Thursday letters
Guns, politicians and taxes in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Guns are a bulwark against tyranny
I grieve the loss of those murdered by gun violence, yet I am opposed to those who maintain strict gun control is the panacea for stopping it. The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution, for it guarantees an individual’s right to defend himself and his property. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that “Police have no duty to defend.”
Naturally, police will defend the public to the best of their ability; however, the ruling tragically evinced that the responsibility of personal defense ultimately rests upon the individual citizen. Therefore, it is imperative to preserve the Second Amendment.
When the Constitution was ratified, muzzle-loading firearms were the “assault weapons” of the era. Weapons technology has changed; however, the Second Amendment is as relevant today as ever. Those who clamor for restriction of personal firearms flirt with tyranny: ” … tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” – Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals..
This is corroborated by the atrocities committed by authoritarian states. Where individual arms are outlawed, anomie and genocide reign with impunity.
JONATHAN SEIDEL
ROANOKE
January 10, 2013 - 8:04 AM
Actually I think tyranny thrives best where government fears the wrath of the NRA and gun nuts more than getting military grade weapons off our streets. Tyranny is not always in the hands of government.
Define “military grade weapon”.
If I were going into combat and someone handed me an AR-15, I’d hand it back.
“Military grade”? What is that? Sounds like the latest nonsense term the Left and the gun-grabbers like to make up.
No.
“No”?
So you throw out a nonsense term, then refuse to define it when called on it.
I’m not surprised.
Most gun control types can’t define the terms they use, Michael. I’m not surprised either.
Typical men, “no” means what you decide it means. Yet another shocker.
#7 Thank you.
It’s a stupid argument to have but military grade should mean anything more than is needed for hunting.
Are you talking caliber or rate of fire, Scott? If the former, you need some pretty big guns to hunt some things. If the latter, fully automatic weapons are already illegal and tightly controlled. So Sandi’s suggestion is already met.
If you don’t need it for hunting it’s military grade. Elephant rifle – OK if you’re hunting elephants. Keeping it around for groundhods? Military grade.
Two shot magazine (like a double barreled shotgun) are all that’s needed for hunting. More is military grade.
I might make an exception for a six shot revolver though.
Fast change clips? Military grade.
Your definitions may vary.
To me, self defense trumps hunting as the reason to own and train to use a firearm. If you choose not to have a gun in your home and are the victim of a home invasion, then you can call the police I guess. They’ll get there eventually to take a picture of your body.
Your definitions may vary.
And therein lies the rub. As someone know neither owns a gun nor has ever hunted, I couldn’t tell you. I’d be willing to wager anything that you could ask a hundred people from all walks and get a hundred different answers. I’d be stunned if more than a handful of people in Washington could give an answer, and I’d be stunned if you’d get the same answer twice.
Anyone who knows virtually nothing about particular weapons should refrain from attemting any definition of them.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is a perfect example. When asked what a barrel shroud is, she replied, “A shoulder thing that goes up.”
In the words of Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.”
And while you are stuck on the nomenclature and what is what, as if that is the point, more and more people are arming themselves with these dangerous guns. Will they ALL be responsible and never sell them to a mad man, allow them to be stolen, have a family member “bug out and go kill”? You are betting on it.
ANYONE with an open mind and a functioning brain who looks at the gun culture videos like those of James Yeager of Camden, Tennessee can readily see the problem we have created and the problem we face.
If you look (and that is the root of this issue IMO) at the weapons considered “military grade”, the Title II firearms from Class III level dealers (M16, Galil, AK47, XM8C, M40 Sniper Rifle, Steyr AUG, H&K G36…) and then look at the weapons available from Bushmaster Firearms and the “knock offs”, you begin to see that the allure of these assault type weapons on the street is the machismo, the military connection, the video game realism and the reason grown boys want them for toys and bad men want them for easy mass shooting. It is damned hard to miss. Literally and figuratively.
How we got this far I can only suppose. I think the “assault weapons ban” lulled us gun ignorant masses into thinking that the “bad guns” were not on our streets while the gun industry, who no doubt helped craft the ban, knew that it was mostly cosmetic and simply went another route. Yet another gun loophole if you will.
Citizens of the United States, we have been played. These killing machines are in the streets by the thousands and they will filter down to the next mass shooter for generations unless we stop them.
These guns are not about self-defense. They are about playing soldier. Not hiding in anonymity to say it either.
15 – hey, “military grade” was your term. You refused to provide a definition, leaving the rest of us to guess at what you meant. Thanks for clouding the issue.
15 – Title II firearms are “…machine guns, short or “sawed-off” shotguns and rifles, and so-called “destructive devices” (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance)” (wiki).
These are already heavily controlled.
The nomenclature is important, Sandi. It’s kinda hard to make laws and ban things if you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
And that’s the point. The gungrabbers don’t care about being accurate. They simply want guns gone and make up silly terms to try and make it happen.
But you know what Rep. Carolyn McCarthy does know? She knows what it is like to be a family torn apart by senseless gun violence because too damn many guns are too damn easy to get.
“On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, was killed and her son, Kevin, severely injured on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train at the Merillon Avenue station, when spree killer, Colin Ferguson, opened fire on passengers.[4] Ferguson killed six and wounded 19 others.[5] McCarthy responded to the crime by launching a campaign for more stringent gun control that eventually propelled her to Congress in 1996 on the Democratic ticket. She defeated freshman Republican Dan Frisa by a large margin.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy
No, nomenclature is not important, and neither is the “Title” or “Class” of a weapon. What is important is that the gun industry has very, very successfully gotten around the ban on those weapons and the restrictions on the full auto by making guns that are more and more like them. And they are showing up at too many mass shooting incidents to be a coincidence.
Yeah, and I can give plenty of examples of people who have defended themselves with guns, and who may be alive today only because they had the means to defend themselves. The recent story of the mother in Georgia who defended herself and her children (because the cops hadn’t gotten there yet…) comes immediately to mind. But there are many, many more.
Symbolism and emotion. The tools of the leftist. Effectiveness, constitutionality? Please, don’t even go there.
20 – again, you brought it up.
When an immature, emotionaly fragile, anti-social loser boy armed with a legal weapon he took from home and who would crumple if confronted by any form of authority approaches a school, instead of being stopped by an armed teacher or security guard, it would be better to call 911 and wait until 20 highly agitated swat team members showed up with heavy weapons including armored vehicles and maybe a couple of fire trucks. They could cordon off the area, secure the perimeter, evacuate the neighborhood, set up lines of communications back to police headquarters and the governors office then crouch down behind cars and trees and tell everybody that its not safe to enter the school until the boy gets tired of shooting or runs out of ammo and kills himself. They could then do a “security sweep”, escort out the people still inside, collect the bodies and hold a news conference saying how important it is to leave this sort of thing to trained professionals.
#19 – I know McCarthy’s history, Sandi. It’s a shame what happened.
#20 – Again, Sandi, nomenclature is important. Whent trying to take something away from people, not to mention violate the Constitution, one should have an idea what they are talking about.
#23 – Sorry, waynep…Scott heard on NPR that cops will now just charge into a shooting situation. And if National Propaganda Radio says something, then by God, it must be true.
Sure 89Hoo, you and many others can readily “give plenty of examples of people who have defended themselves with guns, and who may be alive today only because they had the means to defend themselves”. No argument from me there. That is why we will never, ever, not in the history of this world be able to disarm people. Which does indeed make that a scare tactic as opposed to the reality of what is going on, the tools of the right wing.
It is not just “Symbolism and emotion”. It wasn’t when we outlawed machine guns, it isn’t why we do not allow surface to air missiles, or vehicle mounted weaponry. I think the effectiveness of the machine gun ban speaks for itself. As to the constitutionality, show me where it guarantees anyone an AR-15 223? Please?
26 – Sandi, it’s in the Second Amendment, and your argument is a red herring.
As you know, the Constitution limits the government, not the people. So limiting, by name, model, make and serial number what is permitted by the people is not necessary, because there are no limitations in the Constitution. What is says, explicitly, is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No limitations.
It does NOT say, however, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…except for this model or that, or whatever a some politician thinks should be banned.
Speaking of red herrings 89Hoo, you know as well as I do that there has been some form of gun control in this nation since the Militia Act of 1792. That particular act named the kind of gun and other accouterments required by the government of all adult men. Like a lot of other things, what it says has not been the issue for a long time and will have no bearing on this argument. Whatever you or anyone else claims, the people have always been “limited” and they always will be. We have already established what it is, we are merely haggling over the transaction details.
28 – come on, Sandi. Is it seriously your contention that the militia act, which, as you noted, required men to have guns of a specific type (as well as a minimum number of bullets, and minimum amount of powder) was intended to limit the arms men could have?
That the intent of legislation which specifically authorized “…the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection…” was to limit the weapons a man could have?
Seriously?
That the Act was in effect saying, “…the President or the Governor of your state can call you up at any time, to repel an invasion, put down an insurrection, or otherwise respond to an emergency…” and the idea was to limit the weapons the men called up to meet the invasion?
Really?
That the Act which also said that the militia men would be treated just like the professional soldiers of the Regular Army (in terms of pay, conduct, adherence to military command, subject to court martial, etc.) would be limited in their ability to respond by the weapon they carried?
Wow.
Let’s see. Article IV prescribes how they are to organize themselves, and “…officers [are] to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house [sic] shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
Soo…you think that the Congress of 1792 decided that any invaders would likely come on foot, no artillery, with fewer than twelve cartridges for each pistol, so that the militia, whose weapons were controlled, would be able to meet them? Or just serve as sitting ducks so the real soldiers could do the work (in which case, why arm them at all?) That they were setting them up to lose?
Let me propose that the very specific language was to ensure that the militia was adequate to meet and repel any rebels, invaders, etc. That the Congress of 1792 wanted to ensure the soldiers – whether regular army or militia – was adequately prepared, and that the prescriptive language and specs were designed to do just that. They didn’t want someone showing up without a uniform or a weapon, or with a weapon that would not work (in short, they didn’t want anyone bringing a knife to a gunfight), so they put the burden on the states and governors to make sure the regiments they sent were adequate.
This is NOT by any means limiting legislation, it was sufficient for the times. Nowhere does it limit what weapons a man may own.
If you are to use this as a basis, you would be arguing that all people should be armed with, uh, military grade weapons.
(the Militia Acts of 1792, 1795, and 1862 were ultimately rendered obsolete by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard)
I believe you’ve misread it.
#26 – “As to the constitutionality, show me where it guarantees anyone an AR-15 223?”
An “AR-15 223″?
Never heard of such a thing.
You made my point, Sandi. If one doesn’t know what they are talking about concerning weapons, then one would be better off being quiet.
29 – I should add, Sandi, that in 1792, there was no standing army of any significance, which is the reason Washington used the Militia Act to respond to the Whiskey Rebellion. The intent was that in lieu of a standing army, the federal government was to rely on the militias, and this Act was to ensure they could respond adequately.
Apologies…for 29, here was my source:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I think we’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope here. Instead of trying to define something so we can outlaw those feature, a better approach is to say no guns except these…and then list them and what features they can have. Any deviation from those maximum limits results in confiscation and arrest.
Yes Michael, for the millionth time, I get that you would like for me to “be quiet”, it is not going to happen though. You know the gun I mean and you know the point I made. Who is going to say they never heard of that gun because I did not type Bushmaster AR-15.223/5.56? Get real and stop nit-picking.
My “contention” is that the Bill of Rights have been subject to restrictions or regulation almost from the beginning and the Militia Acts proved WHY the Second Amendment applied to militia service not personal safety or tyranny management.
The police, National Guard, and US Military make the militia service invalid, therefore the rest of it can be seen as invalid too if one wanted to be an “originalist”. Few gun advocates do.
There were gun laws enacted in the 1700s, there were gun laws enacted in the 1800s, there were gun laws enacted in the 1900s, do you see yet where I am going with this? We are not going backward.
I am certainly not qualified to say what guns should be “allowed” and what guns should not, but it does not take a historian, gun scientist, or expert to see that the militarization of guns has caused some problems and if we look at the guns used in mass shootings we do see there are some preferences that we can remove without hurting anyone.
#33 – “…a better approach is to say no guns except these…and then list them and what features they can have.”
Yep, Scott, that’s a MUCH better idea. Way different from telling people what guns they can’t have.
#35 – No, Sandi, I don’t want you to be quiet…just accurate when it comes to taking away peoples rights.
And admit it…you had to look up the correct nomenclature, didn’t you?
FYI, Bushmaster is a brand name…not a type of gun.
Of course I had to look it up to see precisely where the . went, it it not something I normally converse about. I am well aware that Bushmaster is a brand and that they are “the leading supplier of AR15 type rifles in the United States” and that they bought Remington. It is not my “ignorance” or gun knowledge that you need to be worried about, it is the point I am making. What it is you “lose” might depend on it.
35 – yes, there have been gun laws throughout history. Any that restrict ownership are unconstitutional (not that anyone cares anymore). And the Militia Acts certainly do NOT support your point.
The Militia Acts had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and were necessary because the US had no standing army to speak of. That lack of standing army, and the Bill of Rights (particularly the first three) were the Founding Fathers’ promise that the private citizens would be able to safeguard against tyranny. I know, I know, silly notion. It can’t happen here. The colonists thought that too.
By standing army, I mean professional soldiers. The militia didn’t qualify as a standing army because they were farmers, smithies, merchants, whatever, and not soldiers. They had a few senior officers, mostly administrators, but nothing like what we have today.
Because there was no standing army, the US had to rely on the people to form militias when called, and to be adequately armed. There is nothing in the acts that restrict ownership; in fact they require it. If you truly want to use the Militia Acts as a basis of argument, you must argue that all citizens should have access to M-16s, and for the abolition of the standing army.
Yes 89Hoo, they do. You just refuse to admit it.
89Hoo and Michael, note my proposed solution doesn’t restrict gun ownership so doesn’t violate the second amendment.
You can have as many muskets as you like.
This makes me think of the anti-abortion crowd. Women can still, technically, get an abortion but the conservatives have been so successful at making it so difficult and onerous that it’s near impossible (at least in some parts of the country).
Maybe we should apply the same law making pressures. You could still, technically, own guns but you’d have to get an invasive ultrasound first, and the stores would have to have isles 8 feet wide between displays at gun stores for safety reasons; you know, in case someone pulled a gun in the store. Stores that sell guns wouldn’t be allowed to sell ammunition and clerks that felt selling either guns or ammunition violated their conscious wouldn’t have to sell you either. They would be required to provide you the names of other stores that might sell what you’re looking for. And then you’d have to get a doctor’s certification that you’re mentally competent and a gun is medically necessary to have one and receive counseling about the legal and psychological effects of shooting someone. This information would have to include the statement that owning a gun leads to an increased risk of suicide and may be associated with STDs. And of course, you’d have to wait 24 hrs. between applying for a gun and purchasing one and only the person who took your application would be allowed to make the actual sale. It would be made illegal for private companies to issue liability insurance for shooting someone. You couldn’t have one as a minor. You couldn’t get one without the consent of everyone that lives in your house.
I like it!
#42 – What part of “shall not infringe” do you not understand, Scott?
All of it, apparently.
And you’re seeing things that aren’t there, Sandi, that never were there.
@43 Michael, I looked up the the 2nd amendment and the definition of infringe and my proposals don’t violate either of those. Like I said, keep as many guns as you want so long as they’re muskets.
What’s the problem?
#42 – “You can have as many muskets as you like.”
Funny how you used a computer (which the founding fathers never imagined) to exercise your 1st Amendment rights.
#45 – “Michael, I looked up the the 2nd amendment and the definition of infringe and my proposals don’t violate either of those.”
I find it sad that you actually had to look up the 2nd Amendment.
As far as infringing, the Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd Amendment. Sorry if you don’t agree.
You have to realize that you are arguing about the barn door after the horses are out, right? Whether you literally believe the Second Amendment is about state militia or the right to have any gun you want or that either “shall not be infringed”, what you need to see is that the boat has sailed. Precedent has been set. From 1792 when they further regulated those militia members, to the 1800′s when they regulated who could have guns, to the 1900′s when they regulated what guns or weapons you could not have, it is decided. The Second Amendment has restrictions, it has been interpreted differently than written, it has been infringed upon both ways and it is not going back in the face of mass shootings. People killing people was not enough to do more than symbolic infringement and common sense weapons restrictions. Mass shootings engage the terror that moves a society. You don’t seem to get that, but it is the reality nonetheless.
There have always been ways that rights can be restricted or lost. And there always will be. That is the price of living in civilized society.
Hmmm…so much for only having muskets back in the day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
@47 Michael, some are of the opinion the Supreme Court is wrong, although of course, theirs is really the only opinion that counts in this matter.
Here’s a decent article making the case if you’re interested.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts
….But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the Fist Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government. …..
#51 – Sorry, Scott, I’m not going to read an article that starts of by insulting proponents of the 2nd Amendment.
I am not a “gun nut”.
Michael, I agree. I didn’t like the title either but they make a reasonable case that the Founder’s intentions have been misinterpreted.
I don’t know if you should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let me ask you, Scott…pretend Obama comes on TV next week, says that owning an AR-15 is illegal, and that anyone who has one has to turn it in to their local police.
Millions of people say “No”.
What do you think should be done?
Scott M.,
There is one enormous problem with the analysis of the opinion piece you cite. The Bill of Rights was not written nor intended to to limit private action or to protect the government. The first ten amendments to the Constitution were written with the intent to protect the rights of the citizens and limit GOVERNMENT action, not the other way around. Any Constitutional scholar worth her merit and who does not value a political agenda above all else will tell you this.
@54 Chuck, you may very well be right. I’m NOT a Constitutional scholar. I thought the guys made some good points though. Maybe we let the scholars work it out but even scholars can have an agenda.
@54 Michael, you’re asking me to answer a question as if that were realistically feasible and it’s not.
First, if millions said ‘no’, you’d have to ask Obama what should be done instead of me.
Second, I think, even if that’s what he wanted to do, he’d know it’s not feasible. You’d have to approach the problem in an entirely different way. You’d need a public education and public relations campaign. You’d have to get laws passed that made confiscation of the AR-15′s legal if a person was found to have one.
If you’re looking for me to say the army or national guard or police should do a house to house sweep, I’d have because that’s just not practical. I know some on the right (and maybe the left) fear that’s what Obama wants to do but it’s just not practical.
Still, have your “military grade” weapons destroyed if you’re not using them is probably a good idea. But as I’ve shown, you can’t turn them into the Virginia police with that intend as they have to turn around and sell them by law.
#56 – You’re right, Scott. I used the word “pretend”.
It’s a perfectly reasonable question.
If millions decided not to obey the law, what do you think should be done about it?
Disregard if it’s feasible or not. Again, we’re pretending. The government comes out tomorrow, says it’s illegal to own an AR-15, and citizens have to turn theirs in. People say “No!”
Now what?
It would appear from your reply that you would support a door-to-door confiscation.
Does Ruby Ridge ring a bell?
@57 Michael, as long as we’re pretending, I assume it would be enforced the same way speeding tickets are enforced. The police obviously can’t catch every speeder but when they do, the law is enforced.
By analogy, I don’t expect everyone to turn their guns in even if it were made illegal. But when illegal guns are found, they’re confiscated and destroyed. I suppose part of your assumption is that no other AR-15s are being made to replace the destroyed ones. Eventually almost all the AR-15s are removed from society. As ammunition is used up, it’s not replaced, etc.
Would I support a door to door confiscation? No. I don’t think it’s feasible.
Not sure what this has to do with Ruby Ridge.
#58 – My point, Scott, is that people are going to die on both sides when the gov’t tries to take away the guns.
@59 Michael, don’t be silly. Most citizens are law abiding and would give up their guns if that were the law. Those that didn’t, when found to have them, would be fined or something.
But still, you say people would die. People die now because of guns in society. Is one form of dying better/worse than the other? At least in the gov’t taking guns scenario, there’s fewer and fewer guns available for hurting people.
If people are going to die because we have guns and people are going to die if we take them, I vote we take them because fewer and fewer people would die from them.
#60 – If you think people are going to willingly give up their guns because the gov’t tells them to, then you are sadly mistaken, Scott.
Michael, I didn’t say all people. Still, I think you’d be surprised.
#62 – “Michael, I didn’t say all people.”
You’re right Scott, you didn’t. You said “most”.
I think you’re wrong.
No offense, but I think I’m a bit more in touch with those that support the 2nd Amendment than you are.
You may be.