The Lesson of the Drilling Guns

During the NRA national convention here in the Gateway City last year, I stopped by the booth of an organization dedicated to preserving drilling guns. Pronounced “drelling”, the name comes from the German number “drei” – three in English. A typical drilling gun consists of two shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel, but they can be configured any way the shooter wants. Most drillings were made by small custom manufacturers. On display was Benny Goodman’s drilling. Goodman had an eye-dominance issue that the gunmaker addressed with a special cheekpiece to allowed Goodman to sight with his dominant eye . . .

Fast forward: in a conversation with a hunter I had the other night, the subject of gun control came up. He was of the opinion that an assault weapons ban might be OK with him, since he didn’t think and AR-15 was much of a hunting rifle anyway. I’m not a hunter, but I know people hunt with an AR’s all the time. Central to his premise, though, is that if “assault rifles” were banned, his hunting rifle would be spared.

What’s the connection between gun control and drillings? The collection of drilling guns on display at the NRA convention was made up predominantly of arms that had been imported into the US as spoils of war. After Germany surrendered in 1945, the Allies began disarming them. Many infantry weapons were seized and destroyed, firearms like the MG42 machine gun and machine pistols like the MP38. They also confiscated their bolt action Mauser rifles which were functionally identical to any hunting rifle available at the time.

But the confiscation didn’t end with just military arms. Seized hunting rifles that weren’t sent back to an Allied country were destroyed, including an untold number of these wonderful drillings. The pleasant man at the booth told me that hundreds upon hundreds of hunting arms were set up on the curb and then driven over with a tank.

The lesson of the drillings is that when a centralized authority decides to disarm citizens, hunting arms won’t be spared. That magnificent Browning Citori 725 over/under you hope to pass on to you daughter one day will go the way of those heirloom German drillings that were crushed or shipped out after the they were taken from their owners.

My new friend meant well, but history shows that — no matter how much reassurance the disarmers may give — gun control never excludes hunters. Those who love bagging ducks, shooting skeet or stalking deer would do well to remember that there’s no historical evidence that gun controllers have any more respect for hunters than they do other gun owners. Those beautiful heirloom hunting arms will eventually be tossed on the heap right alongside those ugly black rifles.

52 Responses to The Lesson of the Drilling Guns

  1. avatarDryw says:

    A Drilling has been a personal long-time obscure object of desire.

    These 4x are simply magnificent: http://www.famars.com/famars/famars-guns/-four-barrel-/famars-rombo.html

    As I will likely never posses one, I’m slightly ashamed to admit it is why I’m drawn to the Chiappa 3x… though I feel somewhat dirty about it.

    • avatarBrian S says:

      wow! only one problem… way too pretty to use!

    • avatarSwarf says:

      I’ve got one I inherited from my granpa-via my Dad- recently (spoils of war). Double 16 over an 8mm rimmed rifle.

      It’s not in superb shape due to it being dry fired by my Dad a lot and being stored wrapped up in a sheet in various closets for however many years, but it’s still beautiful.

      I really need to learn more about it.

  2. avatarDon says:

    Ummm no joke, CA is trying to ban any combination rifle and shotgun right now.

  3. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    I have to continually discuss this with other hunters. A) the grabbers want your guns too. B) You can use an AR to hunt with, that’s why I own a 5 round magazine in the “free state” of MI it is the magazine limit for hunting!

    • avatarBlue says:

      They said so in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Feinstein was one of them. She said she would ban and collect everything if she had 51 votes.

  4. avatarPulatso says:

    It’s rather simple, really. If you’re okay with gun control, you’re okay with gun control. All it will take is a convincing argument, and you’d seize a single shot .410 for being too dangerous for the proles to own. You’d think people who put food on the table with their gun would be leery of any disarmamnet measures (and to be fair, all the ones I know personally do).

    • avatarIdhaoPete says:

      The retired Marine who was recently released after several months in Mexican jails was arrested when he crossed the border with his grandfather’s single-shot .410 shotgun.

      The Mexicans claimed it was a prohibited military weapon.

      “Hey, they won’t come after my shotgun – it has gold engraving! And President Obama shoots skeets!”

  5. avatarWiscoDave says:

    Years ago, as part of a Hunter Ed course I taught, we would display our various firearms so that students could be exposed to a variety of firearms. I overheard two parents talking about how “that shotgun should be banned.” I asked them why. They said just look at it.; pistol grip, mag extension and a light. “That gun has no purpose at all.” I told them to pick it up and look at the receiver. Imagine their shock when they realized it was a Remington 870 Wingmaster! I hope they remember the lesson…

  6. avatarTim McNabb says:

    Pro gun-control hunters fail to realize that the left does not argue in bad faith. They do not believe it when we warn that they will take hunting arms too. It is infuriating.

  7. avatarLTC F says:

    As we all remember, L. Paul Bremmer, the Viceroy of Iraq (or whatever we called him) made one brilliant decision after another. Hey, “Lets disband the Iraqi Army so that we have all of these military age and trained unemployed men available to do important work to be determined later.”

    One of his decisions was that Iraqi’s could have one firearm per adult per household. Since seven minutes after the brilliant decision to disband the Army every household had an AK 47, an RPG, and some RPK’s, folks had a decision to make. Do I keep the hunting rifle, the shot gun, the pistol or the AK? Most chose the AK.

    Day after day I watched beautiful guns come into my FOB. Browning Humpbacks (I kept a 16 gauge under my bunk with three boxes of bird shot and would shoot pigeons over the river at dusk), beautiful bolt action hunting rifles, target pistols, 98K Mausers, Webley .455 revolvers, a few Lugers and P38s, No. I Mk III Enfields, I even found a beautiful Pattern 17 Enfield in .30-06 (the “American Enfield”). And yes, one beautiful Drilling. I assume it was German. 12 Gauge over 8mm. The most beautiful furniture I have ever seen on a gun. I wanted the gun so bad I could taste it. I also didn’t want to get Court Martialed.

    All those beautiful and in some case historic firearms went to the rear. Where they were cut, crushed, and burned. But that can’t happen here. No way. That would be as crazy as executing American Citizens with drones without trial. Or the Homeland Security Secretary declaring that DHS can confiscate any portable electronic device within one hundred miles of any border without due cause. When that happens I’ll get worried.

  8. Tim-
    Can you remember the name of the organization that had Benny Goodman’s drilling? I would like to investigate what is known about Goodman’s shooting habits and gun collection…
    Thanks, JM

  9. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    Since man first hurled a rock, a spear or used an addle-addle, there has been no technological or performance distinction between a hunting and a combat weapon.

    We need to drive home the fact that guns are guns, and those bolt actions and double barrel shotguns are are just as vulnerable as the semiautomatic ARs, BARs, AKs, Minis, Henrys, etc.

  10. avatarAnon in CT says:

    I don’t hunt. It’s just not my thing – though I am happy to help my father in law consume the results of his moose hunting (after a minimum 2 day marinade). I own AR-pattern rifles because that’s what I used in the military. I use them for target shooting and plinking, and I hope that I will never have to use them for self defense.

    Ir my ARs are banned, I’m not going to renew my NRA membership. I’m pretty much out of the gun game and I won’t be there to support Fud-boy when they come for his Rem 700 or whatever, since he wasn’t there for me and since I’ll have better things to do with my time than support a passtime which I was barred from enjoying.

    • avatarJim B says:

      “… I won’t be there to support Fud-boy…”

      And you actually wonder why hunters don’t support you! I don’t, Game-boy.

  11. avatarGreg says:

    Two points. First, I did NOT say I was in favor of an assault weapons ban. I specifically said “we cant even agree on how to define an assault weapon”. Second, your new friend still waits for the answer though. Name one initiative proposed by the POTUS that infringes upon your 2nd ammenment rights?

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Name one initiative proposed by the POTUS that infringes upon your 2nd ammenment rights?

      Banning certain types of guns, magazine capacity restrictions, having to ask government permission to buy a gun (background checks). Or do you have dyslexia and can’t read that part of the Second Amendment that says “shall not be infringed”?

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Sorry Greg – I did not intend to misconstrue what you meant. I am using the definition provided by the government.

      Name one initiative proposed by the POTUS that infringes upon your 2nd ammenment rights?

      I think I would say the assault weapons ban – a reinstatement of the Clinton ban plus new restrictions – is an infringement, in my opinion.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Greg, you want to back away from Totenglocke. Slowly.

  12. avatarGreg says:

    Lets clarify a few things. I did not say I was “OK” with an assault weapons ban. I said just the opposite, and said we cannot even agree on how to define the weapon.
    My second point was that I did not think any of the initiatives proposed by the POTUS were an infringement upon your 2nd ammendment rights. But….you have programmed yourself that while other ammedmends may be repealed or revised for sound reason, through the SCOTUS or through the will of the people, this one, for some reason, stands alone as absolute”. Hogwash!

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      I see. So the Founding Fathers, who had just freed a young nation from oppression and tyranny through the use of privately owned military – styled weapons would be perfectly ok with incremental attempts to restrict access to the modern day equivalent of said arms? There is to be no attempt to hold accountable our current leaders for their consistent statements of misinformation and focus on gun violence victims while enjoying taxpayer protection of the most modern and effective firearms available? Yet these leaders would deny us the ability to lawfully use the same weapons which protect them, or the weapons used by police.

      I’m curious what our Founding Fathers would have to say about our current crop of leaders. I doubt it would be good.

    • avatarIng says:

      Many of us are looking not only at the Second, but at *all* the amendments that protect due process and individual liberty, and we’re outraged at what our government has done to them. To us.

      The Second Amendment is the most visible. It’s the bell ringing loudly in the night. Other amendments can be quietly infringed in a long, slow erosion that gets little notice — like saturated soil weakening the foundations of every house on your street — but an attack on the Second is like having your front door kicked in.

      When anyone goes after the Second Amendment, they’re going after our favorite pastime, our hobby, our national history, our family heirlooms, our cherished possessions, our ability to defend ourselves against criminal aggressors, and our ability to generally be self-reliant.

      So yeah, we’re pretty damn angry about it.

  13. avatarGregolas says:

    Excellent point Tim. Thanks.

  14. avatarJohn Doe says:

    Great post. I’ll add my $0.02:
    Hunting and recreation
    -Wait time to get a hunting/sporting permit isn’t a life or death situation.
    -Sporting firearms and equipment can be stored out of the home, and an individual’s ability to hunt or sport shoot will not be affected.
    -A good hunter needs only one shot(Single shot rifles/flintlocks/etc).
    -Humans have hunted without using firearms for thousands of years.
    -Hunting is for the wealthy, poaching is for the poor.

    Defense of personal rights
    -When a criminal or government breaks down the door, a waiting period could be a death sentence.
    -When ones life is in danger from a violent threat, immediate access to a weapon is critical.
    -Resisting violence requires equal or greater force. The more firepower, the greater the ability to resist.
    -The rich and poor alike should have access to effective tools for self-defense.

  15. avatarGreg says:

    Tim….I gave you more credit than I should have. Here is the list of actions I asked you about the that the POTUS proposed. Please enlighten me as to mention of banning assault weapons..??
    And for you Togengloke…..”Banning certain types of guns, magazine capacity restrictions, having to ask government permission to buy a gun (background checks). Or do you have dyslexia and can’t read that part of the Second Amendment that says “shall not be infringed”?”
    Funny thing….none of those are in there either. Obviously…the worst case of a dyslexia “victim” would seem to be when you look in the mirror each morning!
    Just sayin…

    •Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
    •Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
    •Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
    •Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    •Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
    •Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
    •Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
    •Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
    •Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    •Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
    •Nominating an A.T.F. director.
    •Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
    •Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    •Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
    •Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
    •Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
    •Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
    •Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
    •Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
    •Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
    •Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
    •Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
    •Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

    Now….would you like to answer the question again?

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Greg, if you would be a bit more patient, you will see an article posted addressing the list of initiatives presented by POTUS. I am trying to honor the subjects you raised by making thoughtful responses but I can only do it one at a time.

      Perhaps you could focus on the topic at hand – what centralized governments do to hunting arms. We’ll get to the POTUS info soon enough.

      • avatarGreg says:

        I was being patient. I asked the question and you responded “the assault weapon ban”. No where in those intiatives does it say he is going to ban yor assault weapons.

      • avatarTim McNabb says:

        Sure it does – Before you made your way to this site, I looked up the list you referenced on the New York Times website and the AWB was number two. I wrote an article which will be published before too long. Perhaps you missed the first half of El Presidente’s proposals for congress.

        Like I said, a more complete response is forthcoming.

        • avatarGreg says:

          Lets try this again Tim as you are confused. There is a huge difference between the RECOMMENDATIONS that the POTUS made (which I listed item by item for your review), and the items he encouraged Congress to take up which would need Congressional support. He signed NO executive orders and instead, made sensible suggestions that do not in my opinion, infringe on anyones rights. There is a HUGE difference here, and would only hope your article differentiates.

        • avatarTim McNabb says:

          Greg, I am not confused. I think we need to look at all the President’s proposals to get a sense of what he is interested in doing, not just selecting the list of executive orders. The fact that he may not be specifically be issuing executive orders interfering with the 2nd Amendment directly, his list to congress clarifies his intent.

          I don’t mind having a discussion with you. I assure you that I am doing the best I can to engage in the debate in an orderly fashion.

        • avatarGreg says:

          Thats a plan Tim. But what the POTUS did was say…”here are my non- law infringing suggestions to make this a safer nation”….NO executive orders…No law changing….NO strong armnig. THAT is what I asked you to comment on. THEN….he went on to say…”I would like to do a bunch of other stuff (like assault weapons)…but I know I will need Congress and I am asking for support”. My question to you remains the same….what suggestions / iniatives that Obama made, infringe upon your rights?

  16. avatarIng says:

    The key phrase here is “reasonable inconveniences.” Who gets to decide what’s reasonable?

    Is it the lawmakers in NY, Conn, CA and elsewhere who want to legislate an entire class of commonly used firearms into virtual nonexistence? That’s what they’re doing with their proposed “assault weapon” restrictions.

    Is it reasonable to be required to query a government database before you can sell your legally owned personal property? Is it reasonable to be required to submit your background for government approval and pay a fee before you’re allowed to exercise a right that the Constitution specifically reserves to the people?

    And finally, “infringed” doesn’t really mean “to abolish, to destroy, to take away.” An infringement is an encroachment; an unnecessary and deleterious restriction. Infringement is a process that if taken far enough, will result in the destruction of its object. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they chose that word.

    • avatarGreg says:

      So Ing…In your evaluation, the 2nd is absolute?

      • avatarIng says:

        As close to absolute as anything can be, yes. “Absolute” is absolutely impossible — in reality there are always gray areas where one right collides with another and a choice has to be made — but the principle itself is an absolute value. It either exists or it doesn’t.

        The imperative of the Second Amendment (the command to government and legislators) is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I didn’t always take that seriously — in the ’90s I was all for getting “assault weapons” out of circulation — but since then I’ve become a gun owner myself and thought a lot about the fundamental principle behind the 2A, and even though I don’t own anything that’s currently on the gun-prohibition hit list, I take any attempt at restrictive gun control as a threat to the human rights and civil liberties we all share.

        Oy… Up on my soapbox today, ain’t I. FWIW.

        • avatarGreg says:

          I think we are all probably looking at things beyond our expertise and ability when we try to intrepret the Constitution. That being said, it is constructive to read anothers opinion, and be able to contemplate thier reasoning. I conclude, that No ammendment is absolute, certainly goingagainst the beliefs of almost all on this blog

          That being sad, through the years, the U. S. Supreme Court has interpreted the document and amendments to suit the nation’s political needs. What they have discovered is that no right in the Bill of Rights is absolute.The Court has routinely held the 1st ammendment rights may be limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. libel, privacy), or to guard against subversion of the government and the spreading of dissension in wartime. Thus, the Court’s majority has remained firm — the First Amendment rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech does not include such things as shouting fire in a theatre causing widespread panic. Nor does it include inciting a mob to riot.

          Freedom of the press does not protect a publisher from libel. Freedom of religion does not include turning religion into a partisan political organization.

          The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be absolute any more than any of right secured by the Constitution. Unfortunately, the zealots running the National Rifle Association (NRA) are unable to see a world in which the right to bear arms is not absolute. These are the guys who believe that automatic assault rifles that are loaded clips containing 100 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition is okay.

          The one-sentence Second Amendment reads:

          “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.”

          Given that each state in the union has its own “well regulated” militia in the form of the each state’s National Guards, all of which are under the command of each state’s governor. Those National Guard units are there to provide necessary security of the free states. So that aspect of the Second Amendment is fulfilled.

          Of course in 1789, members of the militia were required to provide their own firearms—-usually black powder, flintlock, muzzle loaded rifles.

          Nowadays, the states, with the assistance of the federal government, equip their respective militias with all necessary firearms and store those firearm in armories under lock and key. In other words, militia soldiers do not have to provide their own guns.

          Those black powder rifles also did double duty as hunting rifles and for self defense against marauding interlopers that frequently roamed the rural countryside of the American frontier.

          I am a strong believer in the Second Amendment. However, I do not believe it is absolute any more than are the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, which deal with freedom of expression. There has to be limitations for the right to own and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Without such limitations, civilized society is guaranteed to devolve into nightmarish chaos.

          I do not believe that any person has the right to bear arms if their background shows a criminal history or has a mental illness. It doesn’t bother me if such background checks take as long as six months to a year to complete. Those who own weapons should be subject to severe penalties in the event any of their weapons fall into violent hands owing to negligence.

          I don’t believe citizens have a right to own or use machine-guns. I don’t believe citizens should have armor-piercing ammunition

          In short I don’t believe any citizen should be allowed to possess weapons that outgun police officers.

          I don’t believe individuals should be allowed to possess rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces or nuclear weapons. Nor should members of the public have access to aircraft equipped with air-to-ground weapons.

          Somewhere is a line of demarcation between the Second Amendment being absolute or having limits. I think my line is more logical and better suited for today’s society

        • avatarUSMC says:

          @ Greg

          “Freedom of speech does not include such things as shouting fire in a theatre causing widespread panic. Nor does it include inciting a mob to riot.”

          That is true, but how about this: The freedom to own any type of firearm does not include such things as shooting in a theatre causing widespread death, nor does it include shooting into a rioting mob. This shows that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are already limited so as to protect the rights of others (e.g. living). Murder is already illegal no matter how it is conducted. Millions of people with a larynx have the ability to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, yet they don’t, and millions of people with “assault weapons” have the ability to shoot up a crowded theater, yet they don’t.

          “Freedom of the press does not protect a publisher from libel. Freedom of religion does not include turning religion into a partisan political organization. ”

          Let’s just flip those around as well: The freedom to own firearms does not protect the owner from using his/her guns to murder people. The freedom to own firearms does not allow for the government to be the only one with guns.

          “The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, cannot be absolute any more than any of right secured by the Constitution.”

          That’s right, it is not absolute because it doesn’t protect anyone using guns to commit a crime. The Second Amendment rights are already limited. Murder is already illegal, the Second Amendment doesn’t make it any more legal than the First Amendment makes libel legal.

          “Unfortunately, the zealots running the National Rifle Association (NRA) are unable to see a world in which the right to bear arms is not absolute. These are the guys who believe that automatic assault rifles that are loaded clips containing 100 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition is okay.”

          The right to keep and bear arms in itself is absolute (shall not be infringed). It is the using of firearms to commit a crime or to harm others (not in a self defence manner) that is not protected, these offences are already illegal and have never been protected by the Second Amendment. Yet again, the Second Amendment is not absolute for those who commit crimes. Just because someone has “automatic assault rifles that loaded clips containing 100 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition” does not mean that they plan to commit an illegal act. It’s a good thing we don’t ban things just because YOU don’t like it. We can have these things, it is already a crime to use them in an illegal manner, just like how driving a car into a crowd of people is illegal.

          “Given that each state in the union has its own “well regulated” militia in the form of the each state’s National Guards, all of which are under the command of each state’s governor. Those National Guard units are there to provide necessary security of the free states. So that aspect of the Second Amendment is fulfilled.”

          So nice of you to decide that the Second Amendment was “fulfilled”. I hope you realize that the Second Amendment also allows for private citizens to form their own militias that are not controlled by the government. Therefore “that aspect of the Second Amendment” will never be completely fulfilled; there will always be citizens in the United States who will form Constitutionally protected private militias.

          “Of course in 1789, members of the militia were required to provide their own firearms—-usually black powder, flintlock, muzzle loaded rifles. ”

          Of course they were, and that continues to this day with most private militias requiring their members to provide their own firearms — usually AR’s, AK’s, and other semiautomatic rifles. Not sure what your point was with this one, but I’ll take it one step further. The muzzle loading rifles that were owned and used by militia members in 1789 were techincally advanced by late 1700′s standards (the Kentucky flintlock was a far better weapon than the British Brown Bess). In the same way, we now own the best, most technically advanced firearms of our day, and they sure as hell aren’t muzzleloaders. If the colonial militias had the best in their time, I want the best in my time.

          “Nowadays, the states, with the assistance of the federal government, equip their respective militias with all necessary firearms and store those firearm in armories under lock and key. In other words, militia soldiers do not have to provide their own guns. ”

          You are still forgetting the private militias which require members to provide their own guns. You absolutely fail to see anything beyond the government formed militias.

          “Those black powder rifles also did double duty as hunting rifles and for self defense against marauding interlopers that frequently roamed the rural countryside of the American frontier. ”

          Every one of my modern sporting rifles (known by the MSM as “assault rifles”) ALSO do double duty as hunting rifles and for self defense against marauding interlopers that frequently roam the city in which I reside. If any of these “marauding interlopers” has larceny in their heart and decides to break into my home, they will see the muzzle end of my hunting rifle (AKA: LWRC M6 SPR).

          “I am a strong believer in the Second Amendment.”

          Apparently not.

          “However, I do not believe it is absolute any more than are the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, which deal with freedom of expression. There has to be limitations for the right to own and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

          See my comments above, there are ALREADY limitations to the Second Amendment. Quick recap: the 2A does not protect anyone from committing crime(s) with their firearms.

          “I do not believe that any person has the right to bear arms if their background shows a criminal history or has a mental illness.”

          What if their criminal history is a speeding ticket? Tax evasion? Smoking pot? These are all not violent crimes, but according to you they do not have the protected right to keep and bear arms because their “background shows a criminal history.” However, I would argee with you if you narrow it down to a history of violent crime. I also disagree with you about the mental illness stipulation because just about anyone can be classified as having a mental illness according to APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Let’s look at a few:

          DSM IV code 300.9 – Unspecified mental disorder. I can see it now: Do you go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning? You may be suffering from a diurnal psychosis! If this applies to you, your right to purchase firearms has been denied indefinitely!

          Adjustment disorders as per DSM IV:
          309.9 Unspecified
          309.24 With anxiety
          309.0 With depressed mood
          309.3 With disturbance of conduct
          309.28 With mixed anxiety and depressed mood
          309.4 With mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct

          “An adjustment disorder occurs when an individual is unable to adjust to or cope with a particular stressor, like a major life event.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjustment_disorder

          Depressed after a death in your family and have sought counsel from a psychologist? No guns for you because you have an adjustment disorder!

          OFWG’s will hate this one – DSM IV code 780.9 – Age-related cognitive decline. Maybe the Dems will say that the older you get the less guns you should be “allowed” to own?

          My point is that since no scientific method is applied to the testing and diagnosis of mental disorders (i.e. depression cannot be identified through a scientific test with results that can be replicated) anyone can be diagnosed with a mental disorder. Since Dems have an agenda for gun control, you can bet that they will find a way to place as many people as possible into a mental disorder classification which would prevent them from owning firearms. I will never allow someone to tell me if I am mentally stable enough to legally own firearms.

          “It doesn’t bother me if such background checks take as long as six months to a year to complete.”

          It sure did bother everyone who ran to the nearest gun shop looking to get a self defense tool during the 1992 LA riots. You may want to read up on how these people were effected (i.e. couldn’t protect themselves or their property) by having a waiting period for a firearm purchase. I also don’t understand why people who already legally own firearms have to undergo background checks and waiting periods. What good any of this going to do if I already own a gun and decide to do something malicious with it? What if I illegally aquire a firearm and decide to do something malicious with it? It’s rhetorical, the background checks and waiting periods do nothing helpful.

          “Those who own weapons should be subject to severe penalties in the event any of their weapons fall into violent hands owing to negligence.”

          You’ll have to be more specific this one, especially the negligence part. If I don’t lock up all my guns, is that being negligent? If even if they are in MY HOME and the only way someone could get to them would be by committing a crime (home invasion, robbery)? I keep a loaded gun under my bed at all times, but according to you I “should be subject to severe penalties in the event any of their weapons fall into violent hands” because someone broke into my home and stole it. Home owners should not have to fear what will happen to themselves because someone else committed a crime. I am not at fault for having my home broken into.

          “I don’t believe citizens have a right to own or use machine-guns. I don’t believe citizens should have armor-piercing ammunition”

          Then don’t buy any of those items, no one is forcing you to own them. As for the rest of us law abiding citizens, we want to own the latest and greatest, whether it is for hunting, collecting, target shooting, defense, investment, etc. Did you know that hundreds of millions of gun owners in the United States DIDN’T commit a crime with a gun yesterday (or the day before…..)? Imagine that.

          “In short I don’t believe any citizen should be allowed to possess weapons that outgun police officers.”

          With the current militarizing of the police, they are FAR from being outgunned. You are absolutely stupid to think otherwise. Check out the recent photos of the LA cops hunting Dorner. They are decked out will gear that is completely verboten to citizens of Kalifornia. Just like how militias in the late 1700′s had equipment on par with the Colonial Army, so should we.

          “I don’t believe individuals should be allowed to possess rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces or nuclear weapons. Nor should members of the public have access to aircraft equipped with air-to-ground weapons.”

          Rocket launchers and artillery pieces are considered to be destructive devices and are already controlled as such. As for nuclear weapons, they are already controlled, as are some of their components. You are also failing to understand that these types of weapons are completely indiscriminate and effect more than just a single target. Nuclear fallout can also spread to other areas and leave entire areas dangerously contaminated for centuries. These weapons aren’t even in the same ballpark as a firearm, so your point is moot.

          “Somewhere is a line of demarcation between the Second Amendment being absolute or having limits.”

          For the last time, the Second Amendment ALREADY has its limitations, just like the First Amendment. Already it is not absolute because it doesn’t protect anyone using guns to commit a crime. Murder is already illegal, the Second Amendment doesn’t make it any more legal than the First Amendment makes libel legal. No new laws need to be enacted; America has a crime problem, not a gun problem.

          “I think my line is more logical and better suited for today’s society”

          Your line thinking is illogical and doesn’t do shit to control crime, it only effects law abiding citizens. Far better solution are to keep violent criminals off the street, to re-enforce family values, to motivate people to contribute to their communities, to provide better role models to our youths, to end this “hardcore gang lifestyle” mentality that is being provided to kids by rappers and others like them, to provide more jobs to areas suffering from economic hardships, to legalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol in order to wipe out a black market controlled by violent cartels and gangs, and to have people to keep and bear arms in any way they see fit to do so. My solutions are far better suited for today’s society than anything you have thought of.

  17. avatarMarc says:

    German here, it’s pronounced “drilling”, almost like the english present participle of “to drill”. The difference in pronounciation is only in the “r”.

  18. avatarrosignol says:

    gun control never excludes hunters.

    Yup.

    The primary difference between hunters and snipers is the target.

    Hunters who think the gun-grabbers will leave them alone are very mistaken. What’s going on is demonization and demagoguery in an attempt to divide-and-conquer the 2nd A community.

  19. avatarIng says:

    I’m with you on machine guns and grenades and so on, up the chain. The Second Amendment isn’t 100% absolute. There are reasonable limits on everything, and that seems to me like a reasonable place to draw the line on what constitutes “arms” in a citizen’s context.

    The thing is, there’s an egregious double standard when it comes to how some rights are treated. The First Amendment isn’t absolute, any more than the Second. We can all say just about anything we want on Facebook, Twitter, a forum, or a blog, publishing our personal opinions to the masses, and it’s considered to be protected by the First Amendment — if the Second were treated the same way, we would all own grenades and belt-fed machine guns, and the truly wealthy and powerful among us (Murdoch, Bloomberg, et al.) would have their own tanks, fighter jets, and armed drones.

    The militia situation is completely different today than it was back then; nobody has been expected to muster with military-quality arms in the state’s defense for probably 150 years. But that is absolutely irrelevant to the right itself. The existence of the national guard (i.e., state militias) is not a valid support for any sort of gun control at all. In fact, more like the opposite.

    I don’t have enough knowledge to argue 2A points on political, historical, or legal grounds. However, given that I have a literary education (got my grad-school bona fides hanging on my office wall and everything) and words are my daily business, I *am* qualified to talk about the language of the Second Amendment. From what little I know of legal precedent, nearly every restriction that has been upheld by the courts relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of grammar.

    I don’t have the correct terminology right here at the tip of my tongue, but what’s going on in that sentence is that the *second* part, not the first, is the part that really matters. Making decisions based on the first half of the sentence is just hacking around in the weeds.

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” means nothing by itself. The practical reason behind this part of the 2A is fairly obvious; every country needs some sort of army for its own defense. But that has nothing to do with the actual human right that’s at stake. Grammatically, this clause takes its meaning from an operative clause; by itself, it’s only an incomplete thought that means nothing at all.

    The core meaning of the Second Amendment is in its only grammatically necessary element: the declaration that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That clause can stand by itself; it doesn’t take its meaning from anything else. It’s grammatically complete. It enumerates a right that belongs to the people and tells everybody to keep their mitts off it. The whole concept of a militia stems from that right; both grammatically and practically, a militia can’t exist without it. (And let’s not confuse a militia with a professional army, which is what our armed forces are.)

    Basically, this is a direct order to the government: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia part lends context and describes a benefit that the founders had in mind, but it doesn’t enumerate or restrict anything.

  20. avatarGreg says:

    @USMC

    Good points all. It’s not like they remove your ability to speak because you might yell “FIRE”. is it

  21. avatarPaul Nelson says:

    I am 78. Have hunted and collected guns, drillings included. Semi-auto
    fire in thew woods is stupid, and guys who attach themselves to assault
    weapons and resist background checks are childish. I have seen a couple
    of ytoung guys in the deeer woods with semi-auto 30-06 blast away at
    a running deer. One guy actually hit the animal, destroying the haunch
    meat and anus. I was trained not to shoot at running animals, to place
    one shot, or let the animal pass if it didn’t present a clear target heart
    shot. Sportsman do not use semi-autos. Jerks do. I am a downeast
    Mainer. Think guys. Background checks are a good thing for many reaasons:
    misdemeanors, domestic violence, DUI’s, drug use, hell, half of TX.
    Sorry about that. Yes, I am a redneck as you are. But I think for the common
    good, not for the guys at bar.

  22. avatarcynic says:

    Paul you talk bollocks utter bollocks.

    I shoot in several disciplines which require semi automatic rifles but because ‘sportsmen don’t use semi auto’s’ my experience and my sport means nothing. Cut the crap you are falling into the trap that people pushing band rely on. My home, the United Kingdom had their last few bans rammed through with no real oposition because if your attitude. Beach each little block rallied to protect their ‘sport’ and eagerly threw everyone else under the bus to protect their fiefdom.

    You are a bigot who labels an entire group because of the actions of two or three people they have seen. No better than the men who went out in white sheets of a night. Based on my experiences if I made judgements like you do I could say every East main er is an opinionated bigot who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.

    Background checks encroach more and more as time goes on from the original no felon to drug users and alcoholics to the ex post lautenberg ammendments retroactive punishments to clarification that all drug use counts for addiction even prescribed meds. To nee calls for intentionally vague labels of mental illness and prod. When some medical groups call wanting a gun an illness in itself

    It will end like it has here with the background check requiring references and memberships In ‘legitimate’ clubs with requirements that you prove a need for the firearm you wish to purchase. Restrictions on the ammo quantity you can store and purchase and limit you to what the state say you can have. Want a second .22 no dice. Want more than one hunting rifle in different calibres beg for them.

    May your chains rest lightly.and when your efforts cause the guns I use to be banned and my sports destruction don’t come begging for my voice when they move to take yours because like other posters here once min have been taken and the bans were called for by you I will just remind you of that when they come for yours.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.