I am a United States Marine Corp veteran and have been asked repeatedly over the last several weeks where I stand on Gun Control. Whether I'm asked by NRA representatives, legislators, or fellow concerned parents of our community my answer is the same and the reactions I receive seem rather synonymous too.
Everyone seems to agree on a couple key points:
1. No criminal with a violent history ever needs to possess or carry a firearm.
2. FBI background checks are a GOOD thing for anyone wanting to carry a concealed firearm
3. Allowing the local police department to have issuing authorization authority for any concealed carry applicant is also a good thing.
Here is where things seem to fall into deep debate:
-
Whether or not a private citizen should be allowed to purchase/possess an automatic or semi automatic high capacity type of weapon.
- Should there be limits to the round capacity of magazines a private citizen can possess?
- Position 1. The National Rifle Association (NRA) believes this is a constitutionally protected right which was put into place by our forefathers to allow American Citizens to always be able to protect themselves from an overreaching and tyrannical government. History and the Supreme court continue to uphold this fundamental right.
- Position 2. The Gun Control Lobby believes that our forefather's could never fathom the types of weapons we produce today. After-all, when the Constitution was being written, we were still using single shot, single load rifles that took nearly a minute for the average citizen to reload.
- Position 3. The Rational Perspective believes that no private citizen needs to own the types of high capacity rapid fire weapons that are at the center of the gun debate. Why?
- By law, you can't hunt with these types of weapons.
- They are less effective in home protection then a shot gun or hand held pistol. (both of which are perfectly legal)
- They are continually involved in violent crimes, drug and gang wars, and mass murders.
So where do we find common ground on this sensitive issue?
The short answer - As long as the NRA and Gun Control lobby continue to use the Gun Debate as a political leverage tool we are likely to continue to see more senseless killings.
Face it, the legislation that is required to manage gun control rationally is muted by the money pumped into the political process by those for or against whatever the opposite side argues. This unfortunate reality is tantamount to watching a a bunch of idiots argue with each other by saying "blah blah blah, I can't hear you, blah blah blah." As a result - innocent people continue to die.
So to the NRA and the Gun Control Lobby, I have this advice to give. Shut up, be rational, and listen to what the other side is saying....You are killing us. Literally.
I can agree that private gun ownership is our Constitutional right....but what types of guns?...well, therein lies the question, the debate, and our generations challenge. The solutions come from working together - not tearing ourselves apart. Good luck finding that in our legislative halls today.
I heartily disagree. I believe the debate has just begun and should not be abandoned. If it were simple, we would not be having this conversation.
Do you think the cops are going to protect you when someone breaks into your home? Cops usually always show up AFTER the crime has been committed. AFTER the rape or murder has been enacted. People stupidly don't realize that the first person you call on the phone to help you is a person with a gun! If you had your own gun, trust me, the chances of you surviving a home invasion just went up! The chance of your wife or daughter NOT getting raped just went up! I'd rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!
Most, from both sides agree that a good person with a gun is the best defense against a bad person with a gun. No arguement here. Where the debate parts ways is on the question of type of firearm and capacity of ammunition supply Knowone is trying to take away our guns. I am very aware that is what the NRA wants us to believe. And they have enough money to make most people believe that. But it us simply not true. Regardless, I believe therer does seem to need to be improved standards of "controlling" who can own what types of guns.
In California Sheriffs issue carry permits, and it is discretionary. Rumors are that this discretion is a good thing for the Sheriffs' re-election funds. I've heard that if you don't make a generous donation, you don't get the permit. The local PD should have the power to deny a carry permit for cause, and there has to be a way to appeal that cause (this is the case in CT).
... on March 30, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points: 1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury. 2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. 3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. 4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Lanza's mother knew he had problems, serious problems. He had no relationship with his brother or father, was a loner, wore the same clothing all the time, barely spoke to other people. He spent hours playing video games. Yet, somehow he was able to get his hands on her arsenal and go crazy. Perhaps laws should be put into place to require parents to take a child raising safety course...
U.S. v. Miller, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) - Supreme Court on 2nd amendment This is the only Supreme Court case where the court examined whether the 2nd amendment inhibits the feds from regulating guns, in this case the NFA regulation. Two guys transported a sawed off shotgun through the South (the case even lists the serial number and make) and were charged with violating the NFA. The lower court decided the law violated the 2nd amendment, and let the guys out. They promptly fled, or died, take your pick, and the government pursued an appeal, with no representation for Miller and his buddy.
Pistols like the Glock 17 you reference above are entirely different animals. They are great, small and compact self defense hand guns that provide you with maneuverability and a good supply of ammo for the poor shot. However, the types of "assault weapons" at the center of the debate lay down a higher power, increased muzzle velocity, longer distance, more accurate, and more capacity. Great for establishing fire supremacy on the battle fields and for Urban warfare environments. Great for special trained SWAT, and other tactical assault teams. But not great in the household of a women with a mentally ill child. A .556mm round from an "assault rifle" does more damage, due to velocity then a 9mm and some might even argue a .45 caliber depending on type of round. But here is the part that needs further consideration...
With a pistol, he would have had to stop to reload at least two times in order to fire the same number of rounds. But the rounds from a pistol may have been less lethal and perhaps less accurate. In these types of environments, seconds save lives.
1. In order to purchase and possess any type of "Assault Weapon" one must do the following: 1. Take a two week intensive (assault weapons) firearms safety and qualification course (like in any of the Armed Forces) 1b. for veterans, present a copy of your DD-214 2. Must pass qualification (like in any other Armed forces or protective service that issues assault weapons) - including citing in, preventative maintenance, and immediate action safety measures. 1b. for veterans, present a copy of your DD-214 3. Must pass a test on the laws governing the use of deadly force and firearms rules and regulations. 4. FBI background check 5. 2 week waiting period for any purchase 6. Registered location (physical address) of assault weapon. 7. Owner operated biometric trigger lock. I'd personally be willing to do all of the above and do not see any of that as an encroachment of my rights.
Your link makes my point. Dianne Feinsteins proposals are specific to "Assualt-weapons" know one is trying to take away our shotgun, pistol, muzzleloader, or hunting rifles. Only the NRA has the power and money to convince people of that myth. And that is exactly what it is....a myth used to create political leverage. I am not anti NRA, nor am I anti "Gun Control" - I am anti stupid. Stupid kills.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine.
With a pistol, he would have had to stop to reload at least two times in order to fire the same number of rounds. But the rounds from a pistol may have been less lethal and perhaps less accurate." Exactly!!! Without the ability to disperse so much ammo in such little time; it could be argued, the locked front door would have proven a considerable challenge to the shooter. Regardless of the caliber.
Lanza's mother knew he had problems, serious problems. He had no relationship with his brother or father, was a loner, wore the same clothing all the time, barely spoke to other people. He spent hours playing video games. Yet, somehow he was able to get his hands on her arsenal and go crazy." I agree that this is a major discussion point. With the exception of parents who we lose "pre-maturely" to disease, accident and the like; I believe the presence of two loving parents is paramount to this entire discussion. We live in a disposable society and marriage is no exception. Mothers and Fathers need to think long, hard and un-selfishly about the effects of divorce on children. It might mean sacrafice and hard work but in the end any marriage is worth extraordinary measure to save especially when children are involved. I do not intend to demonize divorce, but I believe our society should put more emphasis on personal responsibilty whether it's gun ownership or parenting.
In an email to at least one legislator, I made the point that "high capacity" must be considered along with caliber, and that the typical 17 round magazine that comes standard with a pistol like the 9mm Glock 17 should not be broad-brushed the same as a 30 round magpull .223. I also pointed out the self defense issue that a typical homeowner in a scary situation does need the advantage of that size capacity. The net of my argument, reflecting some of the same thoughts in your comment that definitions of "high" or "standard" really need more than a single "10 round" number. I also agree there's a huge difference in rounds between a hypersonic 3500 ft per second nato round and a 1000 ft/second .40 S&W... providing images to compare the relative sizes of the cartridges. Based on some of the comments I've seen in blogs and elsewhere, I've had to conclude that many participating in the debate have a deficit in the areas of facts relating to these differences. --- next post to avoid tolstoy ---
I'm not actually sure what the law says regarding liquor storage, but I actually do have a lock on the cabinet where I store hard liquor; also my kid (still under 21) does not drink (really). But I don't really have a good answer to your question, other than I think I'm doing something right.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/