.jpg)
I opened up the newspaper this morning and saw another story about a family member killed with a gun. This time it was a son who killed his father with a shotgun. The son claims the gun went off accidentally after he slipped and fell causing the gun to fire. The same newspaper had another article about a father who shot his wife and daughter before killing himself in their home. These are scary times we live in. An epidemic of gun violence has broken out in America and it seems to be getting worse each day.
The ABC News program 20/20 ran a special the other night entitled If I Only Had a Gun. Click on this link to watch a video clip from the special and you will have an eye opening experience. While I understand and share people's fear of being victimized, I'm just not convinced that arming ourselves for protection is the answer. One of the more important factors to consider, as shown in the 20/20 special, is the fact that many of the law abiding citizens who have purchased guns have never been trained to use them properly or how to use them when faced with a crisis situation.
The debate about whether or not more gun regulations are needed continues in Congress and throughout the country. Should they be focusing on more laws or trying to impose the ones already on the books? The Gun Control Act of 1968 lists nine categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms. Is this list enough? Is it enforceable? Why does it seem to be so easy for anyone who wants a gun to buy one?
The challenge of crime in a free society such as ours is a difficult one. Judging from the thousands of websites that discuss the issue of gun control on a daily basis and the size and power of the gun lobby, it is an issue that has no simple answer. Many of the pro gun lobby believe that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and that it is an absolute right that cannot be altered. Those in favor of gun control believe the 2nd Amendment deals with the collective right of the people for security through armed militia. Who is right?
As the debate continues more children are shooting each other with guns they find in their own homes and others are shooting each other with guns they buy on the streets. There are an estimated 250 million guns in America today, enough for almost every one of us to own a gun. Is that the answer? Please share your thoughts on this issue.
Comments
Gun control is not the answer. The bad guys who should not get guns are still going to get them anyway. Then you will have people who are responsible to own a gun being victimized by idiots who will have guns with nothing to stop them.
Cheryl - In your last paragraph you make it sound as if the matter of the second amendment being a collective right or individual right has yet to be determined. The Supreme Court re-affirmed the individual right to bear arms. Are we to assume you are dismissing the Supreme Court ruling because you don't like it? More than two centuries of American culture and writings of our founding fathers affirms the individual right to bear arms. Are we to assume you loathe American Culture and the reasons our founders created the Second Amendment? It truly amazes me how "socialist" Democrats somehow have trouble understanding a right clearly spelled out in the second amendment, but routinely look to create new rights by re-interrupting the meaning of different amendments. Just because you are not a gunowner doesn't give you the right to force your personal decision on all Americans. America is great because it guarantees individual rights and I for one am tired of "Socialist" Democrats trying to take away indivudal freedoms for what you deem to be the collective good. It pains me to see how today's Democrats have turned their backs on the long tradition of Democrats protecting individual rights. It is important to note that criminals ignore laws, commit crimes and that will never change. Crime is never a reason for law abiding citizens to forfeit their rights. If you were intellectually honest you would realize cell phone use, drinking and drug use while driving kill far more Americans than guns ever will. I haven't seen a column from you suggesting a ban on those privileges that are not protecting by the Constitution. We live in a world with good and evil. We need to allow the good to live free and punish those that break the law.
The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics do not support gun control. The states with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Pro-Rights states have seen violent crime decline when "Shall Issue" permit laws have been passed. England has seen a 29% increase after banning legally owned firearms, making it more dangerous there than the U.S. The numbers don't lie. More guns saves lives. Less guns equals more crimes and death.
Cheryl, why don't invest and hour or so of online research in crime and accident statistics before you write an article? Most high school students would be expected to do as much (little). Statistically the "children" you refer to are 17-19 year old gang predators that are killng each other. You would also find that the are many forms of accidents that come before firearms that harm innocent people.
That piece on 20/20 was the mosed biased reporting I've ever seen. Come on,a kid that says he's trained in firearms from playing video games? Read Columbia,SC news. Two robberies stopped by CCW permit holders in one week. I do agree if you're going to carry you need to take additional training and practice.
what the media is doing is trying to focus on all the negative gun stories,and you very seldom
hear about how many times crime was stopped by a
person with a gun, alot of times without fireing a shot.If you read the 2nd amendment and you have comprehention of the english language you know it means a personal right.
without it we could not defend the other rights like free speech
I wasn't taking a position either way. I was just trying to keep the conversation lively, and looks like I have succeeded.
I agree that it's alarming that violence of any type is increasing in our country but I don't blame the instrument that's used. The 20/20 special was biased to say the least. The part where the shooter comes in the room and the one who is armed can't get to his gun proves that if only 3, 4, or more people were armed the shooter would have been in big trouble. Would you rather be armed if you were in the classroom down the hall from the shooter waiting for him to possibly come to your room and open fire. Would a firearm help you out then? That show really didn't make a whole lot of sense if you really think about it. The "experiments" were silly. Anyone can create an experiment to prove their point. If guns are so worthless for protection then why do the police use them? Do the cops want to give up their guns if they are so ineffective? Another point is that the states where some of the latest shootings have occurred had some of the toughest gun control laws. Just something to think about..
Cheryl - I believe if you re-read your article you will find it is about as balanced as the 20/20 piece. Using catch phrases like "gun lobby" give you away. This may be shocking to you but the gun lobby is nothing more than everyday law abiding citizens looking to protect individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It may shock you more to know that some of us in the so called "gun lobby" don't own guns, but are concerned with the erosion of individual liberties and freedoms.
Cheryl wrote:
"Those in favor of gun control believe the 2nd Amendment deals with the collective right of the people for security through armed militia."
Where did you go to HS? The armed Milita IS the individual armed citizens of America. The National guard wasn't formed until 1903.
Cheryl wrote:
"the size and power of the gun lobby,"
The gun lobby Cheryl? The gun lobby is the millions NRA,GOA,SAF and CCRKBA members and legal gun owners in America. not some all powerful secret entity like the Brady campaign tries to scare people like you with.
Contrary to what it seems you believe, MILLIONS of American gun owners are very passionate about our 2nd Amendment rights. When the 2A is under attack by politicians,media, and uninformed columnists like yourself we get riled up and make noise.
Go do some research on the Department of Justice study about defensive gun use, then come back and write another column about how many people stop crimes against them with their guns. Here's a good place to start your research. www.guncite.com
Perhaps you have a point regarding the slippery slope you believe exists between gun control and other individual liberties, however you must agree that gun violence is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not know what the answer is. I don't think my article suggested that gun control was the answer. I have no problem with law abiding citizens buying guns and being trained to use them responsibly. I was suggesting that accessibility to guns seems to be too easy. I was merely opening a dialogue. I have yet to read a comment that had an answer for the violence escalating in our cities today.
Cheryl i find a parallel with your use of statistics and something that Mark Twain said.
" There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"
So with that in mind lets just look at one very small and telling statistic in your blog.
250 MILLON, emphasis mine, in the US. given that, how many gun accidents, or deaths in the usa?
so do the math, 250 millon divide by...... and the number you get is ?
now, how many cars in the usa ? how many deaths by auto in the usa >
another interesting one for you, living in Florida myself and my son being a FWC officer in Homestead, how many boats in the usa ?
how many drownings ?
see where this is going ?
you are more likely to drowned or be killed by car then you are by a gun. whether that gun is held by a law enforcement officer or a thug or even one of your family members !
" I ll keep my guns, my freedom, and my money, you can have the change"
gary
If the NRA position is correct and restricting access to guns would increase crime because only criminals would have guns than tell me how come in countries with very strict gun regulations, death from guns is extremely rare such as in Great Britian or Japan? Regardless of whether or not more people die in cars or drownings or whatever else you can come up with, the United States continues to be world leaders in the rate of homocides by guns.
The problem with the anti-gun lobby is that the true facts are against the emotional anti-gun agenda and the anti-gun lobby knows it. So Feinstein talks of 90% of Drug-guns in Mexico are traced to the USA. I didn't see Feinstein check her facts to find out that the Mexican Politicains picked out the guns to run the FBI trace on from firearms confenscated over a two year period. So the real fact is that only 17% of the guns came from the US. This doesn't even discuss how long ago the guns were smuggled into Mexico. Feinstein also doesn't address that the M16 machine guns come from the Mexican Military. The AK47 machine guns, grenades, 50 cal machine gun, Rocket Propelled Grenades come from the Mexican Military and Columbian Cartel. This deliberate lying to promote the confusion of Action with Accomplishment is the problem. No new gun laws are needed just enforce the existing laws and do not plea-bargin the penalties away.
Cheryl wrote:
"I have yet to read a comment that had an answer for the violence escalating in our cities today."
Here ya go:
According to the FBI, 80% of violent crime in America is caused by gangs. You wanna reverse escalating violence? Start by putting the screws to gangs and illegal aliens. That would be a damn good start.
Gun control and bans have been tried and failed in America many times. Why do some people continue trying the same thing when it doesn't work? Only thing I can think of is, they just plain hate guns for whatever ignorant reason.
In answer to your question below, the Supreme Court confirmed last year that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right to own firearms. Just like some do not like or agree with Roe v. Wade, the law of the land says individualS have a right to own firearms for their self defense. As an American, we should expect that ALL of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights should be respected. Not just the ones approved by the politically correct elite. YOUR COMMENT & QUESTION: Many of the pro gun lobby believe that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and that it is an absolute right that cannot be altered. Those in favor of gun control believe the 2nd Amendment deals with the collective right of the people for security through armed militia. Who is right?
You're forgetting the other side of this. I just finished 3 stories where innocent citizens successfully defended from criminal attacks by using firearms. The FBI has documented 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and other estimates put the number at as much as 2,000,000. I suspect the real number is somewhere in between, but even the lowest number justifies gun ownership and demonstrates your refusal to see that you don't have all the facts.
"Cheryl to Old Fashioned Democrat says:
Perhaps you have a point regarding the slippery slope you believe exists between gun control and other individual liberties, however you must agree that gun violence is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not know what the answer is...."
Cheryl, your comment indicates that you have fallen for a notorious anti-gun propaganda tactic.
The idea of tracking "gun deaths" or "gun violence" is a deceitful red herring.
It is analogous to asking someone to count all the vehicles in a 100 spot parking lot for two days and having them report 5 motorcycles one day and 15 motorcycles the next - completely ignoring the number of cars in the parking lots on those days.
How does this apply to "gun deaths"? It completely ignores the crimes committed without guns and also insidiously implies that if guns are outlawed, than those deaths will never happen. How many gun deaths were there in the Rwanda machette massacres? How many rapes were committed with the rapist using a knife?
The assumption that tallying "gun deaths" by itself means ANYTHING significant is completely false! The following study shows that murder and suicide rates are independant of gun ownership rates and are more a matter of culture.
Search the Harvard law site for the following document:
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**
shows that the murder and suicide rates are cultural factors not associated with firearms ownership rates. Here is excerpt from the document containing relevant info:
"Consider Norway and its neighbors Sweden, the
Netherlands, and Denmark. Norway has far and away Western
Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its
lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership
rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between
(15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun
murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is
even higher, though only slightly.137
Table 4: Intentional Deaths: United States vs.
Continental Europe Rates
In order of highest combined rate; nations having higher rates than the
United States are indicated by asterisk (suicide rate) or + sign (murder rate).
Nation Suicide Murder Combined rates
Russia 41.2* 30.6+ 71.8
Estonia 40.1* 22.2+ 62.3
Latvia 40.7* 18.2+ 58.9
Lithuania 45.6* 11.7+ 57.3
Belarus 27.9* 10.4+ 38.3
Hungary 32.9* 3.5 36.4
Ukraine 22.5* 11.3+ 33.8
Slovenia 28.4* 2.4 30.4
Finland 27.2* 2.9 30.1
Denmark 22.3* 4.9 27.2
Croatia 22.8* 3.3 26.1
Austria 22.2* 1.0 23.2
Bulgaria 17.3* 5.1 22.4
France 20.8* 1.1 21.9
Switzerland 21.4* 1.1‡ 24.1
Belgium 18.7* 1.7 20.4
United States 11.6 7.8 19.4
Poland 14.2* 2.8 17.0
Germany 15.8* 1.1 16.9
Romania 12.3* 4.1 16.4
Sweden 15.3* 1.0 16.3
Norway 12.3* 0.8 13.1
Holland 9.8 1.2 11.0
Italy 8.2 1.7 9.9
Portugal 8.2 1.7 9.9
Spain 8.1 0.9 9.0
Greece 3.3 1.3 4.6
Notes: Data based in general on U.N. DEMOGRAPHIC YEARBOOK (1998)
In other words the notion that "gun deaths" means anything worthwhile is completely false and deceitful to the point of lying to support an agenda. How many "gun deaths" in the Rwanda machette massacres?
Here's something closer to home. North Dakota got an "F" for gun control laws from the anti-gun Brady Campaign and yet that year there were ZERO "gun deaths". Guns are not the reason for violence.
I would strongly encourage you (and everybody else) to read the Kates document.
Our problem in this country is social disorder. Unemployment, welfare, low wages, disaffected youth, the failing economy, war, basically social stratification. Gun violence is a symptom of the greater problem, the social disease in this country and gun control would only exacerbate the problem not cure it. If this country had across the board gun control do you really think they could keep illegal guns out? Has anyone heard of the drug problem we have in this country? The last I heard there aren't any gun sniffing dogs out there. It has been proven and upheld by the supreme court that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens. If a man with a gun breaks into your home and your unarmed you go ahead and call 911 and the cops will get there just in time, to identify your body. Get your heads out of your fifth point of contact, arm yourself and get real world training and practice until your proficient. Take some responsibility for yourself and stop whining about the government not doing what it can to stop violence.
This is an old boring argument. By Birthright we own our weapons. Enforce the thousands of laws that already exist. Leave the freemen alone.
rspock wrote:
Here's something closer to home. North Dakota got an "F" for gun control laws from the anti-gun Brady Campaign and yet that year there were ZERO "gun deaths". Guns are not the reason for violence.
I live in ND and we actually had ZERO firearms "homicides" in 2008. ND did have a few accidental firearms deaths.
We have very few gun control laws and thousands of us own AR and AK platform rifles for hunting,target shooting, and self defense. We are a model for NOT having gun control. Go choke on that Brady Campaign and Mayor Michael Scumberg!
“Many of the pro gun lobby believe that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and that it is an absolute right that cannot be altered. Those in favor of gun control believe the 2nd Amendment deals with the collective right of the people for security through armed militia. Who is right? “
The United States Supreme Court held in D.C. v. Heller “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The ACLU which prides itself on being a staunch defender of individual rights has historically taken the position that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
gun-control is a waste of time. as america's economies shrinks due to incompetents like barney frank, maxine walters, chris dodd and others telling the banks 4 years ago to lend money to people who were irresponsible and would never pay it back its a lost cause to think that 4 years later these same politicians can say no black guns. No one with even half a brain cares what a baffoon like Maxine Walters says. You know these communists just a few years ago were standing on the sidewalks of colleges handing out brochures praising carl marx and other communist. now because of the politically correct brainwashing education system, etc these communist have found their way into congress. america is strong and resilient and will survive all that is thrown at her because america is built on the foundation of GOD. As america's economy slides america's inner cities will become more lawless and people will be more armed - just like the fabled wild wild west. The individual will always protect herself whether it's a cave man with a club, an indian with an arrow, a patriot with a tommy gun, the good will always quelch the bad. So yes, gun control is a waste of time.
angie
I get so tired of hearing all the negative things that guns do and no one talks much about what good handguns and sporting rifles and the sort do. This country has kept it's freedom because of guns, this country was created because we had guns that the British could not take away from us. Just look the captain was just rescued because of guns, lets start to focus a little nore on how many lives are saved because of guns, and don't forget more people die from CARS, CHOKING, DROWNING,ELECTRICAL SHOCK, DRUG OVER DOSES, AIRPLANE CRASHES AND SHOULD I GO ON GUNS ARE THE LEAST LIKELY THE WAY TO BE KILLED, IT'S JUST THE MEDIA AND GOV'T focus more on guns then anything else.
The 20/20 progarm ignored the fact that guns have been used by civilians to stop mass murders. A good example is Pearl Mississippi Vice-principle Joel Myrick who retrieved his .45 automatic to stop active shooter Luke Woodham. Also, Jeanne Assam used her concealed firearm to stop active shooter Matthew Murray at the New Life Church in Colorado.
It is reported that Cho stopped to reload during his Virginia Tech rampage. This woould have allowed an armed individual the time to draw their weapon had they not already done so.
Michael
Theodore Bundy killed at least 30 people without ever touching a firearm. As Ted brutally bludgeoned Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman in the safety of their Florida Sorority house do you think they would have been opposed to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law that allows Women to stop themselves from being slaughtered more violently than hogs in a slop pen? Speaking of pigs had these women “Stood their ground” and put an end to their own attack weeks later Ted would not have raped and slaughtered innocent little 12-year-old Kimberly Leach, leaving her tiny body under a pig shed.
When asked why he carries a firearm a friend replied: “Because a whole cop is too heavy to carry”
Protect yourself and your loved ones from those who have knives, ball bats, claw hammers, and superior strength who wish to do you harm.. or wait for the Police and Morgue to take care of matters.
Let your legislators know you stand firmly on the Second Amendment, lest they try to take it away or water it down.
Cheryl;
I am a retired Air Force officer, and spent three years living in Europe in the mid 90's. I keep reading how the civilized Europeans don't have guns and that is why they have such low crime rates. My personal experience is that they do indeed have guns. As a
'gun guy' I had a reputation with the local NATO forces with whom I served, and was offered 'black market' firearms many times - real machine guns, by the way - by foreign national troops. I have watched two patrons in a bar in Crete - check the gun control laws in Greece - slap their 9mm pistols on the bar, exclaiming 'Athens isn't going to tell us what to do. We fought the Germans.....'
The difference with Europeans is, they generally just don't shoot each other the way we do. One could write volumes on the differences between, say, us and the Swiss, who have access to machine guns and 300 murders a year, mostly by 'third country nationals.' One thing for sure, Cheryl, you are not through any feel-good law reduce American's propensity to be one-on-one violent. That is going to take a geologic-proportion cultural shift. I do prefer our way, though, to the European tendency periodically to kill each other in ugly mass extinctions of various flavors.
In my closet, I have a .22 caliber rifle that my late brother bought when I was 2 years old, with paper route money. He walked into a hardware store down the street from me, plunked down $25, and walked out, quite legally, with that rifle and ammunition. That, ma'am, was 1957. In New Jersey. Imagine what would happen if a 15 year old tried that today...picture the SWAT teams and the Child Protective Services matron in a muu-muu and mall bangs swarming the poor unfortunate. What was different about 1957 and 2007? Answer that question, in the context of my remarks about cultural shifts, and maybe you'll have your answer to the violence that seems so ... pervasive.
Are you saying you advocate the purchase of firearms by children? As I have stated previously, I agree with law abiding citizens having the right to purchase firearms, however I also agree with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which limits certain groups from this right. Are there any limits which you feel should be placed on the purchase of guns?
"Cheryl says:
The ACLU which prides itself on being a staunch defender of individual rights has historically taken the position that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right."
All this proves is that the ACLU is more about promoting a specific agenda than they are about protecting citizens rights. You want proof? The SCOTUS has already ruled that it is an individual right, yet you still will not convince the national ACLU and most regionals to support any case advocating that point of view.
Here is the "need" for citizens to own and carry firearms as stated in the historically supported version of the Second Amendment (not the proven fictional collective rights view)- translated into modern english and endorsed by the SCOTUS Heller decision:
'Because a well equipped and well practiced (=well regulated) military eligible citizenry (=militia) is necessary to keep a nation free, the people right to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.'
In other words, citizens should be well equipped and well practiced for military purposes.
Violence is not caused by the guns Dahhh. Come on the problems we have in our society are due to breaksdown of families and progressive ideas of a nanny government where our citizens are being taught through bailout programs and a legal system that allows criminals to flow through the penal system like the perverbial stuff through a goose. Come on, families and a sense of citizenship stop allowing the government to take your money and give it to who they think desreves it this is not charity, and what it does is short circuit the ability of a decent responsible citizen to give to people and organizations who they feel will benifit from their help,So now the anti gun crowd wants to further their nanny agenda by taking the rights of free soverigen citizens to own a gun which is a symbol of freedom and choice it is also what that person needs to protect themselves from those who come in and impose thier system of how that person should live their lifes. Do you really want that? I don't!!! I like how it feels when I make a decision and it goes well for me and those around me. On the the other hand if I make a decision that doesn't go well,...well I own that too. But I've learned something from all of it. Oh and to Al Gore fix your global warming it's snowing as I type this.... or is your rant just another method of scaring people to rush to governmment to fix something they have no business fixing even if they could. Our founding fathers were truly inspired when they wrote our founding documents read them study them and live by them I have because like our politicians I too swore an oath to support and defend it when I served in the Navy. You might also take a walk through your local veterns cemetary they too paid the ultimate sacrifice for your freedoms ALL OF THEM.......
Cheryl:
You asked if I advocate the purchase of firearms by children. Please. You're smarter than than that, to emote and thus obfuscate what I said. That is...in 1957, a child COULD buy a rifle in a local hardware store. Were the 1950's more or less violent? You and I both know the answer to that (lets for the nonce leave civil rights and the like undiscussed. My question is, what changed in the culture between than and now, that with all the controls on firearms placed between then and now, we have XX percent more firearms misuse today. You ask if, per the 1968 GCA, there are 'groups' which should be forbidden the legal purchase of firearms. My rejoinder, ma'am, is that prohibition-doesn't-work. Didn't work with liquor..doesn't work with drugs...doesn't work with guns. Laws by themselves don't work, no matter how good it may make you feel to pass them. What DOES work is, a society that wholly disapproves of antisocial behavior, and acts collectively on that belief. Until society's philosophers and pundits - peole like you - begin to realize that fact, and advocate the reintroduction of moral and behavioral judgementalism into American culture (something with which we happily dispensed in the 60's and 70's) we'll continue to do our own thing at everyone's expense.
When I lived in Germany, I made the mistake, on a Sunday morning, of running my weed eater. The glares I got, the slammed windows and doors, all told me I had broken a taboo and I didn't do it again. When the same attitude permeates suburbia, and the projects, and the trailer parks, we may see some semblance of peaceful civilization return to our communities. Until then....ma'am...if passing laws makes you feel good, by all means, please keep advocating band-aids for that puncture wound.....
It doesn't make me feel good to pass laws that I know won't accomplish anything. I am not as much of an opponent as you may think. The title of my article was, after all, Gun Control-Is it a lost cause? I think we can all agree that, yes it is a lost cause. It isn't working. Does that mean we should drop the restrictions completely? I don't think so. I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, not yet. There must be other choices. I do agree with AK's comment regardig the breakdown of families contributing greatly to the increase in anti-social/criminal behavior. Further, when it comes to entitlement programs, I am the first one to point out that if it wasn't so easy for so many people to take advantage of these programs, perhaps we would see more people try to pick themselves up instead of always looking to the government, but that issue is for another day. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. While I'm not surprised that this issue has peaked a lot of interest, I am surprised that not one person has stepped up to speak for the other side. Not one.
Cheryl:
Thanks and don't mistake my musings for a call to anarchy. 'Reasonable' is different to Wayne LaPierre and Dianne Feinstein. But when the NRA president stood up in front of Congress in 1968 calling for a ban on unrestricted mail-order sales of guns and similar libertine practices, he felt - like many of his Greatest Generation - that he was acting in a sollective sense for the greater good. What he and others of good will got was a slap in the face and a push for more. Read the literature of the period. The watchphrase was 'a good first step. ' with the goal being, if not total confiscation, then UK-style draconian restriction. You see, Cheryl, with someone reasoned like you, this is about violence and criminal behavior. For otheres, it is about politics only. Guns are a rallying point for the political right. Remove guns, and if you are a committed Alinskyite leftist, your opponent has one less reference point around which to garner identity and fellows. Stopping violence is very secondary, if even a consideration.
The same reason (much of) the right distrusts unions and Planned Parenthood.
If we only could get past the polarized ideology.....an do what is good for all of us....
Thanks for listening, Cheryl.
Cheryl wrote:
“The ACLU which prides itself on being a staunch defender of individual rights has historically taken the position that the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right."
The United States Supreme court decides the constitutionality of laws and not non-governmental organizations including the ACLU. Once again the court held in D.C. v. Heller “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The full text of this decision is available online.
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!