Defending the 2nd Amendment
January 26, 2009 by LD Jackson · 120 Comments
Let me start of by asking a couple of questions. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment is worth defending? Do you believe strong enough in our right to keep and bear arms that you will stand your ground in the face of so much opposition? There is a danger of being to complacent on this issue because if there is one thing I have learned, it is that you can not trust the gun control lobby. They do not want you or me to have this right that our founding fathers believed we should have.
When President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981, his press secretary James Brady was wounded as well and the gun control lobby gained their greatest advocates in him and his wife, Sarah. Through their lobbying of Congress, the Brady Bill was passed, which aimed to prevent handgun violence. It mandated background checks for handgun purchases and a five day waiting period before the purchase could be completed. That waiting period expired on November 30, 1998, as it was replaced by the background check by the National Instant Check System or NICS. Let me be clear in stating that I have no problem with background checks. As a responsible people in a responsible nation, it behooves us to do our best to make sure someone like John Hinkley does not get their hands on a gun. Had the background check system been in place in 1981, he would have not been able to legally purchase a handgun and that is as it should be. The system may not be perfect, but it gets the job done.
One issue that has to be mentioned in any discussion of gun control is the so called gun show loophole, which in reality, doesn’t even exist. Gun control advocates have complained that gun shows allow a venue for criminals to buy cheap handguns or other firearms and bypass the background check system. Nothing could be further from the truth. All transactions by licensed firearms dealers have to go through the system, no matter if it is at a gun show or not. This does not cover transactions between private individuals at gun shows, just as it does not apply to such private transactions anywhere else in the country. I say again, there is no gun show loophole. To stop such transactions at gun shows, you would have to be able to stop them all across this country and this would even include transactions between family members.
While gun control advocates shout loud and long about this nonexistent loophole, there have been studies that show a very small percentage of guns used in crimes were obtained from gun shows. A study by the Department of Justice weighed in at 2% and I believe there is one overriding factor that accounts for this small number. Have you ever been to a gun show and tried to buy a gun of any kind? I have and although I have purchased a couple, I promise you it wasn’t cheap. A gun show is one of the most expensive places to buy a gun and it is certainly not a place where you will be able to make a profit buying and reselling guns.
There are some citizens of our country that have more trust and faith in the liberal gun control advocates than I do. I believe their aim is to eventually remove all private ownership of firearms. Why would they go to such extremes to paint the picture of gun shows that they do, if their aim is not to shut them down completely? If they are really serious about stopping crimes that are perpetrated by people using guns, then stop playing around with them and throw them in jail when they are caught. Instead, they seem to think that infringing upon our rights will stop the criminals from doing what they have always done.
One prime example of that is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994. This piece of legislation put a ten year ban on the selling of semiautomatic assault type weapons to civilians. For those of you who are not gun savvy, a semiautomatic weapon is one that you can fire repeatedly by just pulling the trigger. The firing of the shot works the action and loads the next round into the chamber. This is compared to a fully automatic weapon that can be fired repeatedly by simply holding down the trigger. What the legislation actually did was to blur the lines between these two types of weapons. The criteria for a weapon to be classified as an assault weapon is listed below.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Folding stock
- Conspicuous pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
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 silencer
- 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 an 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
Several weapon manufacturers simply changed cosmetic items on their weapons, renamed them, and started selling them to consumers. So you can see, despite all the claims that the ban has lowered crime, it simply isn’t true. The weapons are still on the market and have only been cosmetically changed, which does nothing to increase or decrease their effectiveness in doing what they were designed to do.
This kind of legislation is just one more reason I distrust the gun control advocates. They like to enact legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban, that is loaded with ambiguous language that can be construed to say what they want it to say. What they should do is actually enforce the laws that are already on the books, instead of spending time and money on a bill that did no good whatsoever. Just so you know, President Obama favors making the ban permanent.
It’s a sad time in our country when guns are portrayed to be evil creations that no law abiding citizen should even want to have. Some insurance applications are even asking if you own a firearm, as if it is a bad thing to do. Gun control advocates do their best to draw a picture of everyone walking down the street, carrying a gun and loaded for bear. That idea needs to be rejected outright. Not everyone is wanting to walk down the street armed to the gills, but it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it should not be infringed.
There is one thing we all need to remember. The 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution for a reason and that was to protect us, the citizens of the United States, from tyranny of any kind. That means from our own government and from others as well. Do you not believe that has been a deterrent before? Let me leave you with a quote from a well known Japanese Admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto. When he was asked about invading the continental United States, he strongly advised against it. His reason was simple.
Upon landing in America, there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.
Our country was founded with certain freedoms being assured in the Constitution. One of the most precious is our freedom of speech. When our founding fathers came to these shores, they were leaving a country where they had very little rights. When the United States was being formed, they wanted to make sure the rights that were denied them in Great Britain were guaranteed in our country. Thus the 1st and 2nd Amendments were born and at great cost to some of those men who fought to establish our nation. Surely they are still worth fighting for today.
I haven’t heard about the so called smart guns. Do you have any idea how this is supposed to work? I don’t suppose I would have any problem with it, depending on how reliable it would of course.
Mike,
I apologize if you or anyone else has the impression that I did not want to address your original proposal. It never crossed my mind to avoid it, but I really have been very busy with my job and other obligations, (trying to repair a sick computer for a friend).
As for your second proposal, I don’t see a problem with that, if and when the technology is designed that will do the job. I have heard of the smart guns, but I do not know how they are supposed to work. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about handguns only?
ARRRRRGGHHHH!
I wrote a comment, and then the laptop crashed. Dang.
Anyway, here’s the gist of it:
Laurie – If you really think that Larry is so inadequate a blogger, then go somewhere else, or start up your own blog and show the rest of us how it’s done. Insulting people never adds weight to your argument.
Mike – I read your proposal in #65, and the biggest problem I have with it is that it allows an agency of the state to bottleneck gun sales. Part of why the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment is that it’s important for the people to have the ability to stand up to the government.
I’m not sure that I’m completely against your idea, but there’s my concern. I’ll think about it and see if I can come up with a counter-proposal, or maybe just a tweak to yours.
I think that this argument really comes down to balancing two concerns: (1) protecting the public from gun crimes, and (2) protecting the right of the people to protect themselves, either from crime or oppression.
The question is how we each weigh these interests. Clearly, Laurie and Mike weigh (1) more heavily than (2). Larry, Gary, and I lean toward (2).
Wickle’s last blog post..Some Housekeeping Notes
Point taken and mea culpa. I let my frustration with the circular argument get the best of me, and I should have stuck to my issue.
Balance is clearly the best option. But that, really, is the point. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric of those who contend that no regulation is ever good and make blanket statements that regulation won’t and hasn’t ever worked. The Brady bill has been incredibly effective at making it much more difficult for the criminally convicted and mentally ill to obtain guns. So the total rejection plan doesn’t work, any better than blind acceptance of every regulatory effort would.
smartguns= bad idea
1) expensive
2)have you ever heard of a computer that can’t be hacked
3)computers crash (wickle). do you want your life to depend on it?
Here is my proposal:
Carry a gun.
Many people think that legislation will keep guns out of the hand of criminals. This makes a lot of sense…make more laws for people who by their very nature break them. There is another way, carry a gun. The law abiding citizens will always outnumber the criminals (I hope). Now, do your civic duty. When you see a crime taking place, stop it. Since there are more citizens than criminals you have the advantage, use it.
Gun laws are a great idea, just ask the next Jew you meet who has a number tattoo’d on their body.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin
Front page of todays NY Times article called “US is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartel”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?_r=1
Are gun rights activists going to argue that this is just an unfortunate result of our Second Amendment rights? Are you going to argue that the laws on the books are sufficient and we just need to enforce them? Or maybe this is actually good for US business and it’s really Mexico’s problem not ours? I’ve stayed away from this issue but when I read articles like this one it just burns me up. This is the United States of America — we’re not supposed to be the supply source for terrorist weapons!!!
Mike,
I really didn’t want to get into this discussion again, but you are right. Our country does not need to be a weapons supplier to the Mexican drug cartels. As to the solution to this problem, we have already been around the mulberry bush on that one and we both know how each other stands on the issue.
Larry — I read this article and needn’t to vent…..case closed.
This all could have been prevented if the government would just put another box on the “yellow form” that clearly states “are you purchasing these firearms for a mexican druglord”
Why shouldn’t we supply the mexicans with guns, we supply them with the funding by purchasing their products(drugs). Do you think it would be better if we just bought their products and then sold them security in the form of PMC’s? Why weren’t you outraged when your neighbor was just smoking their product? Finally, why do you think these drug cartels are in Mexico and not in the U.S. where it is obviously easier to obtain the guns?
‘This is the United States of America — we’re not supposed to be the supply source for terrorist weapons!!!’
Have you ever heard of Charlie Wilson? Does the date 9/11/01 mean anything to you? Perhaps your familiar with the terrorists who founded the United States?
Firearms are a tool, plane and simple. It is not the fault of the manufacturer, dealer or the tool itself for how it is used or misused.
Let’s not get all of this started again, shall we.
Terrorists founded our country?
Sometimes you just have to laugh….plain and simple.
I’m sorry, I should have explained myself better. Terrorism is a matter of perspective.
If I send a letter to the white house saying something to the effect of “I reject your tyrannical government and declare myself and my property independent from the United States. Furthermore, any attempt to reclaim the United State of Me will be an act of war and as such will be met with lethal resistance.” What do you suppose will happen to me? If I uphold the word of my declaration, I will be labeled as a terrorist and be dealt with as such.
Now, subtract a few hundred years, move to jolly ole’ England and put a name to the gaggle of colonists who just wrote you a letter very similar to mine. I doubt the name applied will be patriot. You still laughing Mike?
btw, the declaration made by our patriot forefathers would not have had much purchase in England or the U.S. if not for the equalizing power of their modern (at the time) assault rifles, that were at least, the equal of the firearms carried by the English soldier.
If you think this actually explains things better then yes, I’m laughing even more than before. Has the US of Travis negotiated with the USA? Has he explained his grievances and sought compromise? Are there tens of thousands of people supporting Travis and his ideals? Is there are great deliberative body discusiing how the UST will function and the rules and principles that will be guiding light for freedom loving people all over the world? Or is Travis just maybe a little bit out there? Your rationalization of selling guns to Mexican gun cartels by equating it somehow to 9/11 is outrageous as is your characterizing guns as a tool; but I’m through with this and am exptremely sorry I ever raised the issue again.
I cannot make this any more simple for you.
“Or is Travis just maybe a little bit out there?”
By “out there” do you mean that I don’t believe govt’s always have the people’s best interest in mind. If so, I’ll agree with that.
“outrageous as is your characterizing guns as a tool”
hammer=tool
hammer+ smashed into your forehead=weapon
firearm=tool
^^What changed? Only the intent of the person using it.
I will admit that I have yet to go back and read over all of what has been written above but before I do I have to add one small thing.
The definition of a tool has for some odd reason been put into question. I am not sure as to why anyone smart enough to type more that a four word sentence finds it difficult to understand what a tool is or why said person would admit to this (be it inadvertently by miss use of the word) with out first typing the three simple letters that make it up into a search engine and seeing what pops up (yes I said three letters, get over it before you try to call me out).
I did a simple search for anyone and everyone that is still pondering how to properly place this word into their day-to-day vocabulary list.
According to Wikipedia “A broad definition of a tool is an entity used to interface between two or more domains that facilitates more effective action of one domain upon the other.”
More simply put a tool is one that is used or manipulated by another. By this wording a person can be a tool or in some cases a Tool (get it Mike?).
Check Merriam/Websters dictionary if you’d like. I did. The simplest definiton they list is as follows;
1.) A hand-held device that aids in accomplishing a task.
I will admit not all tools are hand held but I am also sure no matter what definition you come across you will find the same thing. I’ll spell it out as simple as I feel can be done…
A GUN IS A TOOL.
Simple fact. It is used, it does not use. It is manipulated. It does not manipulate. A gun will only do what it is made to do.
With that out of the way I look forward to catching up with past post and adding my two cents while I am still allowed to do so. I believe that freedom of expression is still in play… for now.
Sorry Jeffrey but I promised Larry and his readers that I would back off on this subject…..have a nice day :>)