News-Record.com

The phrase "get a life" always comes to mind when gun nuts write in. There seems to be a paranoia that dominates their lives and paranoids obsessed with guns isn't an appealing thought.

(Charles get to the basement. The black helicopters are circling your house again!)

I find the contradiction in the letter interesting. First he makes a case for a semi-automatic weapon, then states there is no need for one. It seems to me, logically speaking, if one can kill with an ordinary firearm, why would one even consider something like an AK-47 unless they are planning a revolution?

Charles--I grew up on a farm and most of our neighbors had guns for hunting and sport shooting. So, I have an appreciation for the role that guns have played historically in rural America. I also have a gut level understanding of the right of self-defense.

However, I do admit to a certain ignorance on some gun issues. Perhaps you can educate me.

Obama has stated publically and repeatedly that he does not want to take away anyone's rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Why can't you take what he says at face value, unless and until he does something to show he was lying when he said that?

Semi-automatice assault rifles. First, why would anyone need or want one? Second, I have heard that anyone with a little bit of mechanical ability can easily convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic by removing a part or two. Is this true?

30 round magazines. Again, why would anyone want or need to be able to shoot that many rounds quickly, whether it takes 5 seconds or a minute and a half? As to criminals shooting six shots or thirty, it may not matter to the intended victim. What about innocent bystanders? It seems like the more shots fired, the greater the chance of getting hit just because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Armor piercing rounds. Okay, average shooters don't use them. So, why do they need to be legal? Seems like, by definition, they would only be used by someone with bad intentions.

You compare selling a gun to selling a car. Good analogy. If I sell my truck to a friend, I have to notify the state of that sale and a tax is paid on the transaction. Why should not the same be true of guns?

Speaking of cars, if I want to drive a car or truck, I have to take a exam and get a license. If I want to drive a big rig, I have to take a harder exam and get a different license. Why should the same not be true of guns? Please don't tell me I can own a car without having a license. That is true as long as I never take it off my property. But the state still knows I own that car because of the sales paperwork.

Finally, why are you and others like you (and I am NOT including ALL gun owners in this statement) so oblivious to the destructive effects semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons and high powered ammo are having in many of our urban areas? Why do our police find themselves in situations where they are outgunned?

We all have to live together in this society. That means sometimes we have to make compromises that don't fully satisfy everyone. Granted, there are some who would like to take away your right to own any guns. They are wrong.

The Second Amendment says the right to gun ownership shall not be infringed. The definition of infringed is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." It comes from the Latin "infringere" meaning to break or crush.

If someone tries to break or crush your right to own guns, I will stand in defense of your rights. However, society also has a right to insure law and order. That requires reasonable regulation of firearms. We can argue about what constitutes reasonable regulation. But if you intend to deny the right of society to regulate at all, you are selfishly infringing the rights of others to walk the streets safely without getting shot.

Picking up on the second amendment issues (loosely) forgetting the stuff about the definitions of "well regulated" and "militia" the amendment never specifies guns but only arms. Does that mean as citizens that we have the rights to cruise missiles, nuclear munitions, dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, and other military and extra-military arms? If the government has the right to regulate these arms then they have the right to regulate all arms including guns. If they don't have the right to regulate guns then they don't have the right to regulate any arm.

I don't see anyone including Obama that have any anti-gun agenda. I haven't seen any legislation in my lifetime (which isn't too short) that should upset any person with a reasonable use for a gun.

Perhaps these folks should let someone actually propose something instead of shooting first before they have something to aim at.

The writer is pointing out the contradiction in terms that some gun control legislation uses. He expresses his concern that gun control proponents are ignorant to these matters based on the contradictions. He may be right about that. His fear, like other gun rights advocates, is that with more gun laws passed only the law abiding will adhere, while the criminals (like always) ignore the laws. That means as more restrictive gun laws are passed, the bigger the advantage goes to the criminals who will use them anyway against law abiding citizens who will not based on the law. This is not paranoia, this is fairly basic logic.

It is quite clear based on crime stats that law abiding citizens who obtain concealed carry permits are not a danger to society. They are responsible and knowledgeable gun owners and users. They also generally have a fear of increasing crime and feel a responsibility toward their family to protect them, in the home or on the street. If those same people desire to own a semi or fully automatic weapon in accordance with the law and with the intention to protect themselves, why chastise them for being concerned with further gun control? These are the people that you should want next to you if a mall shooting broke out, or if you were in line when the convenience store got robbed. They wouldn't be allowed to protect you with a semi or fully automatic assault rifle in a public area, but why not allow them to protect their home in that manner?

The sad truth is that police cannot be everywhere when these events occur. That is the practical nature of gun rights advocates' belief that the gov't cannot protect them. It is better to be safe and responsible against crime than to be helpless and sorry (or dead) later. Gun rights advocates are not the people we need to be worried about. What some see as paranoia is another person's conviction to not be a victim. Ask yourself this question...who will a couple of thugs try to rob, the scared sheep with no protection, or the vigilant shepherd carrying a gun? If only more (responsible!) people chose to protect themselves, we might not have such a crime problem on our hands. I wonder how many people that argue against the writer have ever been a victim of a burglary, robbery, or serious assault.

In addition...

The only gun regulations that make sense are the overall reduction in production, not the individual's right to own. This country is already inundated with firearms, so availability is high for both law abider and criminal. If we can limit production, slowly but surely the criminal will be frustrated while the law abider is kept on an even playing field. By targeting individual ownership rights, we transfer availability from the law abider to the criminal no matter how limited the production becomes.

Gun crime in the US is a century long issue that has no quick fix. Production has to be slowed and the criminals have to eventually lose their weapons to confiscation and destruction as they go to jail. Responsible gun owners should not be put to a disadvantage in the meantime.

When it comes to getting a life about the second amendment and it's supporters, I have a question to ask you. Why are these supporters any different from the "nuts" in California that are angry over the legally voted in ban on gay marriage? Their so called marriages are not a constitutionally protected right and certainly not moral. As to the loose definition of arms in the second amendment, have you ever sit and thought about what it says? It says " the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". So you are saying that the second doesn't protect the persons right to have a gun right? Then the preamble when it says " We the people of the United States" and the first where it says " the right of the people" and then again in the ninth and tenth where yet again it says "the people" is not us but the state?
The flap over semi autos as the person who wrote article said have only a certain rate of fire per minute. Gun control fanatics make it seem like everyone who owns a Remington 740 woods master can make that gun fire hundreds of rounds a minute. The truth is that fully auto firearms as he said have been illegal to own for years unless you have a license to do so. A ban on this type of firearm could then be expanded to cover even the most common firearm. Such as the semi auto 22 caliber rifle which OH NO ! it holds 18 shots. The above mentioned woods master OH heaven forbid it holds more than one round ! Same goes for the semi auto shotguns, so where does this type of ban stop?
As for banning guns and dropping our crime rate one only needs to look to Great Britain and Australia.Just take a look at this article
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
or look athis article by a writer for the London Telegraph
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm
But before anyone says those are old articles here is a newer one from this year
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/04/britain-knifings-and-shootings-up-as.html
No guns in hands of law abiding citizens would make it a field day for criminals. Police officers cannot and will not be able to respond to every call they receive as is the case in GB.