[Uncle Buck]

A friend wrote this piece and I found it interesting. He wishes to remain anonymous right now, but may weigh in at later date. Some people will probably be offended by the use of language/stereo-types, but I would welcome all comments if the moderators see fit to let this thread stand.



Some time ago, I wondered about something I'd like to know from the anti-gun crowd: "Whereas you claim you want 'reasonable' and 'common-sense' controls, and whereas the Supreme Court has indeed rules there is an individual right to defensive (not [just] "sporting") arms, exactly what sort of arms would you 'allow' private citizens to have as secured by the Constitution? If you are true to what you say, you will have some sort of answer. If you want to talk, then you have to establish some sort of baseline. Or are you simply disingenuous liars?"

In November of 2012, I posted an article entitled, "What MUST we stand for?" In it, I listed "THREE key elements of public policy matters which I believe 'our side' ought to concentrate in holding the line against 'the other side'". Element 2 was the following:


2. Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.This does NOT mean the preservation of personal preferences or desires, does NOT include issues such as hunting or collecting of items which just happen to be weapons. Also, "carry"-type issues are recognized as being a bit more complicated than some goomer saying, "I gits ta carry a gun!"

So, even before the recent attention on this issue, I was both a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights AND one who put the matter into its higher scope and perspective. And it is from exactly that point that I post these ideas. The two schemes presented below are thoughts developed with the aim of securing the basic means to the end for which Second Amendment provision were intended. When the Heller decision came down back in 2008, my thought was that the pro-gun side should use the leverage it had from that decision to 1. set some sort of baseline with the anti-gun side (since pro-gunners tend to be individualists, and thus not politically reliable); and 2. do a trade-off with liberals on First Amendment issues--e.g., "Okay, you can ban short-barreled rifles and shotguns, but the news coverage supporting the enemy will be declared sedition".

Folks, it is inevitable that some changes will occur in this area. Purism is NOT the order of the day. Purism is suicide right now. Real and viable ideas for arrangements are needed, or a catastrophic failure will occur. You negotiate things in your personal lives all the time. You have to be willing to do that here, even if you "jus' kinda think" we shouldn't have to do so.

(On a related point, regarding pro-gun critics of the NRA: I love these people who are criticizing the NRA specifically for inaction, when the NRA is the only reason they have any right to arms at all. Those people are uneducated and unfamiliar with the reality of our political system. They have no long-term vision, only a vision of what they want personally. Many other groups are "no-compromise." Yet they are also "no-accomplishment". If some of the self-assured purists led the fight, we would be down to rolled-up newspapers as our arms. Subtlety, picking your fights, and consistent politics (like the "friendly incumbent" policy) is how things are done in our--and frankly any--political system. So please, folks, let the NRA do its job. They are the ones who got us Heller and McDonald. They are the ones who fought while others just sniped at them and drew money. They are the ones who can deal with this.)

More recently, I posted another article entitled, "People ought to go about this whole Second Amendment/gun control issue the right way". In it, I argued for the need to use to "use every ounce of creativity, thinking out of the box, and frankly quirky imagination to resolve" the issue at hand. Too many--actually, most--in the Second Amendment community see that "right to arms" as nothing more than a personal preference. They want it for self-focused reasons. I, on the other hand, see the right in terms of its intent--the defense of home and homeland--NOT personal indulgence. With that higher view in mind, I offer two approaches with which I have toyed around with force years, which might serve as a way of resolving the current threat to the Second Amendment. Neither is perfect, preferable, or complete, but I hope they will point the discussion in the right direction.

OPTION 1--"STATION IN LIFE": Allowed weapons dependent on station in life (I am NOT an egalitarian). Four-tier (plus one subset) system:

1. "Urban schmuck": Pump shotgun (.410 and/or 12) for home defense, plus pistol-caliber carbine (probably HiPoint-esque) for home as well as homeland (and community) defense.

2. "Rural schmuck": All of the above, plus full-power rifle due to land expanse, threat from four-legged critters, and longer emergency response time.

-- Subset--"Police": Full-size sidearm. (CAVEAT: This is based on the current practice of allowing police to be armed at all.)

3. "Military" (active and veteran): All of the above, plus "assault weapons," as they have the training to use them.

4. "Elite" (e.g., Donald Trump, or at least his corporations; "private security" firms, etc.): All of the above, plus whatever is suitable.


CARRY: Small pistols only with permit, extensive training, and certain restrictions. Adding to this a possible "derringer allowance"--all people allowed a derringer of no more than two rounds--would be interesting.

CAR CARRY: Depends on whether the Supreme Court comes to consider motor vehicles an extension of the home for applicability of Heller.

SCHEME 2--"OFFICIAL 'MILITIA RIFLE'": (I first suggested this one right after the 2008 Heller decision) Settle on a weapon "competitive on the modern battlefield" (suitable for modern combat, but not an "assault weapon"). The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms. Thus, declaring the flintlock musket the official militia arm would, given its obsolete nature, not be legitimate and in fact constitute an Amendment 2 violation. However, something more akin to the Saiga--basically an AK in less ominous configuration--with a magazine of a capacity more reasonable than the 10-rd limit, would seem suitable for people whose militia function would be (aside from general "resistance to tyranny") home defense, aiding with local law enforcement, and low-grade security or other support for trained military personnel in a domestic military action. As technology advances, re-evaluations would be undertaken to suitably upgrade what is designated the HDR.

Such an official weapon would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.

Below is a partial list of conceived considerations in selecting a "Militia" or "Homeland Defense Rifle". It attempts to take practical, tactical, and political realities into consideration.

- For pro-gunners:
Some "edginess" requiring concessions from anti-gunners ("Uh, we got dem to change!").
Military connection ("Hey, dis is a Aay-Kay!").

- For anti-gunners:
Simple appearance (few evil features).
High "sporting" utility (heavier caliber, size, furniture).
Full length (limited "assault" value).
- For utility:
Minimal maintenance (this is for common schmucks who won't put much labor into the matter--GEN Washington had the problem in his day, and this is not just about active shooters).
Single-round power (limited magazine capacity and possibly number requires more powerful round than 5.56mm).
Mil-spec durability (pretty hunting rifles just won't handle the pressure).
Effective in untrained hands when used within logical role of "militia" (common people not trained, modern warfare limits militia role to support).

One possible model for a HDR (mentioned above) would be a Saiga 308 with 16-inch barrel and (at least) 15-round magazine (and improved stock, in my opinion) for "Homeland Security rifle"? It has "militia" function capability, bridges gap between conventional and "black rifle" in appearance, yet points to distinction of schmuck civilians from military class. And the 15-round magazine would make brain dead rednecks think they won something--"Hey, dat's..., uh..., like, five whole rounds more'd'n before!" The five-round gain, AK mechanism, and increased "sporting" use ("I wants ta hunt, too!") will make this an easier sell to them.

NOTE: In 2008 I had considered the SKS (disregarding caliber)--semi-auto, 10-round fixed box magazine, bayonet, not all that concealable--as an HDR model. In truth, though, this would be giving far too much to the anti-gun crowd.

STORAGE: "Homeland Defense"-type arms would be required to be locked away and secured in ones home, etc. "Personal Defense" and "Property Defense" weapons would not. The HDs could only be accessed for specific purposes. In the event of a riotous threat (ala Koreans in 1992 LA riots), they could, of course, be used, as the dire nature of the situation calls for it and it would constitute more of a Homeland (Community) Defense situation than a Property Defense one (sorry, libertarians and individualists). VERY stiff penalties would apply to violations, and allowing misuse of ones HD arm(s) by another party would incur a strong presumption of criminal liability. In the event a straight HDR scheme is put into effect, then only high-capacity magazines would be safe-stored, as the guns themselves and other magazines must be available.

REGISTRATION: Whatever unburdensome registration is deemed necessary can be done, but the records themselves are left UNcomputerized and stored in a secure facility not subject to normal government search. The NRA or some such private outfit would run the facility and evaluate requests for identifying gun owners. "We've had a mass school shooting, with evidence included. We have such and such info on the weapon used. Please identify the one to whom this weapon is registered. Thank you very, very much," would probably, if the story checks out, lead to a search of records and necessary information provided. On the other hand, "Uh, yeah, like, there was a shooting or something, and the police chief here wants to harass someone with a gun. Give us somebody," or "We kinda think such and such a weapon might have been in the area when a little old lady was mugged," probably would not. In the event of government incursion into the facility or a similar risk of catastrophic loss of confidentiality, the facility would have appropriate self-destruct means (remember, it's NOT computerized, so cannot be hacked).

TRAINING: Mandatory training in high schools in the law of self-defense (make uniform nationally), basic gun safety, and (with restrictions and some limitations) a very basic instruction and practice with a long arm of some sort.

Either scheme, especially the HDR one (and there is range for merging much of the two*) will force anti-gunners into a tight situation. On the one hand, they can't complain too much, seeing as how it subjects the Second Amendment to restriction, and at least in the HDR scheme, meets most substantive objections to "assault weapons". It also forces them to acknowledge Heller and McDonald, as well as the intent of the Second Amendment and the function/purpose of its right. At the same time, it offers some law enforcement tools and obstacles to nutcase mass murders. Ultimately, it would settle the issue in our society (at least for ten years). Pro-gunners don't want to fight political battles. They are too selfish. This would appeal to them by allowing them to bow out of the issue with a secure knowledge of their weapons' status. Sincere anti-gunners will get some of what they want, and the disingenuous ones will be exposed. And most of all, constitutional integrity and "the security of a free state" will be maintained.

This is NOT an issue of "rights" so much as it is an issue of "responsibility". Look at it from the perspective of ones responsibility to be PART of the security of our country, etc., not a weakness of it. Securing ones own home, person, and property aids society. On the other hand, merely having an attitude that one has a "right" to something only contributes to the general decline of responsible behavior. And quite frankly, when a people lose their sense of responsibility (in other words, become liberal or libertarian), those people lose freedom. They become much like an irresponsible teenager who has the keys to the family car taken from them. And, if they complain too much or demand too much, those teenagers find themselves being treated as kindergartners, because that is exactly how they will be acting.

So, for the sake of the safety of the country and each of us, look at this from a perspective beyond yourself. Pro-gunners, shed the libertarian disregard for natural responsibilities to the national and local community, and to each other. Anti-gunners (if any ever read this), drop the anti-American agendizing and accept the reality of our Constitution, our heritage, and our universe. And everybody, try to work for the RIGHT thing.
Please consider.

Saiga 308 with factory 8-round magazine.
*In old England, peasants were at one time REQUIRED to maintain both a pike and a spear. The pike was a large, heavy weapon, and the spear was a lighter weapon. One could contend that in a modern-technology parallel, the HDR would be analogous to the pike, and a carbine and/or shotgun analogous to the spear. Providing for both as recognized "militia arms," thus, would have precedent and have a reasonable basis.