Join Date: October 4, 2010
Location: Chattanooga, TN
A friend of mine sent this exact post to me, calling it rational. Here's how I posted back (taking extra care to be polite, and not letting the steam coming out my ears obscure my vision). Feedback is most welcome; I appreciate anything to hone my knowledge.
There are several issues I have with the post; I'll fisk some high points, splitting it into two posts for length:
*** Hitler did not say "In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens." In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily (quotes Snopes).
Perhaps Hitler didn't say that - however, the very Snopes page he quotes states that "conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so". That's more the point. Sure, he let guns be obtained more easily - if you were the right kind of German. For Jews, Gypsies, and others, it was gun control.
Presidential death threats - I'll give you that one.
*** "NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms"
Not yet - it's the slippery slope gun owners are worried about. Look at the abuses of the PATRIOT act, as well as the abuses of drug property confiscation laws used to enrich police agencies. Remember, Cuomo in New York DID consider confiscation - then abandoned the thought knowing it wouldn't fly.
For a more pertinent example, Ruger and gun owners tried to compromise on 10 rounds for magazines under Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban. Many gun owners raised hell about this because they said if you set a limit, who's to say that limit won't be ratcheted down in the future to effectively back door ban more firearms. Some people still spit at Bill Ruger's memory for this. Well, what used to be considered reasonable then isn't now - now the "magic number", at least in New York, is now 7, which eliminates most semi-automatic pistols (including 22s). No statistical or scientific reasoning for 10, or for 7, except that at the moment whatever value is used it sounds good.
It's scary that politicians with little firearm knowledge don't minimally educate themselves about the topic they want to regulate - the infamous Carolyn McCarthy quote about saying a barrel shroud "...is a shoulder thing that goes up" is a classic. She by no means needs to be an expert, but if she's going to ban a barrel shroud it would be nice if she bothered to know what one is.
*** "Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns."
*shrug* Lots of games can be played with statistics, and comparing across nations always runs into what crimes are being counted and how, as well as different demographic patterns. I tend to put more faith in statistical trends that show homicide rates rising in areas of heavy gun regulation, and dropping where it is easier to carry a gun. Usually when statistics are brought up, the work of John Lott is used.
*** "we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers"
Absolutely - we do similar things with firearms. We prevent people with history of mental institutionalization from owning guns. We have stronger penalties for crimes committed with guns, and felons lose their 2nd Amendment rights. It's a "innocent till proven guilty attitude". We don't disallow cars because people might kill someone - at least not without some supporting evidence. Why do that with guns, when the death rate is lower?
All the text from "The media is not hiding..." until the part that says "ONLY answer to this problem is more guns." is opinion with no hard facts behind them. I'm not saying he can't find any, nor passing any judgement on it - I'm just saying it's his opinion, and he's welcome to it. Everyone has an opinion...
*** "Banning all firearms is Not the answer..."
That's certainly true; however, most of the leading proponents of gun control are very up front about their ultimate goal - to ban all firearms. If they are going to try to ban all firearms, and CLEARLY STATE THAT, then why should gun owners give even an inch to help them? Refer above to my mention of the Assault Weapon Ban.
VT shooting - there's a saying "when seconds count the police are minutes away". I will agree armed guards aren't the only solution; a better answer would be to allow concealed carry at schools. Utah has done this with teachers in high schools for several years with no ill effect, and Texas is starting to allow the same. I'm sure there are other solutions to consider, but posting a "no guns allowed" at a school isn't an effective one.
On a related note, remember in the Aurora theater shooting the shooter did not pick the closest theater, nor the largest - he picked the only one that did not allow firearms. Possibly coincidence, but I personally have the opinion it was deliberate; we will never know for sure.
Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill - yup, he did. His record on gun rights is mixed; they shifted more toward gun control as he grew older. Historical fact. *shrug*
Assault weapon actually is a _very_ precise term - it means a gun in an intermediate caliber that can fire in full auto: one trigger pull, many bullets. It is often misused in gun control discussions to stir up fear and emotion, and to associated semi-automatic civilian arms with negative connotations.
And yes, criminals don't typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
I can exaggerate most opinions to the point of absurdity - *shrug*. There are lots of laws concerning firearms.
Most discussions on gun control are complicated by the Second Amendment - arms are specifically protected by the Constitution, and they are protected not for hunting, not for target shooting, but for "the security of a free State". Cuomo states "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer" as one reason for passing draconian gun restrictions. *shrug* who cares? That's not what the Second Amendment is about, and it trumps the "who needs..." claims of gun control advocates. Need isn't the point.
As far as magazine limitations, look at the woman in Georgia recently cornered in an attic protecting her children. She fired six shots with a .38 special and hit the intruder's face and neck 5 times out of 6. He didn't drop - instead, he ran away, eventually wrecking his car from his injuries. Good thing he didn't decide to try to attack her instead with his crowbar; if he had enough motor control and ability to leave the house, enter his car, start it and drive away, he could have had enough time to injure her or her children. Another example - two policemen last year, firing at a murderer in New York City at a range of 8 feet, hit the fellow ONCE out of FIFTEEN shots. At 8 bloody feet! In those situations, you prefer MORE ammo, not less, in your firearm - 7 or 10 may not cut it.
The Heller decision has clearly stated the Second Amendment is not limited to members of a militia and pertains to "weapons of common use" (it also specifically states handguns, which are the most common firearm involved in crimes involving guns, fall into this category). The McDonald decision states guns cannot be regulated by backhanded means (in the specific example, requiring training at gun ranges then using zoning to prevent any from existing). I'm going out on a limb here, but since the AR is one of the most common rifles in the United States, it might also fall into the "weapons of common use" category. Something to think about anyway.
The rapidity of attempts to pass gun legislation makes the PATRIOT Act look like a model of probity; most of the laws proposed run contrary to the "Heller" and "McDonald" rulings I mention above, and will likely be struck down in the courts because of it. So the taxpayer ends up spending huge amounts to defend bad law, much like in California and Illinois with the attempted restrictions on violent games, all so that politicians can be seen "doing something".
If you are going to consider law, then for the Love of Little Green Apples DO SOME CONSIDERING! Did the New York law need to be passed in three days, while giving lawmakers less than an hour to read it? Sure, but not because it prevented more crime - it was because Cuomo was using the emotion of the moment to plow through what he wants without opposition.
The New York law looks like it may be turning into another "we need to pass the bill in order to know what is in it" case - in the haste to pass it, they forgot to exempt law enforcement from the limitations, and now they need to make sure that's covered elsewhere, or else patch it after the fact.
Sorry, but there's nothing in that post that changes my mind on the topic - it's an emotional outburst with some valid points, none of which I feel are critical to the topic of gun rights. As always, YMMV.
NRA Life Member