“The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty” – St. George Tucker 1803
“The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion (D.C. v. Heller) about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of Guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.” – ACLU
As U.S. citizens we have a social contract with the government to give up some freedoms for civility. But nowhere in that contract is there a clause to forfeit our rights to self defense. Do not be misconstrued I am not anti government nor anti American. I am 100 percent for constitutional rights, freedom and our country. Furthermore I value most, the protection and survival of my family and myself.
This is a very delicate situation, lots of pointed fingers, and there are a lot of scared people out there buying up guns and ammo like it’s going out of style…and I’m not talking about the Magazine. And there are some who are equally terrified about the amount of guns criminals currently have/have access to. As do most of us. But the focus it seems is to eliminate all guns, which would put law abiding citizens at the mercy of ARMED criminals who will inevitably attain these guns anyway. I am glad to hear, that in a recent CNN poll the number in favor of Stricter Gun Laws dropped significantly since 2001. In 2001 54%% favored stricter gun laws, in this recent poll 39%% of Americans support stricter gun laws, 46%% say they want no change, and 15%% want less restriction.
“Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists (as well as law-abiding Americans) to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition further, exacerbating right wing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpile activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move.” - DHS
According to a report issued by DHS, Veterans and right wingers are targeted as possible recruits for “Hate groups” and “Extremist groups”. The reason being, that they have combat skills and training necessary to bolster whatever violent extremist group they may join. What I’ve gathered is that the government is taking the stand that whoever disagrees poses a physical threat. The men and women protecting our country could be possible terrorists because they are mostly soldiers with right wing ideology, and who believe in our founding fathers vision of the U.S.A. The new administration on the other hand believes in change. I agree some changes need to be made, but not to the bill of rights.
“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.” – Second Amendment
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of Assault Weapons," - Attorney General Eric Holder
Back in 1994 President Bill Clinton stated:
“I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.” – Bill Clinton
Then came the Clinton Ban on assault weapons. This ban on 19 types of assault rifles had a clause to be expired, unless specifically reauthorized by congress. Congress did no such thing. It was allowed to expire due to the fact that congressional mandated studies and studies by state and local law enforcement showed that little crime was committed using guns affected by the ban, neither before nor after.
In 2007 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) Introduced H.R. 1022. The purpose was to reinstate the 1994 Clinton ban on assault weapons but with even more sweeping bans than the former. Needless to say this was voted down 8-90. But now the new administration is tying the expiration of the Clinton ban, to an “increase” in crime and drug cartel violence in Mexico. Mexican president Felipe Calderon cited an often stated, yet wrong, claim that 90% of weapons in Mexico come from the U.S. Only 17% of these guns seized at crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. That’s a whopping 7 % more than the 10 % of intercepted guns that didn’t come from the U.S. That’s a big difference.
We can look forward to more bills being introduced, and more stringent state laws, depending on which state. Anti-gunners have adopted McCarthy’s H.R. 1022, as a framework for new federal bans. If this happens they will have successfully disarmed everyone, and maybe eventually the criminals who get these weapons won’t have access anymore. But only a small number of crimes have been committed with these blacklisted guns anyway. The most used firearm relating to violence is a .22 caliber. So what’s the point?
Framework for nationwide gun bans (Taken from H.R. 1022 which was introduced in 2007):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,FN/LAR,
or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with Detachable Magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter,
or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11,
or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion,
or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper.
Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a Pistol Grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, seebelow),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.Any semiautomatic rifle with a Fixed Magazine that can accept more than10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacityof more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
-Bryan H.
