While I Was At The Texas EMS Conference…

It's been a while - sorry I'm late to this party.

Not only could the Founders envision modern weaponry, in fact they plainly intended any citizen be able to carry any weapon the army would have - including artillery and naval gun-boats for those who could afford them.

Excellent birthday for a lucky girl with a great Dad. Ignore the GFWs, AD - you know what's right.

One comment: I had a REALLY hard time figuring out why it was necessary to white-out the chest on Hannah Montana in the "overhead" pic -- I puzzled over that for several minutes before realizing it was the top of the "7" candle... Then I LLOLed...

DD

My interpretation of the second amendment is made with modern common sense. You cannot extrapolate much specific detail from documents that are over 200 years old. General concepts, yes. However, I am sure in my heart that Madison and company would not have extrapolated their "right to keep and bear arms" (intended to prevent a King from reemerging) to cover modern weapons - and yes, I know the difference between semi auto and full auto military weapons. A semi auto military style assault rifle or a 9mm pistol with an 18 round clip was not something they could have imagined. They were using language in a general sort of way - not meant to never be interpreted differently in different future situations. In fact, I bet, given their general distrust of the uneducated public (like have a property ownership requirement to vote and the fact that they created the electoral college) , I guess they would have preferred the "riff raff" not have ANY weapons - for fear they would oust what ever government was present. Not to mention how many more millions of people there are in our country now, packed together like sardines in many areas.
Also, I agree that other countries have seen a rise in gun violence, but I would argue it is the US gun culture (as well as easier accessibility) that has led to it. Another good way to solve this would be to cut the number of guns that can be manufactured in the first place and price them through the roof. Getting a license (especially for a handgun) should take months or years, not hours or days.

I guess the 20 round repeating, low signature (relatively silent and no smoke cloud), man killing power (within a few years they were standard issue to a few European elite regiments), pneumatic rifles were just totally unknown to teh Founding Fathers, even though they were commonly known of for some time. . .

I guess the repeating, "automatic" muskets (the only one I've seen enough details on to figure out was basically like a Roman Candle loaded with .75 lead balls, and would fire until fully exhausted) many inventors kept trying to sell to Congress DURING THE REVOLUTION, were completely unthinkable to teh very men who were given demonstrations, YEARS BEFORE THE 2nd AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN. (There was BIG MONEY in increased firepower, especially since the Continentals needed an edge to overcome well-drilled regulars. There was nearly a revolving door of guys trying to sell ordnance advances to Congress.)

Hell, Pepys described going to a demonstration of what was, as best ordnance engineers can gather, was a demonstration of a "machinegun" (probably a manually cranked device like a Puckle or Gatling Gun) that laid out a SERIOUS amount of firepower in a short period of time. (Like "militarily impressive for mid-19th Century" amount of fire.) That was in teh 17th Century (and several patents were issued for repeating guns in London that century -- gun designers had been trying to develop repeating guns from teh very beginning.) But no, apparantly teh Founding Fathers could never have CONCEIVED of that which was one of the Holy Grails of gun design since the late medieval period. . . even though many of them were "gun nuts" or "military geeks".

Still haven't responded with anything that be backed up with facts, ERP.

How is the US gun culture driving up violence in the UK or Australia? Do you actually intend to imply that US guns are somehow making it across the Atlantic and being smuggled into an island nation?

And before you reply with the "US guns flooding into Mexico" canard, that one has been thoroughly debunked, and even the FBI, DEA and BATFE agree that it isn't true.

All I'm hearing from you is "I guess" and "I feel" and "I think." While those are perfectly acceptable feelings, they don't make for a strong argument, and they're a very poor excuse for Constitutional scholarship.

I'll ask you again, "If you feel the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned modern weapons when they drafted the Second Amendment, thus rendering it invalid in modern times, do you also feel the same way about throwing out the First Amendment in other venues they couldn't have envisioned, like the Internet, television, or radio?"

I think that's a fair question, and one that will tell if you truly believe in the Bill of Rights, or only just the ones you agree with.

Not only must we avoid deciding which pieces of the Bill of Rights still apply, we must remember why they were created in the first place. ERP, you are slightly mistaken, the second amendment was a check against tyranny of any sort, not just a new king. At the time of writing, the most powerful weapons were cannons. During the revolutionary war, and long after, our Navy consisted of privateers, essentially mercenaries, armed with ships, muskets, and cannon. The arms guaranteed by the amendment were identical to those of the military. Our experiences in Nazi and then Soviet occupied country taught us how very ineffective such pistols as the liberator really were. A handful of people armed with 9 mm pistols will not be able to make any sort of real stand against any squad of the US army, armed as they are with fully automatic weapons. We have lost much of the intent of the second amendment. I don't think we need to put it in modern context any more, in fact, it needs to be put back into it's original context. An armed society is a polite society. Statistically, they are also safer. Our society needs to stop asking the government for everything, including protection. Regrettably, that is an argument for another time.

I am constantly amazed by your parental skilz.

Keep it dude, you definitely rock in my book and I'm positive your little girl will be an amazing woman.

Most honored and respected Mr. Ambulance Driver, sir:

Is there any chance of getting an after-action review of the M&P from you and/or KatyBeth? I've been waiting for one to show up at my local gun shop; they have the Colt and Ruger AR15 .22s, but my understanding is that the manual of arms on the Colt differs slightly from that of the standard AR. (Also, I'd be drummed out of the S&WCA if I bought one of those.)

Did you notice any feeding issues?

Dwight, we did have three failures to feed, and one failure to fire out of close to 100 rounds. The gun was brand new, and dry right out of the box. All it had was a squirt of Break Free on the bolt for lubrication, so it was not exactly a fair test. The failure to fire was using CCI Mini Mag ammo, and the round it question had a dented primer. To my eyes, it looked indented enough to have fired, as opposed to a light primer strike, so I'm guessing the round was a dud.

In my experience, that's unusual for CCI ammo, but it *does* happen.

As far as the manual of arms goes, the controls are exactly like my Bushmaster AR15. That's why I bought the Smith & Wesson, as opposed to some of the other AR variants in .22 LR on the market. The safety position, charging handle, bolt release and mag release are exactly the same as my Bushmaster, and the take down procedure is the same.

Obviously, the bolt and carrier are a bit different, but all of the external features of the firearm are the same as any standard AR15.

It shot VERY well. The scope was only boresighted and not fine tuned, and still we had no problems hitting the target. I could bounce a can around the yard just about as fast as I could pull the trigger. More importantly, so could Katy. She's still figuring out the nuances of sight picture and trigger squeeze, so she had plenty of misses, but she had plenty of hits, too.

My only complaint was that the scope mount was too low for me to get a comfortable sight picture without dropping my head more than usual. On the other hand, it's set up for KatyBeth, and the scope height is just about right for a seven-year-old girl.

I'll post another range report after the gun is broken in, but right now I can tell we're going to have some fun with this one.

Most honored and respected Mr. Ambulance Driver and Mr. totwtytr, sirs:

Thanks for the response and the review. That pretty much covers everything I wanted to know.

Cabela's is only a few miles down the Interstate....hmmmmm....

AD can give you more detail, but since I was there and fired it, I can give you a few answers. Yes, we had some FTFs, but AD thought that it was because the rifle was a bit dry and new. Other than that, it was terrific.

Remember and enjoy AD, the times, they are fleeting! And Happy Birthday KB :-)

Nice pressy :) Glad KathyBeth liked it. I've just show my girls (6 & 8) the photos and my youngest said "cool gun" :) - unfortuantely they're illegal here :(

AD you win my vote for the awesome dad award :)

AD,

Congrats on pulling off a great birthday - and that's an awesome present! I can bet you two have years of fun at the range ahead of you.

Sorry we couldn't make it out to see you at the conference - another time!

Clearly a safe range, and a great gift. I spent part of Thanksgiving afternoon with one adult and 2 children who had never shot before(along with some other shooters). Safety, as always, first and foremost. But they shot well, everyone hit the targets, and it was a good way to spend some time with close friends.

C'mon down Nurse K, and we'll help you get over your fears.

Happy Birthday to an angel-face!

Your daddy gives the bestest presents!

Nurse K,
You are wrong.
AD Is the coolest dad in the whole universe. He's damned near as cool as my Grand Dad who gave me my first shotgun when I was 7, stored it for me and hid it from my mom too. Dolls, fill 'em with tannerite.

Good on ya, CoolDad.

I'm going for the same award this Christmas, when The Little Girl gets the little pink .22. I can't wait!



tweaker

Love ya, AD, but totally don't agree with 7-year-olds + big guns. Seven-year-old children = Impulsivity, saying they'll do what you say then do something else entirely + no healthy fear of death. Maybe tween years or whatever, but SEVEN? Really? How about playing with dolls? Anyone? Dolls?

Love ya' too, Nurse K., but that's your urban, northern Yankee sensibility talking.

1. It's a .22 LR, same as her cute pink single-shot rifle. It just *looks* scary to people like you.

2. My child NEVER shoots unsupervised, nor is she allowed access to any firearm I keep in my house. And because of her familiarity with them, she is neither fascinated enough to find them a tempting but forbidden fruit, nor is she likely to hang around in the unlikely event one of her playmates finds a gun.

3. She knows, and follows, the Four Rules of firearms safety as well as any adult, and even made up a fifth rule: no shooting in the house.

4. She plays with dolls, and has an extensive collection. She also likes shooting with her father, and wanted a gun like his. So I got her one.

5. The seven-year-olds you know may = impulsivity, but any adult who has ever met my daughter will attest that she is anything but impulsive, very well-behaved, and possesses a healthy respect for firearms.

Just like she was taught to be.

I'm glad you are psychic and can read the mind of a seven-year-old girl and know exactly what she will and will not do and what is and is not fascinating. You should publish a book on that too; millions will buy it. I also was not aware that she was the only 7-year-old who could behave in a rational, calm, adult-like manner all the time, and follow rules 100% of the time that, if not followed, could results in death. Guess what? Even the best-behaved kids goof up sometimes and that's to be expected. Do you want the goof-up to be related to gun safety or forgetting to put all your dolls away properly?

Just seems like an unnecessary risk for a child's playtime, even in the best of circumstances. It's not like you have to shoot to survive/eat like the pioneers did or whatever.

I got a blot post out of this. Feel free to read and comment! :)

And I'm so glad you ARE psychic and obviously know, better than her parents, what goes through the mind of a little girl you've never met.

Then again, you're expert in a lot of things you've never done or experienced.

Lisa--A thrashing (aka child abuse) for pointing a gun at someone followed by "we never locked up the guns" at age 6 really doesn't help your "it's fun and safe" case.

I've taken gun classes, and I wouldn't want my 9-year-old doing anything in those classes, and this is with an NRA-certified instructor standing right there. Could he learn how to clean a gun, load a gun properly, not fire it if you pull the trigger and only a poof of smoke comes out but nothing else, and not point it at anyone? Sure! Do I trust him to always follow those rules? Hell no! I'm just generally opposed to children being viewed as equivalent to adults when it comes to responsibility. Doesn't matter if your child is the most mature 7-year-old on the planet, she's still a 7-year-old and the brain development just isn't built for 100% accuracy on responsibility which is why there is a millions-year tradition of children not being thrust upon the world sans parents with adult-like responsibilities in early elementary school.

If you're going to have her sit on your lap while you're in supreme control of the gun and only sorta play-act that she's the one doing the shooting, that's fine to me, but anything else is ?????

Nope. A thrashing---definitely not child abuse, needed teaching given correctly, immediately, and effectively---isn't child abuse. You may choose to raise children by reasoning with them. I choose, as did my father, to reason with what can be reasoned with, and apply other methods to teach essentials. "Don't run in the street," for example, was taught with a swat. "Don't yank on the cat," OTOH, was taught by the cat. The potential consequences of unsafe gun handling were taught with the flat of my daddy's hand. Note that the lesson did not need repetition. I've been shooting for years, and so have my children.

I am sorry that you have fallen victim to the modern portrayal of children as incompetent. I do seem to recall, however, that children in the 1800's were considered capable of field work at 5 or 6....reread the little house books, and figure the ages.

I don't view my 9-year-old as incompetent. He cleans his room, takes out the trash, helps me rake the leaves, picks up his dishes, loads the dishwasher, pulls weeds, put on his bike helmet before he rides his bike, walks the dog around the block, picks up her poop, AND washes his hands after he pees. He rarely ever complains either. He's usually proud that he was able to help out his mom because he was taught that it is extremely important and reflects very well on you as a person if you help out your parents. There are even little picture books you can buy for children that discuss this subject.

He also goes to an advanced school and recites the Gettysburg address, can speak/write in Latin, and does reading/writing/math far in advance of grade level. He understands things like the Golden Rule and we have discussions about how it reflects poorly on him as a person if he teases someone else and things of that nature.

There is no particular reason that he needs to be taught to shoot a gun in order to be taught responsibility. I would certainly never make him fear for his personal safety by smacking him around nor is it necessary. Kids have enough to worry about these days, especially him with his high homework requirements, and shouldn't fear injury from their parents for a misstep common to childhood. That's very antiquated. He should feel safe and cared for at home, not fearful and worried that he will do something that will both hurt and humiliate him.

There was awhile there where he was trying to skip out on some homework, and, when I discovered it, he got grounded from computer and TV until he had a week of 100% completed homework, and that fixed that problem. He also acknowledged that what he did was wrong, was a lie, how lying to your mother reflects poorly on you as a person and makes others not trust you, and that he understood why he was to not watch TV or play on the computer.

I'm not sure I regard that as competent. My oldest daughter, at age 3, was helping me can, could weed the garden, sit still through mass, read Dr. Seuss.....by her 5th birthday, she could quite competently change her younger brother's diapers---cloth, with pins---chop veggies to help me with dinner, and had long since mastered the art of sweeping, mopping, hammering, and--oh yeah---was starting to learn how to handle a pint-sized .22, with supervision.
Fast forward a few years, and she could handle a houseful of children, managed to do her own homework without supervision and put herself in advanced classes. Also was quite a soccer player, taking herself to the practices that she kept track of herself, on her bicycle.

I reiterate that I find the average child today to be functioning at a level that is barely adequate to keep them alive, and have no doubt that they are incapable of judgement or self-restraint. That doesn't mean that I find that unhappy state necessary or reasonable. The ability to restrain oneself can and should be acquired early.......but it rarely is.

I gotta agree with Nurse K here (not that I think I ever agreed with her on any "hotbutton" political topic before). Even supervised properly, I find the whole concept if kids (especially one with arm weakness) shooting guns disturbing (defined as someone under about 10-12). Remember that horrible case about a year ago where an 8 year old killed himself at a gun show up North with his dad (an ER doctor no less) and a supervisor watching? He was firing a full auto sub machine gun that experience barrel travel due to the recoil (and his lack of strength) and he unloaded into his own head.
In fact, the whole gun culture is disturbing. Why? there are so many redneck, uneducated, hicks out there who are simply obsessed with guns and are fascinated to see things blown away. I call that scary. Not to say that properly trained, responsible adults with an IQ above 80 should not be allowed to hunt or shoot at a range, but people that live and breathe guns with them lying all over the house are IMHO a threat to themselves, their families, and society. Personally, I see our country moving in two directions, those that want guns in everyone's pocket, and those that want them either banned or strictly regulated. Sooner or later (like maybe in a few generations), I see the latter side becoming the majority (even down South).
Your Daughter is a cute kid. Hope she stays safe.

Thanks for your thoughts, ERP. We disagree on the whole issue of guns and the gun culture, but I appreciate you posing your thoughts in a civil manner.

One note, however: the whole "scary" part. I too find it scary that someone would have unsecured guns and unsupervised children in the same room . However, that does not represent a responsible gun owner, and I do believe that most gun owners are responsible.

You may feel that people who "live and breathe guns with them lying all over the house are IMHO a threat to themselves, their families and society," but the facts and figures do not support such a belief.

My guess is that you fear guns because you are unfamiliar with them, and your view of the gun culture is founded in ignorance. That's not a slap at you, by the way.

If you'd like to send me your e-mail address, I'm sure that I can find a reader in your area willing to take you shooting. You may find your opinion of guns, shooting and gun owners changed significantly after such a trip - at the very least, you'll have the basis for a more informed opinion, one not based on fear and ignorance.

Let me know, and I'll put the word out.

Thanks for your response Amb Driver,
Well, I am fairly familiar with guns. I am an Eagle scout and I shot plenty of rifles and shotguns during my summer scout camps. In fact, I used to be sort of obsessed with guns myself as a teenager. However, that is precisely what scares me now. I realise how "into" it and honestly was not that responsible (in general) as a 15 year old (and still am a hugely interested amateur military historian). I shot my brother in the eye with a BB gun just messing around and caused lens damage - he many years later needed a lens transplant because of me. This was after I took a bunch of gun (and archery) safety classes - and I still was doing stupid stuff. I can only imagine what it must be like for the type we tend to see dragged out of trailer home, reeking of ETOH on the show COPS. These guys always seem to have about a dozen guns lying around - and don't appear to be afraid to use them against loved ones.
Even excluding these types, guns are just too dangerous to be in most people's possession. Perfect example - Dick Cheney. I know it was an accident but when you have an "accident" with a gun you tend to get death or severe injury. And this is with hunting weapons, not concealable pistols that most criminals perfer to use.
I am not for banning guns, but I feel they need STRICT regulation (like they do in most European and Asian countries). I do not think our founding fathers ever thought there would be something like a "street sweeper" or 50 cal machine guns - and cannot believe they would have extrapolated the 2nd amendment to protect the ownership of them.

"In fact, I used to be sort of obsessed with guns myself as a teenager. However, that is precisely what scares me now."

Projection, plain and simple.

"I shot my brother in the eye with a BB gun just messing around and caused lens damage - he many years later needed a lens transplant because of me. This was after I took a bunch of gun (and archery) safety classes - and I still was doing stupid stuff."

Because the safety lessons didn't stick with you, then everyone must be just the same, and we must protect them from themselves, right?

"I can only imagine what it must be like for the type we tend to see dragged out of trailer home, reeking of ETOH on the show COPS. These guys always seem to have about a dozen guns lying around - and don't appear to be afraid to use them against loved ones."

Just that - imagination. And for the class of people where that IS true, another law isn't going to curb their willingness to use guns to commit crime. On the other hand, it will limit my options, as a law-abiding citizen who wouldn't break the law in the first place. The regulation you propose will affect only the law-abiding, not the people you're afraid of.

"Even excluding these types, guns are just too dangerous to be in most people's possession. Perfect example - Dick Cheney. I know it was an accident but when you have an "accident" with a gun you tend to get death or severe injury."

Once again, projection. And the solution to accidents is education, not regulation. By your logic, cars, knives would be off-limits to most people. Medical mishaps by physicians kill more people in this country every year, by far, than guns. Let's ban doctors, or make it almost impossible to see one!

"And this is with hunting weapons, not concealable pistols that most criminals perfer to use."

Criminals prefer to use whatever gives them an advantage over their victims, regardless of whether it's illegal or not. Your gun regulations would only exacerbate that inconvenient fact.

"I am not for banning guns, but I feel they need STRICT regulation (like they do in most European and Asian countries)."

Yet none of those gun laws have actually made them safer. In fact violent crime has only risen ever-more-sharply in those countries since their gun bans. If anything, they've just made it more likely that you'll be killed with a knife or club than a gun. But you're still far more likely to be killed, because you have no means of defending yourself. And Japan is almost devoid of guns. Their suicide rate is 19 times as high as ours. So much for the argument that guns make killing yourself easier.

"I do not think our founding fathers ever thought there would be something like a "street sweeper" or 50 cal machine guns - and cannot believe they would have extrapolated the 2nd amendment to protect the ownership of them."

I don't think our founding fathers envisioned electronic media and the internet either, do you? Yet do you believe free speech should be curtailed in those venues?

And your use of the terms "street sweeper" and ".50 caliber machine guns" demonstrate that you don't know much about guns or gun laws at all. Automatic weapons are already subject to strict regulation and ownership of them is limited to a tiny population of licensed, regulated and thoroughly vetted individuals.

And find an instance where a fully automatic weapon was used in a crime in the past, oh, forty years. I'll give you plenty of time, because you can search for a month and not find more than a handful, in the entire United States. Saying there is a problem with ownership of automatic weapons is like saying that we need to ban lightning strikes: It's so rare as to be unpredictable, and not something you can affect anyway.

Your Second Amendment scholarship is as weak as your logic.

We could debate this forever, and not change each other's minds. But we're free to disagree, because it's a free country.

Or, at least, it will be until people start imposing their views on others, based upon unreasonable fears, flawed logic, and superstition.

Well said.

I guess everything that AD says about you is true. Since I have the distinct disadvantage of standing 15 feet away and you know, actually seeing what happened, I guess my input is far less valid than yours. Still I'll opine for the benefit of those here who are not complete asshats.

First KatyBeth understands and more importantly, follows the Four Rules of gun safety. This in itself is valuable knowledge that will carry forward for the rest of her life.

Second, thee was no play acting at all. AD sat KatyBeth in his lab and steadied the fore end of the rifle. KatyBeth gripped, sited, and shot the rifle. She hit the cans consistently with AD doing nothing more than calling out where her misses were (High, Low, Left, Right). That's not play acting, that's real shooting.

Again, this is for the benefit of AD's other fans, the ones who don't want to have their preconceived notions disturbed.

Ahem. I started shooting at age 6 or so. Still remember the thrashing I got muc h younger for pointing a cap gun at someone....you can bet I never did that again! The guns in my parents house were never locked up---we knew better than to touch them.

My children also started shooting young, and safely.

Children can, contrary to popular opinion, learn to follow rules and behave. Used to be expected, and they did it, just as now we basically expect them to be uncivilized savages......and they are.

Nurse K - Grandpa taught me pretty much the same way AD has KatyBeth. At that age you develop a healthy respect for firearms and know what is acceptable and what isn't. Around a firearm, damn straight she will behave in a rational adult manner... she knows what they can do and gives them the respect they deserve. I'm sure AD has taught her firearms aren't toys, they are dangerous... like a kitchen knife. It isn't a risk at that age when properly supervised.

Dude! You are hands down, the best redneck Dad evah! Really, that rifle is made of cool and KatyBeth shot very well. As to the rest, shopping with KatyBeth gave me a chance to stand in Walmart,look at a pile of birthday presents and little girls clothes and say, "Angie, move that stuff, I got to put the beer in the cart". That was MY redneck moment.