.

When crazies kill, why sanction the legal and responsible?

Following the tragedy this weekend in Aurora, Colorado the reaction from many will be predictable and directed at the wrong demographic.

Here we go again ...

Another crazy gets hold of an arsenal of weapons; breaks almost every law in the books; and shoots scores of innocents.  And the result is predictable ... a groundswell of opinion that never wavers ... PASS LAWS TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP!

The problem with that sentiment is that third word ... "LAWS".  Because "laws" only apply to those inclined to obey them in the first place!  

It's one thing if our elected leaders had the backbone to take on such an unpopular position (unpopular that is to most people who do not live in large, crime-ridden cities) and accept the political consequences.  But that's rarely ever the case when politics and power are of greater value.  That was exactly the sentiment that was expressed by Democrat stalwart Senator (CA) Dianne Feinstein, who stated, although a sane discussion on gun control and a ban on military-type assault rifles was important, an election year was not the time to address it. 

Huh?!?  Wouldn't that be the PERFECT time to address the issue?!?

Apparently the Democrats see a discussion of gun control to be a political loser in a year when President Obama is fighting for re-election in what is expected to be a close election.  For these Democrats, the subject of limiting gun violence by restricting access to guns for everyone is trumped by White House aspirations.  It says much about where the issue really sits with the political animals of the Democratic Party.  So, if they refuse to have this discussion now, why should they be taken seriously when they finally get around to it? 

In that same vein, we are still waiting for The President to get around to his 2008 campaign promises on gun control.  Instead, President Obama has signed bills allowing guns in national parks and even on Amtrak; and he has steadfastly refused to seek reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.  And maybe that's the real reason Democrats - like Senator Feinstein - do not wish to bring it up now!

But in truth, even if we did have this conversation today, it would accomplish NOTHING in keeping guns of all shapes, sizes, and magazine capacities from the criminals and the crazies.  They tend not to like or obey those pesky laws! 

If it were that easy, we wouldn't have had Aurora ... or Columbine ... or Howard Unruh ... or the University of Texas clock tower ... or Virginia Tech ...

That's the REAL problem ... the criminals and the crazies. 

You have no right to ask law-biding citizens to give up access to responsible gun ownership, if you have no prospects for denying similar weapons to the criminals and the crazies.  And it's mind-boggling that anyone would propose such a ban in an age where our own Federal Government openly distributed guns to the most dangerous criminals currently on the continent.  They must solve the problem of keeping automatic assault weapons from the drug runners, the gangs, and criminally insane before asking John Q. Citizen to even consider doing the same.   

I ain't holding my breath on the former, but fully expect continued efforts to do the latter.

For another reason entirely, I laugh when gun opponents run up the flag of the Founding Fathers to claim that they had no intention for gun ownership to exist outside what was needed for the purposes of organized state militias.  That may well have been their original intent, just like it was to restrict the voting rights of women or to count African slaves as 3/5 of a person.  In reality, the concept of militia had little-to-nothing to do historically with the development of a gun culture in the United States.

Every household in 18th century America REQUIRED the possession of a firearm.  This was not a legal requirement; it was a requirement for survival.  For if you lived anywhere other than the relative safety of early American cities, a gun was as important as food in surviving the dangers and hostilities of the unsettled frontier. 

Whether it was dealing with the growing hostility of a native population or using the point-of-a-gun to discourage foreign intervention and push American civilization West across the North American continent, the National Government fostered the concept of private gun ownership - far removed from the concept of militia service - among its citizens.  Huge tracts of territory were settled and controlled; colonial forces from Spain, Britain, and France were pushed out; and the Wild West was colonized, then civilized with the help of armed citizens that NEVER once stepped foot into a militia formation.

It renders the concept of "militia" a convenient interpretation of a badly worded phrase in the Bill of Rights.  So for better or worse - depending on your point-of-view - America grew and flourished as the result of a gun culture that was accepted by a Government led directly by those same Founding Fathers.  The same ones who supposedly never intended private gun ownership outside of a quasi-military apparatus. 

The irony seems lost on those who want to blame the carnage on law-biding citizens and their long-held rights.

From www.crankymanslawn.com ...  

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Mike Shortall Sr July 27, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Wow ... Very impressive ... And using all your adult words too! Uh .. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where anything I wrote was "not accurate", aside from not agreeing with you. Care to share, Feodor? Was I wrong when I said that weapons you want to take away from law-bigin, responsible gun owners should FIRST be made inaccessible to criminals and crazies? Was I incorrect about Democrat leaders like Diane Feinstein stating that gun control was an important issue, just not "during an election year? Or that President Obama failed to make any progress AT ALL on gun control issues he touted during the 2008 election? Maybe I misstated the fact that The President signed a bill that allowed the Assault Weapon ban to expire? Was I wrong when I stated that even the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a habit of distributing the most dangerous weapons to the Most Dangerous Criminals on the North American continent? Or maybe it was the "fact" that the tired old "well organized militia" argument makes no sense when those same Founding Fathers oversaw the settlement of the entire country at the point of guns held by private citizens who never stepped foot into nor were required to serve in any sort of militia organization? Please enlighten me as to the errors of my way! And keep up the great work on maturing your commentary!
Cowboy Bob July 30, 2012 at 02:13 AM
The federal government did pass legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of certain "assault weapons" and accessories with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This measure expired in 2004 with its Sunset Provision. Extensive studies by the both government bodies and pro-2nd Amendment forces found that during that ten-year period found that the ban had no measurable effect on gun crime and violence. This proves, officially, that guns that look scary don't make criminals want to use them.
Hale August 09, 2012 at 08:39 PM
"...We passed all of the necessary background checks, but it astounds me that it took under a half an hour to buy a gun, and all we had to present were our driver's licences and fill out a few forms...." And if you had ANY criminal or mental history background on record in PA, the PICS check would have flagged you, the NICS check would have flagged you, you would have been immediately denied the transfer, and the gun shop dealer would have contacted the police. You're a law abiding Citizen. There's no reason it SHOULD be any more difficult for you. Don't help the other side try to take away a right that Americans have died for. "...Common sense says that owning a gun should not be banned, but that certain kinds of guns and accessories should be..." Really? Why? Because they're scary? Part of living in a free society, brother. Deal with it. AR15s aren't "machine guns" and they're not "Assault Weapons". They're not full auto. Full Auto weapons are NFA Class II weapons, (LEGAL in 43 states), heavily controlled and regulated and expensive. And it's not a "clip". It's a magazine. And if it holds 100 rounds, so what? You don't want to own one, that's fine. Don't. But others - millions of others - do.
Hale August 09, 2012 at 08:47 PM
"...In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle...." An AR15 is NOT an "assault weapon". That's a made up term used to scare people who know nothing about firearms. "Assault" is an action, not an item. If someone hits you with a baseball bat, does it make it an "Assault Bat"? If they hit you multiple times with it, does it make it a "high-capacity Assault Bat?" An "Assault Rifle" by definition is a select-fire, full auto military rifle (and they're NOT illegal to own - you just have to go through the proper BATF process for an NFA Class III firearm and have the $$$$ to buy). AR15s are just modern semi-auto sporting rifles. They're only a big, scary evil gun to folks with an agenda or lack of knowledge. Incidentally Ann...nice fact rundown and research.
Hale August 09, 2012 at 08:54 PM
"...The automatic weapon that killed the innocents..." You're not entitled to YOUR own facts either. It wasn't an "automatic weapon", and what he used to do the most damage was an ordinary shotgun. His AR15 had jammed. When you insult people for disagreeing with you, at least be accurate.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »