In Wake of Va. Tech Tragedy, Smart Gun Control – Not The Phony Kind!
There will be renewed calls for gun control in the aftermath of the slaughter at Virginia Tech. It is good thing to talk about, but the national debate always ignores a shocking reality. That is simply the fact that single-shot handguns are not as deadly as automatic weapons, and the fact that the killer at Va. Tech would have never killed as many people with a single-shot weapon. He would have been subdued.
Another fact: The Constitution allows the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t specify that people should be allowed to purchase automatic or semi-automatic weapons that can allow one person to murder so many people.
So it is time for the President and the Congress and the people to stand up for a different form of gun control – a total ban on the individual purchase of automatic weapons — a total ban. Exceptions of course would include those in law enforcement and the military.
Such a ban would satisfy the need for gun control, while at the same time allowing qualified people to buy regular hand guns, guns that protect.
If the President wants to comfort the victim’s families, and fight crime, he should make sure that people cannot buy automatic weapons of any kind.
This will cut down our disgusting murder rate and at the same time allow citizens to purchase the firearms they think they need for protection.
This is gun control with wisdom.
These recent acts of violence, capped by the mass murder at Va. Tech, require political courage and a deep respect for life.
This is a pro-life program to keep our people safe.
No automatic weapons in the hands of individuals will make this a safer country.
Comments(52)
Gotta agree with you, Larry!
SMART gun control is WAY overdue. It is impossible for me to understand how any rationalhuman being can justify the possession and use of any automatic/assault weapon in the name of ‘sport’ or ‘personal protection’. Get these things off of the streets and put some bite into who is purchasing and using weapons.
This was certainly a tragedy at VT, but I think that this event speaks volumes about what has been done to the young people in our society. We have ONE whacko moving about a college campus with hundreds/thousands of other people, and nobody, but a lone professor who at least tried SOMETHING, did anything to intervene. What has happened to the spirit of having been violated, and being mad enough to do something about it, ala Todd Beamer? Lots of things went wrong with this incident, and maybe pepole will take a criticallook at how ourtoung people are being brought up. Gosh, don’t just TAKE it, DO something about it – STOP being a victim!
I love how the liberal press tries to blame conservatives by saying a ban on guns would have saved lives. That’s BS. A complete ban on semi-automatice weapons already existed on this campus, it didn’t seem to anyone safe that morning. The ban on murder didn’t stand in this guy’s way, either. Yet you’re so confident repealing the second amendment would have completely foiled him? That’s stupid. I know if God placed me in Norris Hall on that Monday morning and I had to choose between haveing a loading semi-automatic pistol or a bag of peanuts in my hand, I wouldn’t have to think too long and hard about which I’d pick. Sonny Corleone said it best: “I don’t want my brother coming out of that bathroom with his #### in his hand.” Grow up, liberals. Think with your heads and quit this knee-jerk “ban evil guns” approach.
Oh, and Larry, you’re ignoring the fact that fully automatic weapons are not used in a majority of these crimes. Handguns are. You do know what “semi-automatic” means, right? It means single shot handgun. Sheesh.
You are aware that the largest school tragedy in history (Bath, Michigan) didn’t even involve firearms aren’t you?
Larry,
Where can an average American go to purchase an automatic weapon? I mean without having to apply for and get a Class 3 firearms license?
With each state different, the real problem lies with Virginia. People travel out of state to purchase a gun there to commit a crime with. That’s how the gunman obtained his weapons. Automatic weapons are completely unnecessary, and I agree that they should be banned. For other simple firearms, I am more for gun-uncontrol. It is a shame, but I believe that they are a necessity in some crime ridden neighborhoods. I cite the case of Washington DC as a good argument for my point-of-view.
Larry, sorry I missed you tonight at DeSales U. Must check out your Beatles book. Also thanks for your continued support of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
On to more important things-banning automatic and semi-automatic guns. Let’s do what we can to reduce the availablity of these deadly weapons. I don’t know the difference between the two, but I think if the killer hadn’t had such effective guns, he would not have wasted so many lives.
Point of clarification-there was a story/interview with a gun dealer in nearby Roanoke who admitted to selling at least one of murder weapons.
As shocking as this carnage was, it is a wake-up call to all schools and institutions in a “safe” setting like bucolic Blacksburg. A very sick man killed the 32. Let’s do a better job of involving, engaging and preventing people with mental illness from harming others or themselves.
An automatic weapon means that when you hold the trigger the bullets come out one after another.A semi-auto which is the type this sick individual used requires that the trigger be pulled for each bullet fired,as fast as you pull the trigger that is how fast the bullets will come out.This man was sick,and needed help from qualified professionals,that is what needs to be addressed.If a physco kills multiple people with a gun,knife,chainsaw,or whatever,you find a way to keep these people from falling through the cracks.That is the right thing to do,recognize the warning signs and act on them.Also the second amendment is not there to protect people from a criminal.It exists to protect citizens from a government that gets a little to big for it’s britches,and attempts to curtail freedom,the individuals who started this country new this.Don’t allow the guy at the top to take away your right to protect what this country is all about.People need to be educated about gun use and saftey not told that they are to stupid to handle it.Be careful of anyone in politics insenuating that citizens are to stupid to handle all of the freedoms we have in this country.Remember this a government of the people by the people and for the people,don’t let politicians scare you into thinking that we cannot handle freedom.
Larry you really should learn something about the topic and issue you are talking about before running your mouth like this and putting both feet in there.
Hey Larry, do a little research before you try to change the world please.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned possession of automatic firearms from civilians. (You can still own NFA items but that requires months of background checks and paperwork) As for the removal of semi-automatic firearms good luck. All semi-autopistols (with a few exceptions) operate on a 100 year old design founded by John Browning. I’m not even going to estimate how many we’re produced in the last century! I own several of your “evil assault rifles” myself and I even get comments from the local Law Enforcement officers when at the target range. Oh and their comments are typically “glad to see a responsible gun-owner” and other positives like that.
So in recap, banning firearms will do NOTHING to stop these crimes. More murders have occured in human civilization with bladed weapons then guns have ever inflicted. Remove the guns, criminals will still kill. The only solution to stopping crime is addressing the SOCIAL cause of crime.
One last thing i forgot to mention. You say the Constitution does not uphold the right to bear such firearms?
United States v. Miller (1939) Ruled that the ownership of Military style firearms is a right protected under the Second Amendment.
I have to disagree with you Larry. So please tell me why the mayor of Nagasagi(sp) isn’t here to help you in the confiscation of our legal guns? Oh that’s right he’s dead, killed by a gun where the law abiding citizen isn’t allowed to own guns. I am going to have to assume you and the liberals of the USA all have connections to the mafia or organized crime. The reason for this is only criminals want a disarmed public, it makes their job easier.
Do you have ties to organized crime?
What don’t you understand about the 2nd Amendment?
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or “the right of the people” peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, “the right of the people” to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I have put in quotes the same words in both Amendments. So by using your logic we should limit the medias speech to 1 paragraph. That will at least keep us free from lthe trash you and the rest of the liberal media keep spouting
Technically speaking, my 9mm is a single shot. It only fires OCNE each time I pull the trigger.
A single shot handgun? That’s rich, Larry. So, what do I do if two people break into my home and threaten me or my wife? BANG. “OK…second bad guy…you stay right there while I reload.”
I’ like to say that a bad idea is better than no idea, but I am going to re-think that.
How about this one Larry. Now, brace yourself…PUNISH the criminals and leave the law-abiding alone.
Now…a question for you, Larry. Someone comes into your office and starts shooting. You and I are trapped in an office. BOOM, the door flies open and the bad guy takes aim at you. Would you prefer that I be armed? Now, would you prefer that I am armed with a single shot? Let’s say that, in all of the excitement, I miss. Now what?
You’re an idiot.
So Larry,
Assuming for one moment that it is even possible to confiscate every semi auto handgun ever manufactured from criminals and law-abiding citizens:
How long will it be before you want all double action revolvers because criminals discovered they have two hands and can kill 12 people? The real smart ones will discover that additional holsters and speed loaders will prolong the carnage. Will you then want my revolvers? Will single action only be legal? Will I then have to tuck 2 flintlocks into my belt? Or will 12 dead allow to sleep at night?
The 2nd Amendment does not specify semi automatic weapons because they were not available at the time. The 1st Amendment does not specify free speech with a typewriter, word processor, computer, or the internet. Should free speech not be permited unless it is spoken,hand printed, or written with a quill pen? Luckily the 1st Amendment allows me to agree with Informed and Armed; You are an idiot.
How about banning abortion scalples first. You liberal idiot. Over 1 million fetuses are scraped out per year. Compare that to the 8-10,000 people who die by “homicide by firearm” which includes perps killed legally by police. Get real, moron. You don’t even know the difference between automatic weapon and the semi-auto used in these attacks? Either you do and are attempting to mislead, or are just ignorant. Educate yourself on the topics you choose to speak about.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Doesn’t exist in a liberal’s world. Cho did this. The judge who allowed him to roam the streets unfettered facilitated his rampage.
I agree with the previous posters who have pointed out that Mr. Kane obviously has not done his research in regards to the different types of firearms. It is disappointing, to say the least, that an esteemed journalist with many years of experience would commit such an error.
The VT shooter didn’t have an automatic weapon… good job doing your homework! As for the person who replied “I don’t know the difference between the two, but I think if the killer hadn’t had such effective guns, he would not have wasted so many lives” all I can say is LOL! Effective? He had a 9mm and a .22, two of the least “effective” HANDGUN rounds! It isn’t even an intermediate-sized round like from an “evil assault rifle.” Way to be emotionally-provocative, yet intellectually-dumbfounding…
The VT tragedy shows that it is time to get rid of these silly criminal friendly victim disarmament zones (i.e., “gun-free” zones) and allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns everywhere.
If students and faculty with carry permits had been allowed to carry on the VT campus, there would likely have been many fewer victims. Instead of having to try to hide behind desks (pretty much useless since a desk will not stop a bullet, btw) and try to defend themselves by holding shut doors (again, an interior door will not stop a bullet), one of the vicitims could have actually stopped Cho Seung-Hui before he managed to kill so many people.
(See the following cases for just a few examples of would-be mass killers who were prevented from killing many more people by armed citizens: Peter Odighizuwa, University of Virginia, 2002; Luke Woodham, Pearl (MS) High School, 1997; Andrew Wurst, Edinboro, PA; Trolley Square Shopping Mall, Salt Lake City Utah, 2007; etc. etc.)
The mass media does not like to own up to the truth about concealed carry and the effect on crime.
Let’s focus on the real issues and problems…and real solutions…rather than the “feel good” measures like banning semi-automatic guns which not only will not work (since criminals don’t obey laws), but will put law abiding citizens at an even greater disadvantage relative to criminals.
The real problem in the VT case was that no one other than Cho had a gun, so no one could stop him. Since the police cannot be everywhere all the time, the real solution is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns everywhere…so that someone will be able to stop people like Cho.
Cho did not use an automatic weapon, so your proposal, if implemented, would not have changed anything at Virginia Tech. You do realize that, I hope?
“Another fact: The Constitution allows the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t specify that people should be allowed to purchase automatic or semi-automatic weapons that can allow one person to murder so many people.”
This is one of the problems with government. Well, the supreme law of the land says one thing, but if we squint really hard we can justify all sorts of stuff. I think we need to abide by the law. If we don’t like the law, change it the proper way. I think ignoring the protections and limitations of the Constitution is much more dangerous than a few crazies with guns. It is easy to stop an individual, it is very nasty stoping an institution with armies and police forces who wish to do one harm.
“a total ban on the individual purchase of automatic weapons — a total ban. Exceptions of course would include those in law enforcement and the military.”
If these weapons are so bad for self-defense why do our police and military use them. I will give up my semi-auto pistol and rifle when the police and military find them obsolete. These weapons are the best types available for defense of person and property. I think my life is worth the best defense available. Do you think my life isn’t worth the best defense available Mr. Kane?
Well every one before me has stated what an idiotic idea you have. so i wont do that. How about we acttually enforce the laws we have, instead of more feel good laws that dont work. Lets address gun-free zones, that worked HUH! Cho brought his guns. Utah allows under STATE LAW students to be armed at school if the hold a current CCW licsene. If mr. Cho (and i use that term lightly), wanted to use a full automatic firearm, he would have waited for the paper work on his class 3 permit first and here in Pennsylvania it will take atleast 5-6mos. till you get everything done and recieve your permit. so you point on that is defuncted. Do us all a favor and do some research and investigation before you start running off at the mouth and trying to change the world.
One more thing, you do know the difference between a semi auto and a full auto right? if you ban the guns from legal, law abiding citizens then why would police need them or any law enforcement agency for that matter? According to you the world would be a safer place without our guns. Just ask anyone in Washington D.C. how safe it is when you cant protect your family. but i guess in your mind my family and i are’nt worth having the most effective weapon we can to protect ourselves? i hope that is not what you are saying is it?
Larry,
You’re an idiot.
Had you, or your secretary fact-checked this story(or even held a firearm ever), you would have written some other drivel.
MOST handguns and rifles are SEMI-AUTOMATIC. A fully-automatic pistol is nearly unheard of(although they do exist), and a fully-automatic rifle is rare because of all the BATF paperwork needed and the VERY HIGH COST of these weapons. The AK47(Soviet assault rifle) is a perfect example
They are owned by gun-collectors LEGALLY with a huge amount of paperwork and expense and ILLEGALLY owned by thugs and gangsters.
When the police figure out how to keep crack-cocaine off the streets(after all, it’s illegal), then I’m all ears.
Larry..
“Semi-Automatic” = 1 trigger pull per bullet
Dude, automatic weapons have been largely illegal since 1934. In order to own them, you have to get a class 3 license, pay a $200.00 tax every year, submit to ATF searches at random times AND pay about $10,000.00 to actually buy the thing.
Further more, pimping out supposed promises for victims families, as you have done, is gross. You have NO IDEA what they want and haven’t spoken to them. Blame the government. It is there stupid laws that make virtually everyone a criminal and make it barely possible to ever defend yourself in the first place.
The only automatic weapons “on the street” are those automatic weapons that have been stolen out of Cop cars… So don’t blame the NRA. Blame the bloody cops.
According to them, we don’t need them, but they (the cops) do. I think less than %1 of %1 of all present and past murders were committed with automatic weapons.
WHO MENTIONED THE NRA?
PETER:
YOU’RE A CLASS GUY WITH CLASSY WORDS.
IDIOT?
THAT TOOK A LOT OF CREATIVITY.
You guys don’t read.
I said that semi automatic and automatic weapons should be banned from civilians.
And by the way “dude”, Peter and Dicky–automatic weapons are banned, but they are easily purchased!
Thanks for the input. But take your fascist garbage elsewhere….and Don’t Label Me!!!
Have a nice day.
Larry, I still diasgree on the Semi-Automatic firearms being owned by civilians. But i will say you are right to a point on the purchasing of automatic (NFA) firearms. Most gun shows have a vendor or two who specialize in them. However, they are prohibitily expensive even myself, a avid collector of historical firearms cannot for the life of me afford one. A few months ago i was at a gun show looking for some bargains. And they had a German MG-42 for sale 45,000$ ! I’d have to sell both my truck and car to get close to that. The point i am trying to make even with the availability of NFA items, their cost is almost always at a minimum of 12-15,000$ which keeps them out of the hands of all but collectors.
As for the removal of Semi-Auto style firearms from civilian hands, what would we be left with to defend ourselves and our country? I don’t know about you but as a law abiding citizen, I am glad to know i have HK-91 rifle under my bed to keep myself and roommates safe in the event of the unthinkable.
I stand corrected and apologize for using the term “idiot” to describe your character.
You obviously HAVE thought this through. I mistakenly believed you were ignorant on the variants of automatic weapons.
This being said, what do you propose? Bolt action rifles and muskets?
How exactly do we get rid of a hundred million handguns? “Bo Gangster” isn’t going to trade it for $50 bucks at the Police Safety Fair.
Wanting to ban all guns seems pretty fascist to me, just call me “idiot”
Larry,
You obviously rolled this off the top of your head without doing any research. You are a part of the problem conducting it this way, not a part of the solution.
And let us say that if concealed weapons were allowed on campus. Do you think this mentally ill young man would have considered it such a good idea to conduct a massacre when there would be a good chance that some law abiding citizen with a concealed carry weapon would have just sat there, shaking and clutching his or her fellow classmates?
No, they would have likely fought back, either ending the conflict for good with a sound shot to the agressor, or chased him off because he did not want the armed confrontation.
I just don’t get why the media equates guns to evil. Guns provided you with the right to free speech you so love and abuse so often, so why not embrace them?
Your lack of knowledge in this matter is evident, the fact that you’re in the media simply means you have an audience, it does not make your position right.
If gun prohibition is so effective, please explain to me why DC has some of the highest crime rates in America, whereas locales with a healthy population of CCW holders do not. Because criminals like to prowl where they won’t be shot back at, and gun embracing communities are not good places to commit crimes.
Please do more research before you spout out verbage that exhibits your ignorance on the material you are discussing.
Well Larry…I see you replied tyo a few people but you never answered MY question. So…I will ask it again and I DARE you to answer it.
“Someone comes into your office and starts shooting. You and I are trapped in an office. BOOM, the door flies open and the bad guy takes aim at you. Would you prefer that I be armed? Now, would you prefer that I am armed with a single shot? Let’s say that, in all of the excitement, I miss. Now what?”
You and your lib buddies would be BEGGING me to save you. Or are you willing to become the victim of a deranged gunman just to prove your point?
I await your response.
Mr. Kane, if you know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, you did a fine job of hiding that knowledge in your article. You state that single-shot weapons are not as deadly as automatic weapons and this is somehow a “shocking reality.” You do, indeed, suggest a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, but come back in the last paragraph calling for a ban on automatic weapons. This is a construct the pro gun-control folks seem to want to use, the blurring of the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Your argument purposely seeks to blur this distinction because it makes such a nice emotional grab. Your responses indicate you either know the difference or didn’t take time to proofread your article.
I take it you want to ban revolvers, bolt-action firearms that have magazines as well as magazine-fed semiautomatic firearms.
Under your proposal, what guarantees do you make that I will be safe? Do you plan to be there for everyone? I know the police cannot, so show me your special powers. Until then, please leave my means of self-defense alone.
So let me get this straight, Larry.
We (law-abiding citizens) are supposed to “protect” ourselves by using single-shot handguns while the criminals still arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons (you know, because criminals already don’t care about the law)?
Umm… where is the “wisdom” in this???
My mother was shot during a robbery in 1980 6 times. Ask her opinion, do we need to ban guns? She says no, it’s about personal responsibility. The perp only did 3 years in jail. Take the revolving door of the jail houses; Hard crime should equal hard time.
In a nation of nearly 300 million how do you justify what you’re saying by the numbers?
“How about banning abortion scalples first. You liberal idiot. Over 1 million fetuses are scraped out per year. Compare that to the 8-10,000 people who die by “homicide by firearm†which includes perps killed legally by police. Get real, moron. You don’t even know the difference between automatic weapon and the semi-auto used in these attacks? Either you do and are attempting to mislead, or are just ignorant. Educate yourself on the topics you choose to speak about.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Doesn’t exist in a liberal’s world. Cho did this. The judge who allowed him to roam the streets unfettered facilitated his rampage.”
In response to your deciding to only answer name calling and not facts, consider a fascist is one who believes in social and economic control through government. All liberals think pro gun advocates are fascists because of a perceived blind allegiance to their country. In fact it’s a strong belief in the constitution and our founding fathers.
Larry and his ilk come far closer to being fascist then those he addressed.
Larry,
I challenge you to research how many U.S. citizens in the past 60 years were killed by a LEGALLY OWNED automatic weapon. The answer will surprise you.
Here is the fact – any bad guy using an automatic weapon converted that weapon to full auto ILLEGALLY. It NEVER started out as an automatic weapon UNLESS he stole it from someone (like a collector or a cop). That is the same thing as saying all shotguns should be outlawed because bad guys cut down the barrel and make them sawed off. The bad guys are not buying these weapons in this condition – they are making them illegal on their own.
So by that regard – why should I be forced to give up my rights because a bad guy cannot obey the law? All drive-by shootings involve cars – why not outlaw them?
Your overly simplistic views sound cute but only punish the law-abiding. Why must we become a nation of cowards that are afraid of being tough with the criminals? No more plea-bargains – get these bead guys off the street and you will see what happens to crime.
And regarding Cho? If he had killed two or three people, he would not have gotten this media attention. Which is why we never hear about the Appalachian School of Law shooting in January of 2002. Angry student goes on shooting spree, but is subdued by two students who retrieve their legally owned pistols from their cars.
I bet your stinkin hippy liberal butt was thinkin’ a bunch of your left wing wacko pals would be here supporting your twisted viewpoint. Ha.
Pro-gunners are gonna root fools like you out where ever we can find them and latch onto your asses like a pit bull.
If only the police and military had guns, suddenly, magically everything would be ok. Dancing unicorns would fly through the air over marshmallow clouds! Ha.
How many crimes have been committed by cops, including rapes and homicide. How about Kent State where the national guard massacred the student protesters. The people of the world have been murdered by despotic governments a million fold more than they have murdered themselves with guns. Especially in places like Nazi Germany and Russia because guys like you say they don’t think people should have guns.
When a cop or government agent murders a citizen, how often are they convicted for it? Almost never, it gets swept under the rug.
Sorry, Larry, I was on the fence and leaning your way when I read through what these folks had to say. They make a persuasive argument for gun ownership. I’m kind of scarred of guns, but I think I may get one now for protection.
-Lyle
Well, you have the right. It is not those rights that I protest -= its the sale of semi-automatics
To all of you:
Great stuff, but I’m tired of the liberal label. You’re all label lovers. Don’t label me. It’s the worst form of fascist garbage. Read the column and its back comments.
You have a right to buy guns, but don’t tread on my reputation with that silly stuff.
To KBR. You know that KBR is the Halliburon Company that ripped off our govt to the run of up to 3 billion in Iraq.
Maybe you should petition for a name change.
keep it coming.
I love it.
“No [semi?]automatic weapons in the hands of individuals will make this a safer country.”
Larry, have you done any research yet? Have you gained a bit of a clue yet,or do you still believe the little piece of wisdom quoted above? Are you ready to research the truth or continue to live in your fantasy world?
Perhaps you would like to get together at a range and get yourself educated? Honestly, a man as well respected as you should at least make an effort to understand a subject that you discuss on a public forum.
Larry…
2 points:
1. By taking semi-auto’s out of the hands of law abiding citizens, you are taking away the best defensive weapons citizens can have. Regardless of what you do, you are not going to get them out of the hands of criminals. Thus, you would be putting law abiding citizens at a serious disadvantage.
See England for an example. Btw, the home invasion rate in England is about 9 times higher than it is in the USA, and half of England’s home invasions…as opposed to under 10% in the USA…happen while the residents are home making them much more dangerous crimes. England’s violent crime rate is, in general, much higher than ours. So is Australia’s. Why? Because law abiding citizens can’t defend themselves and the criminals know it. FBI studies and interview with criminals have confirmed this reasoning. Please, please, please, do some honest research.
2. You obviously don’t understand what the why the founding fathers created the second amendment. In case you were not aware of this, they were opposed to standing armies in peacetime. They saw them as tools by which governments suppressed the people. Thus, they went with a model of national defense that was similar to what the Swiss use. Instead of having a standing army, they had a “militia”. The militia was, and still is, defined by Federal law as all able bodied males of fighting age (something like 18 to 40, I forget offhand). “Well-regulated” in those days meant “well-trained and well equipped” and “arms” meant, and still means, weapons typically used by individual soldiers or militia men. So, in today’s USA, “arms” actually means M16s, M4s, semi-auto pistols, etc. So, not only does the 2nd amendment protect the right of citizens to keep and bear semi-auto’s, it actually also protects the right of citizens to keep and bear fully automatic weapons (that’s why they aren’t actually illegal).
By doing this, the founding fathers ensured (or at least tried to) that the people in the USA would always ultimately hold the power and could not be subjugated by either foreign enemies or our own government.
Again, please, please, please do some honest research.
If you think the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed, push to amend it. I, for one, will fight you every step of the way, but that is proper way to achieve your goals. You can’t just ignore the constitution. I’m sure you have issues with some of the other ignoring of the constitution that is going on these days. Realize that what you propose is no better. America is losing our identity, and you are a part of the problem.
But, before you really decide you want to get rid of the real meaning of the second amendment, take an honest look at England and Australia to see what happens to violent crime rates when guns are taken from law-abiding citizens. While your at it, look at the crime rate in Switzerland where just about every household in the country has at least one semi-automatic rifle (similar to an AR-15).
(You might also want to look at the history of gun control in other countries. Hitler, for example, was a pioneer of gun control. Mussolini instituted gun control. Do you think that what is happening in the Sudan would be happening if the African villagers there had the same weapons as the Arab government and the Janjaweed? I don’t think so.)
(By the way…yes, there is name calling and emotion on all sides of every debate in America today. It’s lame on all accounts, but you sink yourself to the same level by responding to only that and not addressing the real issues.)
Thanks.
Stan
Just want to say that I value everyone’s point of view. If you want to believe that single-shot pistols will solve all the problems, more power to you. I do not yell ‘liberal’ or ‘hippy’ – just ask that you listen to alternate views as well.
What I DO have a problem with is that people want to legislate MORE controls against law-abiding gun owners. There are MILLIONS of so-called ‘assault rifles’ in the hands of law-abiding Americans. The number of people killed by criminals using this type of weapon every year is tiny – LESS than the number of children killed in bicycle accidents. Yet since they sound fearsome, more laws should be enacted to outlaw them.
These laws do NOTHING to stop the bad guys from doing bad things. But they inhibit my rights as labeled under the constitution. If you want to change things – push for an ammendment to the Constitution. But stop enacting silly laws that just make people feel good but do NOTHING.
Love your work on the Beatles, but please stay away from the gun issue. It isn’t your forte.
Thanks again to all of you.
George, I was the only person in my basic training unit in the Air Force to earn the expert ribbon with the M-16.
I know guns. And I understand your points.
Hi there, I live in one of Americas most northern states, Canada, and have seen this gun control stuff in motion. It doesn’t work because of the previously stated reasons.
The only people who answer this call to disarm themselves is the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who will simply pickup the surplus firearms (like they did in Ontario Quebec, and here in Alberta.) It’s hard to defend yourself with bolt action rifles, or any kind of single action weapons. And from what I understand the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow citizens to defend themselves when the government oppresses and controls us; for example, when you overthrew the legitimate British government in the war of independence. Take note of history and reconsider. I respect your opinion but still think it’s wrong.
By the way, calling everyone who labels others fascist you’re calling the left fascist too. Hitler and Mussolini instated gun control, they perpetuated atrocities and you’re saying that WE the responsible gun owners are fascists because we want to prevent what the government and criminals can do. We are trying to stop fascism at the root by protecting ourselves when the government and police are either to inept, or when they are the aggressors. I know I’m from a different country and we all have our unique circumstances but that’s my two cents worth.
Good points Chris!
One of the reasons I called one of the contributors a fascist was because of the hateful tone. I get those kinds of letters from limousine liberals as well.
Thanks!
Larry
I guess you could have qualified on an M16 rifle while in the Air Force in 1964 or later.
For some reason I thought you were older since I remember watching the evening news with my dad way back in the 70′s when I was still an adolescent.
A word of caution if you are going to be serious about this newfangled “blogging”.
Controversial opinions regarding guns is an internet flame war in the making. It’s almost a surefired bet as a Philadelphia sports team choking.
Steve: I am 64, and was in the Air Force in late 1965. It was one of two ribbons I received. I left as a staff sergeant.
I started anchoring when I was 25.
[...] One can easily purchase an automatic weapon in this country. (link) [...]
Good site?
teamsman facebread trachymedusan nonvacuous dikaryophase ras tubularian piglinghood
Siberian Husky Rescue of Florida
http://www.vonhena-c.com/