I have just read all 261 posts in this thread and I am deeply saddened. I own about 20 firearms, including two AR-15s and 4 AK-47s. I have over 20,000 rounds of ammo in my basement. Call me a gun nut if you want...I really don't care. I am saddened when members of this forum for whom I have great respect simply can't understand why I or anyone else would want "assault weapons." The nanny-state rants of Craik I expect, but when the majority of people for whom I have genuine respect question a right that I hold dear I begin to wonder if I am simply too old and too set in my ways...an anachronism if you will, much like some claim our second amendment is. Please allow me to try to make a few points to explain my position.
First, the Newtown shooting was a horrible tragedy. Last Friday, shortly after I started hearing news of what happened, I gave my 15-year-old son a big hug when he came home from school and asked him if he had heard about what happened. He didn't. We talked about what his school policy is regarding a "yellow alert" and we discussed in very frank terms what he should do if something like this were to happen at his school. We agreed that the best thing he could do is get the hell out, and the the worst thing he could do is huddle in a corner hoping for the best. He said that he felt terrible about what happened, but he also said that the chances of that happening at his school are statistically insignificant. And he's right. At the risk of sounding callous, mass shootings are an extremely rare event, but the media has had a feeding frenzy with this one and played our emotions like a Stradivarius. And most in this thread seems to have bought right into the emotions and abandoned rational thought and discourse. I am sickened by the fact that both sides of the gun control debate have played upon emotions...with new calls for gun control, which will only bee heeded by law-abiding citizens (AKA future victims) on one side and calls to invoke a police state in our schools advocated by the NRA. They are both full of shit.
Second, the Djin is out of the bottle. There are over 200 million firearms in the US, and many of them are variants of the AR-15 or AK-47..."assault weapons" if you prefer to use that term. I prefer to call them what they are: rifles. Like it or not, guns are a legacy of American culture, and they're not going to disappear. Even if an Aussie-type confiscation could be implemented without fomenting outright revolution, the law abiding citizenry would be immediately disarmed while it would take several decades or even generations before criminals would start to find it difficult to get access to these firearms. As such, those of you who advocate bans on certain types of weapons are telling me that I am to be disarmed while those who would do me or my family harm would still have access to a thriving black market. I do not like the idea of the criminal element being the "haves" while my law-abiding brethren are the "have nots." I have the right to defend myself, and I will not forfeit that right.
Third, is that pesky second amendment. I wish the "gun control" people would simply be honest enough to try to repeal the second amendment. Someone in this thread, I forgot who, said this should happen. Although I disagree with you, I applaud your honesty. Meanwhile, some of you think that "shall not be infinged" can be interpreted to allow for imposition of liability insurance on gun ownership, restrictive bans on certain firearms based on their appearance, or outright confiscation. How would you feel if similar restrictions were imposed on the free-speech and freedom-of-religion rights protected by the first amendment? If this is what you want, then marshal the political will to repeal the second amendment. I'm tired of this death-by-a-thousand cuts bullshit.
As for the revisionist interpretations of the second amendment, I suggest some reading of the federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers and their peers to understand the historical context from which the 2A sprung. That could be an entire lengthy thread all by itself, but suffice it to say that a bloody war was fought by armed citizens who comprised only about 3% of the population of the American colonies at the time. The Kentucky rifle was a state-of-the-art firearm with it's rifled barrel, and compared to the smooth-bore muskets it was the "assault weapon" of its day, as armed militia members were able to put a .50-caliber ball through the chest of a redcoat at 300 yards. Ordinary citizens owned these firearms, which were on par with the best military-issued firearms; privateers owned canons and ships of war, and
these were the exact type of weapons that were contemplated in the second amendment. And the term "well regulated" meant well-trained and capable, not "required to store their firearms at an armory." Seriously, if you don't understand the context under which the Bill of Rights was drafted, you should refrain from hitting the "Post Reply" button.
Then we have this:
Dipshit said:
The NRA will never do anything to stop the murder, in fact the slaughter of cilderen is like Chritmas to them!
Craik, you are a reprehensible piece of shit. I detest the NRA's press release and proposal to militarize our schools, but to say something like this, even you have jumped the shark. Do you think it is at all possible that some wry smiles were exchanged last Friday between gun-control statists inside the beltway upon hearing of this tragedy? It's pretty obvious that the Obama administration and the Brady Campaign have opted not to let this crisis go to waste. Once again, the media is complicit in their treachery.
Lest I be accused of having a Laissez-faire attitude toward appropriate restrictions and safeguards associated with proper firearm ownership, I do think there are some things we can do to try to minimize the possibility of future Newtown events. As someone earlier said, maybe the media can stop hyping this crap and giving unstable individuals reason to think that they can go out in a blaze of homicidal glory. This would have to be voluntary, because of that pesky first amendment. Fat chance. Maybe in addition to a "gun control" discussion we should have a "lunatic control" discussion. But that might mean that a few of the precious snowflakes who are schizophrenic sociopaths might have their rights or privacy trampled upon. Better to have the enumerated rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners trampled upon, right?. And while many gun owners might cringe at this idea, I think it might make sense to require all gun owners to properly secure their firearms. This might have prevented the Newtown shooting, as well as the ones in Colorado, where the shooters or their accomplices stole the guns. Proper storage in a good safe could deter a lot of this. I use a biometric-activated safe to keep a handgun at ready access in my bedroom - I can access my gun in just a couple of seconds. Fortunately, I have never needed it and probably never will. This probably freaks out those of you who live outside the US. It's a cultural thing.
One thing nobody seems to be talking about is why these things seem to happen with greater frequency nowadays. Firearms have been readily available in this country since it was first colonized, yet only in the last generation have we had to deal with these horrible shootings on a somewhat regular basis. What's wrong? What's different now? Video games? Lack of personal responsibility? Anti-psychotic meds? Clearly, there is a sickness growing in our society, but it's just easier to take a simple-minded approach and blame the guns. Heaven forbid we as a society engage in some introspection.
Lastly, let me make a standing offer to forum members who live outside the US: if you plan to be in New England send me a PM and I will take you to the shooting range. You will probably enjoy yourself and you may gain a different perspective.