Blogs and Stories
Why I Love Guns
As an NRA member—their annual convention kicks off today in my hometown—the shooting range is one place I'm Republican through-and-through. I find it empowering, especially as a woman, to fire off a few rounds.
In the days after my dad lost the election, my brothers and I went to shoot rounds at the local shooting range. Partly because—as anyone who knows how to use a rifle and can do so safely understands—doing so is hugely stress-relieving, and partly because, we half-joked, it might mark the beginning of the end of our Second Amendment rights under the Obama administration. Now I admit we probably thought as much because our emotions were running so high following the election, but the fact remains: The right to bear arms, and specifically the idea of it being taken away from me, is one of my biggest concerns. So it is only fitting that the 138th National Rifle Association Convention, which kicked off this morning, is being held in my own hometown: Phoenix.
If you are a law-abiding citizen who is trained to and skilled at using a firearm, then you are entitled to protect yourself and your family. You are also entitled to participate in regulated hunting and other gun sports. Both of my brothers were avid hunters when I was growing up—they still are. What’s more, both are on active duty in the military. My beloved late godfather, Jerry Dorminy, was a world-renowned hunter. He hunted everything from deer and quail to wild boars and decorated his house in Florida with every animal head he felt proud enough to mount on a wall (or lay on the floor). In short: I have had positive experiences with family and guns. It’s that simple. And it’s what allows me to think about guns in a smart, nonreactive manner.
I have had positive experiences with family and guns. It's that simple. And it's what allows me to think about guns in a smart, nonreactive manner.
Let’s get something straight: Individual responsibility and personal liberty are inherent Republican philosophies. And nothing could be more essential in protecting those ideals than the Bill of Rights. It’s no accident the second of the first 10 amendments protects the right to bear arms—and has done so for more than 200 years. Obviously, I realize the Second Amendment has been heavily scrutinized. Its simplicity is sometimes mistaken for ambiguity. But it stands as a fundamental right, ensures the conditions for a “free state,” and rewards responsible, trained citizens with the freedom to protect themselves. That’s what the NRA is truly about: providing Americans who choose to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights the appreciation for the serious responsibilities and safety precautions necessary to ensure gun owners’ safety and the safety of others.
Sadly, what should be a simple freedom has been obscured by our nation’s gun culture. Yes, there are people as fanatical about guns as others are about fashion, entertainment, music, or any other obsession. And sometimes they are portrayed unfavorably in the pop-culture world. Now, I know a small portion of them probably deserve some ridicule. But no more than any other “out-of-control” celebrity with another exploitative story. With guns, everything becomes polarized. I have wonderful memories of my godfather and my brothers and the times I’ve spent shooting with them. Still, I can also understand the astonishment urbanites express about “that nasty gun fetish” I grew up with in “good old red-blooded” Phoenix. I moved to New York City when I was 18; I still consider it home. My political beliefs have been by shaped by both of these uniquely diverse communities. The debate over the Second Amendment is one of the most divisive ones I’ve had with my more liberal friends, and it’s the biggest cultural difference I’ve seen between red and blue states. Most people I talk to—who’ve never had the experiences I’ve had—equate guns with school shootings and Michael Moore movies. There’s no denying the reality of those situations. They’re just not the only ones associated with gun ownership. (To those who have no experience shooting a firearm: Go give it a try at a rifle range, read up on the NRA, and then come to a more conclusive opinion.)
Putting it bluntly, we’ve done a disservice to our violence problems by making the political argument about guns instead of whatever causes people to be violent in the first place. Anger, alcohol, drugs, economic hopelessness, reckless driving—they can all precipitate tragedy. Simply removing guns from the equation does not solve the larger problem. Worse, it gives the wrong impression about what can and should be done to help those who are troubled. The real solution to preventing gun violence is not taking away the tools, but tackling its causes: poverty, inadequate health care, mental illness, joblessness, inadequate housing, and poor education. Desperate people will make anything a weapon. We need to eliminate desperation, not guns.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Joe's No Traitor
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Don't Call Me a Slut
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Stop the Fat Jokes!
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Meghan,
The problem with gun laws in the US is not that they are too restrictive but that they are too loose. You say that the 2nd amendment is a right and responsibility for those of us who prove ourselves responsible enough to have them. But that is simply not true. Every time there is a massacre or shooting in this country the guns are always bought legally. All you have to do to buy them is not have a criminal record, but it is perfectly alright to buy them if you are batshit insane but have never been to a psychiatrist.
Furthermore, the NRA is deadset against any assault weapon ban and assault weapons have no other purpose than to kill other people. Do you really think that America makes billions of dollars every year selling these automatic weapons here and abroad so that everyone can go target shooting? Or that people are hunting quail and moose with Uzis?
Sure, we should have the right to bear arms. But we have got to be more realistic about how they are meted out to people and what a citizen really needs to hunt and to protect himself. And this whole idea that the government is gonna come and take your guns away at any point!? Give me a break. The mere logistics of that operation would be way outside of any governments budget.
And when it comes to the fact that almost all gun deaths every year are a result of accidents, that should also give you a better idea about qualifications and training in this country. This whole idea that guns are fun and a stress reliever seems a better argument for the legalization of marijuana than for the 2nd amendment.
Complete and utter garbage. You say we should have a right to bear arms, do you know what the definition of "arms" is? That provision wasn't put in there for hunting or sports shooting. It was in there for defense of one's self, state and nation. Almost every State has a provision in their State Constitution for defense. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
You also mention "assault weapons"... do you even know what that means? Common people don't walk around with fully automatic weapons... nor are they regularly used in crimes.
Your inane facts about guns deaths and accidents is laughable... are you going to ban fast food and cars first?
Are you kidding me? This is the only country where you can buy a gun/ammo at walmart.. If NO ONE had a gun.. who would you need protection from? Think about it.. it will take some time but i think even someone like you will eventually get it.. My gym instructor has an AK-47.. are you telling me he needs it to go hunting? Get a damn dart gun if you want to go hunting.. you dont need anything more than that..
and if AK-47 isnt an assault weapon, please for the love of God tell me what is..
If I drive a car, I'm required by law to buy insurance for it in case it causes accidental damage. Why don't we do this for guns? If my county doesn't want fast food, we can ban fast food chains within county limits. Many have. Why can't localities put restrictions on guns, like they do on these other contributing factors to public health risks?
You have a very open aproach to "assault weapons" that by the way have only one porpuse, kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. To defend your self a gun will do the job, we are not in Iraq this is the U.S.
Meghan McCain = the New Sarah Palin
desiboyhouston, vim876, and vtin6039
In response to your grossly misinformed statements I offer the following responses, as a
The right to purchase a firearm and ammunition at Walmart is one of the greatest and most unique strengths our country has.
None of you seem to understand what have been classified as assault weapons, they ARE NOT fully automatic weapons, those have been strictly regulated for years, the "assault weapon ban" that Bush let expire covered semi-automatic (you pull and release the trigger for each round) weapons that looked mean or military issue, the AK-47s were no different than any magazine fed hunting rifle except they looked scary and liberals and the media convinced everyone they were used in crimes. This ludicrous bill did nothing to reduce gun related deaths, weakened our police departments, and infringed on the rights of every citizen.
The media has apparently convinced all of you that the constitution allowed firearms for sporting/hunting purposes only. That was absolutely NOT what the framers were thinking. The intent was to keep an armed citizenry to keep the government in check, this is another component of checks and balances they understood we needed in case rampant federalism, charismatic leaders, and weakened states were unable to ensure the other 9 original amendments to the constitution.
If your goal in opposing guns, as so many who are anti-gun state, is to reduce firearm related deaths then you should support easy access for qualified law abiding citizens to all firearms, to concealed carry permits, and to safe public and private gun clubs and hunting grounds. In states that have enacted common sense concealed carry laws gun related crimes have decreased, it is one of the few deterrents to crime that is proven to work and it is a net revenue generator for the states as opposed to additional police forces which carry a high cost to taxpayers.
Before you purport to know something about guns and gun laws go to a gun club and talk to the staff, have them show you how to safely operate a firearm and try a couple pistols or rifles on their range and talk to some of the gun owners at the store. You will find the vast majority to be sensible, compassionate, hardworking Americans who accept responsibility for their own protection, the protection of their families, and of their country. You will also find a few who are what you would consider to be "right wing nuts" but talk to them to and you will find they are law abiding, almost to a fault, extremely responsible, and some of the most vocal proponents of gun safety.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people and they will do it with a stick, stone, gun, IED, or their bare hands, these people don't care what the law is and will get what they want regardless of the law of the land. It is irresponsible and constitutionally unacceptable to infringe on my rights out of some misguided notion that taking my guns will somehow improve your safety, so long as you do not attack my family or my property our guns will cause you no harm.
Maybe the guns have been purchased legally, but often times the gun-owner isn't the shooter. For example, in the Columbine shooting, stricter gun-ownership laws couldn't have prevented it, as the guns were purchased by a friend of the shooters who met the legal requirements. In many of the school shootings and gun-related tragedies in our country, this has been the case. I think it's easier to come to terms with terrible happenings when we make blanket statements and demonize regulations and things.
Your aware that Automatic weapons have been illegal to purchase by civilians since the National Firearms Act of 1934, right? "Assault Weapons", as defined by the last '94 ban are "one bullet per trigger pull" hunting/target rifles that have a pistol grip and a bayonet lug.
Again, fully automatic weapons are not legal to purchase unless your are law enforcement or complete a long and involved licensing requirement by the BATFE.
Pete, I think you are wrong there, automatic weapons band was lift or expired in 2004, since them 40 police officer have been kill by legally purchase automatic weapons.
Vitin, you are confusing automatic weapons (which have been all but banned since 1934), with semi-automatic weapons. Please show us your sources for legal automatic weapons killing anybody.
Automatic firearms have not been produced for sale in the United States since 1986. Assuming you lived in a State that allowed an automatic 'weapon' sale, and you had the NFA tax stamp to purchase a full-auto firearm, you *could* buy that full-auto M16, assuming it was manufactured prior to May 1986.
You'd also have to be willing to pay the $15-20,000 for a transferable M16.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Is this the Republican party's growth strategy? Good luck with that.
I agree with your response so much that I cannot elaborate. Well stated.
It is great to see all the stringent guidelines that govern buying weapons in the states that many of you must live in. However, here in Houston, TX, we can go down to the George R. Brown Convention Center when there is a big gun show, and buy guns without any checks of any kind. I don't even know if they make the person show them an ID. And that is in the city. The small towns in Texas are probably even more relaxed about gun sales.
sls2009
Purchase of a gun between two citizens does not require a background check but becasue of the US Commerce clause all FFL dealers have to follow the federal standard when they sell a gun to an individual. All have to fill out an BATF form which ask if your a prohibited person (felon , court ruled mental cases). It's a crime to lie in the application. The FBI does an instant background check for criminal and mental history.
SJS2009,
You are wrong. There are stringent guidelines in buying a gun from a gun dealer, regardless of it's in his shop, a gun show, or the back of his car. It is required to do a NICS background check (instant check), and several pages of paperwork. Convicted felons can't buy guns, nor can those involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or dishonorably discharged from the military (equivalent of a felony conviction). An ID is required to do the NICS background check. If you think otherwise, go to a gun dealer in a small town, and he will check all of that.
Now, admittedly, private gun sales don't have those requirements, however, it is illegal to sell guns to those people (felons, etc.), it's just not verifiable. That said, because of that, I (and most intelligent gun owners) won't sell a gun privately to anyone that they are unsure of.
Really? The VA Tech gunman bought his firearms illegally. The shooter in Pittsburgh who killed three police officers bought his firearms illegally. The man who recently shot his family with a scoped hunting rifle bought his firearms illegally.
In all three cases, the shooter was not able to legally own firearms (the VA Tech shooter had been previously adjudicated as mentally incompetent, the PA shooter was dishonorably discharged from the military, and the man with the rifle was a convicted felon). In all of these cases, enforcement of existing firearms laws would have prevented the shootings.
Also, what automatic weapons? You cannot buy a new automatic firearm in the United States. Automatic firearms built prior to 1986 can be sold, but only if the buyer pays $200 to the ATF for a tax stamp AND passes a full federal background check. The "assault weapons" you refer to fire only a single bullet per trigger pull, just like a revolver. As far as target shooting, the AR-15 platform is incredibly accurate and is very well suited to target events, especially at ranges over 100 yards where the ballistics of a .22LR round are inadequate and the .223 rounds used in the AR become necessary. And of course people aren't hunting moose with Uzis. An Uzi fires standard 9mm rounds, the same exact rounds as are used in the handguns of police officers across this country, rounds that are roughly equivalent to those from a .38 Special revolver. There's far too little power from an Uzi to bring down a moose.
Your statistics are incorrect also. You can only say that the majority of gun deaths are "accidents" if you count _intentional_ suicides as "accidents". If suicides are ignored (and studies have shown that the overall suicide rate does not fall in the absence of firearms), then the majority of firearms deaths occur during the commission of a crime.
Look at the number here: http://blog.zenmervolt.com/2009/04/04/handled-safely/
99.99985% of guns injure nobody. Seems pretty safe to me.
Seth,
I'm almost sick to my stomach reading your reply. I love how those who are against guns are worried about the deaths that "guns" cause. People kill people. Shouldn't you be more concerned about how many people are killed by cars every year? That's basically what you're saying. Lets ban the automobile while you're at it. I mean any batshit insane person can go out and buy a car too.
Amen to hunters, target shooters, and gun owners. Maybe if we all owned guns and grew a pair, we would all be more knowledgeable (for those accidents) and "criminals" wouldn't be able to manhandle the rest of the world.
Jowens,
I think you are comparing apple and oranges here when you compare cars and guns. If you buy a car a you do something stupid you have a bigger chance of killing your self more than killing inocent people, but when you get a rifle or a gun and do something stupid the people at the other side of the gun is the one that get kill.
seth82
Apparently you never purchased a gun because first you have to fill out a form to the BATF which makes it a crime to lie on the application if your a prohibited person. The NICS checks for criminal records and those abjudicated by the court with mental illness. The Virginia Tech shooter was determined by the court to have mental problems but the record was not filed on the NICS, whose fault is that the gun owner?
If you have no criminal record but you might have mental issues in the future therefore you shouldn't have a right to buy a gun is distorting to our form of justice of innocent until proven guilty. By this logic no one should have guns, even cops because in the future they might have mental problems. Even seeing a psychiatrist makes it automatic to not have a right to buy a gun. What about going to a psychiatrist for marriage problems. Why not register knives because they might be used by crazies.
What do you mean by assualt weapons" have no other purpose than to kill other people". A 1903 Springfield with Mauser action was used in WW1 by US soldiers. Bolt action guns are used for hunting like the Remington 700 that the military took from civilians to use as sniper rifles in Iraq. A bolt action gun had more confrimed kills in Veitname then the menacing M16 full auto. American citizens used semi-auto high powered rifles like the Browning BAR before the military used M1 garands in WW2. The civilian BAR shots higher powered cartridges then the M1Garand. Today there are semi-autos that were never on the Assualt Weapons Ban that shoot far more powerful bullets then the 308 on an FAL. The M1 Garand is far more powerful gun then an AR15 but is not on the ban list. Being that the M1 Garand was used by the US soldier in WW2 why didn't Sen. Fienstien put it on the list. Maybe because it has wood furniture? What is it to band guns used for war or band guns because they are painted black.
Your right about the difficulty of taking all guns away now. But if you stop the sale tomorrow you can decrease the number of those who posses guns in the future. It's like shutting of the spigot which would require no large amount of money to be spent by the goverment.
I'd be an unethical hunter if I tried to shot a moose with a 9mm uzi even at full auto using all 30 rounds. I'm better using a rock because both will just anger the moose.It's not about the moose though because you are implying what use is an uzi for hunting. If you don't believe in self defense then your right about not needing an uzi. If you don't believe in ones right to defend against a tyrannical goverment with arms then your right about not needing this so called assualt weapons. I guest only the founding father have that right because they are hypocrites.
I would think that the ban should include any high magazine weapon capable of street clearing and multiple innocent deaths. As for power of the weapon, the little .22lr can kill as well as the more powerful 30-06 used in the M1 Garand or BAR. But bad guys will always be able to get guns. Therefore we should not make rules that would limit our citizens to forage for food and protect his house and family. Yes even a bolt action rifle would have significant deterrence to a criminal with an semi-automatic pistol or rifle. Most untrained people would rather run away than attempt an assault against an armed foe, especially after hearing the crack of a bullet near them.
So some guns are good, if they get used for the right purpose. I have no desire to shoot again, even on the tgt range. I don't have to kill to eat, and will meet any intruder with my bare fists. I have killed enough with guns.
Chris
The government has nukes. If they truly become tyrannical, no gun you can buy will save you. You have a better chance at saving yourself by either building an underground bunker or participating fully in the democratic process. Shoot, as an insurance policy, you could do both. But for "conventional war" against the future theoretical tyrannical government, the arms you could buy, even under the most extremely lax gun laws, would not help.
dragoon 43a
You forgot to add shotguns that shot buckshot; twelve 32 caliber pellets come out of every cartridge. There are eight cartidges in an 20 in. barreled Mossberge 590 shotgun. 12x8 equals 96 bullets. A high capacity clip capable of street clearing and multiple innocent deaths holds 30 bullets.
A 22 long rifle bullet can't penetrate any body armor at point blank range while a 30-06 can penetrate soft body armor out to 600 yards. There is no similarity in killing power.
I want to take that class that will stop a 9mm bullet with a bare fist. With skills like your's there sure is going to be no need for a gun to defend my self. I've been taking the wrong self defense class. Once you teach me the skill I'll give up my guns.
vimd76
An armed resistance will not all gather in one place to wait to be nuked that is simply a stupid military strategy. An insurgency in America will have fighters all over the country, in small and big cities and everywhere in between. For example NRA members are not all in Texas they're scattered all over the country including the capital and near military bases. In order for the tyrant to nuke the rebels he would have to nuke his own soldiers. The Viet Cong used the strategy of very close in fighting so the Americans can't shell them. It's basically the same strategy.
You need at least a ratio of 4 to 1 to contain an insurgency. I'm just using the NRA as an example but there are more armed americans who are not NRA members. Not saying either that they will take up arms just to point out my case. Four out of five NRA members are ex military some are generals. There are five million NRA members including me. The US tyrant would need to raise 16 million soldiers just to contain the NRA. There are about 80 million gun owners think of the math.
I have read the comments in response to Seth's article and am surprised at the immediate polarisation that seems to happen on this question. Handguns, for example, are rarely used for hunting and it should be far more difficult to purchase them. In the UK there is a long and vibrant hunting tradition, and yet there gun ownership is far lower, gun deaths and gun crime are both far more rare. To own a gun in the UK you must be licensed which is a rigorous process; then you must keep the gun in a secure place - usually a locked gun cabinet. this in no way interferes with one's right to use guns to hunt, nor to own them for that purpose. if you wish to own a handgun, again you can, but must go through a rigorous licensing process. I understand that Miss McCain comes from Arizona - a state where there have been several recent criticisms of gun laws based on the fact that many of the guns (a number which is admittedly impossible to determine) used in the drug wars in northern Mexico are being purchased in that state. As an international citizen - both English and American - I am appalled at the ease with which a person can buy many guns in Arizona, ship them across the border and use them in a drug war. Perhaps better regulation of gun sellers is required, perhaps better licensing laws for gun owners. Whichever, the refusal of a large part of the US to enforce stricter gun control measures for many types of guns is a source of shame for the country. I have no doubt that many citizens use guns for a legal and constitutionally protected purpose; but the hysteria that erupts, fueled by the NRA, when any gun control measures are suggested does those citizens a disservice. The right to own guns for hunting should be protected and this is in no way threatened by a restriction on automatic, semi-automatic weapons and many types of handguns. Indeed the restriction of these weapons further enshrines the right to own hunting rifles as they are distinguished from other kinds of weapons and dissociated from those weapons and the bad pr that they bring.
cressiep
You sound very well educated but your biase for England forces you to ignore the fact that unlike England we don't see our gun rights only for the purpose of gun hunting. The Second Amendment in also to defend against foreign and domeatic enemies.
True gun deaths are lower in England then the US but you have more robberies,burglaries and assualts ( Nationmaster.com), showing the fact the English can't defend themselves
To compare only the European country of England with the US is unfair. The Swiss with even more liberal gun laws have lower murder rates then England. There are other issues other then availability of guns to increase the murder rate. Rural areas of the US which have a higher rate of gun ownership then inner cities have as much the murder rate as England.
Cressiep,
Glad you brought the UK into the mix, as with NHS and US push towards socialized medicine we can learn quite a bit from the failures of the UK to adequately protect its citizens.
In 2005/06 the UK as a whole had a violent crime rate of 2,300/100,000 violent crimes including muggings, assault, robbery, rape, etc. During that same time the US as a whole had a rate of 469/100,000 the only area of the US that approached the UK was the District of Columbia at 1,459/100,000, DC, not conicidentally, also has the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the USA and at the time prohibited the possession of handguns by private citizens.
In the UK misguided youth, drunken fools, and career criminals have nothing to fear but fisticuffs, they have nothing to loose in attempting to rape you, rob you, or beat the snot out of you. Here in North Carolina, similar scum has to ponder the very real threat that I am armed, trained to handle my firearm, and willing to use deadly force if necessary to protect myself. In my state, which is about half way between the most restrictive and most open gun laws our rate of violent crimes in 2005/06 was 475/100,000.
So even with all of our guns you are 434% more likely to be the victim of violent crime than me. If you have not had the pleasure of visiting North Carolina, we encompass the entire range of population density, income levels, education levels, and ethnicity making us an excellent study case for the effectiveness of firearm ownership and concealed carry laws.
As to Arizona's gun laws and the drug wars in Mexico, that I am aware of no conclusive proof has been made public that demonstrates that legally purchased semi-automatic weapons from AZ dealers are making any impact in Mexico. What is widely known is that corrupt elements within the Mexican Army and Police as well as relationships with similar groups in Columbia and Central America are providing military weapons (fully automatic rifles) to the warring drug lords of northern Mexico.
What is truly a shame is that the British people are so willing to hand over their rights when told its for their own good. Since the Brits did not take full advantage of Benjamin Franklin's presence in England prior to and during the Revolutionary war you may be unfamiliar with one of his more inspired sayings "He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither" as evidenced by the crime statistics above he was correct and Britain will suffer until you all finally wake up and demand that your government allow you to protect yourselves.
I don't think she says any of that is not true. In fact, she acknowledges that she herself does not feel safe owning a gun until she knows it better. She doesn't say she agrees explicitly with the NRA, just as she does not agree explicitly with the Republican Party. Everything you're saying is true. But it doesn't contradict what she said either.
Geez. Could everyone take a breath and relax? You're ripping this guy apart for an opinion.
I'm not big on guns. Not because I think they're inherently dangerous (which they are) or because I disagree with the 2nd Amendment (which was actually established to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves in the form of a militia if need be; the army wasn't as strong then and everyone was spread out so protection from those who might wish to do you harm was more important than say today), but because I realize that guns make it too easy to kill in general.
I came to this realization when I was 13 years old and a man I didn't know put a gun in my face because I was walking the wrong girl home from school (a white classmate). This wasn't back in the 1950s either, this was in 1995. I realized in that moment that guns can empower people, but it's the wrong kind of power. Killing another person even in defense, should not be an easy thing.
Guns are used in lot of more urban areas like a video game point and shoot. I live in Phoenix now, and I know it's true. It happens all the time with young people here. Not to mention the children who accidently find guns and hurt themselves or others. I know that these incidents are more due to a lack of responsible stewardship of the owner than anything else. I concede and agree with that point.
All I'm saying is that guns (especially today) are not innocuous little tools that everyone should have. I can understand trained professionals, hunters, gun sport participators and their love for guns and need for protection. But until we can improve our social system to one that is more responsible and more appreciative of the destructive power a gun has, we have to be legally cognizant of the problems that can arise. Should the 2nd amendment go away? No, absolutely not. Should our mind sets and social culture regarding guns change, evolve with our times, improve. Absolutely.
Now, feel free to rip me a new one too.
Bunx05
According to the National Safety Council children accidental deaths have decreased over 90 percent since 1905.
Bunx85
Sorry ! I meant According to the National Safety Council children dying from accidental gun deaths have decreased over 90 percent since 1905.
So can we blame pencils and pens for bad grammer?
Congrats Meghan. This is the first column I can fully agree with you on. As a fellow New Yorker transplant that grew up in a hunting family as a Republican, I'm with you 100%.
Again Meghan you are, to me, a real representative of the party and someone who any level headed republican who believes in true American values (not torture, corruption etc.).
As someone who does not go shooting all that often, although I still own several BB-Guns, I find it surprisingly easy to relate to your standpoint and agree with you that some on the left distort the issue.
There are however several issues I disagree with the NRA on:
1. The tone or rhetoric "the guys with the guns make the rules" etc. I think that is, the the least, counterproductive and frankly quite dangerous.
2. The idea that high power automatic firearms should be available to basically anyone. If people want to shoot them at the shooting range thats fine with me but in my mind there should be provisions keeping them on shooting range property all the time.
3. The NRA does not do enough to keep parents guns out of kids hands. Somehow we need to either require all guns and ammo to be locked up at all times or something similar. No matter how many social problems we solve there will still be kids who make mistakes, if they have access to guns the mistakes will undoubtedly be far worse.
4. The issue of stolen guns coming into the hands of criminals is a huge cause of death. I am not going to claim I have the answer to this problem but I would like to see more done to solve it. I found a loaded handgun on the street on my way home from middle school, the serial number had been filed off. Many younger kids had walked pat it bore I first saw it. I thought it was a toy at first, thank god none of them picked it up thinking it was a toy. A few years later in our small town a young boy shot his friend with his friends dads gun also thinking it was a toy.
Although these kinds of deaths are still far lower than things like cancer, diabetes, drunk driving and so on I think our culture should become more careful with guns than we are now, we do lead the developed world in gun deaths per capita.
For the most part I agree with what you point out- except for the fact that the NRA needs to do more to keep parents guns out of kids hands. What ever happened to parent responsibility in this country? Shouldn't they be responsible for making sure the guns are locked up, teaching the children what not to do, and ensuring the safety of both the children and their guns in their own home? Why is it always someone else's responsibility to do it or fault when things go wrong?
The NRA never said we make the rule because we have the gun Mao said that" Political power is at the barrel of the gun". Ghandi said" History will remember among the many misdeeds of British rule in India the denial of arms among the blackest". Tell Ghandi to stop the struggle he doesn't have common sense. The assualt weapon ban would not ban a Browning Bar ( a magazine feed automatic) in 300 win. which is a high power bullet that would defeat level IV amor the highest level on body armor. The AK 47 and AR 15 medium power cartridge can't defeat level 3 armor plate which is below level IV armor plate. The AR 15 cartridge ( 223) is for varmint shooting, if you ever shot a gun, not for killing game like Elk which a 300 win is perfect for. NRA certified instructors are the ones that train our police and teach gun safety. The NRA has Eddy the Eagle program instructing kids who find guns to report it to adults. Switzerland has more liberal laws on guns then the US and has lower murder rate than France, England, Italy and Germany.
Yes, when a population with a higher rate of cultural homogeneity and a lower rate of income inequality, with a universal draft, has lax gun laws, the results definitely translate to the US. The welfare state seems to be working well in Europe too. Why not bring over the whole shebang?
vim876
I totaly agree with your deduction.
Yikes-a little naive.
1. "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."
Nowhere does our Constitution state that we have the right to stress-relief or to um, "compensate' for a weak ego.
The key is a "well regulated Militia"-which means not only does the state have the authority to regulate guns, but that the purpose of owning guns is for the formation of an emergency militia. Honestly what is the likelihood that a foreign invasion could defeat the world's most powerful military on home soil? And if a foreign invasion WAS strong enough to defeat our military, do you think a bunch of untrained yahoos with AKs are going to do any better? So let's just turn the volume down on the pathetically transparent "defense of country" rationalization.
2. We, as a nation, can't even agree to commonsense gun laws, yet Ms. McCain thinks we could solve the unending problems of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness? I have to chuckle.
One person with a powerful gun can wreck massive damage, and it seems more realistic to control guns than to eliminate crazy. Not to mention that the NRA has never been able to adequately explain why we have more gun deaths, by FAR, than other industrialized countries with tougher gun laws.
I don't want to take away any one's guns, but I would like to eliminate the delusional fantasies of strength, power and patriotism that intertwine the current defense of gun ownership. A wish that is as likely as our ability to "concentrate on the real problems that lead to gun violence".
"The key is a "well regulated Militia"-which means not only does the state have the authority to regulate guns, but that the purpose of owning guns is for the formation of an emergency militia."
Garbage.... you argument is bogus and easily proven so.... unless you can explain why most States further expand in their own Constitutions.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
Except that whenever firearms are regulated, they are never really able to keep criminals from getting them (or anything else illegal for that matter). I agree that there needs to be more scrutiny, and a longer waiting period, but to use the argument that guns end up in criminals hands, and wouldn't if they were all "illegal" is ridiculous.
Not true. You have no evidence to back this up.
the whole NRA myth that rational gun regulation, would do nothing to reduce gun deaths is a fantasy that only afflicts the NRA. Its like refusing to teach kids about condoms becasue theyre only 99% effective.
At least Mcain admits she has a gun fetish. its a shame she cant balance her hobby with the greater good of society. its more selfish republican hogwash.
I think your first statement is untrue; and I didn't make an argument for making all guns illegal
The "well regulated militia" clause was not included with only an outside aggressor in mind. It was included to give the citizenry the power to stand up to its own government if it became unjust. Our nation had just succeeded in a Revolution largely because of its militia of "untrained yahoos." The framers of our nation wanted to preserve the peoples' ability to do the same if need be.
Well said. I'm a flaming Liberal on most things but an Independent Liberal lol. And a Western Liberal who grew up with guns and while I don't own any and don't want any I have no problem with guns. Of course, I do believe in sensible regulation but that mainly means enforcing already existing laws. I just wanted to make the point that not all Liberals and Democrats are against guns and "hate guns." We Liberals out in the west have been living with guns and have friends who hunt and we don't really see the big issue.
Good points hardrain.
There is no country in the world who could invade America.Logisticly it would be a nightmare , & that's after they get past your Navy & Air Force. With probably one of the best equipped Armed Forces & The National Guard , also the backing of NATO a well regulated militia is really not needed.Also the police is armed.
If someone really wants to have a automatic weapon , why not have the purchase through the gun club your a member of ? & it never leaves the club property.
If someone really needs a firearm for protection ? why not have just small caliber firearms.
As for the need for a militia that's paranoia
Hardrain
You forgot Domestic enemy. Remember the founding fathers defeated the best army at the time. The Viet Cong defeated the US and Mujihadeens the USSR with small arms and any one who has studied insurgency knows it's the most difficult form of war for conventional armies. The untrained yahoos you are talking about are ex-military who are also NRA members i.e. gen Tommy Franks. Swiss citizens have automatic assualt weapons in their homes yet has lower murder rate then Germany, France or England.If guns went away I guest poverty, drug abuse,and mental illness will go away.Look at European countries with strict gun control they don't have those problems. Now I've stated my case lable me an extremist the DHS will back you.
Wait a minute... let's not compare apples and oranges. The reason the US didn't "win" in Vietnam has nothing to do with their militia. It has to do with facts of war - and those same facts are apparent in Iraq today. If a military is not willing to destroy everything, it is not possible for victory. Unfortunately, to win wars, everything including innocent people are likely to suffer. In order to win, it has to be much like World War 2 when the US was willing to drop the big one. Unless you cause mass destruction, that bullshit will never stop. If the US wants to stop the nonsense in Iraq - then blow it all up.
Would you really prefer that we take on poverty, drug abuse, and mental illness? It would mean higher taxes, probably national health care, legalized marijuana and government jobs programs. If so, I'm in! Have all the guns you want!
vim876
If my word got you to that conclusion no problem from me. I didn't know i wanted to legalize marijuana, I do now.
anaheimDuck
Absolutely true
Well said, hardrain. Nobody ever talks about the first part of the Second Amendment that you cited, "A well regulated Militia...."
Odd that 9 of the amendments in the bill of rights are restrictions on the government/congress and only the 2ND amendment restricts the rights of the people.
Equally strange is the order of the enumerated rights appear in the Constitution.
I wonder is militia defined in the constitution?
Hardrain,
Please read Heller vs. D.C. The SCOTUS determined that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right, not required to be connected to militia membership.
There is no way to keep guns out of the hands of crazies that haven't been diagnosed yet. Why? Well, a lot of them aren't technically crazy at that time.
In terms of "routine" murders, this country (for the past few years) has as low of a murder rate as it's had since 1968 or so.
Sure we have more gun deaths than the other industrialized countries, but that is the price we pay for a diverse, free culture. Our murder rate, while high for an industrialized country, is on the low side world wide. For example, South Africa and Colombia have a murder rate in the 75-100 per 100k population. Ours is about 5.6 per 100k, and most of Europe is around 1-2 per 100k. (Mexico's was about 25 per 100k in 2000, now, if the alarmist media is right, it's probably higher). Interestingly, South Africa, Colombia and Mexico have much stricter gun control laws than we do.
Heller vs. D.C. ruled that the 2nd amendment is a personal, not collective right. The militia clause does not limit the ownership and use of weapons to the militia alone.
i'm going to leave aside that fact that the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing army, or at least a very small one, and states the citizen's shall have the right to bear arms "to form a well-regulated militia", and the fact we already have a "well-regulated militia" in the national guard and army/navy/air force/marines/coast guard.
rather, i'm going to ask the simple question;
how would a ban on assault weapons affect "a law-abiding citizen who is trained to and skilled at using a firearm...entitled to protect yourself and your family" or "to participate in regulated hunting and other gun sports"? further, how do assault weapons correlate in any way whatsoever to your comment; "providing Americans who choose to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights the appreciation for the serious responsibilities and safety precautions necessary to ensure gun owners' safety and the safety of others."
just curious.....
mi%u22C5li%u22C5tia /m%u026A%u02C8l%u026A%u0283%u0259/ -noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Having a standing army does not replace a militia. A militia is something you have to protect citizens from corrupt government. And don't tell me that doesn't happen, or won't happen in the States. Maybe not now, but it is completely possible at some point. It's possible everywhere. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Also, I'm what would be called a Democrat who fully supports the Second Amendment.
So am I, a Democrat. Where was your concern when the previous government's corrupt activities didn't offend you into overthrow mode? The thinking that We The People are going to prevail against the United States Marine Corps, and the Army, and the Navy, and the Air Force is laughable.
"Also, I'm what would be called a Democrat who fully supports the Second Amendment."
As am I. I have a loaded handgun under my bed at this very moment. I still don't see how the Second Amendment could be affected in anyway by regulation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable.
Explain how the militias as you describe them are "well regulated." A group of disgruntled rednecks doesn't constitute a well regulated militia.
Sweetmoses bigotry blind the understanding of what the Second Amendment means. I'm an asian who came to this country to flee an oppressive regime supported by the US government who president Carter was at the time it's leader. I've read Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Waldo Emmerson, Malcom X, Martin Luther King and our founding fathers writings. A government with a concience listens to none violence but a tyrant like Hitler Ghandi knew " You sometimes have to fight evil". What do I know Sweetmoses thinks I'm ignorant and another race without self control.
I'm a Democrat who supports gun rights as well. And I'm about as Liberal (if not Socialist) that they get.
@skorpeo:
Who gets to define mentally unstable? And for how long? For instance, as much as 10% of the American population has major depression. A small percentage of those people attempt suicide, and if you don't consent to institutionalization after that, you are involuntarily committed. However, a person could do that during a single depressive episode at the age of, say, 19, be better in six months, and never have an episode again. What about their Second Amendment rights? And what about the voluntarily committed? Including them could lead to all sorts of problems. If people felt like expanding the definition further, they could make it so that no one diagnosed with a mental illness could get a gun. Half of Americans meet those criteria at some point during their lives. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR20050606 01651.html) So who decides?
Skorpeo wrote:
"I still don't see how the Second Amendment could be affected in anyway by regulation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable."
And the NRA agrees with you. That's why they supported the NICS instant background check, as well as recent regulations that increase the amount of mental health records entered into the system (in the face of major opposition by the mental health lobby).
Meghan you are right, but I don't think many people are arguing with your point to bare arms. What about assault weapons? Is that a right? Heavy arms = heavy problems. Especially in Mexico now. But I think George Bush let the ban down for political reasons, not because every cowbow gets the right to shoot a deer from 500 yards 50 times in 2 seconds. I'm all for the Second Amendment, but let's use some common sense people.
He let it expire because it achieved absolutely nothing.... Gun laws only work on law abiding citizens. You can outlaw them all, like drugs, but those who mean to do evil will always be able to get them.
Ruckus, you said "Meghan you are right, but I don't think many people are arguing with your point to bare arms." I don't think Meghan is saying that people should be able to wear sleeveless shirts! Okay, I know you meant "bear arms" but that certainly made me chuckle.
bare arms, Ruckus? I am all for them- unless they are of the "Bingo- wing" variety... as far as bearing arms, I don't really think you speak for me.
Meghan's and Rush seem so out-of-date now...they're trying so hard to remain topical and current with their sexed-up headlines but the headlines and rethoric seem desperate and dated along with their topics...Please Tina, we don't want old-style sexed-up in your face tabloid style headlines now...so passe....young girl-old style...too bad...
Ruckus
What semi auto so called assualt weapon can shoot 1500 (25rdm X 60 seconds ) rounds a minute. The AK47 shoots 600 rounds a minute on full auto ( book: MIlitary Small Arms of the 20th Century). Gary Miculek the world record holder shot 8 rounds in one second in two seconds that's 16 not 50. Read Heller vs DC or Nordyke vs King on the Ninth circuite court that should give an idea about a right not about hunting. An M1 Garand, Browning BAR, or Mossberge 590 shotgun have the same functions as the guns that were listed on the assualt weapons ban yet this were not banded. I wonder if it's just ignorance for the selectiveness or some paranoia.
The M1 Garand was used by the US military and the Mossberge 590 is still used by the US military both can still be bought in assualt weapon ban California. The M1 Garand is a HEAVIER calibre (30-06) then the AK47; in fact it can penetrate level 3 armor that the AR15 and AK47 cannot. An AK 47 with 16 in. barrel is not very effective at shooting deer at 500 yards but effective at home defense which the ninth circuite says is a right. A long barreled bolt action gun is cumbersome for home defense but great for shooting deer at 500 yards. That is why the military uses the Remington 700 bolt action gun for sniping. Oh ooh bolt guns are used buy the military we should ban them then.
Meghan,
Your post was sure to set off a fire storm given your common sense stance on the 2nd Amdt. Some of the following posters unfortunately still do not get the substance of your message that the gun, whether classified as an assault weapon or a bb gun, does not commit crime it is the person behind it and what is more important to address is why that person is driven to commit crime. I too was raised with a family that owned guns and, guess what, they weren't a bunch of irresponsible yosemite sam gun totin' yahoos. Rather, they taught me to respect weapons and more importantly how to properly handle and use them. Thank you thank you thank for a voice of sanity in this highly charged debate. What makes me sad is that any of our rights are really up for debate whether it be freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It really goes to show that if we "collectively" do not fiercely protect all of our freedoms, somebody will find a reason to either regulate the substance out of existence or simply take them away. Just look at what the pc crowd has done to free speech/thought in our universities, colleges, and high schools.
Nobody is talking about completely removing the rights we have. The history of our country has been pretty clear that there are rights each individual has but those rights have limits (see: shouting fire in a crowded building as a limit on free speech). The argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is the same as saying heroin doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Everyone can agree that there's no reason for an individual in the private sector to own a fully operational tank. It would be against the public interest to allow it. The issue is where to draw the line. Our country has the best government in the world not because the founding fathers had infinite wisdom and wrote a perfect document but because they had the wisdom to know they didn't and wrote a document that could adjust to the times.
Obviously we have a long way to go when it comes to mental health care, poverty and education but the reason a person picks up a gun and commits a crime is a combination of all of those things, with the availability of guns being a large factor. Why not adjust the laws and make owning a gun similar to driving a car. You'd have to take a test, prove that you knew what you were doing and weren't likely to cause harm due to ignorance. You'd have to buy insurance in case something did happen. You'd have your gun registered to you such that if someone else uses your gun, you're liable (just like it is in most states with cars). You'd have a background check so a felon or someone who's mis-used their gun wouldn't be allowed to have one similar to how someone who has a DUI on their record can't get a license. If you wanted to use a gun that was beyond the acceptable limit within society, create gun clubs where you can go drive a tank or shoot an RPG in an organized and safe environment just like car clubs have race tracks that allow people to drive 200 miles an hour.
The problem with the Republican/NRA argument is the concept that responsible people don't misuse guns removes the need to prove you're responsible (education, licensing, etc) and then holding people accountable when they mis-use that responsibility (commit a gun crime, allow their gun to be used without their knowledge/permission).
Meghan, always enjoy your columns. I am very liberal in most things but believe in the right to own, enjoy, and protect yourself with firearms. I do think a conversation about assault weapons should not be a third rail. Talking about assault weapons is not the slippery slope and that is where the NRA goes too far. Maybe it would be as simple as a permit for some types of weapons (excluding hand guns and hunting guns) much in the way we handle CCW permits.
crm717
Good point about why not get assault weapons with a permit like CCW. I would point out the CCW permit is a privilege not a right therefore the government can require a permit just like hunting. A constitutional right to protect your self and family in your home is not a previlege so the government can't require a qualification test just like free speech. Only being charge with a felony can your constitutional right be taken away not just the second amendment. Imagine needing an arbritrary qualification test just to write here on this site. I can be banded because my thoughts don't please the authority. All rights have a price but that doesn't mean they should be taken away.
Who is this silly young woman talking to, Democrats? Conservatives tuned out her and her useless but ubiquitous father long ago.
This "silly young woman," as you call her is one of the few Republicans (as in I can count them on one hand) in the media that really seem interested in the future. She's willing to talk about emotional issues without demonizing her opponents, which puts her ahead of 95% of politicians and pundits of any political stripe, and the stock Republican positions she rejects are those not in line with the American historical pattern of the expansion of individual rights. Her columns could be an excellent first step to convincing many young libertarians to become Republicans, but only if the shouts of people like Limbaugh to "purify the party" don't drown out her message.
Even as this is being written, there are already five comments by others which demonstrate three things: (1) gun ownership is a very emotional issue with people having not just two or three but many different opinions, (2) being level-headed like you on the issue makes you a rare exception, and (3) this is not a good issue to lead with in the party.
Your argument is simplistic--black and white, rather sophomoric. I cannot imagine any administration banning gun ownership outright (even if a vast majority of the country wanted this the NRA is simply too powerful). The real, pragmatic issue on the table these days is ownership of assault weapons and the relative ease by which just about anyone can get their hands on guns. Let's put a bit more intellectual rigor behind your arguments rather than drubbing on about the right to bear arms and the second amendment.
Darn that pesky constitution!
charmingOpal
Do you even know what an assualt weapon is. Is it guns used by the military like a Remington 700, a bolt action gun ( not semi auto or automatic) use for sniping by the military. The 700 was first used by civilians for hunting deer then adopted by the military. What about just because it's colored black like the Franchi Spas shotgun that was on the band list. There are semi-auto shotguns like the Remington 1100 haivng the same function and shell capacity as the Spas but was not banded; probably because it didn't have a pistol grip which does not improve it's killing ability. Maybe it's the ability to have a detachable clip like a Browning BAR which was also not banded because it had wooden furniture. How about the the bullet. A AK47 round or even a 308 coming out of those banded guns don't have as much killing power as a 30-06 coming out of an M1 Garand, a semi-auto gun used by the US military in WW2, holding 8 rounds, wasn't on the band list. How about high capacity clips, so limit it to ten. With a short time of practice I can easily reload another ten round clip into a semi-auto pistol in under a second.
I hope your talking about the relative ease a felon can get a hold of a gun not the law abiding citizen. It's a felony for a felon to hold a gun in any state and fedreal law. A law abiding citizen still has to go throuh a background check from the FBI every time they purchase a gun from a gun store.
The last Gallup poll shows the majority of citizens don't want an assualt weapons band they want the current laws enforced. The NRA now is with the people.
The Attorney General Eric Holder in feb. stated he wanted to do a little thing like reinstating the assualt weapons band. Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Fienstien made the same statement. the past few months. Obama said he won't band assualt weapons because of the opposition but if there was no oppossesion he would have reinstated the assualt weapons band no matter what the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs DC that the Second Amendment is an individual right not the National Guard. The Ninth circuit the has jurisdiction in my state of california ruled also it's an individual right like all the other Bill of Rights.
Llike all the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment is a check on government from over stepping it's power.
This is all got for your intellectual open mind liberal being I'm an inbred, uneducated redneck wacko who's compensating for shortness of the male organ.
It should be easy for most people to get guns. Most people are not mentally ill, and don't have a felony or domestic violence conviction.
Oh please........
Meghan, I think you needed to write this to show some street creed with the Conservative ( I.E> black helicopters are a comin ) crowd.
No one is taking your guns or your white / conservative compatriots guns away, this is an inflated issue that has been totaly blown out of proportion by the right, especially as they have fewer and fewer issues to call their own.
What does a Navy Seal have to do with gun violence in the US?. What a bizzare speaker.....
The NRA can only survivie if it fuels the paranoia of the conservative base, without it they have no power and no $$$.
This isssue is becoming less relevant thanks to economy and other pressing issues.
Move on now.......
muddog,
The NRA's purpose is not to discuss violence. The SEAL was invited because they view him as a hero, and want to hear him speak. The NRA was originally founded by two Union Army officers who were horrified by the lack of marksmanship by their soldiers. They set up the NRA to teach marksmanship and gun safety (which is their major role, and would be their only role if not for the anti-gun lobby).
Meghan, your article is well articulated and written, but you entirely miss the leftist point. Most of us are not asking for a ban on guns or to take people's guns away or any such thing. All we moderate folks want is some meeting halfway.
1. The NRA must admit that gun ownership laws are too lax.
2. Assault weapons have no place in a developed society. Their purpose is to kill. Period.
3. Accidental gun related deaths because children get their hands on guns (happened in my own family) happen too often and are 100% AVOIDABLE.
4. To shut down any debate is just exacerbating the rift. The NRA has got to meet moderate people half way if they want to gain respect from otherwise reasonable people.
"Assault weapons have no place in a developed society. Their purpose is to kill. Period."
Exactly... what good is a self-defense weapon if it can't provide that option?
Explosives kill too. Wait, are they regulated? How many people do you need to kill per minute?
I want to address number 3. I completely agree. I grew up around guns, and have shot guns since I was 5. But my father always made guns a serious issue, always had them locked up, and if I or my siblings behaved even a shade less than appropriately at all times around guns, we were in BIG trouble. We have to teach people to take these things seriously, and then they need to take a "no-nonsense" stance with their own children about guns.
I'm a moderate person and I don't agree with 3/4 of your statements.
1. Gun ownership laws are not too lax. There are so many freaking rules that even though I have CCW reciprocity with other states I never carry in other states because it's all I can do to keep up with my states laws. That's not even taking into account all the federal laws. Federal and all states combined add up to over 20,000 laws. That sounds pretty well regulated to me.
2. Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. All guns were designed to kill. That's what they do, and that is why many people want them: to kill a deer or the thug that just kicked your door in.
3. This one we agree on. Since apparently any issue on guns must involve crucifying the NRA you should be aware of the NRA's Eddie Eagle videos to teach children firearms safety. They do address this. Furthermore, it is a matter of personal responsibility to keep your guns inaccessible to small children and to teach your older children how to responsibly handle a firearm so they will know both that it is not a toy and how to use it if God forbid they should have to. A law concerning this is only reactive to punish a parent that allows their child to mishandle a firearm and harm someone. It could be proactive, but that would involve random police searches to ensure proper safety measures, which I would hope you don't want.
4. This debate will never end. Many people are happy to let the gun laws stand as they are and actually try things like enforcing those laws against the criminals who break them. However, there are others who will always think that the last tragic accident wouldn't have happened if we had just one more law. There are those that think that the only way we can address the problem of violent crime is to completely ban private ownership of guns and enforce it by regular police searches of private homes, and yes some people do advocate it. You know what happens when you do that? 'Gun crime' drops drastically! But (you knew there was a but right?) violent crime stays level or even increases as it did in England. You know why? Knives. So you ban knives to the extent of pretty well only allowing kitchen knives and even then you have to be over 18 to purchase a butter knife. Doggonnit, violent crime is still high. It must be all those clubs, fists and beer bottles (England is actually considering banning glass beer bottles now as well). It doesn't work, and I've yet to see anything to prove otherwise, but some people believe in his sort of thing and want it anyway. So no, even if gun rights advocates compromise away still more of their rights to placate 'moderates' there will still be no short supply of those in favor of still more repressive laws.
Bottom line to the rant: rigorously enforce the laws on the books and start repealing the ineffective laws that fail to prevent crime but burden or victimize law abiding citizens.
Absolutely. Well said.
~from a not-so-radical democrat
You ever notice how the gun control crowd always wants to meet halfway in the direction of infringing on our rights, not the other way around?Maybe we should meet halfway the other way.
1) Gun ownership is an individual right.The 2nd amendment should be incorporated under the 14th so state laws reflect that fact, just like every other civil right.
2) "Assault weapons" are functionally the same as any other semi-automatic rifle, the only differences are cosmetic.They are used in competitive shooting sports by thousands of people.
3) There have been plenty of gun laws passed, if we're going to pass more we should examine whats out there and repeal laws that aren't working.I'm sure gun control folks will agree that it's only fair that we meet halfway. Now that we have Heller to guide us, we can figure out what laws are infringing our individual rights and correct them.
Sound fair?
Good point
1. Please give specifics. Isn't it enough that convicted felons (and the equivalent like dishonorable military discharges) and those involuntarily committed to a mental hospital are prohibited from buying guns.
2. The problem is that there is no true definition of an "assault weapon."
3. While tragic, gun accidents with children are becoming less and less common. According to the CDC's WISQARS database, only 39 children 12 and under will killed in gun accidents in 2006 (latest year available). In 1990 (first year this particular data was available) the figure was 384. Accidents are being avoided more and more, and becoming less and less.
4. Compromise needs to go both ways. What increased gun freedom are anti-gunners willing to trade for increased gun restrictions?
I want to correct #3 above.
The figure for 1990 should be 150. The 384 figure was all gun deaths. The 150 was accidental only. The magnitude of difference changed a little, but the point remains. The message about keeping guns away from kids is being made, and it's working.
If guns could be built to only shoot at evil people, game, and targets I would agree with you.
I agree that violence is the root problem, but guns make people too efficient at violence. Guns should be regulated like other potentially dangerous consumer products (like food, drugs, toys, cars, etc.)
People kill people, but guns make them too efficient.
cochino
Same with cars if they were only used to transport people to work not used to do drive by shootings, smuggle drugs, ram people to death,or as car bombs the world would be better.
Guns are already regulated even stricter then food, toys, cars ect. A felon can still drive a car to do a drive by shooting ( the felon will not be charged for driving the car). Using a car to ram people with intent to kill the felon will be charged for murder but not for driving a regulated vehicle. A felon using a toy to bash the head of a victim will not get added sentence for using the toy. On the other hand a felon using a gun in a crime will get an extra two years here in the state of california.
I can also more efficiently kill people in a crowd with a truck then just my hand. I can also be more efficient killing with a knife then my hand. Some serial killers have killed more then 50 individuals with just their hand far more then any mass shooting murderer.
Meghan,
I think you dance around the real problem of guns in America - it isn't the right to bear arms as much as the types of arms available and monitoring their distribution.
I live outside of Pittsburgh, where three police officers were shot to death during a routine domestic violence call by a man who had a stockpile of guns including armed services level rapid fire weaponry (AK47 types). The most recent coverage quotes the police force as saying that the officers were "simply outgunned" by a lunatic who's admittedly unbalanced mind was being fed a steady diet of NRA paranoia regarding Obama and the untruth that he was going to take guns away.
In my own office, two totally rational co-workers (both NRA members and hunters) went out the day after the presidential election to stock up on as much ammo as they could afford before the NRA's propaganda prophesy became - in their minds - fact.
How does a sharp girl like you reconcile a healthy love of hunting and sport with the kind of wacko, extremist, and totally untrue dreck that the NRA puts out on a regular basis regarding anyone who doesn't get totally in bed with them? You know as well as I do that, as a expert in constitutional law, Obama has NEVER said he was trying to remove or amend the 2nd amendment! But there you were - one day after the election, joking and half believing the NRA myths! Come on, girl - use your brain - don't be brainwashed.
I challenge you to speak with the victims of mass gun violence - an epidemic that is rising every day in this nation. Speak to the police charged with protecting the citizenry about what the worst problems are with guns. I agree the reasons are myriad - but access to weapons of war is one of the most problematic - and one that the NRA, gun zealots and gun manufacturers are most responsible for creating.
No one wants to take a shot gun, pistol or rifle from a sportsman. But the hording of firearms and the access to mass destruction models ARE a major problem that the NRA ignores at the public's peril.
You are smart and on the right track about so much - don't be stupid or wear blinkers on this issue - it is literally a matter of life and death and should not be treated lightly.
Even Arizona natives need to realize that the Wild West doesn't (and shouldn't) exist anymore. We are striving to be civilized, aren't we?
You do a bit of dancing yourself. The man who shot those officers in Pittsburgh was not a product of 'NRA paranoia'. He was discharged from the military for assaulting his drill sergeant during basic training. Rather than giving him a dishonorable discharge (DD) as he deserved, he was administratively discharged because it was easier. Well, had he been DD'ed he would have been barred from legally purchasing weapons, but that failure to enforce the law indirectly contributed to his ability to commit those heinous acts. Additionally, the only paranoia was fed came from the white supremacy and NWO doomsdayer websites he frequented. He was imbalanced. Eventually this man was going to hurt somebody. It is unfortunate ti happened, but he could have done just as much damage with a handgun or a hunting rifle as a so called 'assault weapon'. In fact some hunting rifles are capable of much more damage than his weapon. So let's just leave that example and semi-automatic rifles ('assault weapons') out of the debate.
The NRA might put out some unflattering facts, but it is quite tame compared to the outright lies put out by the VPC, Brady Campaign and cohorts. Even if you catch them in a bare faced lie in the national media, they continue like it doesn't even matter to them that they got caught. I suppose it's just a minor inconvenience until they can come up with some more misleading labeling and false statistics.
Weapons of war? You really commited those talking points to heart. Weapons of war are real assault rifles not the much maligned civilian semi-automatic rifle a.k.a assault weapon. Real weapons of war are select fire meaning capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic (sometimes 3 shot burst) fire. Civilian weapons are not capable of this (except for a very heavily regulated and extremely expensive class of firearms in civilian possession prior to the GCA of 1968 generally referred to as NFA firearms). You know who does have real 'Weapons of War'? Well the military obviously, but there's someone else: the police. Why do police need to have 'Weapons of War'? There job is nominally to protect the public, but nowadays is better described by enforcing the law. Who do they enforce it against? The public. So the police with fully automatic weapons not available to the general public are at war with who?
I wouldn't be so quick to say 'no one' wants to take firearms from sportsmen because some people advocate the complete elimination of the private ownership of firearms. You might not want to, but some do. There's a more important point though. Where in the Constitution does the word 'sportsmen' appear? It may appear somewhere (although I doubt it), but it certainly is not in the second amendment. Do I not deserve a firearm for self defense because I don't hunt? Firearms have more purposes than hunting, and those purposes are protected by the second amendment as well and in some cases even more explicitly.
You're right that the Wild West doesn't and shouldn't exist. No one wants gun fights in the streets. However, some people realize that reducing or eliminating individual rights only serves to create a monopoly of force where the criminals and government (but I repeat myself) have ultimate power over the public.
Well stated, sir. Your feelings mirror mine on this subject, and you put it much more eloquently.
cgriff1973 you need to youtube Obama on his support on DC side on the Heller vs DC case that went to the Supreme Court. Listen to AG Eric Holder then Senator Feinstein who initiated the assualt weapons ban. Just come to California which the Brady Campaign said is the best example on types of gun control. No need to be wary here living in California when I when I look at the state legislature website and see the dems passing laws that only limit my right doing nothing to rduce crime.
By the way you know a Remington 700 is now used by the military as a sniper rifle. It's a bolt action gun also used by hunters. Semi-auto (benelli M4) and pump action shotguns ( mossberge 590) are also used my the military with semi-auto pistols(berreta 92f). Your logic that we should ban military service weapons would then ban all weapons in the hands of Americans. A reminder the M1 Garand was used in WW2 as the main infantry weapon shooting a 30-06 bullet far more powerful then an AK47 or theAR15 round you so like to portray as evil. The M1 Garand is not on the Assualt weapons ban because it has a wooden stock.
Gun murder has decreased in the pass couple of years according to the FBI uniform crime report. After the assualt weapons ban was lifted murder by guns continue to decrease.
Gun Range should be the only place for "shooting guns" IF ONLY. We in Florida have seen first hand two deaths were done at the shooting range. A mother shot her son and then herself so if your case is it's always safe at the shooting range
THINK AGAIN
Megan if as you say, "the right to bear arms....is one of your biggest concerns", then I suggest you go back to some of your previous articles where you have said, that other things are your biggest concern.
If you are a sportsman, who enjoys the use of a gun for sport, why do you see it as an infringement on your rights if regulation prevents you from using that gun in an inappropriate way because as you say, you are desperate?
Article 2 in the bill of rights was written at a time when the need for self protection was much greater, and self reliance for food were part of the American experience, and we need adjustments to that Article to protect Americans today.
I guess, when an otherwise responsible, thoughtful adult who owns a gun does something human, like leave it loaded, or accessible to a child who then kills themselves or someone close to them because they are a child, is just an unfortunate tragedy that we have to live with because you and yours want your right so firmly protected that you won't make allowances for regulations that protect that child.
I guess when the kids in Columbine got a hold of the weapons they did, and took the action they did we just have to live with that too, in order to protect your perceived right to have an use a gun as you choose.
There are some things that are more important than others and there is a problem with America when the lives of innocent people is LESS important than the perceived infringement on your right to own a gun.
As for the stability of gun owners, maybe you should pay attention to the video report by Max Blumenthal April 29, 2009 in the Beast entitled "Pro-Guns Anti-Obama", listen to what those people say and maybe you will begin to understand that even though they probably are a minority, they have GUNS, and a minority of one with a gun can kill as many people as they have bullets!
You said:
"Article 2 in the bill of rights was written at a time when the need for self protection was much greater, and self reliance for food were part of the American experience, and we need adjustments to that Article to protect Americans today."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I grew up with a family that absolutely loves hunting. In Minnesota, I'd say it's out of the ordinary for a household to be without a gun. But they're only for the annual sporting season. The rants and raves about patriotism and rights etc. isn't what these people think about. They enjoy hunting. So they own a gun. It's not a big deal. They don't blow money on heavy artillery or easily concealable killing devices for the hell of it (like some people). They're rational, respectful, qualified, gun owners. Not paranoid fanatics.
I wonder what the annual stats are for incidents of gun owners who used their gun to defend their household/family. I wonder what that number looks like sitting next to the number of gun-related deaths.
Believing that guns should not be regulated and sold like cookies is an unrealistic, stupid, medieval way of thinking. I think certain measures need to be taken to earn the right to own a firearm. The men in my hometown wouldn't be opposed to this, because they wouldn't have a problem getting their gun (and, consequently, their deer, ducks, and pheasants). The rights-shouting gun fanatics sure would be pissed, though. Their stockpile of high-powered military-level killing devices might be depleted.
No more "just cuz" guns, please.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
You are so full of it.
1. Guns are not regulated at all: We have government run food safety, drug safety, car safety, etc. but no government run gun safety.
2. Huh? VT killings. Columbine killings. Suicides. Just to name a few.
3. Huh? (See 2 above)
4. Finally a glimmer of reason.
5. This has nothing to do with all gun violence. If guns were not so prevalent we would still have violence, just fewer mass killings.
6. How about progress? How about "Modern civilized societies do not resort to killing each other over differences."
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
1. Of course guns are regulated. I cannot buy one from a gun dealer without going through a background check. I cannot shoot one in my backyard (local laws), etc.
2.Those are all mental health issues, not criminal ones.
3. The earlier poster was right. Most gun crimes (of which Columbine, etc. are NOT typical) are by formerly convicted felons.
4. Gun accidents in kids 12 and under went down from 150 in 1990 to 39 in 2006 (CDC Wisqars database). Gun safety is being taught and more and more people are being careful with them.
5. Mass killings, while frightening, aren't that big of a deal. They aren't common. Most gun crimes involve either gangmembers shooting each other or other sorts of known criminals and their families/associates. The exceptional gun crime is the otherwise law-abiding person who goes nuts.
6. Of course they do. Modern societies kill in much greater percentages than did ancient societies.
1. Gun use is regulated, but pretty much anybody of age that hasn't been convicted of a felony can get a gun. And just because you haven't committed a crime yet doesn't mean you don't intend to.
2. The idea that there are only criminals and law abiding citizens in this world is just silly. Accidents happen, people snap, children get access to guns, etc. Not to mention most suicides are committed by gun owners. These people aren't necessarily "criminals."
3. Suicide rates are significantly higher among gun owners (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/211982/suicide_rates_significantl y_higher.html?cat=7).
4. I agree with you here. But the NRA has fought for years against safety programs.
5. She is right that poverty is the root cause of violent crime in general. What have the Republicans, especially her father, done about that problem recently?
6. True, violence will occur with or without guns.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"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."
Look up "well regulated" and "militia" in the dictionary and let me know if you think everybody should have guns.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Welcome back! :-)
I received my first rifle when I was 11 years old, an old bolt-action .22 my grandfather found at a pawn shop.
That the Constitution confirms the right to own and carry firearms is undeniable. So though is the fact that it gives the government power to regulate them.
However, the left is not the side that blows this argument up. When the NRA opposes ALL legislation perceived as 'anti-gun,' even sensible legislation and sends un-backed fliers claiming that OBAMA WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS, it is not the left that feeds the US vs. THEM.
This is the problem, as it seems to be with so much else.
...by the way, I'm interested in your take on the whole torture issue. Acceptable or not? Prosecute?
Hi Meghan, big fan.
Thousands of gun deaths in the United States last year.
Find a new way to blow off steam. Thanks.
How many more deaths from heart disease and cars?
Nice try, no soup for you...
Least restrictive gun law states, some of the lowest crime and murder rates. Check into it.
Well-regulated militia. WELL. REGULATED.
It says the right of the PEOPLE... not the MILITIA...
"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."
It's also a complete sentence, meaning that all the parts relate to each other. It's talking about the right of the People (note the capitalization) to bear arms in terms of protecting a free State. It's talking about the right for a governed body of people to bear arms to protect themselves in a well-regulated fashion. Not necessarily the rights of an individual to bear arms to protect their individual family or home. The second amendment doesn't address individual gun owners at all, actually.
I don't think people shouldn't own guns. I have no problem with guns in and of themselves. But I think that people use the Second Amendment to defend the right of individuals to own guns, and that's not even what this law is talking about. Also, this law only applies to federal action. Doesn't apply to state laws. Doesn't say individuals CAN'T own guns, but that's also not what it's guaranteeing.
TeresaJusino,
The SCOTUS in Heller vs. D.C. decided otherwise. They determined that the 2nd Amendment's militia clause does not limit the rest of the sentence.
The 2nd Amendment has been ruled a personal right.
IMHO, the Bill of Rights is useless if not applied to the states. Using the logic that the Bill of rights can be abridged by the states, means that a state wouldn't have to give you a jury trial, etc.
We have a militia. It's called the National Guard. Very well regulated.
In the 2nd Amendment, "regulated" means "trained."
"Putting it bluntly, we've done a disservice to our violence problems by making the political argument about guns instead of whatever causes people to be violent in the first place."
This is a violent society.
I'll take my chances with the guy going postal if he only had a knife.
Exactly. In, "Bowling for Columbine" Michael Moore shows that Canada has way more guns than we do in America but with a fraction of the crime and violence. So it can't be the guns that are the most to blame for our violence--and I'm a Liberal!! I just firmly believe in the right to bear arms--maybe there is a difference on this between western Liberals like myself and those on the coasts?
Meghan,
I, like the other posters want an answer about assault weapons and the fact that any idiot can buy a gun (rifle/shotgun) at a gun show. I have gun loving friends and when I ask them that, they don't have an answer for me, they just shake their paranoid little heads. And what about cop-killer bullets? Why would someone need them?
I consider myself an independent, both parties suck. I agree with 90% of what you write, but if you can't answer this then what you wrote today is irrelevant.
1. Idiots can buy a lot of things, including cars, which kill more people than guns do every year. But, at a gun show, ALL laws apply. If he buys from a dealer he has to go thru the background check. If private sales are allowed in that state then their allowed at a gun show. Gun shows are not magical "law-free" zones.
2. Cop killer bullets? Thats what makes the difference between people that know about guns and those that don't. We know all bullets can kill. What you evidently don't know is that common hunting ammunition like the 100 year old .30-.30 (the rifle carried by cowboys in the old westerns) will penetrate police body armour. Even the lowly .22 can kill a cop (or anybody) if it hits you in the right spot (like your head). So, don't talk to me about banning "cop-killer" bullets.
So, unless you want to learn some actual facts about the gun issue, maybe YOUR comments are irrelevant.
Fair enough, scottyinphoenix, but what about being able being able to buy a gun through a private sale at a gun show. And again, as many have asked, why does someone need an assault rifle?
1. No cops have been killed by "cop-killer" bullets.
2. The NRA helped to pass a ban on "cop-killer" bullets.
3. After the media broke the news about "cop-killer" bullets, there was a significatn increase in criminals killing police officers with headshots. The unintended effect of the media reporting on "cop-killer" bullets was to inform criminals that most police officers wore body armor, which encouraged criminals to use headshots.
(The original "cop-killer" bullets were designed for use by police officers to disable moving vehicles. They have been used by extreme handgun hunters in hunting (and killing) elephants with a handgun.)
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.