Posted on April 15 at 12:24 p.m.
I echo the sentiments expressed in the prior comments. Because a citizen chooses to focus his energy on resisting assaults on the Second Amendment does not mean he is unconcerned about assaults on other portions of the Bill of Rights. As was already pointed out, however, the Second Amendment is what ensures the relevancy of the rest of the document. If the people were to be disarmed, what recourse do we have to stop the government from violating our other rights?
Furthermore, your comparisons between "reasonable" restrictions on the First and Second Amendments are profoundly misguided. Just as you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you cannot discharge a firearm in a crowded theater either. The same person who must obtain a municipal permit to hold a protest must also obtain federal and local approval, pay a fee, and pass a background check to legally take possession of an NFA weapon (the machine guns, silencers, and short barreled shotguns that are addressed in the KS bill that apparently precipitated this editorial). The implication made by the author that the Second Amendment can be exercised without any restrictions is a complete fallacy. There are literally over 20,000 existing firearms laws at the national, state, and local levels in this country.
I maintain that the vehemence with which citizens defend the Second Amendment is a direct consequence of the pervasive, systematic attempts by legislative and executive entities to infringe upon it. This does not mean gun owners don't care about encroachments on other liberties, but merely that the threat to the Second Amendment is the most severe. Your grievance seems analogous to criticizing an AIDs researcher because he's doing nothing to combat cancer or Alzheimer's disease.
If Congress and dozens of state legislative bodies began introducing Free Speech Control bills on an annual basis, I suspect you would find most of us "gun nuts" at the forefront of repelling those initiatives.
Posted on April 3 at 11:37 p.m.
I share the bewilderment expressed in several of the other comments. Why does Mr. Stewart find it so objectionable for law-abiding adult citizens who have undergone a federal background check, paid a tax to the BATFE, submitted fingerprints, and been approved by the local chief law enforcement officer to possess NFA items?
According to federal law, all of the above criteria must be met prior to taking legal ownership of a short-barreled shotgun or silencer. The proposed Kansas bill will merely "allow" residents of this state the opportunity to undergo that process if they wish.
Mr. Stewart also opines, "I just don’t want someone to shoot me. Is that too much to ask?"
I don't want someone to shoot him either. However, you can be shot just as easily with a shotgun that has an 18 inch barrel as you can with one that has a 15 inch barrel. How does the proposed bill increase the likelihood that Mr. Stewart (or anyone else) will be shot by any firearm?
The author also insists that no one "needs" a short-barreled shotgun. That opinion is his prerogative, but it is irrelevant in the context of exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Unless I'm using my firearms to harm someone else, why I choose to have them is no one else's business.
Posted on April 22 at 8:17 p.m.
Again, read over the Parker decision.
At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, all able-bodied white males between 17 and 45 were considered "the militia" - whether they were actively participating in militia duties or not.
The purpose of a well-armed civilian population was to ensure that when citizens were called upon to serve, they would already have some semblance of preparation and training, as well as already being rudimentarily equipped.
The Parker decision goes into this in far greater detail.
I would suggest that "shall not be infringed" is an equally stringent stipulation as "Congress shall make no law". I also am not persuaded by people who insist that waiting periods, fees, and banning entire classes of firearms due to cosmetic features does not constitue an infringement.
I have no problem tempering the unrestrained exercise of the Second Amendment to mirror the interpretations of the First Amendment that you posted. For instance, my right to keep and bear arms can be abridged if I go around killing innocent people.
Posted on April 20 at 8:42 a.m.
Regarding the Constitutional issues posed jjmabaseb, I believe that last month's ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals helps clarify some of the possibly ambiguity.
Interestingly enough, this ruling came about as a result of the handgun ban Washington DC has imposed on its residents since 1976. In spite of being "handgun free" for 30 years, the city frequently has the highest murder rate as well as total number of murders of any city in the nation.
The court ruled that the handgun ban was unconstitutional, and they offered a lengthy opinion and analysis of the text of the Second Amendment. Because the opinion is over 70 pages long, I will not reproduce it here. However, for those who are interested, the full text is available on-line:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/comm...
(The discussion of "a well-regulated militia" begins on page 29)
Posted on April 19 at 9:10 p.m.
Generalizing that the primary reason people own guns is to target shoot is analogous to saying that the main reason we have the First Amendment is so that newspapers can publish articles about sporting events. An armed population serves as a check on the government, and it is the final safeguard against tyranny.
I concede the point that England has an overall lower rate of violent crime than America. However, the data I posted suggests that the discrepancy has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. I'm not a sociologist, but it seems like inadequate parenting, poor educational opportunities, and poverty are broader causes of the problems that many people so swiftly attribute to gun ownership.
I'm not advocating that all students carry a gun at all times, but that students who have received a permit to legally carry be permitted to do so when and where they wish.
Requirements vary amongst the 48 states that recognize the right to carry, but in Virginia, an applicant must be at least 21 years old, successfully complete a firearms safety course, complete an application, submit a photo ID, and pass a criminal background check.
Individuals who choose to undergo this process are, as a population, far more law-abiding than the general public. People who choose to legally carry a firearm do so in order to have a means of defending themselves in a life-threatening emergency. It isn't about being a vigilante or acting tough.
While we'll never know what might have happened if some of Cho's victims had been armed, the available data indicates that criminals prefer targeting people who can't shoot back.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime reports, states that forbide or severely limit the legal carrying of firearms have, on average, a 49% higher homicide rate, a 58% higher robbery rate, a 15% higher aggravated assault rate, and a 26% higher overall rate of violent crime.
The VA Tech campus was a "gun free zone" until someone decided to break the law and bring a gun onto the campus in order to kill people. It took the authorities over 2 hours to intervene. People should have the right to take responsibility for their own safety. If some feel safer not carrying a gun, that is their prerogative. However, prohibiting everyone from doing so only serves to create a safe working environment for violent criminals.
Although I suspect your comment about nuclear weapons was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it actually raises a very good point. During the Cold War, the US and Russia both stockpiled vast arsenals of nuclear weapons. This evolved into a political doctrine known as MAD - or mutually assured destruction. Both nations knew that if they initiated an attack against the other, an equally devastating counterattack would ensure the annihilation of both powers. The result was no nuclear war.
Posted on April 19 at 7:39 p.m.
Proponents of gun control often point to an England as an example of a developed nation that has transformed itself into a gun-free utopia via the enactment of restrictive laws.
The facts, however, suggest otherwise.
England enacted its comprehensive handgun ban in 1996. In 1997, handguns were used 2,648 offenses in that nation. In 2000, the number had risen by 40% - to 3,685.
England has historically always had lower rates of violent crime than in the United States, even long before enacting gun control measures there. In 1900, the homicide rate hovered between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000. The present homicide rate in England is 1.4 per 100,000. It is a fallacy to suggest that the nation's relatively lower homicide rate is due to the handgun ban. As an aside, in Switzerland, a country with even more widespread ownership of guns than America, the rate is 1.2 per 100,000.
English authorities consistently underreport crime involving guns. In England, a crime is only counted as a gun crime if a conviction is won. In the United States, all crime involving guns, even unsolved crimes, are included in the data.
In 2001, England saw a 28% increase in robberies, a 4% increase in murders, and a 14% increase in rape.
Claiming that England enjoys less crime because of its gun control laws is simply untrue.
You also provide no evidence in support of your second assertion. What is it that makes the Second Amendment "outdated"? How does my desire to exercise a Constitutional right unimpeded mean that I'm hiding behind something?
I'm also puzzled by your implication that I'm a hypocrite. I happen to oppose any attempt by the government to ban gay marriage (although this has nothing to do with the topic at hand). If you're so concerned about the Constitution being butchered, then your eagerness to dismantle the Bill of Rights is equally puzzling.
Posted on April 19 at 9:35 a.m.
While I am loathe to exploit this catastrophe for the purpose of political grandstanding, I believe comments like those from Mr. Allen need to be addressed.
Laws that restrict gun ownership only affect those citizens from whom society has nothing to fear in the first place. By definition, a criminal is someone who breaks the law. Surely Mr. Allen would not argue that an individual who intends to commit mass murder will be deterred by virtue of the fact that his weapon of choice is illegal.
In fact, the VA Tech campus already has a policy of strict gun control (the kind most anti-gun groups would laud as "strong and sensible"). Although law-abiding residents of Virginia may carry a concealed firearm for personal protection after meeting the statutory requirements, the campus prohibits these licensed individuals from exercising their rights on the property. The results of this "safety" initiative are now horribly apparent: the violent psychopath opted to disregard the rules, and the law-abiding members of the VA Tech community were stripped of the means with which to defend themselves. The only person who was made safe was the criminal, who had no fear of encountering an armed victim or bystander.
Mr. Allen also opines that a Beretta 9 mm is not suitable for hunting, and then suggests implicitly that citizens therefore have no need to own one. This is a dangerous argument, and it is one with which any self-respecting American should take grave issue. Whether or not someone else believes I "need" to exercise a Constitutional right is irrelevant. Provided I am not using my guns to harm someone else, why I choose to own them is nobody else's business. Would the people who advocate holding the Second Amendment to these rigorous, arbitrary standards support doing the same thing with the other Amendments? Nowhere in the Second Amendment is the word hunting mentioned. However politically incorrect it may sound, privately owned firearms are there to protect the people from foreign aggression, and even more importantly, domestic oppression. Giving the government a monopoly on the use of force will only ensure that we forfeit other rights in years to come. This has happened repeatedly over the course of history.
These remarks are not intended to be callous or insensitive, but restricting the rights of lawful citizens in the hope that it might prevent madmen from violating our laws in the future is short-sighted and naive.
Posted on April 16 at 12:15 p.m.
Missa asks, "How many people who commented on this page have ever responded to another column or issue? Submitted a column or letter of their own? Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and everyone should exercise it, but it's a difference in quality. Responding to a column on a forum is one thing. Getting out there and writing up a column or letter of your own has far more merit."
I have submitted many editorials to various newspapers over the years on a variety of topics. I was on the staff of the university paper during my undergraduate career and wrote a regular column. I volunteer for political campaigns. I vote. I belong to grassroots organizations.
Why do you find it so "hilarious" that when the Second Amendment is attacked, people who take it seriously rally in its defense?
And by the way, I can't afford a security system or a bodyguard, but I was able to afford a handgun.
On Williams: Gun nuts, what about the other amendments?