Local Hipster: Why Do East Tennesseans Love Their Guns?
Jesse Fox Mayshark has an article in the local alt weekly on just that. It’s a good piece, light on hysteria that I expect from an alt weekly and Jesse. One quibble:
On one side are people who don’t own, carry, or want guns. Whether they’ve studied the issue closely or not, they tend to believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has something to do with state militias and little to do with a personal right to firearms.
The collective rights mythology has been rejected by all three branches of government and public opinion. It is a myth and always has been. Even in its heyday, that myth was not supported by significant numbers of people. And the Brady Campaign wiped all references to that creation science from its webpage. I’m guessing that, in East Tennessee, if you asked 10 people about the second amendment not a single one would yammer on about state militias.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:49 am
I’ll take that bet, as long as I’m allowed to ask the question on campus…
November 5th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Or at the metropulse/knownews offices?
November 5th, 2010 at 10:40 am
“Bob Delmore has a gun on the worktable in front of him. It is an M1911 semi-automatic pistol”
Is that THE Gunsmith Bob?
November 5th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I think he’s right in terms of what he said.
He said that anti-gun people would claim that the Second Amendment isn’t about personal rights.
The Brady Campaign gave up on that, but only just recently – while it’s always been a myth, it’s been a very, very popular one among people who wanted to believe there was no personal right in the Second Amendment, and among people who just did a casual look around and took the anti-gun forces at face value.
I’m sure you’re right about asking random 10 East Tennesseers (Tennesseeans? What IS the plural?) about it you wouldn’t get that… but they’re not real likely to be the anti-gun types he’s talking about, are they?
November 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Before McDonald and Heller, I prepared to take on the “It’s only for militias [and militias are sooooo yesterday!] argument by reserving “www.virtualmilitia.com.” Sort of a joke and I had satire in mind, but I’m real tempted to launch it and start filling the ranks from all over the country. My concern is that we gun owners live privately and quietly for the most part, and that we lack organization. That is changing but I’m reserving my right to muster the militia in the valley anyway.
I think Jesse may know some local gun owners. It would be hard NOT to in Knoxville.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Jesse left a comment which i managed to somehow eat in the spam filter. It was:
Sorry about that.
November 6th, 2010 at 10:49 am
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that they are addressed to the Federal Government were added as “declarative”(of the rights of the people) and “restrictive” of the Federal Government.
The 2nd Amendment is a grammatically correct sentence which begins with a subordinate explanatory clause re: the militia being necessary to the security of a free State. The State and its people are FREE from the Federal Government re: this enumerated right. The word “militia” must agree with “the people” in the main clause of the sentence or the sentence is self-contradictory. The sub-ordinate clause does not ccontradict the main or independent clause which specifically declares “the right of the people”!
The term “militia” refers to Article I, Section 8.15,16 which states that the Federal Gov’t has only delegated power for governing such part of the militia that it employs.
Furthermore, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the States and ultimately the people retain power over rights and can add and expand over those enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
The Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land”, NOT the Federal Government. According to the grammatical wording of the 2nd Amendment in context of the rest of the Constitution, the Federal Gov’t can only govern (make and enforce gun laws)re: who “such part of the militia”) they call into service and employ. Therefore Federal gun laws which in any way “infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear (carry) arms are unconstitutional and UNLAWFUL.
November 7th, 2010 at 2:59 am
Well, Delmore’s scepticism is well-founded, when the writer can’t even accurately reproduce events that he personally witnessed:
“With practiced ease, he ejects a round from the chamber and removes the magazine.”
Or maybe he was setting Jesse up for an accident? :-/
(Hope Jesse sees this: I tried to comment on the Metropulse web site, but couldn’t find out any way to create an account so I could.)
November 7th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Jesse,
“As a 1st Amendment extremist myself…”
That’s good to hear. I look forward to a cover article in Metro Pulse on conservative and libertarian free speech concerns in academia. For example, the UT counseling center makes “social justice” adherence a type of requirement for entry. This would seem to be a restriction on the free speech of those who do not adhere to liberal dogma. Are you really a free speech extremist or do you believe in free speech for all, regardless of political persuasion? I hope the latter.