Gun lovers are pretending that assault rifles are just like hunting rifles yet
their own publications say otherwise. Not mention these same people claiming
there is no difference are paying 5 -10 times as much for the assault
"tactical" type rifle. What for then?The are dozens of
publications dedicated to assault type "tactical" weapons that go into
great detail of the nuances of those types of weapons. A hunting rifle is great
for making 1 shot accurately.You might want to use a tactical rifle
if you were hunting AN ENTIRE HERD of buffalo.
Need to go beyond that earlier ban. Otherwise the second amendment will have to
You're right, the new gun laws need to be tougher! We need to
get rid of the gun show loop hole, and ban military type, assault weapons.
Re: "Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994"Just as
the coming 2013 ban will be.Banning a gun whose action is identical
to hundreds of others simply because liberals don't like its looks is not
only foolish, it's the perfect illustration of knee-jerk liberal politics
-- the elevation of sophomoric symbolism over substance.
This letter is the usual drivel from the Gun community. But he is right, the
Brady Bill was not nearly as effective as it should have been, saturated as it
was with loopholes and amendments that weakened it enough to gain passage. But,
that can not be an excuse for not passing effective assault weapons legislation,
or even a constitutional amendment if necessary. There can be no liberty without
life, and no happyness either.Those that fight against reasonable
legislation to solve this horrendous problem, or bury their heads in the sand,
will have blood on their hands. There are sins of commision and sins of
ommission, but they are all sins just the same. So, pick your side. Are you for
life, or the for Gun Manufacturers and their syncophant the NRA? Are you on the
side of life, liberty, and happiness, or on the side of profit, because that is
what this fight is really all about. It's not really about civil rights as
those conspiring men would have us believe.
So 20 innocent children are slaughtered and three people on the Opinion page
respond by doubling down on their Rambo fantasies. Besides one's
insecurity, what legal reason is there to own an automatic weapon?
@KJB1. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want! No law
will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not protect
you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The
only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!
What is most frightening is that right now there are thousands of people
flocking into guns shops (which, by the way, outnumber the number of McDonalds
in America) to buy even more weapons of mass destruction for their personal
arsenals.They are determined to make any future efforts to control
these dangerous and unnecessary weapons more difficult. But I guess that is the
aim of those who have overdosed on hate radio paranoia.Even more
frightening is the question of when some of these people will be prodded by
their own mental problems and the rants they hear on hate stations into opening
fire on other Americans.
And once again the gentleman from Idaho is demonstrating his Rambo fantasies for
all to see.
Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month
sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus
140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President
George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision which held
that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense.
He is also a gun owner.But while sentencing Loughner in November,
Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had
in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was
allowed to lapse in 2004. Reacting to last weeks mass shooting, , Burns called
for a new assault weapons ban with some teeth this time. Ban the
manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines, Burns wrote. Don';t let people who already
have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured
stay on the market. I don't care whether its called gun control or a gun
ban. I'm for it."
The NRA. Their solution. Arm everyone, because we all have a target on our
back. Put cops in all schools. Wow! How about armed cops in every shopping
center, movie theaator, park, church, hospitals, gas stations, restaraunts,
office buildings. And to be sure we are safe arm every citizen with a 50 caliber
automatic weapaon or two. One could be mounted on our front port and another on
the back of our 4 wheel drive truck. No truck? Well to be safe you will just
have to buy one.
@ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with this. Let me try to explain it
again. Not many years ago a man moved here from another state and broke into a
family's home and brutally murdered both parents with a hammer. He then
took the two kids to a remote area where he raped both of them for days and then
he murdered the young boy. He took the young girl to Coeur d'Alene to a
cafe where a waitress recognized the little girl and called police. That man
still sits in prison appealing his arrest. Now, it is highly possible that had
that father or mother had owned a gun, that family would not have been destroyed
by an evil man! I would do everything in my power to protect my family from this
ever happening to any of them. If you feel differently, that's up to you.
but for me, I will not, can not allow that to happen to my family.
Mountainman:Regardless of what propaganda wants you to believe, only
a very small fringe wants to ban all guns. If someone wants a rifle to hunt
with, fine. If someone wants a gun for self-defense, they should have that
right. What I'm talking about are the assault weapons that can fire twenty
bullets at the flick of a finger. What legal justification is there for needing
that? I'm not claiming we can stop every gun-related crime,
but we can do a lot better than we have been. The gun-loving crowd's
response seems to be that we should just throw up our hands and arm everybody
because...I don't know. So they can go on feeling powerful, I guess?Newtown has made it abundantly clear that doing nothing is no longer an
option. Something has to change.
Mountanman, I can see your point. But why would you need an assault type weapon
for this type protection? I know a lot of people just use them for fun, but why
is someone's fun more important than trying to stop, for example, a group
of 6 and 7 year olds from being shot 10 or 11 times each?
And yet again, the gentleman from Idaho sidesteps the real question.WHY are high capacity, semi automatic assault weapons needed? Is he such a
badly trained poor shot that the only way to protect himself is by using a spray
of poorly aimed bullets?What is wrong with regulating high capacity
semi-autos and closing loopholes that allow easy access to such weapons?I have no problem at all with someone using reasonable tactics of self
defense. The question now is what is reasonable and what is not.Regurgitation of the same tired talking points will not answer the question.
It will require some real, honest-to-gosh THINKING and an exercise of wisdom.Both seem hard to find in some quarters these days.
It is interesting that the left is readily drawing the correlation between the
shooting in Connecticut and Gun control. My opinion is...lets study
the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as self-evident. Let's commission a research group to study the actually efficacy of gun
control laws with all its contextual factors and determine if this is a wise
course of action. Instead we are have discussions where inflammatory
phrases such as "colossal failure", "horrendous problem", "
blood on their hands", " innocent children are slaughtered",
"Rambo fantasies", "weapons of mass destruction", and "hate
radio paranoia".Let's have the study and accept the
findings. My guess is that those who use the inflammatory language
really don't care about the facts and are more emotion driven than logic
driven.My daughter asked me if I thought it was safe at her high
school today...I replied that it was statistically safer than the drive to her
school. And yet...I don't hear any of the people above that I
quoted using the same language in their comments about cars and
Old man, because the definition of an assault weapon is arbitrary. Some would
expand it to mean any gun, that's why.
We need a law that says "only good people can own guns". Bad people
can't have them. That will fix everything.
Re:GrundleStudies won't satisfy those who oppose gun laws.
Those on the right can't even respect overwheming scientific studies on
climate change. They don't care about facts or reality. Otherwise your
suggestion might be a good one.The Harvard Injury Control Research
Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s
substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds
true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations
between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found
was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and
more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But
one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun
control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.
Truthseeker - you're saying that Washington, DC and Chicago should have the
lowest rates of gun violence. Study that.
I often hear the argument that there is no reason for a citizen to have an
assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the truth.The
reason people are allowed to have guns under our constitution is so that when
necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are not for hunting. Their
purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the good guys. They are
there to protect society, when the police can't. In this day and age, gun
fighters have assult rifles. It doesn't make sense that the bad guys would
have these and militias not. This is why it doesn't make sense to make
assult rifles illegal.Even though we can't constitutionally
limit peoples right to have an assult rifle, we can deal with the problem of
people shooting up schools and gatherings of people.It starts with
raising kids properly. Mothers who have children in their formative years, ought
not work. They should stay home and provide emotional security and moral
training for the children they have. We should encourage this, in the schools
and even provide tax credits.
RE:TruthseekerThank you for your reasonable response.The
problem with the studies you mentioned are that they are very narrow in their
scope. For example...the statement you made "States with
tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths." is true.
However, the violent crime rate did not show the same correlation. This is why a study needs to be commissioned. Like polling, we can influence
the outcome by the nature of the questions we ask. Or...we can surmised a
conclusion based on an outcome that is not truly correlated (as in the studies
and articles you mentioned.)We also need to avoid our natural
tendency to predict outcomes that could have been if controls were in place.
For example, when the recent incident of the football player occurred, many
surmised that such an incident would not have happened if a handgun had not been
present. We were willing to look at the negative and yet ignore what happened
in a movie theater last week when an armed off-duty police officer stopped a
shooter in the lobby of the theater. Anecdotal evidence abounds and is
useless...we need empirical data.
MountanmanHayden, ID@ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with
this. Now, it is highly possible that had that father or mother had
owned a gun, that family would not have been destroyed by an evil man! I would
do everything in my power to protect my family from this ever happening to any
of them. If you feel differently, that's up to you. but for me, I will not,
can not allow that to happen to my family.9:49 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012============= Mountaman, The facts and data all
heavily conclude that 1 12 gauge security or "hunting" shot gun
would do more damage and protect one "family" or property than a .223By not only hoving 3 times the firepower, and 10 times the spray
pattern, the shot is less likely to penetrate walls or go futrther
distances. A shot gun holds limited rounds.Say What 3-7?I'll even go one step further and agree the can go for a
handgun. The DIFFERENCE is assault rifles can hold hundreds of
rounds are the weapon of choice to these cooks to mow down innocent people.Ban them, Ban them now.
cjbBountiful, UTI often hear the argument that there is no reason
for a citizen to have an assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the
truth.The reason people are allowed to have guns under our
constitution is so that when necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are
not for hunting. Their purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the
good guys. ============= If you want to be in the
Militia - per the Constitution, join the National Guard.Otherwise, you are an un-regulated lonely citizen who should be thankful
you can own ANY sort arms right now.If I had MY way, I'd
only let Military Veterans own weapons.You guys love tout
Switzerland and Israel as such fine examples to follow, the you must
follow ALL of the example - 100% mandatory Military service.Otherwise -- You remain just a bunch of unregulated, and untrained
un-Militia red-necks to me...per the Constitution.
For 95% of the population a shotgun, not a tactical weapon, is the most
effective weapon for home defense, because you don't have to be a good, or
even average shot to hit someone. If you insist on carrying at all times a
pistol is better than an tactical weapon because it can be carried discretely.
I'm an avid deer hunter, while you certainly can kill a dear with a
military style weapon, a simple bolt action rifle will also do the trick. What
practical application do you need a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for?
What do you need full metal jacket or hollow point bullets for? Let's put
some reasonable restrictions on guns. After all. the second amendment does say
"A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya
A ban on "assault-style" rifles is completely meaningless. Cosmetic
features are irrelevant to a firearm's function.The AR-15 (and
clones) is functionally identical to the Ruger Mini-14, yet according to the
1994 ban the AR-15 was prohibited but the Mini-14 was fine. That makes no
sense.The only way to go after the weapons themselves would be to
ban _all_ semiautomatic rifles capable accepting detachable magazines. Good
luck with that.Instead, re-institute the ban on hi-capacity
magazines. That makes sense. Seriously, a limit of 10 rounds per magazine is
still more than enough for self-defense, target shooting and hunting. Magazines wear out faster than guns so you'll see the results from the
ban far sooner than if you tried going after the guns themselves.But
if it's really another Connecticut or Tuscon or Colorado massacre
you're trying to prevent, then the focus needs to first be on mental health
awareness and intervention.
To "Mike in Cedar City" according to the statistics, more conceal carry
permits and more handguns equate to less crime.According to the FBI,
most deaths caused by homicides where a gun was used involve hand guns, not
rifles. See Washington Examiner article "If you want to end gun deaths,
don’t start with rifles" Apparently handguns are used more tha rifles.
In fact, according to FBI statistics, more murders are committed with knives OR
hand and feet OR other non-gun weapons than are committed with rifles.According to FBI statistics we should ban hand guns if you want to blame a
gun. However, when you read "MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime down" in
the Washington Times you find out that we need more people with CC permits and
handguns because that helps to lower crime rates.The point is,
taking away guns is not the solution, and even removing semi-automatic rifles
will not solve the problem.The problem is mental health. How does
making it harder for law abiding people citizens to buy guns fix the mental
health problems in the US?
Re LDS LiberalThe Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to
the National Guard.Certainly National Guard is one way to join a
militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of societial
break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the entire
national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national
guard.Also if the national guard were all that the constitution were
talking about, it wouldn't be necessary for people to be given the right to
keep and bare arms. (The national guard keeps all guns at the armory). The kind
of militia that the constution refered to was armed people in communities band
together in times of emergency for the protection of the community, when the
government can't or won't come to the rescue.
@Grundle"lets study the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as
self-evident. "10,000 people died last year due to shootings.
Therefore, we have a gun problem that is self-evident.
Could've worked better with additional regulation like closing the gun show
loophole that makes it easy for freaking anybody to just go in and buy a bunch
of guns (like that Virginia Tech student working with Dateline or whatever
program it was to see how easy it was to get guns at a gun show in the wake of
the VaTech shooting).
@NoodlekaboodleMillcreek, UTAfter all. the second amendment does say
"A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya
know, regulation.11:24 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012"regulated --
i.e., regulation" -- nailed it! hahaha!Agreed!Amen and Amen!=========== cjbBountiful, UTRe LDS Liberal"The Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to the National
Guard. [um, YES - it was.]Certainly National Guard is one way to
join a militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of
societial break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the
entire national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national
guard.'I was in the militray -- worked in the nuclear arm of
the USAF in infact.I'm more afraid of a bunch of unregulated,
unskilled, and untrained rednecks running amok with guns & pitchforks than
all the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on earth. Your
MadMax post-apocolyptic story is funny however, -- fake, but funny
none-the-less.FYI -- Anarchy is the direct result of the breakdown
of the chain of command, not the loss of weaponary. All Soldiers know
Redshirt. "How does making it more difficult for law abiding citizen to buy
guns fix the Mental Health problem"? A false analogy if I ever read one.
There is no connection between someone becoming mentally ill and the purchase of
guns. This discussion about the real problem is mentally ill people is a
diversion for weak minds. Yes, we do need to see what can be done to keep
weapons out of the hands of such. But the sad truth is that we lack any real
capability to identify such persons until after they have comitted gun violence.
If the weapons are available they will get their hands on them. So, Redshirt making guns harder for law abiding (or not) citizens will not fix
mental heath problems. But it will make it harder for nuts to get their hands
on weapons. And that is what the objective of any real legislation should be.
The NRA of arming school officials will lead to the largest increase in the
scope of government in History and will create the environment for the
implementation of a police state.By the way, Redshirt, not all gun
violence is committed by nuts.
2. I believe that assault rifles (automatically fires rounds until the trigger
is released) should preferably be banned or at least controlled in some
manner.In Venezuela, civilians are not allowed to possess machine
guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or
semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold bolt action .22 rifles and
shotguns. Number of total gun homicides 2009: 11,000; Rate per 100,000 in 2009:
39.0. The corresponding rate for the U.S. is 2009: 2.98 per 100,000. Facts are relevant. Now why the difference? All these anti gun ownership
arguments that say the gun owners will not listen to facts. I'll give you
a good idea, a corrupt government, and citizens that can not defend themselves
from the government, Can you say 2nd amendment. Oh no because that is
unreasonable to think our government would ever abuse the citizens. Obama is
already campaigning for term three, Michele has said Obama can't get things
fixed in the next four years he needs more time. Can you say Hugo. And
remember Hugo has a high homicide rate.
"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an
association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons
with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns
in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of
death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have
higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an
increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous
research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as
strong. "(American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004 "Guns in the Home
and Rick of Violent Death...")"CDC has been wary of studying
gun issues after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after
a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for
gun control."(Gun Rhetoric vs Gun Facts, Factcheck)
@jsfLet's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case scenario.
Obama really is the secret dictator that you are hoping he is. He stops all
elections and declares himself president for life and orders the extermination
of white people. You think a bunch of guys with AR-15's and AK-47's
can really stand up to the might of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast
Guard? Those guns aren't going to stop anything if the government really
wants to attack citizens. There isn't another military force on the planet
that could stop the US military, let alone some guys in a Salt Lake City suburb
who have no tanks, bombs, airplanes, ships or training. If you are really that
terrified of our government you shouldn't support the massive size of our
jsf's post at 1:35 is a prime example of the kind of extremist paranoia
that feeds the nonsense out there.
To "Mike in Cedar City" you failed to understand the question. The
problem isn't the guns, it is the mental health problems that these people
had. So how does taking away guns resolve the mental health problems?All you are doing is disarming the public because of the results of a poor
mental healthcare system.The problem may not be the guns at all, but
the drugs that we are pumping into people at alarming rates. From the
Huffington Post we read "Medication Madness: How Psychiatric Drugs Cause
Violence, Suicide, and Crime". This is again reflected in the warnings put
on psychiatric drugs.The US leads the world in psychiatric drug use,
and most of the mass murderers have been on prescriptions for those drugs. If
you do a search for it, most of the school shootings in the past 20 years were
by people who were on psychiatric drugs. Start looking there before you go
@RedshirtWasn't it St Regan who gutted the mental health system in
this country in the first place?
To "Noodlekaboodle" I didn't know that Reagan developed all of the
psychiatric drugs, and he is the one who recommended that US mental health
professionals use them rather than go through the effort of helping somebody to
learn to cope on their own.Explain the connnection between
psychiatric drug use and anything that Reagan did.You probably
can't, which is why you are grasping at straws trying to sound smart, when
in fact you just look desperate.
@Noodlekaboodle. "Let's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case
scenario." You are naive and ignorant of history. The second amendment was
so put as to guarantee the constitution. In 1938, the Nazis passed a law
outlawing gun ownership for the Jewish population. How did that go for them in
the next seven years. After Katrina, the police in New Orleans
unconstitutionally seized all guns owned by private citizens. You think it
couldn't happen? It doesn't need to be Obama, it could be the next
Republican president. Obama has expanded the bad policy started under the Bush
administration. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able
might have a gun.”- Patrick Henry
I guess we need legislation that goes much further, then.
@jsfYou still didn't address the point of my post. Even if every man,
woman and child in Centerville had a military grade weapon would they really be
able to take on a military force that spends at least 600 billion a year on
weapons and soldiers? Name me another COUNTRY that could match the US military.
The only one that could come close is possibly China, but even they are decades
behind the technology our military has. The only reason they would have a chance
is they have 4x the population of the US, 1.3 billion vs 314 million. Again, if
you are really that worried about the government your primary concern should be
the size of our military. Because unless we are allowed to buy cruise missiles,
tanks and fighter jets an armed citizenry wouldn't stand a chance.
People can comment all they want, bottom line is nothing will change because of
the worthless politics of the country, no matter what the bad guys will always
get guns. Criminals don't have history of mental illness, they are not card
carrying wackos, in fact in most cases people who know killers can't
believe could do it
Utah’s suicide rate is the 10th highest among all states in the U.S.Firearms and hanging were more common as methods of suicide among young
people in Utah, accounting, respectively, for 67% and 20% of suicides at age 21
or under."Suicide is an important cause of death in Utah,
especially for boys and men in the age group 15 to 44 years. Firearms are the
most common way that suicide is committed, and having firearms present in a home
is a demonstrated risk factor for suicide. Restricting access to firearms for
persons at risk of suicide is one potential way to prevent suicide."(Utah Dept of Health 1999)"Utah leads the nation in suicides
among men aged 15 to 24.Utah also has the 11th highest suicide rate
— 14.3 deaths per 100,000 people — in the nation over all age
groups, according to the most recent data from the American Association of
Suicidology."(Deseret News May 2006)
Good grief Redshirt, of course taking way guns will not solve the mental health
problem. There is no logical connection between the two. You know,basic logic,
action and reaction. Making assault weapons harder to get will make it much less
likely that such can obtain weapons of mass murder. And if they can't
obtain these weapons because they aren't available, if follows that it will
be much harder for them to shoot 20 kids and 6 adults. But it is useless to try
to reason with those that think like you, "for reason is not what you care
for". You like NRA talking points, so much easier than thinking for
Just like the limits on free speach are imposed, the limits on the right to bear
arms is imposed. Basically, safety trumps freedoms where neccessary. So we
debate where to draw the line. It seems to have come down to high capacity
magazines.We can suppose all kinds of scenarios and speculate when and where we
may need to produce a never ending stream of fire power. Or we can argue why we
never need any fire power, but the fact remains, we are a free nation and that
fact is the most difficult to reconcile. Being a free nation, and arguably the
most free nation, we need to err on the side of freedom.
“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)” A response
to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after
Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba. - Fidel Castro“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” –
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334If someone has a gun
and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own
gun.” - The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001“Among the
many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act
depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” - Mohandas K.
jsfCenterville, UTYou Rambo mis-logic is flawed.Please re-read; NoodlekaboodleMillcreek, UT4:40 p.m.
Dec. 21, 2012His comment is bang-on-the-head right.The
State's individual National Guard (a "well-regulated-militia") under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem Commander-in-Chief, is the
constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment and is the ONLY Force that even
comes remotely close to possibly keeping the FEDERAL Government and military
force in check and balance.I see that AK-47s in the hands of
millions of the Taliban citizens (including children) didn't stand a
snow-balls chance in you-know-where over in Afghanistan.If you want
to compare REAL life situations -- look into how well they faired before spewing
your made-of-TV movie fantasies.
I fail to see what most of these comments have to do with the issue at hand. I
also fail to see how a weapons ban will prevent crime. High capacity magazines
or not there is no limit on how many bullets one can own, or how many magazines
you can purchase. Most AR style weapons on the market to date are semi-auto
weapons (meaning you pull the trigger once-it fires one bullet) so how removing
these from store shelves prevent crime? The previous ban did little to nothing
to stem violent crime in this county. As the british goverment is also learning
removing guns does not stop criminals. Is this arguement truely about stopping
crime or just about removing guns? Gun owners as does everyone know the need for
responsible ownership. And would surely doubt that many gun would owners support
any measure that would effectively prevent another tragedy. The problem at hand
is we have drifted so far left and right we have lost sight of reason. There was
a time in history when a tragedy meant communties came together to heal, not
demean or crimialize one another, blame was left on the crimials.
I am heartbroken about what happened in Newtown last week, but I am also
convinced that none of the proposed 'solutions' will prevent future
similar incidents because none of the solutions are absolute. WE CAN NEVER BE
ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN A FREE SOCIETY! This is a basic reality that second
amendment supporters acknowledge, but no one else seems to understand. I prefer
not to live in a police state. I certainly don't want my children's
schools to look or feel like prisons. I am willing to take the risk of everyone
else having freedom of choice, but I also demand that my right to protect myself
and my family be respected. Benjamin Franklin warned us that if we traded our
freedoms for security we would end up with neither. I hope that we can rise
above the partisanship, the name calling and the blame game long enough to
discern what is in our best interest long-term. If we need to act in this
matter, may it be a careful, measured response rather than a hair-trigger
reaction to the latest tragedy.
Re: "The State's individual National Guard (a
"well-regulated-militia") under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem [sic]
Commander-in-Chief, is the constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment [sic] is the
ONLY Force . . . ."Transparently and demonstrably false.The Second Amendment refers only to a "right of the people." NOT
of a militia, a governor, a Congress, or even a liberal messiah of a
President.As if such a simple and straightforward assertion needed
interpretation, the Supreme Court recently affirmed as much.What the
"well-regulated militia" clause DOES prove, however, beyond any honest
doubt, is that it applies to weapons useable by a militia, including assault
weapons and normal-capacity [what liberals disingenuously call "high
capacity"] magazines, not just to single-shot, bolt-action hunting
rifles.It is fantasy, indeed, to suggest that the reach of the
Second Amendment extends only to a state's National Guard.
The ignorance still runs high in the comments to this column. Assault weapons can be VERY inexpensive compared to other American
semi-automatic rifles made by Browning, Remington, etc. When I purchased by
used SKS "assault rifle", I paid $75. Recently I purchased a
Mosin-Nagant military rifle for $100. Should I have paid 5-10 times that much
so I can have another semi-automatic gun that isn't an "assault"
weapon? Yeah, another "assault weapon" ban will be just as
effective as the last one had during Clinton's years - a complete waste of
time/money, etc. Great plan - blame objects instead of the people who cause
There is no denying that many people have lost their lives due to crazy people
shooting guns. The question here is freedom, plain and simple. Personally, as a
military veteran, I feel it's not only my right, but my civic duty to be
armed, for my families protection, as well as protecting my non-gun bearing
neighbors. Many of these comments are about automatic weapons, but those permits
are TRULY difficult to obtain, and usually take over a year. The fact is, we are
a nation that was founded with guns, was expanded with guns, and have been the
strongest nation on earth because of it. We've never been invaded by a
foreign force because 'they' know we the citizens of the US are armed
to the teeth, period.Most of these heinous acts could have been avoided if
our mental health system wasn't in its current state. We only have one out
of the 20 beds that were available 30 years ago, with a 15% rise in population,
and many more social problems to deal with than we had back then, like new
drugs, the internet, etc.Durk Simmons