THE RIGHT SIDE
BY BUDD SCHROEDER
March 7, 2018
A COMMENTARY ON THE BANNING OF GUNS
The battle continues as the sides line up in the gun control debate. This column is based on the experience of a Second Amendment advocate with more than fifty years of experience of research and practical application regarding the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment clearly states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That should be pretty clear, but it has been argued by the intellectuals for decades.
Some had said that the well regulated militia meant something like the National Guard. But would the Founding Fathers believe that the Constitution would have a provision that gave the military the right to possess guns? That interpretation is just plain stupid.
It took the Heller Decision by the Supreme Court to clarify that this right was to guarantee the individual citizen was the one protected by this right. Several of the quotes by the same patriots who wrote the Constitution affirmed that the right was given to the individuals to protect themselves in case the government attempted to destroy the Constitution.
It was so important that the framers of Constitution placed it in the Second Amendment right after the right of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right of peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances.
Now, we see that there is controversy of some of the provisions of the First Amendment by people who question and even protest expressions relating to the freedom of religion. The controversy on this issue can be heated and like the controversy on the Second Amendment relies more on emotional rants than discussions based on logic.
Every time there is a mass shooting, the anti-gun crowd calls for a banning of certain kinds of guns. Decades ago, there was the outcry to ban the Saturday Night Special. |This was described as a small short barreled handgun that was relatively cheap to buy. It was an issue for decades before reason prevailed.
The next attack was for the “plastic gun” that the anti-gun dimwits claimed could defeat the metal detectors in buildings and airports. That finally got straightened out and that the “plastic gun” is widely used by many police agencies, and, yes, it is detectible by the metal detectors. Stupidity still is used in arguments against logic on gun control.
The mass murder at a school in Florida has spurred another attack on firearms. It followed a school mass murder in Sandy Hook CT half a decade ago and that involved the outcry to ban “assault weapons.” This is a misnomer by the anti-gun fanatics and it does appeal to those who are unfamiliar with firearms as well as the weak minded who are easily swayed by rhetoric.
An assault weapon, by definition, is a rifle that has a selector switch which can convert a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. A semi-automatic firearm requires the trigger to be pulled for every shot fired, just like a double action revolver, but the liberal leftists enjoy the confusion and keep up the facade.
For all practical purposes, machine guns were outlawed in 1934 and are strictly controlled by federal law and are already banned in some states. That is where the confusion benefits the gun banners. However, they used the definitions for banning their “assault weapons.” by cosmetic features like having a bayonet lug on the barrel. We seldom see any news articles about a homicide of a person who was bayoneted
Other features that cause a semi-automatic rifle to be banned are folding stocks, barrel shrouds and stocks with a pistol grip or thumbhole. Having a flash suppressor or even a threaded barrel can put a gun on the list. Along with those bans, there is the ban on magazines that will hold more than ten rounds. In New York, a person can get a seven year sentence in prison for possession of one, even if he doesn’t have a gun to put it in.
It is truly a tragedy when a large number of innocent children are murdered and society always looks for blame and a solution. It is a fact that more than ninety percent of all mass murders are committed in “gun free zones.” It is like believing that a person who is determined to kill people will obey a sign telling him he can’t bring a gun to the facility because it is illegal to do so.
The two school shootings were committed by evil people with mental problems. The current one was caused by a person who should not have been able to legally purchase the gun he used. Federal law forbids the sale of firearms to anyone who is a felon, mental defective, user of class one drugs, has a history of domestic violence and other restrictions. Even those who are prescribed medical marijuana are now forbidden to possess a firearm.
Nikolas Cruz, the latest alleged killer had several run ins with the law and even was reported to the FBI as a dangerous person. The Broward County Sheriff, local police agencies and the FBI should have reported him to the NICS system. It would have prohibited him from legally buying any gun.. That was the real reason he was able to commit the murders. Had they done their job properly, he couldn’t have legally bought any kind of gun.
The anti-gun group really wants to ban all guns. They say they don’t, but it is difficult to believe them when the typical response to having a gun control bill passed is “this is a good first step.” Honest gun owners fear they are in danger of eventual confiscation. It is difficult to convince them otherwise.
Those who approve of the banning and confiscation of guns keep saying the problem causing the mass murders is that there are too many guns in the country. Think about this. Almost all the mass murders are committed in gun free zones. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun club? Even a crazy person isn’t stupid enough to try that. This is a point to ponder.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment