Gun control doesn’t entail prohibition 
November 13, 2008 by Cam-tu Dang
The right to bear arms should be protected, but regulated
According to an article on CNN.com, gun sales have risen dramatically since Obama was elected president. The article stated that the FBI has received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers, which is a 49 percent increase over last year.
Within the increase in gun sales, more specific trends have materialized. More specifically, certain models are being sold out, such as the AR-15 rifle, which is a civilian model of the M16 used in the military. The article states these assault weapons are being bought rapidly because some fear Obama will place new restrictions on them, or even take them off the market. One interviewee was quoted as stating, “It’s a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business. They don’t want the average American to have a right to defend themselves.” As a Democrat and as a gun owner, I believe this statement and these fears are completely unfounded.
While I support the Second Amendment and believe people do have the right to bear arms, it is not without the equal support of “gun control.” The dichotomy of Republican pro-gun versus Democrat anti-gun is restrictive and needs to be evaluated further. It cannot remain an all-or-nothing issue, as it seems to be now.
The article states Obama supports reenacting the ban on “several types of military-style semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines” that the Clinton administration initially signed into law, and supports requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows.
I would have to agree. I support civilians having the right to possess handguns, whether it is for safety reasons or recreational reasons. However, I am still unsure why private citizens need access to an AR-15 or AK-47 to protect themselves or their homes.
I do have friends who own AK-47s and Dragunov sniper rifles, and have had the experience of shooting these guns. Yes, it is quite the experience, but again, I am not quite sold on why these assault weapons are needed in the home to fully express the right to gun ownership.
These are military weapons, and people in the military are trained to operate them. Private citizens are not. Until I hear convincing evidence otherwise, I support restrictions on these types of assault weapons.
Lastly, I must agree with Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, when he stated in the article that the uproar about banning guns is a “sales pitch.”
The fears about gun bans or new restrictions on guns are completely unsupported and speculative. With everything going on in the world at the moment, from the economy to the energy crisis, I think the president-elect has many more important issues to be focusing on.
FYI,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
It is already in the house, oh intelligent author. So when you say you think these fears are unwarranted, you are dead wrong.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…” ~ Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason
So your argument against so-called assault weapons boils down to the fact that you believe they are not “needed”? How is that even close to sufficient justification for a ban? In a free society the burden of proof is on the parking to seeking to restrict liberty, not on the party seeking to exercise it. Simply saying that something is not needed and therefor should be illegal doesn’t cut it.
Oops I meant to say “party” seeking to restrict liberty not “parking”.
from the article:
“I am still unsure why private citizens need access to an AR-15 or AK-47 to protect themselves or their homes.”
Scince when did ownership need to be justified by show of necessity?
“However, I am still unsure why private citizens need access to an AR-15 or AK-47 to protect themselves or their homes.”
“I am not quite sold on why these assault weapons are needed in the home to fully express the right to gun ownership.”
I am unsure why anyone would need a car capable of 200 mph. Why are “death machines” such as the corvette, mustang, viper, etc… still available for sale to the general public? They are not trained race car drivers. they are not being used as part of their job. It is essentially the same arguement isn’t it?
Gun control isn’t about guns, it is about CONTROL.
“The right to bear arms should be protected, but regulated”
It already is regulated. No one is looking to further regulate freedom of speech, or freedom of religion.
There are places on Planet Earth where people are allowed to have only those things that a government bureaucrat feels they need. They are not that hard to find. But I seriously doubt you would enjoy living there. To start with, you would never have been able to post this article, or would we be able to respond without proving a need to do so and having it all screened by some functionary.
There is a reason why the British subjects living in and around Lexington and Concord in the Kings Colony of Massachusetts took up arms against the forces of their own government on April 19th, 1775. The Regulars were sent out against their own people to confiscate guns that the Royal Governor felt they did not need.
I’m sure you have heard it said that those who do not learn from their history are condemned to repeat it. Our colonial ancestors endured eight years of bloody civil war between 1775 and 1883. Are you ready to go there again?
Hey, you “dang” dumbass,
If you read a little history, you will find that the primary reason we have the 2nd amendment is not to protect our homes or to hunt, but to protect ourselves from an overreaching government.
Protecting our homes and hunting are a nice side-benefit, but not the primary purpose. Read the history of this nation’s founding!
>> “I am still unsure why private citizens need access to an AR-15 or AK-47″ <> “These are military weapons” <> “The fears about gun bans or new restrictions on guns are completely unsupported and speculative. ” <<
Wrong again.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
To the person who wrote this “Gun control doesn’t entail prohibition” YOUR WRONG, I live in Canada and we have already gone through this. Let me be short and sweet the government won’t stop at “assault rifles”, once they win this battle they will move on just like they did in Canada. First it’s “assault rifles”, then its handguns with large mags and so on and so forth, just look at Canada.
At this time we can’t even defend our own homes using a firearm with out the fear of prosecution, If we go to court we mite win, but one thing is for sure, if we use a gun for self defense we are going to jail and they have to prove we are innocent.
The governments are like children give them an inch and they will take a mile. So to the person who wrote “Gun control doesn’t entail prohibition” remember this your 30-06 semi-auto hunting rifle is more powerful than my .223 AR-15, trust me stand up for your rights or you will lose them.
Such a fount of wisdom…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKTw-UHalZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNEzN0_toc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OyjeYBu8Uw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v06jCqcUhj0
Seems to me that there is a legitimate reason to keep and bear assault weapons as well as handguns
“I believe this statement and these fears are completely unfounded.”
Great Britain first started registering and banning “only certain types of weapons” now it’s practically impossible to own one.
Australia started “just the bad ones”, then they confiscated and destroyed 99% of them.
Canada — well, read above.
Unfounded, my fuzzy butt.
Apparently the author does not realize what a military weapon actually is. A pistol grip, folding stock, or multiround clip does not make a weapon such as an AR-15 any more dangerous. In fact, they are often smaller caliber than hunting firearms. For example, a AR-15 .223 is considered undersize for hunting large game. The 10 year ban only proved itself innefective.
Dear Cam-Tu… I’m sorry about how some of these commenters are treating you. It’s a shame that some people just aren’t capable of being civil human beings. I wish I could tell you the response you’re getting is an aberration, but it’s how some of the folks who argue against any rational limitation on firearms treat those who disagree with them. While many gun rights advocates are fine and decent and respectable Americans, some of them are just plain boorish bullies and louts. Don’t let them get to you.
You all want to know why we should limit access to AKs? Ask the widows of the police officers who have been killed with them.
Peter Hamm
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The idea of “common sense” regulation is in an of itself insane. Common Sense regulations are already in place. Age limits, limits to the types of weapons you can buy, limits to who can buy ammo, and in some states (like mine) the requirement for a separate ID just to buy or look at a weapon.
Common sense is out the window when a politician that has no clue about guns, decides that the words “semi-automatic” is just too close to “automatic” and therefore aemi-auto’s should be banned.
Or deciding that the number of rounds in a magazine (10 vs11) makes the weapon bad, or the idea that a barrel shroud, or a pistol grip, changes the functionality of the weapon at all.
The problem is not-common sense regulation. We have that. We have 20,000+ gun laws in the US. The problem is what Pols that dont know guns call common sense in order to make their regulations sound “ok”.
In Response to Peter Hamm from the Brady Campaign
Sorry Peter, that dog doesnt hunt.
AK-47’s? REAL ak-47s are already Banned. Thats right and have been since the 30’s. Now Semi-Automatic, (one bullet per pull of the trigget) are not banned. But neither are other hunting rifles that fire LARGER rounds than the AK or AR.
Next.
Being the kid of a cop, and the brother of a cop, lets talk FBI stats. Deaths for officers from “assualt rifles” are almost non-existent. Most cops are killed by hand guns or traffic (hit by another car). Like most that dont understand guns, you play on fear while maintaining a blissful ignorance of the target of your efforts.
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.
——————————————————————————–
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach
these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD:
We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery,
and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?
GENERAL REINWALD:
I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised
on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD:
I don’t see how. We will be teaching them proper
rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you’re equipped to be a
prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
All over America, people were thinking:
“Semper Fi, Marine!”
Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship
The semi-automatic civilian AR-15 and the available semi-automatic AK-147 are not military weapons and are not used by any military in the word today. Every military today equips their soldiers with fully automatic (machine gun) weapons. The M-16 and the M-4 currently issued to troops in the US armed forces are such weapons. The AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in .223 caliber that I use to hunt coyotes is NOT a military weapon. the AR-15 in 9mm (pistol caliber) that I keep at home for self defense is NOT a military weapon. These firearms are built and meant for legal civilian uses, be that home defense, hunting, marksmanship competition, or whatever. Semi-automatic rifle technology is nearly 100 years old now. Get over it, we’re not talking about state of the art modern military weapons here. If the discussion were about any thing other than guns you would be calling these thing antiques or antique reproductions.
One other point, “need” is not a relevant question where rights are concerned. You probably don’t “need” protection from a police search without a warrant becaue you are a law abiding citizen, but you have that protection anyway, whether you need it or not.
“I do have friends who own AK-47s and Dragunov sniper rifles, and have had the experience of shooting these guns. Yes, it is quite the experience, but again, I am not quite sold on why these assault weapons are needed in the home to fully express the right to gun ownership.
These are military weapons, and people in the military are trained to operate them. Private citizens are not. Until I hear convincing evidence otherwise, I support restrictions on these types of assault weapons.”
I’ll be generous and say that you’re badly misinformed. Yes, the military is trained on full auto M-16s. And civilians are trained for semi-auto AR-15s.
Perhaps you don’t know many gun owners, but the ones I know take their responsibility very seriously. Here in Colorado Springs it isn’t uncommon to meet shooters who train more than the police. I know that seems hard to believe, but many Law Enforcement Officers only need to qualify on the range a couple of times a year.
I do apologize everyone on the behalf of all intelligent human beings in regards to what Cam-tu Dang and Peter Hamm wrote. They do not represent the majority of the people of the United States who KNOW self defense is up to an individual. I keep weapons for self defense, and yes there is reason to have an assault rifle for self defense.
Also, to clarify what an assault weapons in accordance to what politicians want you to believe, here is the text of the bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
They believe the following makes an assault weapon,
‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;
Note, 2 of the following, and this is just for a rifle. even if you don’t have a knife mounted to the bayonet mount it still counts. A folding or telescoping stock is a very important feature of any rifle, and so is a pistol grip. Each person has his own preference.
Also, look at statistics on gun sales. It is clear, the People do not want an Assault Weapons Ban. The majority have spoken, and I’ll gladly support anyone who wants to file suit to the Supreme Court to help out RIGHTS from being degraded.
I should also add, all of the rifles which have features of the above are semiautomatic, not automatic. They aren’t even capable of full automatic without the conversion kit to turn the weapon in to the intended mode for which the firearm was created.
Personally, I’m going to help my fellow country, by buying 20 rifles with the features above, and *maybe* some knives which may be mounted to the bayonet mount.
Just to be clear, I am for right, but even more I’m for self defense. It is a person’s RIGHT to kill if his life is in danger and there is absolutely no way to get out of a situation without the use of a deadly weapon.
I open carry my firearm everywhere I go, even in to largely populated areas. You don’t see people screaming and yelling. The people who complain, I say lets create a bill to send all agorophobes/hoplophobics to Australia or the UK. Yes, the places where they do have a ban on firearms unless its for hunting or shooting vermin. Australia, where they also ban the carry of knives and other self defense items like pepper spray, yes Australia, where their crime rates have no fallen at all and there are STILL crimes by firearm. I should note in AU, criminals ILLEGALLY import firearms, which is what will and DOES happen in the US as well.
Crime is based on a trend, not availability of weapons or anything else. While crime may be based on opportunity, we’ll see more crime if the market continues to take a dive. These are the type of trends which are a causation of crime, even with firearms. So no, banning firearms will not help crime, not at all.
So what I’m trying to say is please perform proper research and stop with the tunnel vision. Hurting law abiding citizen’s rights will not stop the use of “scary weapons”.
Look at Japan, a person with a knife killed many people in less time it took a mall shooter to kill the same amount of people. There are so many other types of weapons out there which can be made. You want to kill many people quickly? Use a pipe bomb which can disperse as much flak in to people as possible.
It is not about need. Just as you don’t need more than two shirts, a family, or a religion to survive, I do not need firearms to survive. Owning firearms, and especially defensive firearms, is about having defensive capability. It’s about masculinity, personal responsibility, survival, family, and freedom.
Ladies and gentelmen, do not buy in to this assault weapon ban agenda. These are not assault weapons and are not used anywhere in the world as such. This was a scam to scare less knowlegable citizens of banning semi-auto firearms based on their looks. They by their nature are much less powerfull than deer rifles and do not shoot any faster than 1 bullet for each pull of the trigger. They can be considered sport utility rifles and are used for self defense, hunting, competitions as in the national rifle matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. They are used in less than 1% of crimes, and are expensive to buy and cannpt easily be hidden. Thus used very little by criminal. This is just another left wingnut agenda of lies and deceit to pull a smake screen on less than knowlegeable citizens on guns.
Assault weapos are full auto and not what the Brady bunch and left wing politicians are talking about here.
Dear poor deluded Cam-Tu,
Advocating the seizure of other people’s property is a good way to become very unpopular almost instantaneously. This is especially true when that property is viewed as their means of maintaining their liberty and safety from both common criminals and predatory governments. You might consider this question:
What do you suppose the people who are voting with their wallets by purchasing semi-automatic rifles of military utility intend to do with those rifles if you get your way? Do you suppose they’ll turn them in without a fuss? Or will they turn them on the people who try to seize them?
Your proposal will lead to civil war. That’s a strange way to ensure “public safety”, isn’t it?
Someone once asked me, “What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer.” I answered, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”
I guess that about sums it up. Have a nice day. And you might want to make the subject of your next essay the Law of Unintended Consequences. Study that and you might actually learn something without angering a whole lot of people who are already armed to the teeth.
Mike Vanderboegh
Pinson, AL
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
PS: Comrade Hamm from the Brady Campaign is a collectivist putz. He will get you into trouble.
Semi-automatic rifles are not military grade rifles. The military uses fully-automatic select fire rifles. These two types of rifles are very different in how they operate, but can have similar appearances. Calling a semi-auto rifle an “assault weapon” is like saying the cars we drive are for NASCAR racing.
The 2nd amendment states that the people have a right to bear “ARMS”, not just handguns or hunting type riffles. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v Miller that we the people are to be armed with military grade arms. See quote below:
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. ”
Gun control does lead to prohibition because gun control does not reduce crime. Therefore, gun control supporters keep coming back for more and more until there is nothing left of the right to keep and bear arms.
Let’s put as many restrictions on abortion and the 1st amendment as we do firearms ownership if all rights can be regulated.
Well, the “AK-47″ and “Dragunov” rifles you saw have the same rate of fire (one shot per trigger pull), using the same exact ammo, as other non-banned semi-auto rifles, so what exactly is the problem here?
What a complete lie!
Barak Obama had it clearly on his change.gov website before he removed it. They want to reinstate the assault weapons ban, “close the gun show loophole” (i.e. ban private sales) and mandate “smart handguns” (i.e. ban all existing handguns and make them very expensive.)
Wow … the entire premise of this piece, including the title, is obliviated by the very first commentator.
Kirks’ bill is a gun control bill. It seeks to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms.
And Cam-tu Dang has the gall to claim that prohibition does not entail prohibition. Unbelievable.
If there were no need for these guns off the battlefield, then why do cops issue them? Apparently, there is a need for them in civilian life (cops are civilians; not soldiers). After all, cops could be issued Winchester 1894 .30-30 lever-action rifles instead of AR-15s and M16s if they were just as useful.
If we are to have self-government — government _of_ the people, _by_ the people, and not merely (and only presumably) _for_ the people — then the police have to be viewed as _servants_ of the people.
We should not privilege police with a different set of laws copied from governments in which the police are the servants of the people’s _rulers_.
Peter Hamm of the Brady Bunch wrote: “You all want to know why we should limit access to AKs? Ask the widows of the police officers who have been killed with them.”
Why don’t we first try limiting access to crack cocaine, heroin and marijuana. If we can’t keep that away from criminals, how on earth do you expect your gun prohibitions to succeed?
Besides, most criminals have guns primarily for shooting other criminals. If the only way they could get guns was by assassinating policemen, the number of police officer widows would skyrocket.
The thing that appalls me isn’t the writer’s opinion so much as the almost complete ignorance behind it. I understand that there is a large percentage of the population that has an irrational fear of firearms, but why comment on a subject that you clearly haven’t researched fully? You leave yourself open to being completely invalidated with the first educated response. In the immortal words of that 20th century philosopher Krusty the Klown “Krusty: Hey, Yutz! Guns aren’t toys! They’re for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face”. Regards, Patrick
“Lastly, I must agree with Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, when he stated in the article that the uproar about banning guns is a “sales pitch.”
The fears about gun bans or new restrictions on guns are completely unsupported and speculative. ”
Oh? When was THE MASTER PLAN changed?
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc.(HCI), “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
HCI changed in name only to the Brady Campaign in 2001.
In 2008 Brady brief supported the DC gun ban.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCu10LawEnforceOrgs.pdf
They have been a ban group from day one and they continue to be a leader in attemps to infringe on “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”
The right to freedom of the press should be protected, BUT….
The right to practice religion and worship as we choose should be protected, BUT….
The right to keep soldiers from living in our homes should be protected, BUT…
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects should be protected, BUT….
The right to not be forced to bear witness againt yourself should be protected, BUT….
The right to a public and speedy trial should be protected, BUT…
The right to a trial by jury should be protected, BUT…
The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment should be protected, BUT…
The rights not specifically discussed in the Constitution should be protected, BUT…
Here is a question for both Peter Hamm of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” (who is so very concerned about the “widows of the police officers who have been killed with” AK-47’s), and Cam-Tu Dang, who is “unsure why private citizens need access to an AR-15 or AK-47 to protect themselves:”
Do either of you know or care about the 160-200 million people who were murdered by “their” governments during the 20th century, and in virtually all cases, this was directly facilitated by the very type of gun control you espouse . . namely stripping innocent people of their possession of military type weapons?
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/genocide.htm
What could POSSIBLY be more important than that the masses of the people be able to protect themselves from a government gone amuck?!? Both of your flimsy concerns are fully addressed and dismissed when one faces this grusome reality. Any argument of lives lost because of the free access to firearms pales in comparison to the unimaginable body count that occurs when governments have all the police force in their hands.
And please don’t cheapen this debate by trying to tell me this never happened . . or could never happen here . . . it is HUMAN NATURE!
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” . . . Lord Acton
Cam-tu-Dang:
Before you write further on this subject, try to do some basic research of your subject. You are a student, honor that with seeking the facts and not blindly
quoting and agreeing with Peter Hamm. He represents an anti-freedom agenda
that has demonstrated its willingness to distort and misrepresent data repeatedly.
Look into the writings of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and see what they wrote on the subject.
Find the actual definitions of “Assault Rifle” vs “Assault Weapon”
They are quite different.
Freedom should never be about demonstrating “need”!
I agree with Hamm – that anything that has ever been involved in the death of a police officer should be banned.
The types of cars that criminals use to get to crime scenes – Fords, Chevys, Toyotas – BANNED!
The types of shoes that criminals were wearing when they commited the crime – Nike, New Balance, Doc Martens – BANNED!
The food that the criminals ate before their crimes that gave them the strength and stamina to kill the police officers – beef, chicken, pasta, bread – BANNED!
You see, both Hamm and I are very smart, and we think that simply by banning things all the icky criminals will just go join their church chiors and everyone will ride Unicorns off into the sunset!
One more thing – the internet will be BANNED too, since criminals MIGHT use it to email each other, to plan their crimes! Sorry everyone!
Pete Hamm, stop your name-calling of gunowners as “louts” and “bullies”. You whine about gunowners lacking civility, but you then show yourself as a childish whiner.
“You all want to know why we should limit access to AKs? Ask the widows of the police officers who have been killed with them.”
I’ll ask the widows of the dozen cops killed by that type gun, if you’ll ask the next of kin of the 5,000 innocent citizens PER DAY who are killed by their own police and military in nations which registered, then banned, such firearms.
This comment has been removed for violating the Rebel Yell Comment Terms of Use. Please refrain from malicious attacks against anyone using the comment system.
Shouldn’t regular citizens have access to things that criminals do?
Maybe the government should instead focus on the former CEO of Goldman Sachs handing out 700 billion dollars to his friends.
Радует, что блог постоянно развивается. Такой пост только прибавляет популярности.