Teaching His Sons In Due Time

Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare …. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practises in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.

– B. Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880). Cited by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in DC v Heller, 2007.

I ran across an article by Gary Stallard in the Lufkin News today while squandering an otherwise perfectly good day off. It’s a good bit of writing, but what makes his narrative stand out is that it is a confession of his guilt in what was very nearly a Christmas tragedy. The short version is that Stallard, a Marine veteran, negligently discharged his weapon while showing it to his brother-in-law. Fortunately the only damage made by the .45 round was a hole in his bedroom door.

It wasn’t a lack of training. He’d learned gun safety from his father and from the Marines. But he’d grown complacent; he had gone for years without firing the pistol, and he was rusty on the procedures. He did remember to keep the barrel pointed down until he was ready to fire at a target, but the cardinal sins were assuming the weapon was unloaded and pulling the trigger.

So Gary Stallard took to the Internet to call attention to his mistake, hoping that by doing so, at least some of the nearly 1.8 million new gun buyers in 2015 would bother to take a class on how to handle a weapon safely. (For the four basic gun safety rules, click here.)

Some will be quick to say no, that gun owners don’t need training. It’ll just add to the cost of owning a gun, they’ll say. They’ll also point out that Gary Stallard had more training than most civilians ever will, and it didn’t do him much good, but nobody will be quicker to point that out faster than Stallard himself. And Justice Scalia noted that the phrase “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment suggests that militiamen obviously needed some kind of “proper discipline and training.

Yes, investing in training on how to use a gun will add to the cost of ownership, but it will hardly be crippling. A quick bit of Googling revealed basic handgun courses for as little as $80 to $125, and some institutions offer advanced training for around the same money. Compare that figure to the $500 and up a good gun will cost you, add $50 for a holster, then add the cost of ammo for a year, and the $80 price tag for basic instruction seems like a steal.

The concept of taking a class to learn how to do something that can mean the difference between life and death seems a no-brainer to me, but I’m an educator by trade, and I’ve been in school for half my life. And, as an educator, I also understand that there are plenty of people who don’t want to sit through a class of any kind.

But consider this: most Americans who buy handguns cite personal or family protection as the reason. If you’re one of them, then learn how to use it and practice regularly. Do you really want to find yourself in a situation where you’re the good guy with a gun going up against a trained bad guy with a gun? Intentions will not matter in that case. Are you really willing to put yourself and your family at risk because you couldn’t be bothered to invest a few hours a month on the firing range? If you buy a weapon for protection but leave it in a drawer and never practice with it, you’ve merely bought the illusion of security.

Learning how to use a weapon and staying in practice are two requirements for responsible gun ownership. Once you are trained, teach your entire family in due time how to properly handle a firearm. Proper education can prevent the negligent handling of a gun, either by you or by untrained individuals. Remember, all guns are always loaded. Period.

In closing, I’ll leave you with this thought from The Federalist about when a weapon should be discharged (outside of a shooting range):

Never discharge your weapon unless you believe your life or that of another innocent person is in imminent mortal danger. And then, if you choose to shoot, shoot to neutralize the threat.

After you pull the trigger, the gun will do its job. Do yours: make sure the threat is real and not a door in your bedroom.

Advertisements

The Liberty – Security Question

In my last post I pointed out that President François Hollande’s impassioned push for the extension of a state of emergency in France was just the opening of the abyss for French civil rights. And if that extension is granted, which it likely will be, what then? Will the emergency truly be over in just three short months? Does the defeat of ISIS now have a timetable? And, once it is defeated, will civil liberties be restored?

I doubt it. The fear propaganda train will just keep rolling into the night of uncertainty. After all, it could happen again. Best leave things as they are.

Our own experience with civil rights curtailment run amok is an excellent example. The Patriot Act was passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and we didn’t get rid of most of it until June of this year. Perhaps the most sinister aspect of the law was Section 215, which authorized law enforcement to seize any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” deemed necessary to a terrorism investigation. Edward Snowden‘s revelation that the NSA was using Section 215 to collect bulk phone data from millions of unsuspecting Americans was the coup de grâce to Patriot, which was ultimately gutted and reborn as the Freedom Act.

Now Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, wants to delay the reform of the Freedom Act. As it stands now, the NSA’s unfettered access to the phone records of most Americans ends on November 29. Rubio wants to delay that in the name of national security, and in fact wants to bring back parts of the Patriot Act. Rubio’s rationale is thus:

The Paris terrorist attacks remind us that no corner of the free world is safe from these savages, and it is our duty to defeat them by any means necessary. The USA Freedom Act signed into law earlier this year left our intelligence community with fewer tools to protect the American people and needlessly created more vulnerabilities and gaps in information gathering used to prevent terrorist attacks at home and abroad.

I have no argument with President Hollande or Senator Rubio that ISIS is a threat and must be defeated. But that is not the issue. The issue is that citizens of any country should not be expected to suspend or renounce their civil liberties in exchange for feeling secure. If a government cannot protect her populace without robbing it of its inalienable rights, then it is a very sorry one indeed. And if a country’s population is willing to surrender its liberty for security, then it deserves neither.

 

 

The Price of Security

This is how the terrorists win.

French President François Hollande has asked for an extension of the state of emergency that now exists in France, and as of this morning the government was debating extending this condition by three months. Such a declaration would not only grant the police new and sweeping powers, it would write them into the constitution. Specifically the law would allow

… severe restrictions of civil liberties and could involve curfews, restricted movements, house arrests, closing public establishments, expanded powers for police to make arrests and to control the press and broadcast media, all of which are liberties the constitution is meant to guarantee.

RFI English

In other words, ISIS has caused the French government to spread terror for them.

The terrorist’s objective is to spread terror, and ISIS got the ball rolling on Friday night when suicide bombers killed 129 people. But it was the reaction of President Hollande in asking for an extension of emergency powers that keeps tensions high in France. And NPR reported today that the French are okay with sacrificing some of their rights in order to be secure.

Sérieusement?

Sorry, but you can’t make me believe that you really feel free of the specter of terror when cops can tell you where you can and cannot go at any time and for any reason or stop and frisk you because you might be a terrorist (you do have a beard). And you may say you feel secure, but when the government controls the media, you’re being told what to think. And it wants you to think you’re secure today.

That’s real terror, when the enemy has done such a whammy on you that your government finishes the job by suspending your rights for your own good.

This brand of terror was visited on the United States on September 11, 2001; the draconian Patriot Act became law barely a month later. It, like Patriot Act à la française, was debated and passed quickly in the heat of passion over the violent attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We gave up our rights, like dutiful little citizens, and wondered why on Earth our government would want to read our email. It’s just so boring!

But the point is that they – like ISIS – can do it at all, whenever they want, and for whatever reason.

And that’s reason enough to say non.

 

The Ascension of College Football

The main takeaway from yesterday’s twin resignations at the University of Missouri is that college football teams have power, and lots of it.

Think about it. Former university president Timothy Wolfe had been confronted by students before – notably the ones who surrounded his car during homecoming – and ignored their demands, but only when faced with the loss of football revenue through forfeit penalties, ticket sales, concessions, and television coverage did he finally go.

I don’t think Wolfe ever got it.

As a former graduate student, I can understand the ire of someone who teaches classes at the university and who suddenly finds that said university will no longer pick up the tab for health insurance. As a teacher of students who face discrimination and prejudice because of their color, I can sympathize with students who endured obscene expressions of hate. But what I cannot understand is how Wolfe thought that none of this applied to him, that it wasn’t his fault, that if he ignored the students who demanded change, they and the problem would go away.

He brought about his own coup not because of what he did, but because of what he failed to do. His “let them eat cake” attitude meant nothing while Jonathan Butler had no bread.

And even when he resigned, it wasn’t about the students, not really. He made his decision after meeting with the donors and alums who had their collective hands on the money faucet.  It was HP and Carly Fiorina all over again. He had to take one for the team that was about to walk out. He had to go.

And so he went. Graduate students and football players cheered, while Butler said he would resume eating.

And now college football teams across the nation are left with the realization that they have more power than they ever dreamed of having, and not the power that comes from winning championships or getting lucrative NFL contracts. This wasn’t the power of a few superstars throwing a tantrum or LeBron’s decision. The team, acting as one, brought down a university president and a chancellor!

And all leaders – not just those of universities, but of corporations and of governments – should take note of what highly motivated individuals who band together can accomplish.

Because this is just the beginning.

Read more.

RWO