 11B grunt), I'd say they were a fairly representative cross-section of the US as a whole. Furthermore, it doesn't take much intelligence to properly handle a firearm, just an average amount of common sense; the Four Rules aren't difficult after all. Besides, I've met some pretty smart people with zero common sense (even graduated from college with a few). Be careful, lest your comments betray your elitist views of liberty.

    ReplyDelete