A few days ago, around midnight, I published a wildly popular article rant on gun control. By wildly popular, it’s had over a hundred unique pageviews since Saturday night (a record for anything I’ve written). I don’t average that many unique pageviews in a week, so by my meager standards, it’s popular. It was popular enough, in fact, that someone from Business Insider stumbled upon it and asked to do an interview. On gun control. Not being one to turn down an opportunity to not shutup, we did it. So while the author prepares his article, I suppose I’ll summarize some of the many ramblings and rants I had time for within the space of 45 minutes. And yes, I know I’m a hypocrite.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t an excuse to own guns
Yeah, I said it. Not in those exact words, but close enough. Gun ownership is certainly part of the DNA of our country, due in a huge part to it being the second amendment to our country’s constitution. However, it is still an amendment. [July 26 edit] It’s a law like any other which can be repealed (not true, my mistake). It is an amendment which can be overturned with another amendment.[end edit] We shouldn’t use the 2nd amendment as our reason to own guns; we need a reason that justifies the 2nd amendment. ‘Just because’ and ‘founding fathers’ arguments don’t work. We should own guns because we care about personal defense, civil liberties, freedom from oppression — the second amendment is the result of these reasons, not the reason itself.
I own a semi-automatic rifle for home defense and hunting because it’s fun to shoot
Let me be honest. I bought an AK-74 because I could. It was cool to say I have one, and I thought they were fun to shoot. I didn’t buy it because I need to fill a deer with 30 rounds of steel-tipped 5.45 x 39 or because a roving gang is going to break into my house.
When I hear a loud noise late at night, or am afraid that something criminal is going on, I reach for my 9mm Sig Sauer P229. My wife reaches for her .38 revolver. Handguns and shotguns are for home defense. Assault rifles [July 26 edit]Semiautomatic rifles with large magazines [end edit] are for…what, in civilian hands? Assault? Good luck with that argument. They’re for recreation, and it’s really hard to make the AR-15 out to be anything different without looking a little crazy.
Just because I can carve a turkey with a chainsaw doesn’t mean that’s what I use at Thanksgiving; what the media calls assault rifles , such as AKs and ARs, aren’t the best tools for home and personal defense and that shouldn’t be our argument for owning them. There’s nothing wrong with saying that they’re recreational guns.
Banning guns doesn’t reduce the desire to kill
There are two motivations to kill: Intrinsic and extrinsic. An extrinsic motivation is one created by factors in the environment. A threat to your life, another’s, or even under order by someone else (e.g. the military). Extrinsic motivations to kill can be managed. An intrinsic motivation would be psychological or ideological. People with an intrinsic motivation to kill (also called murder) cannot be stopped by physical barriers. Our laws recognize the motivations to take life and distribute punishments according to our intent (a legal term called mens rea). We must understand that an intrinsic motivation to kill is called murder, and it cannot be stopped by taking away guns.
Our alleged shooter had an internal motivation to kill. It wouldn’t have mattered if he had an AR-15; he would have done it anyway. He demonstrated that fact by making a ton of bombs. If he didn’t have an AR, he very well could have used those instead. You can’t stop evil by taking away the tools. You just can’t.
An “Assault rifle” ban would be a very, very bad idea
Gun ownership is part of the DNA of our country. We aren’t like other countries where gun ownership is an option; it was the second most important freedom after religion, assembly, and speech. Banning assault rifles would have serious political consequences because it would be a stand against our 2nd amendment.
Enforcing an assault rifle ban would be worse. It’s one thing to stop selling them, but it’s a worse thing to attempt to confiscate them. Populations tend to get a little edgy when their weaponry is confiscated; regardless of the weapon or the reason. Additionally, there’s not the manpower to enforce confiscation. Consider, after all, that you are going to someone’s house and asking for their gun. You’re taking away private property — and you’re asking someone to willingly disarm themselves to an armed individual. This approach doesn’t end well.
Education is better than regulation
If there’s one thing I said in the interview that was a little crazy or nuts, it was the fact that I think we should enforce gun education. Not to every single person who owns or buys a gun, but specifically to people who purchase any firearm or paraphernalia that is intended for police or military. From ARs through bullet proof vests, I think you should be required to receive training before you can own it. That means that when you’re in the store making the purchase, you complete a background check and then you proceed to training for the next four hours.
Over 500 people last year were killed in accidental discharge of firearms. And while that was primarily handguns, the problem really is education. If people knew how to handle guns, stupid stuff like that wouldn’t happen. And think about it: an AR or an AK wasn’t meant for civilians at all; it was meant for police and military. If you, as a civilian, want to own one, you should get training, just like soldiers and police have to do. You should learn how to disassemble your weapon’s system. You should learn how to clean it, care for it, when to use it, and you should learn how to use it… Before you walk home with it.
Seriously, you have to take a test to drive a car or cut someone’s hair, but not for the same weapons used in Afghanistan?
Regulation wouldn’t have worked for the alleged shooter, but education might have
The problem with James Eagan Holmes is that no regulation today would have filtered him out. On paper he was the model citizen. A psychological profile might have worked, but there’s two problems with a psychological profile:
- It’s an invasion of privacy
- One of the markers of sociopathy is the ability to deceive; a sociopath knows how to not look like one
However, if our alleged shooter were required to go through a four-hour or eight-hour course on AR safety and usage, and additional courses for the tactical gear, someone might have noticed something. After September 11th, I remember hearing that the flight instructors thought it very odd that some students didn’t care about learning how to land. That’s the kind of red flag you don’t find on paper, but through interactions with the purchaser. Education courses have the benefit of actually educating the user and guaranteeing proficiency (so they don’t accidentally kill someone), but they also give the instructor a chance to gauge the mental well-being of the user before they walk out the door.
I don’t know exactly how the education approach would work as it would be burdensome and slow down the process of firearms ownership. But deal with it. More people die in car accidents than gun fire, and you still need to prove you know how to drive. Maybe it’s as simple as going to the store, getting your background check, and authenticating the purchase. Then you get a card or a note that requires you to check into a local range or police station where you get your training. Once it’s done and you pass, the weapon is released to you right there. Obviously there’s a cost issue in paying for training, but that’s good for police departments and gun ranges. And, it’s a subtle barrier to crazies getting guns.
No, there hasn’t been a mass shooting in Texas (in a while)
I think the reporter forgot about Fort Hood and what happened at the University of Texas (the first mass shooting). But no, there aren’t many mass shootings in Texas. Texas is very vocal about gun ownership. It permits concealed-carry, makes firearms accessible, and (at least in the Dallas area) there’s lots of gun ranges. A statistic on the History Channel said that in Texas alone there were 26 million people and at least 51 million guns. There’s a gun for every hand in Texas. When you consider that not everyone in Texas owns guns, that’s a lot of guns per household; there’s a strong incentive not to break into houses.
It’s good when you’re allowed to protect yourself
Colorado, like Texas, holds strong to the “Castle doctrine” which is the right to protect yourself and your property from the threat of force. In both states, you’re exempt from jail time, and law suits by the family of a criminal, if you shoot and/or kill in the course of protecting yourself, family, and property. When someone crosses the threshold into my house, the law now protects me, not the perpetrator. I’m not afraid to protect my home.
The law in Colorado, as in Texas, allows you to protect your “castle”, but it’s not a license to draw a gun anywhere. Brandishing a gun in a menacing manner is a felony. Castle doctrine doesn’t work outside of the house. My concealed weapons instructor made it very clear that I’ll still spend a night in jail if I discharge my weapon in public (even if it’s fully justified). Charges won’t be pressed — so long as I used my weapon in the defense of force against me or a third party. I’m allowed to exercise judgement and then protect myself and others.
Yes, I still feel safe in Colorado
This was a question that surprised me. Do I feel safe in Colorado? Of course I do. Evil can happen anywhere, at any time. This shooter could have moved from California to any of 49 other states. This could have happened anywhere.
Concealed-carry is legal in Colorado. I can carry a gun into a movie theater. I can protect myself in most any place I go in Colorado. Colorado is no more in danger from the depravity of mankind than anywhere else. Of course I’m safe here.
I’m a hypocrite
Days after I write a blog post about how everyone should shut up about gun control, I do an interview on the very subject. But hey, isn’t it nice when someone actually admits to it?
Permalink
Quite.
Permalink
Good post, Frank! I found your blog through a link on Foxnews.com.
Yes, it’s refreshing when anyone in today’s environment admits to anything short of personal/philosophical perfection. That said, I don’t mind that you spoke your mind because I agree with most of your thoughts here.
Additional training for militia-grade equipment should ABSOLUTELY be mandatory, after all the 2nd amendment calls first for a “well-regulated militia”.
I also agree that in addition to equipping gun owners with superior skill and preparation, such training would also act to weed out some potential killers. In this case, the Aurora gun range owner who JH contacted very nearly played that role — and almost certainly would have, had JH been actually required to go to the range for training.
I think this can be a very positive conversation for the nation. Thanks for expressing your views!
Permalink
Just a comment. Who’s going to decide whether, after completing a “mandatory” training course to own a so-called assault weapon (who assigned that characterization, I wonder?), you’re qualified to own one? What training do they have to make that determination? Even more importantly, what Constitutional right does anyone have to determine what kind of weapon I can own, assuming I’m not a convicted felon? What’s to prevent gun control advocates in our government from assuming control of determining what qualifies an individual to own an “assault weapon”? They’ve already shown their willingness to take over health care, the auto industry, etc. I’m not willing to let someone else decide whether I’m qualified to own a particular type weapon. They’re not qualified to make that determination.
Permalink
I agree that the idea of authorizing an individual (an authorized “instructor”) with the ability to deny another person’s Constitutional right to bear (certain) arms should not be done lightly. But the Constitution calls for a “well regulated militia” – which to me implies some kind of authoritarian heirarchy. There’s a difference between a militia and an armed individual or mob. I believe this is sorely lacking from our current system.
Permalink
The reason you need a test to drive or to cut hair is because those are priveleges, not rights.
Should we have to take a test to practice religion or free speech? Of course not. Rights should not require prerequisites.
Also, the weapons used in Afghanistan are not the same as the ones available off the shelf here. Those are fully automatic, ours are semi-automatic.
Most firearms are “not meant for civilians at all.” They are designed with obtaining a defense contract in mind and then eventually filtered to the masses for sales.Just like your Sig.
Getting training in order to purchase a firearm brings us back to the government “infringing” on our “right” to own firearms. Making our ability to own fireams more difficult is infringement.
Regulation nor education would have detected the shooter’s mental capacity. You were right when you said he would have killed no matter what tool he had. To expand on your point, most sociopath’s are actually rather intelligent. End of story.
Furthermore, a $15/hr firearms instructor is in no position to determine the mental capacity or intentions of every student in his/her class and then proceed to deny them their right to firearm ownership. However, even had training been mandatory to own the AR, and something fishy was detected with him, he would have just found another way. Are we going to require tests or training for household chemicals, baseball bats, and butcher knives? Rat poison?
The Ft. Hood shooting was military. I thought Military and Police “training and education” would have prevented this? Shouldn’t his crazyness been detected (applying to the previous point)? No, because like you said, the trait attributed to mindless killing is an instrinsic thing and easily covered up by a sociopath.
I am sorry this happened near where you live and I hope the community can heal post haste.
Just an honest reader,
Alex
Permalink
PS:
The Second Amendment exists, as a right, for citizens to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical government. It was written for this exact purpose (well-regulated militia). Think about the context and the actual timing of the amendment when it was written.
Just another bullet point under reasons to own an “assault rifle” in addition to “recreational use.”
After all, we are sovereign citizens aren’t we?
Permalink
It also is separate from the First Amendment because the “right to bear arms” was supposed to be regulated in a way that the freedoms of speech, religion and assembly were not.
Permalink
Are you sure concealed carry was allowed in the theatre or was it another gun-free zone that invites madmen like this?
Permalink
It was in fact ILLEGAL to carry into that theater, because Cinema 16 has a strict ‘no guns’ policy. When a business has such a policy, it is illegal to carry there.
Permalink
That’s not what my CCW instructor told me. I really hate to paraphrase or quote the guy, but it was along the lines of, “you can carry under law, but that doesn’t mean they’ll allow you there”
I’ll have to double-check this, though because You’re the second or third person to bring this up.
Permalink
Century 16 indeed has a clear “no guns” policy. So law-abiding gun owners who desire to carry are shunned. What a perfect storm for JH! A theater filled with unarmed sheep. This is the unfortunate, disastrous end result of what several call “gun free kill zones”.
Permalink
*Banning guns doesn’t reduce the desire to kill.
But it would make it more difficult to do so.
Permalink
Really? Considering the amount of explosive material in his home? I think the largest mass murder in NY was perpetrated with a few gallons of gas and a lighter.
TOm
Permalink
nope. I don’t want to know what would’ve happened if the alleged shooter tried bombs instead.
Permalink
Umm, he did.
Hi Apartment was set with enough to take out the entire complex.
Permalink
No, it encourages the would-be killer to be more creative, and sadly many of these psychotics who turn to random killing have relatively high IQs. Who would have thought the Trade Tower killers would resort to using large jets filled with innocent people.
Permalink
*It’s a law like any other which can be repealed.
This is technically incorrect. The constitutuion and it’s amendemnts are not laws. You can’t repeal the 2nd amendment the same way you can repeal something like Obamacare, you have to ammend the constitution to do it (Prohabition is a good example – the 21st amendment repealed the 18th)
Permalink
didn’t know that. I’ll change what I’ve said. Thanks for the correction.
Permalink
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as The Bill of Rights, are those not granted to a citizenry by their government and are not able to be amended. Assuming some future corrupt federal government attempts to do so, most states have firmly ensconced the right to bear arms and the right to self defense within their own Constitutions.
Permalink
How hard is this? Popular press terminology to the contrary, unless your “AK-74” is a select-fire model, with fully automatic capabilities, it is NOT an assault rifle. You do all gun owners a disservice when you fail to make that distinction.
Permalink
I know. I’m the worse things to happen to gun owners since the cost of 9mm went up. I’ll change it.
Permalink
I agree that I can’t know whether I would shoot in a case like this if I were a CHL holder (I’m not yet), but I do want at least the right to protect myself if I choose to do so. Simply being forced to hide or try to shield my wife or kids with my body is an unacceptable alternative.
Permalink
I was in the US Army stationed in Okinawa, 1970. In the Ryukyu Island royal palace there is a chamber that you can see the weapons of the time that were confiscated. The mass confiscation brought peace — for awhile! Then the rise of the Shogun and the power of the Samurai. With total control over people and their lives the only defense was the development of karate. The weapons of karate are common tools of the farmers, to defend against the total and unlimited power of the state over the masses. I have seen photos of heads piled high as an angry Samurai cut off every head in the village, not for crimes but because the daughter of the farmer did not perform sexually as he desired. I invite anyone to study the weapons control of Japan and the unlimited rise of power when you have weapon control.
Permalink
We need to always have the right to own firearms. The reason is not as important as the freedom to own them for protection, hunting (which I can’t bring myself to do…since I love animals, and we’re not starving), or as you stated recreation and fun.
What kills are psychos like this latest one. We need to work on rules for psychologists and psychiatrists, and teachers that feel a compunction and duty to report potential psychotic killers when they see potentially tell-tale signs of potential violence. Just like this recent killer sent a letter to a psychiatrist telling about his thirst for killing, and the letter was never even open. Just as a wise Fox sponsored psychiatrist reported today that it is the failure to report potentially threatening and menacing patients, not gun ownership, that kills. That such killers will use many other methods to carry out their killings if guns are not available. If a police officer, such as I was, was in the audience, he could have stopped the carnage. Even a person with a concealed weapons permit could have stopped the killer just firing a round at him, jarring him out of his killing trance. Look at that 71 year old man in a place where dozens were running their computers, and two potential killers waltzed in, one brandishing a gun, the other a ball bat, and the older man chased them out and wounded both of them as they fled. This led to their arrest. Heavens only knows what would have happened if he wasn’t there with his gun and concealed weapons permit.
Permalink
Thanks for providing the space to comment on the typical rally to take away guns after such a hideous massacre. We need to ferret out these potential mass killers by every reasonable means possible, and encourage anyone suspecting that someone is headed down a path to senseless and mindless killings, paranoia, hearing voices, etc…to call 911, and get that person and all their potential victims out of harms way.
Permalink
At least you admit that owning an AK 47 serves no practical purpose other than making you feel cool while you fire it. But I think you’ve proven everyone’s (that is, those who oppose assault rifles being available to private citizens) point – it serves NO practical purpose, and therefore not being able to buy one shouldn’t have any effect on you, apart from taking away your ability to fire an AK 47 at a target every once in a while.
You could always just read a book…
Permalink
Nah, an AK can have a purpose beyond recreational shooting. It can still be a home defense weapon. In my personal opinion, I don’t believe it to be the *ideal* home defense weapon. I feel that a handgun or a shotgun will be easier for me to maneuver in the dark and I feel that they’re the tools that were made for the job.
Others have argued that there are some great defensive calibers for AR-15s and AKs. I just think I’ll have an easier time turning a corner at night with a Sig and a flashlight than my AK.
Permalink
Miles, “those who oppose assault rifles being available to private citizens) point – it serves NO practical purpose, and therefore not being able to buy one shouldn’t have any effect on you, apart from taking away your ability to fire an AK 47 at a target every once in a while.” Well then, does the same hold true for, say,the X-box? motorcycles ridden for pleasure only? How about chess boards, or swords, carbide or black powder cannons, or a whole list of other items with “no practical purpose”? Or is it just the guns?
Permalink
Marquis, that’s exactly why I still favor gun ownership (but don’t call ’em assault rifles).
You’re right, guns are unusual that our constitution protects our right to have them; very different from an Xbox.
And though I feel that we must continue maintaining arguments for the 2nd amendment, as it was an amendment with the purpose of a well-regulated militia, semi-auto weapons such as an AK are ideal for the job.
Permalink
I found your original post because it was “liked” on Faux News by a friend. Yours were the most clearly stated, rational, thoughtful remarks on this whole issue I have read. The victims should be the focus, thank you for reminding people of that. I have a CCP in CT and I agree with you on training. I am fortunate to have a Brother in law who is passionate about guns, gun safety and personal protection who showed me good habits/procedure long before I owned a weapon. Ignore the haters.
PS I am a liberal, proud to be. We, like you conservatives, are not all alike. ;-)
Permalink
Reality check. Just the possibility of an armed citizen puts the brakes on a lot of crime. Check crime rates in Chicago (good luck even buying one) versus Phoenix for example.
I am a CCW holder and I have reached that split decision moment where I had to choose to fire, one wrong action on the part of the crook would have cost him his life. He got smart and didn’t make it. It is true that you don’t know if you can pull the trigger or not until you reach that point, but far more can than you think. Look up Armed Citizen from the NRA for evidence.
Permalink
I am a staunch liberal who has always fiercely defended strict gun control. Your comments have swayed me to reconsider my position. And kudos to you on your honesty!
Permalink
Mr. Taylor, you are free to have your opinions but do not think that your reaction to your concealed carry training is the typical experience. I obtained my state’s concealed carry license, and as per their recommendations, I took additional training. And my instructor recommended additional training. It all boils down to what the first words that came out of my istructer were before anything had even started: “If you are not ready to take a human life to defend yourself and your loved ones, you do not belong here”. Just as a kid who passes Drivers Ed can not drive a race car, you need the additional training to use firearms in a safe manner under stress conditions and works on the assumption that you would be grown up about seeking additional training in such an important subject. Would I have froze in that theater? Maybe, but not because of not knowing what to do, because of the fact that the moment I take that shot to save a life, my life will forever be changed and shredded by people like you. (No, I’m not an armchair gunslinger, I actually compete in events similar to the scenarios that played out in Aurora. It’s all part of training for that final test in life).
Permalink
This blog post and a majority of the comments to the post are by far the most sensible comments to gun control and personal safety I have read/heard/seen, and unfortunately anything similar to these posts are too few and far between.
I know that everybody has heard the term “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” And unfortunately that is very true. And just like it was stated in the blog, it wouldn’t have mattered if the shooter had a firearm, he would have found another way to kill. Knives, swords, blunt objects such as baseball bats or crowbars, explosives, HOMEMADE firearms such as a homemade shotgun (quite easy to make). He simply could have killed with his hands if he knew how and wanted to. Taking away one tool to kill will not stop the individual from killing with any other tool, and in the end you cannot take away all the tools since you can kill with your own two hands.
Having some kind of mandatory training or some other kind of evaluation is very reasonable, and just a background check alone isn’t exactly very effective. I have known a couple people who have been extremely peaceful their entire lives, then something happened and they changed and they have ended up injuring or killing people with firearms they purchased legally when they were peaceful and just wanted a weapon because they thought it was cool.
It’s not easy to take a life by any means. I have done it multiple times in combat, but I had to do it multiple times to save myself or my brothers (not literal brothers, but brothers-in-arms) and even though I took lives for what I believed to be a good reason I still have had issues because of my actions. It isn’t easy to deal with, but when it comes to the point to make the choice of either the enemies life or someone you care about or your own, most people will be able to pull the trigger simply out of instinct. It’s AFTER they pull the trigger that they have issues.
Basically what I’m trying to get at is that trying to remove firearms from civilian populations would MOST LIKELY (not going to say it would 100% because no one can ever be sure) have a huge negative impact on the American population. And even if it was illegal to purchase/own a firearm, there is always the black market. People who want to kill will find a way to kill. Train yourself, train your friends and family, and be situationally aware of your surroundings.
Permalink
First of all, thank you for serving. My heart goes out to you and your family for the sacrifices that you’ve made for the freedoms of my country and the freedoms of others. I’m glad you made it home alive.
thank you for sharing your comments.I feel like training is the most reasonable thing to ask of anyone who owns a tool that can take a life, and I’m glad you feel the same.
Come to colorado and I’ll buy you a beer.
Permalink
The reason you need a test to drive or to cut hair is because those are priveleges, not rights.
Should we have to take a test to practice religion or free speech? Of course not. Rights should not require prerequisites.
Also, the weapons used in Afghanistan are not the same as the ones available off the shelf here. Those are fully automatic, ours are semi-automatic.
Most firearms are “not meant for civilians at all.” They are designed with obtaining a defense contract in mind and then eventually filtered to the masses for sales.Just like your Sig.
Getting training in order to purchase a firearm brings us back to the government “infringing” on our “right” to own firearms. Making our ability to own fireams more difficult is infringement.
Regulation nor education would have detected the shooter’s mental capacity. You were right when you said he would have killed no matter what tool he had. To expand on your point, most sociopath’s are actually rather intelligent. End of story.
Furthermore, a $15/hr firearms instructor is in no position to determine the mental capacity or intentions of every student in his/her class and then proceed to deny them their right to firearm ownership. However, even had training been mandatory to own the AR, and something fishy was detected with him, he would have just found another way. Are we going to require tests or training for household chemicals, baseball bats, and butcher knives? Rat poison?
The Ft. Hood shooting was military. I thought Military and Police “training and education” would have prevented this? Shouldn’t his crazyness been detected (applying to the previous point)? No, because like you said, the trait attributed to mindless killing is instrinsic and easily covered up by a somewhat intelligent sociopath (I’m assuming somewhat intelligent since he was a Grad student).
The Second Amendment exists, as a right, for citizens to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical government. It was written for this exact purpose (well-regulated militia). Think about the context and the actual timing of the amendment when it was written.
Just another bullet point under reasons to own an “assault rifle” in addition to “recreational use.”
After all, we are sovereign citizens aren’t we?
I am sorry this happened near where you live and I hope the community can heal post haste.
Just an honest reader,
Alex
Permalink
Alex, I wish I had some good responses for you, but I don’t.
2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms. You’re right. HOWEVER, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a very liberal media and government. Isn’t training the least-prohibitive and most beneficial method for regulation?
Basically, I was asked, “if no bans, and no regulations, what then?” Training was the only thing I could think of that could have usefulness, but wouldn’t impede my right to a gun.
I can’t think of another reaction or solution that could possibly satisfy both sides. Please tell me what ideas you’ve got; this was a knee-jerk thought in a phone interview.
I know the weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq were full auto (true “assault rifles”).
I don’t exactly know how this would be written up if this were legislation, or how best to describe it.
But essentially, I would want the weapons and gear used by police and military to come with mandatory training for civilians. I don’t know how to properly classify that gear other than by saying, “if a police dep’t uses it, you should get training on it” And yes, I know that’s almost *any* gun.
Could you help me think of a way to classify those weapons and gear?
You’re also right about my argument with sociopaths’ deceptive prowess and that a trainer may not catch it. However, I don’t know any other way of possibly ferreting out a sociopath beyond putting him in a room with a police/military/weapons trainer for four hours.
I was very, very careful in my first blog post and in an interview with a media outlet to not suggest that a weapon such as an AK is needed to protect myself from the government. Not because I don’t think that’s a legitimate argument, but because there’s a big stygma in a liberal media that comes with openly claiming that view.
Permalink
many people are required to “train” for a drivers license.
as others are required to have insurance to drive – a law if i am not mistaken…but how many skirt it and dont have any? funny, i pay “non-insured” insurance because they damn well know many people dont have it…
so, how would you enforce such legislation? how would you deal with such gun running law enforcement tactics such as “fast and furious” where the intent was to sell firearms to individuals outside the regulation of the law?
Permalink
I believe you’re making a big deal in all the wrong places. Historically, the Second Ammendment was crafted to ensure the Nation had the ability to defend itself from the Government. That said, nothing about your many positions matters. This is America, and the Government doesn’t have the right to hinder Weapons ownership, with a few debateable exceptions (short barrelled rifles, fully automatic weapons) and thet is ALL that need be said.
My brother owns an older Corvette. It gulps gasoline wholesale, is expensive to insure and not at all eco-friendly. Surely it isn’y NECESSARY as ne never drove it to work and hardly drives it at all. But you see, he has a RIGHT to CHOOSE to own and operate this vehicle if he maintains the minimum safety and maintenance standards to keep the vehilce roadworthy. He will never be Mario Andretti, and never aspird to be . He is not trained to drive professionally and the vehicle is not set up for racing, though the age would allow vintage racing for this year vehicle. None of that matters any more than your arguements about levels of training or proximity to an incident or, in fact, any relationship to ANY incident.
This is America, and his legal ownership and operation of his Corvette is HIS business until he breaks applicable laws, just as your ownership of ANY weapoon is YOUR business until you decide to use it to break the law.
I’m sorry people like the one at the theater feel the need to harm others. I wish it didn’t happen, but it does and has as long as I have been around. I suppose it will so long as people have any free will to act. That said, crimiinals who steal weapons kill just as effectively with illegally-obtained weapons, and the innocent defend themselves daily with legally-permitted weapons. These are tools. We have a right to own them. How we use them is where the Government enters the picture, but under current law ownership is our right, our choice and our business alone.
Permalink
The 2nd Amendment can only be repealed by a Constitutional convention it is set up this way so the Constitution is protected from the whims of our “Representitives” The intent was to give the people the means to defend and take back the Republic from a corupt and tyranical government… in that sense under the Constitution every citizen is allowed to own the current military arms of the period… But ATFE would have you believe that firearms are for “sporting purpose” only….The goverment has done it’s best to muddy the intent and meaning of the Constitution… “A well regulated Militia” they will tell you means the National Guard… but the true intent was the Militia of each town or village made up of all able bodied citizens… to “regulate” in the 18th Century meant to “Practice” “A well practiced militia” it did not mean govenment control. People need to read and understand the Constitution before it is lost, people need to read the writings of Jefferson and Adams and understand the underpinning of the Constitution and their intent…. this way when one writes about it they will have the knowlege and understanding needed to give a proper opinion.
Permalink
The 2nd Amendment is not an excuse. A argument can be made that it is a requirement. At the time this amendment was added to the Constitution there was not a standing army. In fact there is still no ” standing army” in the U.S.. The army must be appropriated by the Congress every two years. Therefore the Second Amendment is about a Militia and requires every male between 16 and 60 to have a rifle and be able to use it. The last time a muster was called was in 1918 for WW I.
Permalink
The 2nd Amendment is not an excuse. A argument can be made that it is a requirement. At the time this amendment was added to the Constitution there was not a standing army. In fact there is still no ” standing army” in the U.S.. The army must be appropriated by the Congress every two years. Therefore the Second Amendment is about a Militia and requires every male between 16 and 60 to have a rifle and be able to use it. The last time a muster was called was in 1918 for WW I.
How does the make, style or age of a firearm make a difference. Was a Kentucky rifle unsporting because of its great accuracy? Breech loading rifles were able put out a higher rate of fire compared to the muzzleloaders that preceded them, That Henry 30-30 you want to take deer hunting was a huge leap in firepower and concealment. Adopted nearly world wide the Mauser bolt action repeating rifle is more popular than AK-47’s. It is the user that makes these firearms into deadly weapons not color, not shape and not rate of fire.
An AR 15 is not an “Assault Rifle” An assault rifle is a rifle capable of select fire, meaning that it can be Full or Semi Auto. Automatic weapons are a fixed supply and have been illegal to produce for private citizens for nearly 30 years. With the market shrunk to Military and law enforcement no one can afford to design and develop a new battle rifle. So due to this common sense ban our military is walking into battle with a sixty year old design.
In these tough economic times one needs to think about what a ban could do to the economy. In The authors home state of Illinois, a ban would shutter the businesses of Spingfield Armory, DPMS, Armalite, Les Baur and Rock River. Winchester and Olin Brass would also take a big hit.