Hot button question- answered for Gene: Gun Control

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, all of it.

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.

However, I place the emphasis on the first part- “a well regulated Militia”- which means that the people should have weapons if they belong to a Militia- and it’s well regulated. The part about a free State- means we have the ability to overturn our government, should it deprive us of our freedom- which has been happening slowly over the last 7 years, without the people questioning it.

There has been a slight problem of technological advances in weaponry as well. While a Remington Repeater would have helped our founding fathers kick the Brits out a lot quicker and more efficiently, an Uzi would have won the war as decisively as a nuke ended WWII. I’m pretty sure the founding fathers didn’t think the people should be guaranteed the right to own their own Scuds or backpack nukes.

In fact, for all buy a few serious gun nuts (and Jeff and Larry, I’m talking about you)- most Americans wouldn’t stand a chance against our Army in a showdown- so it’s no longer possible to balance the rights of the individual with the power of the State, even if the Governor did ask the National Guard to help the State secede from the Union. While Rambo could take on the Army in “First Blood”- there are very few Rambo’s out there (and I know, ’cause I went through that training).

So, when it comes down to who should and who shouldn’t be able to own a gun, and what kind of guns should they be allowed to have, here is my best shot at explaining my position:

Guns can be much more dangerous than cars, yet we have no licensing procedures or even standardized training programs. I believe all gun owners should have to take extensive safety courses and be tested before being able to own anything other than a revolutionary war era weapon. You can have all the barrel loaded, ball and powder weapons you want, but if you want a Glock or a Sig, you gotta take a test.

I think that serving in our armed forces should automatically qualify you to own a weapon, as long as you have an honorable discharge.

I am not in favor of concealed carry unless you have good reason and have submitted to extra levels of certification and testing, including legal ramifications of weapons use and being able to post a bond.

I believe that use of any gun in commission of a crime should carry extreme penalties and that any felony conviction or violent misdemeanor would forever prohibit gun ownership.

Any possession of illegal drugs and guns would also carry an extreme penalty.

I do not believe that fully automatic weapons should be owned by anyone other than members of an organized militia, that is actively registered and regulated by the State. If an organization wants to own full-auto weapons, they must have regular training, provide proof of legal training, provide round the clock supervision and control of the weapons, much like the arms room of my military units, with firing pins stored in separate and secure facilities. No one needs to have a CAR-15 in the house to meet their 2nd amendment rights.

I used to wear a t-shirt that read “Gun control means being able to hit your target” when I was in the Army. I was young and dumb then. While I can still put 90% of my rounds inside the 9 ring, and own a handgun (kept under lock and key), I don’t think that gun ownership should be a major issue in America today unless you are a cop or a sociopath.

While the phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is true- the reasons people kill people are the issues that should take precedence. Feeling trapped or being mentally ill are two of the causes of homicidal acts- maybe if we worked at making the system work better for all- and provided proper mental health programs, we may have less gun violence in this country.

I hope this answers Gene’s question. It’s another one of those hot button issues which I don’t believe are a good way to base your decision on who to vote for- since it’s unlikely that you can get a majority of 435 representatives to get anything changed on this topic. I hope my honesty in answering shows you the kind of principles I follow when it comes to issues like this.

There are no perfect candidates.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

10 Responses

  1. USCitizen February 14, 2008 / 11:30 pm
    “…people should have weapons if they belong to a Militia”
    – We do.

    It’s called the unorganized militia.
    It’s the law. Read it sometime.

    The reserve militia or unorganized militia, was created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Josh February 15, 2008 / 12:24 am
    USCitizen – check your premise – the unorganized Militia does not constitute a “well regulated Militia”.

    However, the right to bear arms is not only to protect the State from the National Governing body, as each individual “province” (state) is a governing body (with its own constitution) – it is to allow the citizens to be able to protect themselves against the State agency as well (similar to the separation of Church and State – protecting the State from the Church, and the Church from the State).

    A well regulated Militia is one operated – by the State. Thereby, negating one of the, what I think is major, parts of the Second Amendment – sovereignty of the individual.

    I believe this is the “problem” that many governing bodies both State and National face when determining legislation on this concept. Which is why the Government has pretty much maintained a policy of letting the States deal with it – individually. The States know that it is a hot topic – and usually maintain a policy of letting Counties/Communities handle it. (Kind of like Ohio’s smoking ban before it was put on the State ballot because state level politicians didn’t want to commit political suicide.)

    I believe it is the Chicago area which has two communities – one in which you are not permitted to own a firearm – period. While a little ways away there is another community in which you can. The difference between the two communities. The one that still allows firearms has a high Jewish population who stated, “They will not take our guns away again.” (Information retained from old Sociology Textbook, sorry no citation, take a sociology class at Sinclair Community College.)

    (I prefer the Gandhi approach personally.)

    Peace.

    Josh

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Charles Halton February 15, 2008 / 6:51 am
    Wow, it is really nice to see a candidate read and interpret the *entire* phrase and not just select out the portions that they particularly like.

    Another reason why you have my support David.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Stine February 15, 2008 / 7:37 am
    In the early days, there was no national army or navy. The 2nd amendment granted citizens the right to bear arms because they were likely to be called into service during times of war, especially so the national guard. The government wanted both the organized and unorganized militia to have ready access to weapons so that they could hit the ground running in case of attack. Supply lines were so slow back then that if one didn’t have a weapon, he was likely not to have one for quite a long time; the war might be over by the time the government could procure weapons. Personal defense and hunting were secondary objectives.

    The primary reason is now moot since we have a standing army and plenty of reservists and national guardsmen (or do we?) for the common defense, so only the 2nd reason stands as important today.

    Arms, I would say, refers to any semi-automatic handguns or rifles and shotguns as well as knives, bows, etc. While these weapons are dangerous in the hands of some people, the right is enshrined in the Constitution. I don’t need training or a permit to go to church, peaceably assemble, or engage in free speech, so I shouldn’t need one to use or own weapons protected under the 2nd amendment.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. David Esrati February 15, 2008 / 9:35 am

    Stine, if the militia is taken care of- you may not need arms at all, unless to hunt. You do need a license to drive, to fly a plane, to transport hazardous materials, even to pollute- so I don’t see why any responsible citizen who wanted arms to defend this country- shouldn’t want to have the training to make sure they know how to do it properly and safely. I’m not going to keep commenting here. I’ve stated my positions- which would probably never become an issue if I was in Congress- since it’s highly unlikely our system will allow anyone to have a real discussion of this politically charged issue.
    Have fun arguing amongst one selves.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Greg Hunter February 15, 2008 / 10:30 am
    I’m pretty sure the founding fathers didn’t think the people should be guaranteed the right to own their own Scuds or backpack nukes.
    I am pretty sure you have no idea what the founding fathers were thinking. I mean where to start?

    The Framers intended for individuals to maintain the “same arms” as the Federal Government, implying no restrictions in ownership of munitions. The Framers were wise beyond years as they set a “Grand Bargain” with the American populace known in this day and age as “The MAD Doctrine” (Mutually Assured Destruction). The Framers knew that if the Federal Government had to worry about the internal populace that they would be less likely to fall victim to entangling foreign policy. We have lost this view during the 1930s when the Federal Government to war on its own people because they wanted a drink. The Feds were outgunned and with the ownership of papers in large corporate hands, the 2nd Amendment was gutted and its intent was lost.

    While it could be argued that the Ohio National Guard is the intent of a “well regulated militia”; however, this does not fit the bill as it is controlled by the Feds and does not choose to defend the rights of Ohioians, nor are they purchasing say back pack nukes that are not controlled by Feds, so the ONG is not a “well regulated Militia”

    Why not ban cars and pools as they kill more people than guns and they are already regulated, so regulating things that kill people does not work, with guns, cars or drugs.

    Get a clue!

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. J.R. Locke February 15, 2008 / 8:20 pm
    The founders also believed in slavery! Who cares about 1796.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Josh February 15, 2008 / 8:43 pm
    J.R. – I think you should care about 1796 (1776). Because, we’re still basing the running of our country on two documents, and many concepts written in that time period.

    Franklin, and Jefferson’s are located in the first quarter of the article. And the following paragraph:

    Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, ‘[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.’

    Peace.

    Josh

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. gene February 16, 2008 / 10:00 am
    it works “boff” ways

    liberals claim we violate people’s right in re: to illegal searches, background checks, telephone recordings – they bring the “CONSTITUTION” into the argument, then when we deal with the gun issue and the constitution is out the door. Conservative have the same problem – you can not argue one way and defend the other – “boff” parties are wrong, so you are either with it or against it, but if you argue for change then they can change ANY and ALL of them, so buyer beware. Life and America ain’t perfect – deal with it.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Stine February 18, 2008 / 8:02 pm
    David,

    None of the things you listed there are protected as rights under the constitution, unless you charge that they are protected under the 9th amendment.

    I don’t even necessarily think it’s a bad idea that guns be registered and owners be trained, etc. I just think it’s a personal right afforded to us in the constitution on the same level as other rights.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *