sorry for post..ha..new at this, never posted anything before a few days ago. Did take your advice and space it out with a few number ideas. Will try to get better and less wordy but just wanted to get thoughts on paper...in future, will be more succinct. ha. yeah, right.
- Everything You Need To Know About Obama’s Gun Violence Prevention Proposals
- Gun rights advocates rally in Huntington
- NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre
- Transcript: Obama announces gun violence agenda
- ‘Assault’ rifles are not involved in many U.S. murders: A look at the data
- Arizona’s U.S. Attorney releases letter on gun control
- Highlights of NY gun control bill
- Panetta: Civilians Don’t Need Assault Guns
- READ: What Are the Details of New York’s Proposed Gun Control Legislation?
- 3 injured after shotgun accidentally fires at N.C. gun show
1) I don't have any interest in restricting magazine size other than if it will possibly limit the carnage from the next rampage killing. If crazy Lanza went for doomesday prepper mom's weapon and she only had a 10 round magazine, he may not have killed as many kids as he did--this is only a possibility, but 1 life saved is sufficient for me to ask gun owners to consider giving up 30-round magazines... if we can show that it would help.
2) The "words shall not be infringed" do mean what they say, but the Constitution, while magnificent, is imperfect because it was created by imperfect humans--that is why it has been modified 27 times, because we continue to try to get it right, but we will never get it perfect--but we must keep trying.
Society faces different circumstances and risks over time, and they are not always the same a those faced at the time of the framers. These guys were so much better educated than most of us now, they were familiar with the detailed political and philosophical reasoning of ancient Greece and Rome, and much more--they really had their act together. Personally, I think the general societal morals were much more intact back then, they all really did work their asses off, every day. We have become lazy and forget what it is to really work hard. We are polluted with celebrity, porn, violence, drugs, gambling, luxuries, and money, and all kinds of vices that they didn't have to confront. Their world wasn't perfect, and their was trouble to be found, but they seemed to stay out of it more than we do--just my opinion. They were building a nation while we're concerned with toys and who has the most money, bling, the "trickest" car, the biggest mansion, and the hottest babe. We have become consumed with property acquisition, wealth, and material things. They weren't perfect and sinned just like we do, but they had less temptations than we do, and higher standards of conduct. Again, just my opinion, but we have lost some of those core ethics. These days some gang-bangers don't think twice about "putting a cap in your ass." We have lost perspective on the gift of life--as hard as that may seem.
So, to answer, the words do mean what they say, but they may have to be changed because of what the world and our society has become. Our most imminent threats are no longer tyranny (although some ridiculously disagree) but our own conduct and values. We as a society are really ffd up right now. If our values were intact we could leave the words as they are, but are values are no longer intact, and this adds risk to everyone.
3) I would reject any infringement on the 1st amendment, and I think Citizens United was just that. As as shareholder of many public companies I am enraged that officers or boards of those companies--of which I am a partial owner--are entitled to use treasury funds to invest in the political arena without my agreement--or at least a vote. I believe my rights have been hijacked by that legal abortion of a 5/4 decision on party lines. Citizens united is a farce and a disgrace, and Justice Souter left the court over it. His dissent was so outrageous that Roberts begged him to not release it, and he did so with the provision that the case would be postponed until the next session after Souter retired. This was nasty nasty stuff that used to never happen in SCOTUS. But SCOTUS is politically corrupted and split along idealogical lines like everyone else--absolutely shameful.
4) as for national registration of those with mental health issues, this is clearly a personal intrusion, but again--it is about balancing risk. If after study it was determined that this could save lives, then I would be for it, as painful as it would be. We must always look at the greater good for the majority. So I think must be considered....just like for sexual predators and their public database. it should not be a means to discriminate, but to allow for protection and safety.
5) What I don't understand is the fear of a "hidden and diabolical" reason to disarm America. I don't have this desire and don't understand why anyone else does, or why anyone even thinks others do. Where does this come from, what evidence is there that the Gov want to remove all weapons from civilians so Obama can become the next Hitler.....this is just ridiculous to me, absolutely insanity.
I need to collect myself before I right anymore. I love your post and look forward to getting through all of it, as your intent and concerns are obviously sincere and rational--and not all about throwing FAUX news hate around! Congrats to you for not jumping on that noise!
One last thought, Gun laws don't work. Only the law abiding citizen obeys them and they are already "LAW ABIDING". The mental ill and the criminal could not care less about any law. thnx
I have posted and bantered with gravitysailor a few times and found him to be fairly reasonable, therefore, I have a few questions for him. Why would you not want law-abiding,responsible citizens to have 30 bullets in a magazine? Also, why do the words " shall not be infringed" not mean what they say? What would you think of people infringing on the 1st amendment? Or a national registration of all people who had any mental issues or taken psychotropic drugs or consulted with counselors, psychiatrists or psychologists? There was an opening of limiting the 2nd amendment, with a high bar, but, please don't use the classic example of yelling "fire" in a theater to show limits on 1st amendment rights. You can burn the flag, call anyone anything, curse out law officers, give the finger to anyone and put holy pictures in urine under freedom of speech, lie to anyone and so many other examples, I won't bore you with them. "Fire" is the only limit most people quote. It is not even a close comparison. An approximate analogy would be if you would restrict law abiding citizens from speaking in the theater by duct taping their mouths closed, just in case they just might go crazy and yell "fire." Or, maybe, make them sign an affidavit of no yelling "fire" in said theater. Or, maybe, you don't allow them in the theater because some crazy loud mouth people had yelled "fire" in the theater in the past. Or, you would restrict them from using the term "fire". And then there was a fire, and they couldn't tell anyone about the fire under penalty of fines and imprisonment. How about if the person wanted to go to the theater, you allow free people to go to the movie, understanding they can't yell "fire" in a theater, but if they stand up and yell "fire", they will be arrested and fined. Therefore, only the person who actually does the crime gets punished and the free people are allowed their freedom to watch the movie. There is already a ban on altered weapons, automatic weapons and certainly tanks, bazooka'a, cannons, etc. The term "keep and bear arms" legally has limited most weapons to those that can be carried. The Scalia rationale in the Heller case about limitation makes it plain about criteria of "commonly used, popular and lawfully used" weapons. Semi-auto technology is the common, standard mechanism in the majority of firearms. The common capacity of magazines is 11 to 17 in full sized handguns and 20 to 30 capacity in long rifles. The AR-15 is considered a prime personal defense weapon in DHS and other organizations, and the most popular sporting rifle in the USA. The death rate from all rifles is less than hammers in a given year, according to FBI stats. All of the horrific shootings have been done by mentally ill people with long standing awareness of their illness by the people around them. So, explain to me, why the government is wanting to ban my weapons of choice. It will do nothing to stop the criminal or the mentally ill. Or, rogue lapd cop, for that matter. There are a few things that could stop a lot of the horrific crimes. Mandatory sentences of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun. No early releases or paroles OR pleas bargains for gun crimes. That would put a major dent in the criminals appetite for violence, plus keep them off the streets for 10 years. The first person who publicly requested armed security at all schools was Bill Clinton in 1999, right after Columbine. That is a great idea. No forcing of teachers to carry, but if a responsible teacher wants to have concealed carry, no problem with the proper training. We do it for banks, airports, malls, convention centers, etc.etc. why not for our children. I have 4 married daughters and 4 grandchildren so far, and would welcome proper secure school settings and armed security. Here's another one that would stop criminals. On a back ground check, if someone fails it, CALL the police to pick up the person. Don't just go tell person he failed and let him walk out of the store. Here's another one, as I already noted...have data base of all people who have mental conditions, depressions, use of mind drugs for bipolar, depressions, etc,etc.. people who have consultation for mental illnesses, concerning or threatening confessions to priests, seeing psychiatrists, psychologists or counselors, especially for domestic violence, divorce or drug or alcohol use. First off, that will never happen because of HIPA laws, ACLU battles, lawsuits and the total repulsion of the liberal mind that would see that intrusion as "infringing on personal, private issues". A national registration of mentally ill patients is needed. When mentally ill patients don't show up on a back ground check, then back ground checks become no more than "singing to the choir" and are greatly handicapped. So, you are left with a registration of mentally ill patients that will never happen and criminals that don't show up on a background check system and even if they do, they don't get picked up by the police, so the system is flawed and handicapped. It wastes my $10 fee for the background check, as I always get passed in 30 seconds, because I am a law abiding citizen with a life time clean record and I am an ex-deputy sheriff with a concealed carry permit. As I recall, drugs are illegal and you can buy drugs anytime, anywhere in the country. Do you think for a moment a criminal is going to turn his weapons in. As I recall, all of the activity he does in his chosen line of work is illegal already. Killing, robbing, raping, vandalizing are already illegal. Having a weapon is probably the least crime most criminals will do. Unfortunately, almost all the laws on the books, only infringe or handicap the law abiding citizen. I have written many emails and letters over the years to senators and representatives, and even presidents and vice presidents. Since the goal is to stop violence against innocent people, you would think there could be some laws that would handicap "criminals". But, there is a deeper, unspoken agenda here. Most people who are supportive of the anti gun laws, as I presume you are, are probably sincere and thoughtful. But the people at the top have a more diabolic, hidden reason. Even if they don't act on the vulnerability it would place on a law abiding citizens, someone in the future would. It is the settled law of the land, even if you don't like it. It is amendable, but at high bar. I would also like to change a few of the supreme court laws. But...Sorry for the long winded, circuitous ramblings, but I speak from the heart and have tried to be logical and reasoned in my thoughts. Would appreciate your critique and sagacious insights with the hope you have an open mind. My mantra has always been to seek and find truth and build from that position, as opposed to staking out what I want the truth to be and then bend, contort and shape everything to try to fit what I want to be truth. Everyone has biases, and need to factor that in while being as objective as possible. Thanks. Much more I could write, but wife thinks I'm long winded, not going to change anyone's mind and, besides she wants to get on facebook. ha...Waiting for replay to my booklet. ha. patriot2013jrd
It's a matter of you not having the right to say I can't have a 30 round magazine for my simi-automatic rifle. The Second Amendment was written to threaten a tyranical gov't. with a well armed populace. We've learned by observing European history that totalitarianism requires disarmament. I will not disarm.
Eh. It isn't a question of 'who needs it', as freedom isn't about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want. Since there isn't a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn't any reason to defend having them.
Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer. During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.
Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds. Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs. After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads. 8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.
Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims' lives don't matter, as you're hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever. It's kind of sick if you think of it.
The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the hands of people who can do something about it, even if that means putting police in every public school. I certainly hope they have more than 10 rounds in their duty sidearms.
In response to the primary question of your post, large-capacity magazines serve a very useful, perhaps even critical, self-defence purpose. Don't believe me? When Cuomo enacted the knee-jerk gun control law hastily written and approved by New York's legislature neither he nor the law's writers realized they had forgotten to exclude active and retired police officers from the restrictions. When it dawned on the state's law enforcement agencies that officers (and retired officers) would be prohibited from carrying weapons with more than seven rounds those officers complained loudly and bitterly. They said such a restriction would place officers' (and retired officers') lives in danger. If a retired police officer's life might be endangered by limiting magazine size, then why not an ordinary citizen? I realize that police officers deal with scum, but so do ordinary citizens. I have a very good friend who owns a scrapyard located in the very worst part of town. Why should his safety be any less important than a retired police officer?
In answer to the points you made in this specific comment:
1) What if someone having a large-capacity magazine made the difference between surviving or dying at the hands of a criminal (or more than one criminal)? This is only a possibility, but one life saved (mainly mine, a member of my family or a friend) is sufficient for me to oppose limits on magazine size.
2) The national debate regarding the meaning of the 2nd amendment would end if a clarifying amendment were ratified. I personally have no problem with people pushing for another constitutional amendment if they believe one is warranted. Given the almost total lack of trust the majority of Americans have in their goverment, good luck with that. In the mean time, our government should abide the current rules.
3) Your decision to invest in (and remain a shareholder of) a company that engages in the political arena IS your vote. If you don't like what a corporation is doing sell your shares and invest in one the behaves in ways you agree with.
4) Do some research about the efficacy of the national sex offender database. It does far more harm than good. You might start here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830165016.htm
5) The evidence that politicians are more interested in disarming the populace than so-called "common sense" gun control measures is an inference based on the duplicity of politicians. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama talked about Hadia Pendleton, a teen involved in his inauguration party who was subsequently gunned down on the streets of Chicago:
"One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.
"Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. They deserve a vote. (Applause.) Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. (Applause.) The families of Newtown deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Aurora deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence—they deserve a simple vote. (Applause.) They deserve a simple vote."
While moving, the President (nor anyone else) has never provided evidence--evidence, not hopes or assumptions--that the gun control proposals he wants congress to vote on would prevent the kind of incidents he cited. How would 100% background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines have prevented Hadiya's tragic death? The fact is they wouldn't, because gang bangers like the one who shot Hadiya Pendleton will never submit to a background check, and the gun he used to kill her with was a six-shot revolver, which is neither an assault weapons nor uses a high-capacity magazine.
Further, Feinstein's assault weapons ban is a total mishmash. For example, it lists 157 specific models of rifle by name that would be banned. It then goes on to describe in detail the kinds of features and accoutrements (pistol grip, detachable magazine, barrel shroud, yadda, yadda) that would make any rifle ban-worthy. It seems to me all of the 157 rifles listed by name will have one or more of these accoutrements, so why list them specifically? If they don't have any of the accoutrements, then why are they on the list? It's like she MEANT to make it confusing.
Further, the proposal lists "more than 2,200 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles by specific make and model" that will NOT be affected by the ban. Again, none of these will have any of the features that make a rifle ban-worthy, so why the need to list them?
Such seemingly intentional confusion leads one to ask question, like: Does Feinstein think anything not listed should be banned? Does she think "hunting and sporting" are the only legitimate uses for a rifle? If so, why do police agencies issue them?
Like the previous assault weapons ban, Feinstein's current proposal also includes a "grandfather clause" that would exempt all rifles sold before the ban. That means millions of dangerous assault weapons which are already "on the streets" will remain there. Guns are not perishable; they're typically made of high-quality steel or other durable materials. I own guns that are almost as old as me that function exactly as they did when new. Clearly, millions of the kind of guns Feinstein wants to ban will remain available for many decades, so how exactly does Feinstein's ban meet its goal of reducing or eliminating mass shootings? Are we supposed to think our legislators are unable to plan beyond the next election for anything other than guns?
The timing of and words used by Feinstein and Obama to push their current proposals make it clear they are in response to the tragedy of Newtown and similar incidents. When one realizes the proposals wont be effective in preventing tragedies like Newtown one begins to wonder what the real agenda is. When politicians use examples of criminal activity as justification for meaningless restrictions on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, is it any wonder people begin to see the shadows of tyrants?
Appreciate your response. Sorry for the long post. You sometimes can't
help yourself when it is in your core and flows easily. Will try to curb this
response, but it probably won't happen. ha. And by the way, yes, I am a
musician of sorts..self taught guitar, 45 years ago, keyboard, song writing
and singing for all who can stand it...interesting you asked. How or why
did you ask? Anyway, I would be interested in your ideas on my law
proposals for criminals, when you get a chance to process the long
comment. Oh, how did you decide to use name gravitysailor?
Interesting. Here are just a few thoughts...
!. In regards to the "hidden and diabolic" agenda idea, I am concerned
only in the context of my cursory study of history and how people who
have been disarmed, are trying to defend themselves with shovels, rakes
and sticks, etc..and the accepted 100million murders in the last 100
years by totalitarian regimes...Plus, just reading our own founders
reasoning about tyranny concerns. If you remember, the revolutionary
war started in earnest on April 19, 1775 when the British tried to disarm
the colonists who would not obey the edicts of King George, leading to
the shot heard around the world. I do not think anyone in power
currently even thinks that way, just like Germany, Italy citizens didn't think
that way early on. Power has a way of corrupting people, well
documented in history. Evil is insidious and hidden from most people.
The majority of people are good people who are uninformed. The reason
i used the term hidden is because most people involved in the political
arena are followers, believing in their leaders and given our human
nature, attribute them with well meaning agendas. However, corrupt, evil
minded, or even just different minded people can and do mislead people
to support them. Knowing if their true agenda was publicly known, they
would lose support. A common idea attributed to Lenin, but probably
wasn't him is....." In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for
people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not
understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western
countries. The implication was that, although the people in question
naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were
actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the
term in political discourse has since been extended to other
propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a
malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good."
History is abound with examples. All of the great horrific oppressive
regimes in history have all started in similar ways, concentration of
power, hyper regulation, marginalizing and silencing the opposition and
doing things for the "greater good" of the masses; giving up freedom,
inch by inch. While I am not a prepper who thinks like Alex Jones on this
subject, or like the far right militia groups, I am aware of a few situations
that might require the ability to defend oneself and one's community. I
have never, by the way, entertained the idea of having to defend myself
against my own government. I am a patriot who believes we are a good
country that has done a few bad things in our history. An imperfect
nation. With science predicting solar flares, asteroids, natural disasters
such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornado's and pundits and
government officials discussing the possibility of EMP's, nuclear attack,
other terrorist attacks, contamination of food and water supplies, cyber
attacks, electrical grid problems, union strikes that could paralyze the
nation, criminal/gang activity, desperate drug user situations, witness the
violence in Europe now just because of the austerity cuts the
governments are making, the collapse of our currency chaos, and the
list goes on and on.....what do you think happens in any of these
situations when civilization becomes a type of anarchy and law and
order become impossible. Or budgets get cut, and there is a decrease of
law officers...or, can't even imagine this, but we are invaded by foreign
power...Do know, emperor Tito, said he didn't invade the United States
because he knew their was a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Ha..Anyway, you don't have to look far to find examples of societal
breakdown..., Katrina, Sandy, LA riots, chicago riots,... just to name the
most prominently remembered. An idea I have heard all my life and most
recently was quoted by Donald Rumsfeld was, " There are things you
know, and things you don't know, and then there are things you don't
know you don't know". Sounds convoluted but is very astute. I also
believe, given that thought process," it is better to have something and
not need it, than to need it and not have it." Certainly, a way to protect
oneself falls into that category, just like wearing a seat belt. If and when
those times happen, I want to be able to protect myself, my family and
my community. Take that responsibility very seriously. So, to put it more
to the point, I am concerned about people who after a few days or
weeks of a broken society, become desperate, criminals become
opportunistic, and morals and mores are gone. A real survival of the
fittest concept. It is almost impossible for me to imagine, but it would be
foolish to ignore possibilities and even probabilities on some instances.
On kind of a side note, to clear any possible misperceptions that
commonly are thrown around about anyone who has any issues with our
current president......I do not agree with alot of what President Obama
does or plans because I have studied in detail his history, mentors and
ideology and simply don't agree with it and it's basic premise of social
justice and wealth redistribution. I know he is not a socialist or
communist, but the direct and tenets of belief certainly are leaning that
way. In a football analogy, the ball is being moved down the field
towards those goalposts. I reject the notion that if I don't agree with
someone's plan, that I must be against all things that might correct a
problem. Or if I disagree with Him, I am a racist. I am probably the least
racist person in the world. I have had an anesthesia practice for over 30
years and take care of all people regardless of any issue, much less
financial capability, color of skin, ethnicity, personal culpability or other
such foolishness. I aspire to what Martin Luther King said, "I have a
dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their
character. I have a dream today!"
3. I agree with your position of Citizens United and never liked Mccain-
Feingold. Thought it was unconstitutional. I think the scotus over
stepped and misjudged. But, it is the law. I accept it.
4. Agree with the amendments being able to be changed, it just is a high
bar. Could happen, but people are as sensitive about the 1st amendment
as they are 2nd amendment. And that's probably a good thing. Slippery
slope is a real thing.
5. I agree with you about the societal breakdown and moral issues in
this country. The problems we are having in our country today are
directly related to the changes in family structure and values, breakdown
in basic morals that Includes out of wedlock babies, no father in the
home...changes in sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia, marriage
commitment vs living together, lose of interest in religious, spiritual
beliefs... science vs bible, creationism vs evolution...maybe, there could
be conjoined truth. And the list goes on.
6. I don't believe in a national registry for anything, much less for non-
crime lists that pertain to "rights" or health issues. Too much possibility
and probability of abuse and misuse. Our founders believed " It is far
better to have 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail." That is the
reason we have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. It is
proper and correct to have lists or registries for criminals, including sex
offenders. They have committed crimes and should, for the safety of the
people, be on a registry. That is were the registry for the mentally ill or
one for lawful gun owners is different. They have not committed any
crime, just have a mental issue and legally own firearms, respectively.
You seem well read, but just in case you aren't familiar with Fabian
Society and the influence on our political system, check it out. There has
been a conscious effort by a certain few to help the breakdown of our
society. Watch "Agenda,grinding down America." I have a book written
in 1949 discussing the plans to infiltrate America and influence politics.
7. I want laws enforced and new ones passed that apply to criminals.
Therefore, I am against laws that only impact people who obey laws.
According to interviews of prisoners, less than 2% of illegal firearms are
bought at gun shows. Can't verify but as someone who attends a lot of
gun shows, I find very few people that would fit the picture of criminals
and gangsters. With the murders by handguns at over 11.000 and
murders by all types of rifles are under 400, the emphasis is wrongly
placed. Hence my suggestion and agreement on the concealed carry for
people who want that responsibility with proper training and secure
schools by structural safety features plus armed security. Besides, there
are countless sound bites from the far left anti gun people, where they
clearly state they think no citizen should have guns. Only military and
police should have that right according to them. No "Gun Free Zones."
The standard of "if it will save just 1 life" is a red herring. Are you really
ready to give up your freedom, in the possibility or theory, that it might
work. Also, remember, there is a big difference between a right and a
privilege. Let's do something we KNOW will work. Like my suggestion
of mandatory sentences, etc..enforcing and prosecuting the 9000 laws
already on the books. We accept every day, there are things that
happen that will cause death and suffering. But, weighed against the
freedoms, rights and privileges, we accept them. Drinking, comes to
mind as an obvious one, or the new laws that allow marijuana use, or the
mandatory/voluntary use of seat belts, helmets,etc.also ladders,
swimming pools, hammers, boating adventures, the list goes on and on.
Corey Booker, mayor of Newark NJ, said that of all the murders in his city
the last two years, not one was committed by a law abiding citizen. All
of the horrific, tragic shootings of innocents were done by known
mentally ill people. The mother of Lanza at Newtown was negligent in
allowing her mentally ill son to have access to guns. Not a responsible
gun owner. As a former deputy sheriff, tactically trained, you can change
a magazine in literally 1 to 2 seconds and easily not miss a beat or shot.
While in theory, there may have been an opportunity to "rush" someone
while they are changing magazines, trust me, a trained shooter would
time that magazine change and no one would be able to interfere. They
would pace their shooting and allow space for protection from someone
trying to stop them. And none of the shooters only have one weapon
anyway. They plan to shoot till they are empty, picking that point in time,
draw a 2nd weapon or make the 1+ second change at an opportune
time. We practiced changing magazines in training under duress and
limited time and it never was a hindrance. So, in theory, a novice might,
fumble and mess up, but someone bent on killing people has many
backup plans. They all have been crazy, but they are not stupid. In fact,
most have been highly intelligent. The one thing they count on is having
no one there to stop them at the point of attack for at least a certain time
frame. All they want is a "gun free zone" for the time it takes them to
gain their infamy needed because of their mental illness.
Anyway, that covers a lot of territory. If and when you read this new
book of mine, would welcome thoughts. Hopefully it helps explain my
thoughts in the healthy debate and sharing of ideas. Wish our
government would try it sometime. ha.
I copied something I had seen before, but thought it was well written, so will re-post it here..I did not write and would like to give credit to someone but don't have their name any longer..
.... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964-1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1997, Australia made it almost impossible to own a firearm. Since then, accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate. The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.
In 1998, The UK made it almost impossible to own a firearm. Over the next 10 years, gun crimes increased 89%, resulting in police carrying guns for the first time in history in some areas.
So, you can see that gun control has no effect on crime, other than making it increase exponentially because the criminals who follow no laws to begin with know that there are no armed people to stop them...Of course gun control works fantastically if you are a dictator hell-bent on murdering millions of people. In that case, gun control is a necessity for gaining power. The founders understood this, and that is why the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment.2.
just got home, and now I have all this work to do.
thank you for posting, I will make an effort to address your impressive response!
By the way, you aren't a musician by any chance are you?
@greghsmith I agree, the 2nd amendment was and is about protection from the government--that was the framers intent. I guess I am more trusting of our government and do not fear them nor feel threatened by them. Of course, the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well-armed and regulated "Militia", not a well-armed populace.
"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."
One could argue that as long as State's militias are fully armed and regulated than that is sufficient protection from the Feds. But as you likely know, SCOTUS ruled in 2008 ( District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. Not surprisingly, a 5-4 decision, and I bet you can guess who was in the majority and who dissented.
In my humble opinion, I disagree with SCOTUS majority and feel the framers clearly intended for State militia's to protect against totalitarianism--a legitimate concern.
@gibbleth Thank you for your thoughts, you made some very good points. I agree with some, but not all--let me know what you think.
Freedom while awesome is not absolute, especially if it risks harm to others. It's all about Balance. So if you WANT to own a high-capacity magazine but they are routinely stolen and resold on the black market, society is currently weighing your WANT vs. societal RISK. Not sure who prevails there, but I hope that decision is based on hard numbers. As you know, we are a country committed to the rule of law, and everyone accepts, although doesn't agree with every law, so if Congress determines a limit will reduce risk then a restriction may pass.
Lots of people WANT firecrackers, kind of minor compared to guns; but society in many states has banned or severely restricted them--in the name of safety--so apparently you can't always do what you WANT. If people can't handle firecrackers do we really want them running around with assault weapons? Just last week there were two accidents at gun shows, and those people have an idea what they're doing!
As for the first 10 lives not mattering; of course they do, but any limit to carnage is a worthwhile limit. I would prefer a complete ban all high-capacity clips and assault (semi or fully auto any kind) weapons, but if I can't have that, I see value in limiting to 10 rounds as opposed to no limit. It is simply a matter of degree. I could also argue that I prefer only hunting weapons and handguns with 6-round limit, so if you want 10 then perhaps you don't care about 10 lives (which I know is not true).
I agree that someone in schools should be armed and trained; better safe than sorry as there appears to be no limit to the fruit-loops.
Admiral Rudolph Horseprancer
The 'militia' is, of course, a term of art well defined in history, to include all able-bodied males in a certain age range. This means 'everybody'. The second amendment has an explanatory clause, which is not a limiting clause except by special pleading from those who wish to ban guns. Were this sort of logic used on the first, fourth, fifth or fourteenth amendments, where would we be?
'A well-ordered militia' does not mean the same today as it did then. We think of a militia that is well-disciplined, whereas the framers thought of a militia able to muster with its own arms and ammunition, which was expected to be provided by the militia member. Remember, as per above, the militia is every able-bodied male. Every. This is the construction underpinning Heller and is absolutely correct from any rational position.
We have literally acres of dead trees on the subject, exhorting the country to avoid a standing army and develop a citizen soldiery the more to protect against tyranny. One of the primary framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, repeatedly insisted that the only way to freedom is through rebellion and that all governments tend towards tyranny and blood must be shed to regain freedom by throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical government.
While you are not afraid of the feds, I, as a person who holds my second amendment rights dear, am. It is not that alone; it is the wanton spending of our future, the terrible wars abroad and the constant trampling of very real rights at home. When the populace surrenders their weapons, they become governed, and this nation was about the people governing themselves.
Also, please note that, for a long time now, all the national guards are essentially integrated into the national chain of command and thus do not constitute an independent militia.
Anyway, were all the above not true, please consider the fact that the second amendment contains, by far, the strongest language in the constitution, to wit that the right 'shall not be infringed'. Were the first clause a limiting clause, as is claimed, then why is the acting clause so strong? In the first amendment, it reads 'congress shall make no law', specifically limiting the power of that amendment, since incorporated over the states by special pleading of the 14th.
No, the history of the United States teaches us that armed rebellion is sometimes necessary, as that is how this nation got its start, and that rebellion was only possible through the availability of citizen-owned arms, which thought was foremost in the minds of the framers of the constitution. Concerned that the second amendment may be softened with time, they insisted in the explanatory clause that the arms that were not to be infringed would be such that would be useful to a militia. This is the decision of Heller. By the way, Heller is a very well researched document and well worth reading in its own right.
I have also read both dissenting opinions and find them riddled with special pleading, seeming, to me, to descend to 'we think guns are bad and should be illegal so the second amendment agrees with us and besides the founders never thought of modern guns and the constitution should not limit the powers of the people to move forward on important causes'. Well, to fix an ancient battle cry, 'the constitution *IS* a suicide pact!' It can be changed, but by due process. Otherwise, the words govern this land, and, at the moment, the interpretation, valid in Heller, would seem to run counter to any attempt to ban carbines or high-capacity handguns, although the protection of selective incorporation in MacDonald is much stronger for handguns.
All of this is, really, beside the point. Are you aware there was a mass shooting in England some time ago, long after they essentially banned any form of useful weapon, and instituted a policy of prosecuting those who dared defend themselves? 12 killed and 11 injured in 2010 in England, which has as strict a gun control as could be possible, given that it is an island.
Gun control does not work. That is the biggest complaint against it. I defy anyone to provide real proof that gun control, in time series data, has ever been correlated with lower crime.
I will once again reiterate my primary point, that the restrictions on high-capacity magazines will not have any measurable effect on massacres. There is no reason to constrain freedom in this case, and we must require a very powerful reason to constrain freedom, not just the group fear that is alive right now.
As for confiscating guns, never mind that it would tear this country apart, when I hear that, I try to charitably assume the speaker uninformed. I am sorry if that is offensive, but you are asking for tens of thousands of women to be raped, tens of thousands of people to be killed, and an unknown amount of property to be damaged or stolen by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. People who argue we need to get rid of guns to 'think of the children' are asking for untold suffering for those not in the media limelight in exchange for a few saved lives. Not that I intend to belittle the suffering of those who have had their children shot; I merely wish to point out that guns save lives, reduce crime, particularly heinous, violent crime against those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, as well as provide enjoyment to those of us who have them as a hobby.
There is no good estimate, but the floor is around 120,000 reported incidents a year of a gun preventing a crime, up to 3 million, from a very gun-friendly researcher. That is what goes away. We have seen crime, all types, but particularly violent crime, rape, murder, so on, decrease year after year since Florida boldly enacted concealed carry. The statistics are quite plain. Confiscating guns would lead to more lawlessness, not less, more overall suffering, not less, and is an unconscionable grab on my freedom and pursuit of happiness for no other reason than a rising tide of fear.
Once again: I do not oppose 'reasonable' gun control, but the first test, prior to enacting a single law, is the question of 'will it help', and magazine limits will not.
Ok, now down to policy. *Which* weapons to ban, then? The 9mm carbine and shotguns used by Klebold and Harris to shoot up a school? With 10 round clips? The .22 rifle and double-barreled shotgun used to shoot up Cumbria in England? The hunting rifle Charles Whitman used to devastating effect on the tower at UT Austin (yes, he had a lot of other guns, but it was the hunting rifle that gave him the devastating range and accuracy)? The knives, hammers, cleavers, machetes used in China to kill 25 and wound 115 in two years (2010-2012)? The car used by Steven Allen Abrams to kill two and wound five?
I could go on listing them, but wikipedia beat me to it:
That is, of course, only a list of primary school attacks. Go ahead and be surprised that many, many of them are not gun related. Most of those, of course, happen in places where it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a gun.
So, I reiterate my request, which I think is eminently reasonable, that, before one goes about enacting laws and restricting freedoms, one explain exactly why one thinks that the laws will be worth enacting, particularly by explaining how it would have helped in an existing situation.
To gun controllers, owning guns is an odd affectation, but to gun enthusiasts, it is a large part of our lives. It is much of what makes us happy. Imagine outlawing birthday cake (you wait, the food nazis will soon enough). This is a major reason we get so angry, because most of the laws proposed do nothing but needlessly complicate our pursuit of happiness, infringe on our right to self defense, and cost us extra money, and seem to be mean-spirited, just another giant boot of authority on our necks for no good reason. So, I implore you, find a good reason and articulate it well before you go messing with my life again.