Barack Obama has been our President-elect for just over a week and already he's having a positive effect on the economy: Guns and ammunitoin are flying off the shelves as fast as folks can whip out their check books and credit cards.Stories currently on CNN.com and in the Nov.8 edition of The Morning Call, confirm the anecdotal evidence I'm hearing from hunters and gun enthusiasts, (And I know lots of them. I grew up in the boonies of Upper Bucks County and went to a high school that closed for the opening of deer season) Fear of new restrictions and new taxes on firearms are causing folks to stock up.
The FBI is reporting 374,00 requests for gun purchase background checks from November 3 - 9, a whooping 49% increase over the same period in 2007. One of the most popular items is the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military M-16. Collectors and sportsmen fear that the AR-15 will be one of the first to go if President-elect Obama decides to ban assault weapons.
Just such a ban was enacted under President Clinton in 1994, but it was allowed to lapse in 2004 under President Bush. Obama has proposed restoring the ban, along with initiating background checks for purchases at gun shows, and other, what he calls, "common sense measures".
You would think after the Supreme Court recently overturned the Washington DC law banning handguns in the city, thereby upholding the Second Amendement, that people would feel reassured. But with a Democratic controlled Congress who is just itching to flex their muscle and Obama's liberal voting record, there may be cause for concern.
This is truly one issue where the "slippery slope" argument holds up. Take gun shows as an example: It seems to make sense to have background checks at gun shows. After all, the law should be uniform everywhere in every situation. A criminal can't buy a gun in a store because the store owner is required to run an FBI background check. But the same criminal can walk into a gun show anywhere in the country and buy whatever he can afford. So it would seem logical to institute background checks at gun shows. But here's where the slope gets slippery...once that happens, where does the control and the regulation stop?
Posts
25 comments:
Pam,
Here is where the problem happens. The civilian AR-15 is not the equivalent of the military M-16.
The military M-16 is a weapon that can fire (with a pull of the trigger) one shot, 3 shot bursts, or fully automatic - meaning holding the trigger will empty the full magazine of, typically, 30 rounds.
The civilian AR-15 can only fire one bullet with each squeeze of the trigger - it is a semi-automatic weapon. Yes, it looks mean and bad, but it is not an assault weapon.
Any other weapon fires one bullet with a pull on the trigger.
Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since the 1930's.
Yet, if one reads liberal propaganda, one would think that anyone can still by an "assault rifle" anywhere.
I am heartened by the increase in gun sales. It reassures me that many millions in this country will not quietly go into "that dark night" should the government overstep its authority.
That was the genius of the Founding Fathers. They did not include the 2nd amendment to protect hunting and target shooting. It, as Madison himself clearly explained, provided the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical government.
Are we there yet? No. Will we get there under Obama? Most likely, no. Might we at some point in the future? Who knows. Hence the timeless wisdom of the Founders.
Joe,
While I support the right to own any weapon that you can prove yourself competent at handling, I also think firearms training should be an option in organizations like the scouts, (Girls and boys).
I want to, in a friendly manner, point out that You are overlooking something about AR -15.
I served in the United States Army, and had the privilege of handling an M - 16 rifle. I know the difference between the two, and One thing I can tell you about the Ar -15 is that a person with the proper knowledge can quickly convert it to fire at full auto.
There are all kinds of tricks for converting various semi automatic weapons to full, that wouldn't stop anybody.
There are also techniques for altering ammunition, making the projectile more deadly to the human body.
No amount of regulation will stop people from employing nefarious methods.
I would prefer education, and making firearms safety training more readily available.
I know it makes people blink, but if we have driver training for teenagers, why not firearms safety training?
That's what really scares the Big Government types, the thought that the people COULD March on them and seize power. Isn't that what the founders wanted, to keep those who would consider tyranny on their toes?
My only concern is where we allow mentally ill people to have weapons, like the whack that shot up the Amish School house in 2006.
There's always going to be people that fall through the cracks. I don't think it is too much to ask competency to handle a weapon, much the same as we do with motor vehicles, but that's only my opinion.
Thanks guys for stereotyping and confirming Obama as being correct when he said..
"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Lord forbid if your thinking an AR-15 going to protect you if the government should turn " tyrannical". I think not. The government has far better tools at it's disposal to handle revolution.
Ultrasonic weapons that are capable of paralyzing or causing internal hemorrhaging, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weaponry
Microwaves Weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
Good luck with this kind of paranoid type thinking. People would be far better served to protect democracy by becoming involved in elections, government meetings, and other civically peaceful means. As far as any president just being able to make himself king, our founders built a magnificent system checks & balance system in the constitution.
Owning guns has almost become a mania by using the 2nd Amendment and perverting it's true intention as written by the architects of the 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."
NOTE > "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA". What part is unclear? A disciplined, trained, controlled, Army. A bunch of rogue individuals was never envisioned by the founders.
The Origin of this right..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Origin_of_the_right
Sport rifles and pistols fine, but all this talk of the government overthrowing it's own peoples, makes me far more fearful of my own fellow Americans, then the USA federal government!
Oops on Link for Wiki "Origin of the right"
Google...
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Then: It's under
2.1 Origin of the right
To Glen:
I've heard that "How could you possibly stand up against an organized army and all it's technology" arguement before. Take note what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. By people who weren't even allowed to have guns to begin with.
To Chris -
1) Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right.
2) I'm sure there will be a required fee with the mandatory firearms safety training. Why should we have to pay for something that is our right? Perhaps the government should charge TV, radio, newspapers - and bloggers - a fee to learn what speech is "safe" to speak or to write.
3) The "problems" with firearms are seldom caused by their improper use.
4) Mandatory firearms training will be used as nothing more than a way to build and maintain a list of gun owners. This list will later be used to confiscate guns from law-abiding gun owners (as has happened in other countries).
Quote:
4) Mandatory firearms training will be used as nothing more than a way to build and maintain a list of gun owners. This list will later be used to confiscate guns from law-abiding gun owners (as has happened in other countries).
Doesn't the govt already have lists like this of registered gun owners? They don't ask your name and do a background check for nothing.
I'm fine with gun ownership, bg checks, and proper registration. But good luck to anyone who thinks they actually have that 2nd Amend. right to form a militia. The govt would bring in the army to shut you down in an instant.
Glenn,
The Founders defined the "militia". It was ALL adults males over 18.
Not a group that was "controlled".
The militia was specifically the unregulated masses of civilians who, should the government overstep its authority, might decide, and have the ability, to fight back against an unrestrained governmental authority.
Which is exactly what we did against "our" government in the 1770's.
Your view is sad and disheartening. You admit the such action can only be taken with the approval of the state. I can think of nothing that is so totally opposite to the Founding Principles of Americanism than that.
Gee, I disagree with the government. Can I change things with my vote? No. Your vote doesn't count. A judge rules otherwise. We will prohibit initiatives. Can I have a gun to defend myself from the government. Hmmm, the government says no, "trust us."
Sorry, our sole and final protection is if the government becomes too powerful, maybe enough would rise up to say, "Time to change things and preserve liberty."
You would say, "No, we have to do whatever the government says." Unbelievable.
Glenn....please get out of Wiki, and read the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs DC, for a full, complete, and well written history of the 2nd Amendment. Your "cliffs notes" are both factually wrong and betray intellectual laziness.
I am trying not to be insulting, so please read this as friendly advice so you don't continue to articulate misinformation.
Kudos to Joe Hilliard and Chris Casey for commenting and signing their names to their posts. I believe that gun control means hitting your target. I also believe that there are limits to what should be available to the public as far as weapons are concerned. I think that there are very good reasons why I can’t go to my local gun dealer and purchase a RPG launcher or a tank. And I am glad that we can’t. This practical limit extends to automatic weapons, or weapons that can be modified to operate automatically. I don’t see this as a slippery slope; I believe it is a practical limit for public safety.
If you want to purchase a gun for honest reasons and you can legally purchase a gun why do you care if a background check is required? I think that anyone that wants to buy a gun should have a background check performed, wherever they decide to purchase a gun. Buy as many guns as you can afford and store securely. Be trained and competent in their use. If they become lost or stolen report it to the police ASAP.
Someone made the comment about driving being a privilege and not a right, therefore the requirement for some training. We all have the right to walk down the street and expect not to be shot accidentally by some who doesn’t know how to handle their new gun safely. Before I got my first hunting license, I had to take a mandatory hunter education class. Why not have mandatory gun safety classes for first time gun purchasers? Of course ex-military personnel would be excluded.
These are just my thoughts on a very hot topic, take them for what they’re worth.
To Chris...
"There are all kinds of tricks for converting various semi automatic weapons to full, that wouldn't stop anybody."
Yes, already illegal, with SEVERE penalties, under federal law.
"I know it makes people blink, but if we have driver training for teenagers, why not firearms safety training?"
Firearms are a CONSTITUTIONAL right, driving is a state controlled privledge.
Consider the prevalence of firearms throught American history, with virtually no associated violence until Prohibition. That violence subsided with the repeal of same.
Violence rose again in our permissive, liberal society, where often "parents" were acting as such in name only, assuming none of the traditional responsibility.
By the way, thanks for your service.
The Core problem Ron, is that it is unrealistic to try and legislate Responsible handling of firearms. People are going to do stupid, irresponsible things, and there is no law on this earth to stop that. All we can do is educate. I would rather have everyone exercising their constitutional right, than trying to survive (without the means to defend myself) the chaos of dealing with the criminals and malcontents who ignore the law anyway. The Government cannot protect me, I can only protect myself. I wish it was different, but it is not.
By the way, as for my tour of duty, you are welcome.
Here's my final comment EVER on a local blog again!!!!
Every time I express myself I find the political "right" in the LV... gangs up and has taken over all the local blogs and it usually results in an insult.. yes Ron that was insulting! The information (in Wiki) is right there in that link! Like I didn't comprehend that! That wasn't the major point I was making. Sorry if it didn't come from Heritage Foundation! Although I've used them in the past and was still called on it!!!!
Nothing changes anything by posting, other then expressing a view. Since in the Lehigh Valley the "right wingers" (you know who you are) have totally gobbled up all the blogs .. I will not waste my time EVER again on ANY OF THEM!
I spend hours each day before I post. The true intellectual lazy.. are the ones whom never bothered to view a video I've previously linked. I spent days putting together. And I incurred yet another took snipe (in another post) obviously never viewing it.. when in FACT it supported the view that blogger was saying. Even though, I may not share fully a conservative point of view, the video affirmed their statement. Yet the blog site was 180 degrees off my attempt at the Republican/Democrat commonality R. Reagan had in 1980. The one that cost the Republicans the ELECTION. My point was you can't win an election on only the things the 'right-wingers' want.
I am not a public figure so why do I need the insults from so-called conservatives. Answer is I don't. When I first started publicly posting ( a few weeks ago), I had no negativism towards conservative leaning bloggers. You rigid closed conservative guys have changed all that!
Any future comments I may have, will be made in private. Enjoy your blogs, I'm outa' here!!
Dear Glenn....I am sorry you were insulted. And please, don't go to heritage Foundation, either. That would be dishonest of me to send you there, as they are clearly and unashamedly conservative. All I asked you to do was read the history of the 2nd Amendment that was, in fact, very well researched, factually accurate, and from the final arbiter of the issue.
You may learn something.
Have a nice day!
Glenn....I made it easy....go to:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
start on page 5, through 35.... keep going if you'd like! It's brilliantly reserached!
This is a general message to all who have commented on "Praise the Law and Pass the Ammunition...
First, Thank You for taking your valuable time to post here. I know you do so because you are passionate about the future direction of this country, this commonwealth, our Valley.
The interpretations of the Second Amendment has been argued almost since it was written. From all your comments it would appear the recent Supreme Court case has not sdone much to calm the debate.
While we're talking about Constitutional rights, it's probably good to remember that we're exercising one of the most important ones on this blog: The fact that we can argue about, criticize and analyze our government is right we should never abuse or take for granted.
In the course of exercising that right, the discourse can become heated and conversation a bit rough and tumble, especially when we're talking about something as controversial as the legal intricacies of gun training, licensing and ownership.
I hope the passion with which some are arguing their position will
not drive others away. Everyone's opinion is valuable and everyone's voice should be heard.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts...
Pam
I'm not sure about the comment that people at gun shows who buy weapons don't undergo a background check. Within the past year I spent 2 days working at a gun show (my job is not related to guns) and saw first-hand the background checks being performed, and saw gun dealers turn away prospective buyers who failed the check, and at one point saw dealers halt sales when the state computer system "went down" for a while.
Pam...you are to lauded for trying to restore harmonyy..:) but as recent studies have shown, liberals have a much lower level sense of humor. I just saw an article, reporting on an academic study of humor, that clearly demonstrated there is indeed a basis for the phrase, "angry left."
Anon 3:02 (11/12) wrote:
"Quote:
4) Mandatory firearms training will be used as nothing more than a way to build and maintain a list of gun owners. This list will later be used to confiscate guns from law-abiding gun owners (as has happened in other countries).
Doesn't the govt already have lists like this of registered gun owners? They don't ask your name and do a background check for nothing. "
No, the government does not have lists like this. The information submitted for the criminal background check required at purchase is REQUIRED to be destroyed by the government. The reason is precisely that such a list could be used for mass confiscation of firearms.
The gun shops do maintain purchase records of any items sold however. To access those records, the government must go through proper procedures - i.e. obtaining a warrant for a specific reason.
Glenn -
I see nothing "insulting" about the responses to your posts. There are just opposing viewpoints with facts to back up those viewpoints and refute yours. This is called political discourse.
As to the "right wingers" totally gobbling up all the blogs, I think you are mistaken. I see just as many postings from "liberals" (or progressives) in the blogs I read.
I'm sure if you tried you could quickly find a liberal blog that offers little in the way of opposing viewpoints. If that's what you're looking for, please say so and I can steer you in that direction.
My Post Mortem Analysis:
(it's wordy cause it has to be)
*** Anonymous said... -Glenn - I see nothing "insulting" about the responses to your posts.
NO?
*** Joe Hilliard said...Glenn- Your view is sad and disheartening, You would say, "No, we have to do whatever the government says." Unbelievable
RESPONSE:
Joe- What I stated was exactly the opposite. I gave my opinion, in opposition to our own government's Supreme court ruling. This was based on how the "right to own arms" evolved from England. I had attempted to formulate my opinion of what the fore father's had in mind, since theirs was influenced by King Henry II onward to America's colonization. It was my view based on historical research of the source of this. In that alone I have questioned the highest court. This makes me "unbelievable"? To assume that my character accepts government, media, or other bloggers' will never happen.
*** Ron In Allentown said...
Glenn....please get out of Wiki, and read the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs DC, for a full, complete, and well written history of the 2nd Amendment. Your "cliffs notes" are both factually wrong and betray intellectual laziness.
RESPONSE:
By stating "cliff notes" you infer a copy paste. Absolutely not! What you refer to as "cliff notes" I would state is 'Referenced Material'. The moment I supply a link it is poo'd poo'd no matter what the source may be. The Wiki source was 100% on the " Columbia v. Heller" material.
We are assuming a certain amount of intellectial knowledge. I am fully aware of exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled. I simply disagreed (in opinon) as it being the correct decision based on the heritage of this right (in England) and how it was reflected on what I might have thought were in the early American founder's thoughts. In no way have I implied incorrect facts regarding the law of the land.
So stating that am intellectialy lazy is insulting as well as overly agressive.
*** Ron In Allentown said...
Pam- you are to lauded for trying to restore harmonyy..:) but as recent studies have shown, liberals have a much lower level sense of humor. I just saw an article, reporting on an academic study of humor, that clearly demonstrated there is indeed a basis for the phrase, "angry left."
RESPONSE:
Interesting. Despite Pam's call to tone it down a notch, your further implied "angry left" and lack of "humor". Can you possibly see why? You go on to stereotype a certain segment of Americans which serves only to further alienate. This is constructive how? So indeed it re-affirms in my prior post that 'conservatives' do indeed control the ponderous (loudest) part of these blogs.
SUMMARY:
While I might have succumbed to posting one more time, I felt it necessary to clarify myself further. Note on my post (1) I mentioned no one by name. (2) I addressed the issue in the post without defining another individual as this or that. (3) Attempted to refrain from rebuttal. However...
A bit of history: A few weeks ago I posted to Allentown Commentator. On it were such posts as a former Allentown cop talking about jamming a night stick up Ted's (last name protected) butt on Hamilton Street. Posted, was a call to execute (kill) guys like Ted. When I posted a bit of inside sad information I got blasted to kingdom come and accused of many things. I unsubscribed. Basically I stated the facts Ted died years ago lonely and friendless. His wife divorced him. His daughter had no problem taking his car, money and gifts, but abandoned him completely. He remained ever the kind gentle soul he was inside.
The facts in the case was.. Ted while guilty of sexual acts via the underage involved agreed to plead guilty to protect the 16 year old who was still in school from horrible harassments if it should come out this kid was gay. The boy's mother and he wanted to testify on his behalf. The act itself was truly consensual Ted REFUSED 100%! He wouldn't allow them near the courtroom. He was molested in jail and outside by narrow minded people without forgiveness. Put in isolation for a year (for his safety), he never could find a decent job nor friend thereafter. He was the gentlest, kindest, most helpful of people I've ever known. His free labor with seniors will not be forgotten. What was posted was very hateful, very wrong and unrelentingly unforgiving about this gentle soul.
Joe when I posted to your group (thereafter) on another matter, I got much the same kind of aggression. So I posted here to avoid these same peoples who apparently visit here also. Hence the reason I will no longer blog!
This is a culmination after repeated attempts to unite, be reasonable and respectful in my posts. These blogs are just a little too aggressive/ego competitive for my liking.
Capiche?
Dearest Glenn....
No college nor university in the land accepts Wiki as a soutrce. Having been at the academic game most of my (long) life, I can assure you of that. There is a good reason it is not allowed in any respected research. I reiterate....get out of Wiki as a "source." It is not.
Again, you are invited to actually read 5-35 of the majority opinion, which debunks much of the strained logic of the minority, and is well researched. You will, in a fair reading, have to relectantly conclude the individual nature of the right.
I stand by the "angry left" joke....your reaction confirms it.
I have no comment about your apparent lingering resentment at the "treatment" you allege you rec'vd in another site, but a quick reading leaves the impression you took things too seriously there, too. :)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals....
"The majority falls prey to the delusion--popular in some circles--that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went". ) A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Lib'ral's have no sense of humor?!
Well, now you've scotched it. I've got to cancel my plans to see "W".
Post a Comment