-
Website
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters -
Original page
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/11/11/obama-and-gun-rights-4-letters/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
1. Pencils cause misspelled words!
2. Cars cause traffic accidents!
3. Hairdriers cause bad hair days!
NO! It's not the type of firearm that is being banned...it is the total disrespect for the Constitution.
I own an AK 47 and an AR15. I have killed NO ONE!! They are not machine guns. The AR is .223 caliber. Widely used for varmint and predator control. I live on and own a farm, you do the math. The AK is just plain fun to shoot competitively. The AK is in a caliber that is legal and humane to hunt deer with. Historically speaking, these two firearms are pure works of engineering genious.
I have done nothing wrong...I am not a felon...I easily pass NICS background checks to purchase firearms... who are you or the government to say I cannot legally own firearms!
Look at the world facts! Look at the facts of the Clinton AWB! Clinton's AWB had NO effect on crime!
I am a proud American! I am a humble farmer. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are sacred. And I take serious offense to being called crazy.
These four letters show the typical cross section of those involved in gun controld debates. The gun control proponents are reacting to their emotions (the letters even say they are), and the most prevalent emotion is a hatred of firearms. And that's fine, because no gun-rights proponent wants to force them to buy, own or use firearms if they don't want to. One pro gun-control letter did try to make a false generality appear as a fact.
The gun rights proponents are referring to facts that they didn't have the room to cite in a letter to the editor, but they are referring to federal government statistics and studies.
Hopefully, the Democrats will remember that pushing gun-control is a toxic issue for them, especially in Congress. If they try it again, we'll have 1996 all over again. I believe they will remember that and gun-control will not be in their priorities. The anti-gun folks always have a seething hatred towards the NRA, but they need to remember that the NRA only got involved in politics after major gun-control laws were pushed through Congress in 1934 and 1968. If they try it again, more gun owners will see their individual rights (as affirmed by DC v. Heller) under attack and fight back with their ballots.
Let's get a few things straight. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro common sense.
Obama never endorsed the D.C. ban, he was "alleged" to have said it was constitutionally permissible, which has never been proven he said. Also was a long time student and educator of constitutional law, so on the issue of was this law "constitutional" I think Obama would have a intellectual opinion on the law. I defy anyone to show me a proven statement where Obama said he wanted to ban guns.
Second of all this "guns don't kill people, people do" arguement is about as stupid as stupid people can create. For the anonymous "plugger, pencils, cars, and hair dryers, were not designed to kill people - guns were designed to kill people. Granted there is the exception of OBVIOUS hunting and sporting rifles, even pistols, but we're not talking about these, are we?! We're talking Glocks, AK-47s, and yes, the "all-American" AR-15. Both of which can EASILY be converted to fully automatic. Plugger, the gun nut, knows this but he doesn't want you to know the real truth. The AR-15 is designed off the U.S. M16, and fires the 5.56 NATO round, the same one used in Iraq today. So don't give us this spin your semi-automatic "assault" rifles are not just for "varmits" and fun shooting (you use an AK47 7.62mm round for varmits? Sure, Plugger, sure! And I use my 12 gauge for insect control).
All you gun nuts love to come up with undocumented or unique statistics that increased gun control doesn't work, and wide open anything-goes gun laws are what keeps us safe - safe from what - ourselves? The statistics you fail to acknowledge are the WORLD statistics from countries who have banned guns or have gun control which overwhelmingly puts the U.S. at the top of the world in gun related deaths. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/17/news/mn...
Only hysterical gun nuts would react like this. Even Obama's VP, Biden, and avid hunter said there is no way Obama is going to ban guns, and he wouldn't stand for it. The reality is - most people want "sensible" gun control. No one is going to take anyone's hunting or sporting firearm from them, and most self-defense hand guns. But the NRA and the gun nuts have to loose the boogie man on genuine gun owners to suggest the gov't will come knocking at your door to get your .22 or your shotgun. It's all or none with the NRA. They'll spend hundreds of millions to protect Soviet made assault weapons like the prolific AK47, just to protect their Beretta in the drawer by their bed.
What I always love about the self-defense argument, that Columbine wouldn't have happend if teachers had hand guns, or guns protect you from the bad guys - is with a country with lax gun laws, and many easy concealed carry permits, where are all these stories of some citizen saving the public from some mass murderer or killer on a rage? They don't exist because it doesn't happen. How many legitimate intruders are shot by home defense weapons? There is no statistic, because it seldom happens. Anyone can break into a house and kill the owners of guns, because it's about intent and element of surprise. No one knocks on your door and says, "hi, I'm your local burglar, just thought I'd annouce myself, I'll wait while you go get your
gun."
This is all the typical fear and loathing we get from the extreme right. Most common sense hunters or firearm enthusiasts know their right to own legitimate and sensible firearms will not be abridged under Obama or any Democrat, and that the president ain't the king. The rest are the wing nuts you read here.
You claim correctly that the second amendment was to protect the people from an unjust government, but when the amendment was written the height of technology in military terms was the musket, and groups (militias) similarly armed were actually able to stand up against the most modern army of the day (redcoats). Today, in order to make that argument you would have to allow the sale of RPG's and machine guns and even then you would be greatly outmatched by our governments military. In reality the second amendment is antiquated, it is no longer useful and is actually causing harm (in the form of gun crime) since it cannot protect us from our government. So either argue that we should be able to arm ourselves with tanks or stop using the "protect ourselves from the government" line.
They can strip away all your other rights, so long as they leave your guns alone. They have you right where they want you.
I own guns and I am a liberal. Obama is not going to take away your right to own guns. Please put your energy into something more productive.
It was on his campaign site for six months, do you think his own campaign staffers (whoever was managing the campaign site) was lying about his platform?
Of course, you think that he doesn't want to ban them, because he wants to ban ones you don't like. A ban on the manufacture and sale is an attempt to ban future generations from their use.
You even retract your argument later in your post: "No one is going to take anyone’s hunting or sporting firearm from them, and most self-defense hand guns."
The AR-15 is one of the most common rifles used in the three gun match. The AK-47's sold today are not Soviet made, because the Soviet made ones were select-fire (semi or fully auto). Rifles sold today cannot even be fully automatic rifles converted to semi-automatic. The AK-47's people buy are semi-automatic knock-offs made by China, Romania, Bulgaria, and other countries trying to copy the Soviet design.
As far as converting rifles to fully-automatic: Real assault rifles (select fire rifles) have a lot of mechanisms to regulate the rate of fire. These parts cannot be purchased and will not fit into an AR-15 receiver. Of course, there are a lot of machinists in this country who could figure it out, but they're not exactly inclined to commit a federal felony. Without a regulated rate of fire, the firearm will jam. It's actually a common problem with full-auto military rifles that are worn beyond their service life.
Also, the assault weapon ban was not about lowering crime. The types of rifles banned in 1994 were used in less than 1% of all gun-related crime. Obviously, it wasn't about crime control. They also threw a bunch of police funding in the bill to get the police organizations to support it. Most cops who are not politicians were opposed to the rifle ban part of the bill.
And yes, most of us were pretty ticked off at Bush's abuse of executive power and damage done to the Constitution. But we're also worried about the precedent he set that Obama might abuse as well. Hopefully he won't, but it's not looking good.
They represent both. They have over four million members. I don't think there are four million people in the US working for the gun industry. The NRA is not perfect, but it's the best voice gun owners have at this point.
Anti-gunners have been trying for years to forge a divide between groups of gun owners. Trying to label the NRA as an extremist organization.
Fortunately, the NRA is very open about their platform. Anyone can read it for themselves at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/
Read through the website and form your own opinions on the NRA, don't let others tell you what your opinion should be.
Toohip. The AR15 and the AK47, and the AK74 are NOT easily converted to full auto. It takes someone with machining skills to do so. Besides, if you want a full auto gun, they are legal to buy. The AR15 IS used to hunt small game, varmints, and the AR10 is being marketed to sportsmen as a large game rifle. The AR15 can also be used as a dedicated target rifle. You are obviously unfamiliar with the AR15/AR10 platform. The 5.56 NATO cartridge is the same as the commercial 223 Remington. Just as the 7.62 NATO is better known as the 308 Winchester. You also don't know that the 223 Remington/5.56 NATO is better than 40 years old. The 308 Winchester is around 50 years old. The 30-06 is 102 years old. The 7.62x39 (for the AK47) is 61 years old, is a legitimate hunting round, is chambered in bolt action rifles and works very well on deer sized game. Your lack of knowledge about firearms is typical of gun control nuts. You are trying to ban something you know nothing about.
Tanks are legal to own in the US. In fact, you can, and some people do, drive them on the roads with rubberized treads.
And you are absolutely correct that the 2nd amendment was originally an enumeration of an individual's right to own arms equal to the military/government. Of course, if that was its original intent, that is still its intent. The Bill of Rights is not something that expires, or that can even be repealed. We should all, in fact, be able to own RPGs, rocket launchers, and the other weapons our government has decided should be reserved for them.
Those who, when talking about things like 50 round magazines, as "Why would you need that?" Would, then, have to consider: Why would you need to be able to freely assemble? We have the internet and phones to talk over anyway. Why would you resist random searches of yourself or your house? If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter. Why would you need to own an expensive hybrid or electric vehicle? The other cars are enough.
You may say that guns are different; they are designed to kill people. Yes, many are. And some people need to be killed or disabled; before they kill or disable you or your family.
The point is that being ignorant of the uses and merits of something is not a valid reason for banning it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means that those who are not interfering with others' lives, should not have their lives interfered with. Go after the criminals, and go after them with full force. But leave those who want a 50 round magazine, who are not criminals, alone.
Both sides of the argument definitely have a strong case. Guns do kill people, many are designed with that purpose in mind. Why should anyone be aloud to own something that’s purpose is to kill someone? Valid point, I think we all agree that the question should be answered; and the answer shouldn’t be ignored.
Personally, I work in the Iraq, my knowledge and ownership of “assult” rifles is has helped prepare me for the dangers of my job. AKs are a fact of life over here, my knowledge of the enemy’s ability to use them against me is valuable and my knowledge of my ability to use them against an enemy is valuable.
My situation may be a life or death one, and the easy counter argument is that most people who own guns are not in my situation. The truth is that supporters of gun control preach tolerance and compassion which is conveniently left out of the equation when they talk about me and Billy-Bob. If you are not “in” to guns you have no perspective from which to judge those who are “in” to guns. For many people it is a hobby and a lifestyle. The vast majority of us don’t pull out our AKs or ARs at the gun range and imagine killing people. We are fascinated with precision engineering, vectoring, ballistics, atmospheric condition, thermal dynamics, and metallurgy. All the detail of a watch-maker combined with the concentration of a chess grand-master. It is a beautiful thing, and because it is a more popular past time in the trailer park than it is in Boulder; you make judgments.
Every time, there is a Columbine styled tragedy… you say “aha! my suspicions are confirmed”. This thought is as ill-conceived as me seeing a fatal car crash and saying “aha, a woman driver”. Men get cause accidents sometimes and fire arms prevent violence sometimes (albeit that isn’t a good news story).
If guns did not exist, there is no argument that there would be no gun related crime. The thing is they do exist. Did illegalizing pot make pot disappear? Illegalizing guns (of any type) does not solve gun violence.
I’m sure you can point to statistics from other countries and say look at the lack of gun violence there. To which the answer is simple; we are not Canadian, we are not German, we are not Swiss; we are American. Comparative studies of this sort are flawed. Violence is not a simple problem; just as terrorism isn’t a simple problem. There is not a simple solution.
When my wife was in a car accident, my first thought wasn’t “those darn Honda Accords, always causing accidents”. I know this argument is often used, but in the last fender bender you were in did you get out of the car upset with the car that hit you? Or was it the operator of that car?
Don (from above), those weapons are very easily converted to fully automatic. I don’t want misrepresentation on my side of the argument. The better argument is that a fully automatic firearm is not usually an effective weapon. Especially one that can’t be easily switched back. The easy conversion is making it full auto and giving up the ability to switch back to semi-auto easily. If you intend to hit your target, an AK or AR is much more effective as a semi-auto.
Toohip (from above), self defense argument: those situations do happen, I’ve been in them. They don’t get reported to the police and the news vans don’t pull up. They end quietly. The thing is until that guy kills a bunch of people, he’s not a mass murderer. Mass murders, of coarse, are the fringe examples. You can’t say you’ve prevented a crime that has never happened. Imagine yourself a criminal; are you going to rob my house (obviously I’m armed and know how to use what I have), or are you going to rob the house with the flowery VW bus out front down the street. When the house down the street gets robbed I don’t report to the police that they were probably going to rob me and then saw the NRA sticker; I have no idea. If you are Mr. Armed or un-Armed Robber, you are going to do you best to find a soft target.
I can’t end this post with out answering the question, “what are you afraid of”, I believe the “Bowling for Columbine” styled question went on to mockingly suggest aliens. I’m happy to answer. I’m afraid that the US will not be the only government in the history of the world that doesn’t end in corruption and/or violence. I’m afraid of being mowed down near the Washington Memorial like it was Tiananmen Square. I’m afraid of people who say to themselves “that will never happen here”. I’m afraid of a government that doesn’t fear me.
I’m afraid of people who vote away rights that they don’t personally intend to use. I’m afraid of what might be next in the Bill of Rights that “doesn’t seem relevant in modern times”. I’m afraid of people who support gun ownership but have no problems with the government tapping phone conversations. I’m afraid of people who would fight to their last breath to keep those taps off, and then turn their back on my rights.
I’m afraid of everyone who thinks this is a “right” vs “left” issue.
Ak 47, shoot gun ,hand gun all of these guns will kill you very easy, with one shoot, why say we cant have a ak 47 ?? some one on here said are we afraid of a attack on American soil? Yes I am ! and if that happens I want to have the proper gun to defend my country and my family. so what if a ak 47 is a powerful gun… to say a shoot gun is ok to have verse a ak is just plain ignorant. a shoot gun will remove your head with one shoot and a hunting rifle can put a hole through your chest the size of a foot ball … a gun is a gun they all kill, if I want well built combat gun that will hold up against a attack on America I should have that right. if you are worried about some one getting killed with that gun and not a shoot gun you need to open your eyes and realize a killer will kill with what ever they can get their hands on. don’t turn good people that want to defend them self’s with adequate weapons against criminals and attacks to America in to victims!
I knew obama would be ignorant .he is not going to fix any thing the problem was not the president in charge it is the world changing. I personally am ashamed that we have a president in office that got elected because black people wanted to see a black man in charge rater then vote for the better man or women I bet 10 –20 thousand black people that don’t even care about politicks registered to vote just to vote for race rather then the better choice…don’t get me wrong I am glad mc Caine did not win but Hillary should be in office ..ok that’s my 2 cents