Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
Wow, the short-sightedness of that statement astounds me. Never heard of IPSC, IDPA, 3-gun, trap & skeet, modern pentathalon, National Match, etc.? Both my boys are pretty proficient in using both a rifle and pistol to accurately punch holes in paper, and we all really enjoy those experiences; neither has ever killed anything with a firearm. I've personally taught dozens of Boy Scouts to shoot a .22 rifle, and except for a few whose dads have taken them hunting, most haven't ever killed anything with a firearm. There are plenty of sporting and recreational applications for firearms, although once again the Constitution doesn't require a sporting use to guarantee the individual the right to own a firearm (so says SCOTUS in Miller and Heller)..
|
Why, yes. I have heard of those sport application for guns. Participated in skeet. I've never competed in a marksmanship competition but enjoy practicing marksmanship for fun and military proficiency. As a skier, I really admire biathlon,too. That is awesome about your sons. BTW thanks we have succeeded at Pinewood Derby based on your advice and your sons' experience. I earned the shooting merit badge and Little Dude probably will too after he moves up.
There are plenty of sporting applications to driving too, demolishion derby for example. But there is where I part company from your model. Demolishion derby came after cars were developed for the primary purpose of transportation.
Guns were developed for the primary purpose of putting holes in other people. Other Soldiers specifically. Then it was noted that guns did a good job of putting holes in good things to eat. And as with guns designed to kill (not just put holes in) soldiers hunting guns got more and more advanced. Look up a "punt gun" now that is a level of unsportsmanlike-like efficiency!
You are absolutely right that the Second Amendment does not distinguish a sporting right. And your reading it here under my signature -- I do not believe the Founders were concerned about putting food of the table or bragging rights. They were concerned about defense. I believe the defense of the big frontier in the absence of a big standing force. I also believed they were very comfortable with the home and personal defense idea. (How about a little credit here? I'm agreeing with two out of three to the gun lobby arguments -- I'm not sold that they intended guns to be used against the new government . . . Themselves)
My point has never been guns should be banned.
My point is this: Gun possession argument seems to fall into four categories. The pry my gun from my cold dead fingers vs the ban all guns gang. Neither are the majority. Together they do not form a majority. In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.
My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people. Initially, I thought maybe purchase of a gun requires purchase of an effective security system. This assumes that law abiding legal purchasers would use these security devices. Just as it is assumed that law abiding legal car drivers adhere to driving regulations. I know not all do but a significant number do that we all feel relatively safe on the road.
( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and the car fell over on it's side. Not a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. It is more then required but As a licensed owner i feel some obligation to the general public to go a little beyond the minimum requirements.
*** my very well maintained, paid off SUV with 256,500 miles making it practically book value worthless, that I was planning on driving for at least another 2 years. He managedd to bang up everyside but the front including sheering off BOTH rear view mirrors (even the Sherriff was impressed). From walking the "accident" i mean "negligence" scene, it must have been one hell of a ride . . .He admits to 55 mph that was before I pointed out it was a 25 mph zone rural road. There was a long sideways slide into a mailbox, then a counter clockwise 180 spin that included about 15 feet of airtime as it went into the culvert backwards wrapped up by the tipping over on its side and the driver door window exploding. (No Airbags deployed) At each point of contact outside the car he seemed to be in exactly the best orientation. 45 days since his licensing.