.jpg)
.jpg)
Paris Whitehead-Hamilton, an eight year old girl from St. Petersburg, Florida, had dreams, looking forward to when she’d be a teen and maybe go to a high school prom. She wasn’t sure of what she’d do when she grew up but new role models like Michelle Obama demonstrated that there were no limits on her dreams and ambitions.
I personally would argue that the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to own a gun should be evaluated in the light of conditions in the 21st century. There are many Americans and legal scholars would interpret that Amendment in a manner that would allow someone to carry a weapon, carry it, day and night, just in case there is a confrontation with a threat to their safety. One of the most powerful and effective lobbying organizations in the country, the National Rifle Association, has made certain that any legislator who introduces (or even supports) legislation to bar or regulate firearms is likely to be out of a job.
More discussion on the general rights of gun advocates would not be that illuminating at this time. However, it may be meaningful to explore the limitations on gun ownership and possession.
I believe that even the most confirmed gun supporter would accept that “right to bear arms” would not extend to the mentally incompetent, criminals, and children. In other words, the “right” is not absolute; there are limitations. We may disagree on the nature and extent of those limitations, but they do, in fact, exist.
There have, for many years, been laws prohibiting certain kinds of weapons, “arms”, if you will. For example fully-automatic sub-machine guns favored by 1930-ish gangsters have been outlawed for the past 70 years or so. No one would seriously argue cruise or ground to air missiles would be permitted in a residence; likewise, driving a Bradley tank, complete with cannon, would not be not allowed in lieu of a Toyota. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the right to possess weapons not uniquely suitable for military use.
So, in principle, most rational people would have no conception problems with barring certain kinds of weapons. But, the devil is in the details.
Two weeks ago, Paris Whitehead-Hamilton was struck by three bullets when her home was sprayed by over 50 rounds from an AR-15 military-style semi-automatic gun. The St. Petersburg Times:
These guns have no practical use for hunting, but they are highly efficient tools to dispatch enemies of a rival gang, which is apparently why Whitehead-Hamilton's home was targeted. The semiautomatic AR-15 is considered the hot weapon of choice for intimidation, murder and mayhem by drug gangs.
This type of gun is not a weapon with which one uses to protest self or family. It has no function or purpose other than to kill people, lots of people. Randy Inman points out that the AR-15 is a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16 and uses a high velocity round which when it “strikes a human target tumbles causing more damage”.
Advocates for broad availability of guns make several arguments whenever restriction of assault weapons is proposed.
First, they assert, that any restriction on gun ownership is the start of a slippery slope that would end in a ban on gun ownership and possession. However, as I have noted, some restrictions and limitations are accepted by everyone.
Second, those who would object to a ban on assault weapons suggest that a definition of such is difficult to formulate and, in any event, the real objection is that they just look dangerous.
An editorial in the St. Petersburg Times:
St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon is right when he says that AR-15 semiautomatic rifles "don't belong on any city street in America." So why are they so easily available? Maybe because they are legal.
Drug gangs use them. Legitimate hunters don't. So why are they legal?
Ask members of Congress — if you can find them while they are cowering from the National Rifle Association.
In 1994, the Federal Government enacted a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons generally using the criteria of a weapon having a magazine holding more than ten cartridges and capable of rapid and continuous. The law automatically expired in 2004 and Congress did not renew it.
The failure to extend the ban was the responsibility of the Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush. Lawmakers refused to advance an extension of the ban and Bush, who claimed to be willing to sign it, never urged Congress to enact one. Now also blame the Democrats, many of whom have worked to appease the NRA. Lately, gun shops report an increase in sales of all weapons including assault as conservative broadcasters spout baseless claims that President Barack Obama wants to take away all legally owned guns.
As a candidate, Obama said he would seek to renew the ban on assault weapons. Attorney General Eric Holder has repeated that promise. In the meantime, more of these guns flood into the marketplace. Some are heading across the border into Mexico, assisting in the militarization of the drug cartels. Some are sold legally through gun shops or at gun shows where purchasers don't necessarily undergo background checks. And some are finding their way into the hands of U.S. drug dealers and gangs after they are stolen from homes and pawn shops.
Admittedly, the 10-year ban didn't eliminate semi-automatic weapons. Manufacturers got around it by making small design modifications or incorporating pre-ban materials into their weapons. But the newer legislative versions of the ban would address some of these tricks. It should also be acknowledged that prohibiting the manufacture and sale olf these weapons olf mass destruction will not eliminate crime.
That is certainly true but one thing is equally true and evident: without these semi-automatic rifles, far fewer bullets would have been fired into that house in a quiet St. Petersburg neighborhood and a little girl might have had a better chance to live and someday go to her prom.
For more info:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71065/second_amendments_right_to_bear_arms.html?cat=9
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71787/killing_for_pleasure.html?cat=9
Comments
The AR-15 was initially marketed to civilians as a hunting rifle, and thus your assertion that the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, I am not permitted to reference an image of a scanned advertisement from a 1960s-era magazine advertising the Colt AR-15 as a "superb hunting partner".
All rifles combined, of which AR-15 style firearms are obviously a very small subset, are less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, and are less frequently used to commit homicide than are knives, blunt objects and "personal weapons". There exists no rational justification for a prohibition of such popular hunting and target shooting rifles; there exists no evidence that such a prohibition would affect violent crime rates in any fashion. Appealing to "emotion", as you have done, does not constitute a logical justification for your position.
Dinensio: I understand and expected your fervor. I have received a number of messages asserting that assault weapons are superb hunting weapons, that they are weapons of choice for self defense. I am, honestly, not an expert on guns and would prefer that we enact strong gun registration and control. However, the remarks to which you object, that the AR-15 has no legitimate civilian use is that of virtually every law enforcement agency that I know. For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police:
Limit the manufacture and sale of automatic and semi-automatic assault-type firearms. The deadly flow of military assault-type automatic and semi-automatic weapons onto U.S. streets and into the hands of violent criminals means that all too frequently the superior firepower belongs to the criminals, not law enforcement. These weapons have no sporting and/or hunting purpose. Rather, they are used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" in order to quickly kill or seriously wound large groups of persons. Manufacture and sale of assault weapons to the general public should be prohibited. Federal legislation to this effect is needed immediately.
As I wrote, I am not advocating a total ban on guns (now), just a restriction on these particular kind of killing devices
If, as you acknowledge, your understanding of firearms is so limited, then your suggestions regarding firearms restrictions are of no credibility. You cannot claim to understand reasonable firearms regulations if you have no understanding of firearms.
The statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police do not negate the demonstrable civilian uses of AR-15 rifles. They are the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country, and they have become popular amongst hunters because of their accuracy and their reliability. They are also, contrary to speculation from those who assert that the firearms are suitable used by those who desire "ultimate firepower" as a means for rapidly injuring or killing "large groups of persons", rarely criminally misused; that an organization releases a demonstrably dishonest claim regarding such firearms is not a logical basis for a prohibition on the sale and manufacture of such firearms.
I am curious as to how you would propose federal legislation address the millions of such firearms currently legally owned by civilians who have no criminal history, given your evident -- and irrational -- opposition to civilian ownership of such firearms. I am also interested in your parenthetical inclusion of the term "now" in your statement; are you saying that you would seek a total firearms prohibition enactment in the future? If not, what is the meaning of the included term? If so, why do you not simply advocate for that presently?
Again, I thank you for taking the time and trouble to engage in a rational discussion of a subject that usually generates more heat than light. I will try and address each of your comments in turn. First, while I do not profess to be an expert on firearms generally and on assault weapons in particular, I do not have to be an expert to recognize that a weapon capable of spraying bullets into a home is probably not one that should be readily available to members of gangs and drug cartels. You may dismiss my opinion that the convenience of target shooters and those hunters who require a magazine of bullets to fell a deer or rabbit or whatever the victim de jour, (That was, I know, unnecessarily sarcastic, but I couldn’t resist! Sorry.) is outweighed by the life of a little girl or hostages in a school.
I do not argue with the position that the shooters and not the weapon are ultimately responsible. Consider this, however, if the criminals had hand guns or knives or anything but a gun capable of spraying the house with over 50 rounds in the seconds it took to “drive by”, the chances of this child dying would have been lessened.
If my opinion’s not worth any weight, I will not dismiss the near unanimous opinions of police officers who face these weapons or the destruction that results all too often. The police chief of St. Petersburg was quoted in my initial article, I have pointed to the statement of the IACP and there are the statements of the police in almost every state. I do listen to those people.
You ask my wish for a total ban on hand guns, which you call “irrational”. If this were a opportunity to address gun control ab initio. I would support a ban, except for a well-regulated militia. But the cork is out of the bottle in our society, there are too many guns available ad to remove them is impossible. (Please note, I speak of hand guns.) I understand the perceived need for hunting rifles and shotguns in a rural setting. I see no civilian need for semi-automatic guns just as I do not see the need for everyone to have explosives in big cities just because farmers may require them to remove stumps.
Most important, we will agree to disagree without rancor and with mutual respect. I thank you for that.
AR-15 rifles do not "spray" ammunition, and it would be extremely difficult to discharge fifty rounds from an AR-15 rifle in less than one minute. Additionally, suggesting that the criminals could not have caused similar injury or death without such a firearm suggests that you are unfamiliar with the practice of arson, an action which has demonstrably resulted in similar -- if not greater -- amounts of death and destruction without the assistance of any firearm.
That you do not comprehend a "need" for civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms does not constitute a justification for a prohibition on such firearms. Until and unless it is demonstrated that legal access to semi-automatic rifles -- which are less commonly criminally misused than knives, blunt objects and "personal weapons" -- there is no rational justification for a prohibition on possession of such firearms.
Whatever ... I thank you for the intelligent and respectful discourse.
can you people tell me if the killers of my 8 year old cousin paris death can you tell mr=e if those boys got alot of time.
To Aliyah: I sent the following email -- which could no be delivered: "If you are the cousin of Paris, you and your entire family have my most heartfelt condolences. Your loss is the community’s loss, also."
Mr. Stillman,
While I agree that an AR-15 makes a poor choice of hunting rifle, I must point out that you seem to be mistaken about the history and reasoning behind the Second Amendment (2-A). I would like to enlighten you somewhat, if I may.
The entire reasoning behind 2-A is to guarantee citizens legal access to the armament required to defend the individual states from an over-zealous government. In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids the federal government from maintaining a militia, and gives this right only to the individual states. This is exactly the reason the government cannot legally prevent us from owning fully automatic machine guns, armored personnel carriers, even tanks!
Now, how would you suggest citizens defend ourselves from well armed government troops without high powered "assault weapons"?
I suggest that if there comes a time when we must defend ourselves against the armed forces of the United States, the individual weapons of a armed and untrained populace will not suffice against the US Air Force and a few Marines. I have more to fear from a gang of hoodlums with assault weapons that I do from the US Army.
Actually, the Constitution does give Congress the power to raise and provide for both an army and navy; there is. however, no authority for the creation of the Air Force!
Be that as it may, I would be very concerned if military weapons, as tanks or rockets, were "on the streets". At the risk of being naive, I'd rather let the US military and civilian police agencies serve as primary protecters.
This is an argument that has no satisfactory resolution for either point of view and I welcome hearing yours.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!