Reactionary Legislation is seldom good legislation. This is because it relies on emotional rather than rational thinking while drafting and voting on such measures. It is often done by legislators who are intent upon "looking good" among their colleagues and constituents. I believe that those who introduce and support such legislation is often an attemot at grandstanding or used for political advantage to disparage an opposing parties views or other backdoor agendas.
In the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Tucson by a deranged apolitical individual, there has been a lot of this type of partisan rhetoric and talk about new anti-gun legislation. Overall, the common citizen in America has wised up substantially to the propaganda antics used by almost all politicians, and especially the usual misleading anti-gun stats and arguments against the Second Ammedment.
Additionally, the Supereme Court has upheld decisive legal tests of the intended application of the Second Ammendment rights to bear arms, which had long been skewed to mena various unseemly interpretations that ignored the facts and the clear intent that made the right to bear arms among the first additions to the main body of the US Constitution.
But I am still often surprised as to how the same old unfounded arguments continue to sway new generations of those who may not have a full understanding of the importance of the rights to bear and use guns. I will save my historical arguments of the broader issues I feel are behiand the liberal fever to to disarm the public, other than to say it has never had anything to do with public safety.
Let me first cite some of the proposed legislation which has been irreverantly proposed by those who oppose private ownership and use of guns by the american public as assured by the Second Ammendment. It is teling that detailed legislation has emerged overnight, as it has been prepared and waiting for just such a catastrophy as the one actged out in tucson this past week, in hopes of emotionally driving its passage.
As Rhom Emanuel of the Obama Administration is on record as saying, "no crisis should be wasted." This is the kind of arrogance we are now seeing verbalized sinister thinkers in Congress and other positions of influence who are just seething mad about the success of Sara Palin and the so-called Tea Party in the mid-term elections. The fact is that the crecent surge in conservative voters is as a result of a heavy-handed, non-representative Presidential Administration backed by an up-until-this-month Democrat-controlled Congress--laughing in the face of what the majority of Americans really wanted.
One proposed idea coming from a Congress is to ban guns within 1000 feet of any public official holding a public evnet. This idea is basically flawed in that it presumes that those bent on harming public officials will obey such a law. Using the Tucson incident as an example, one of the rescuers who was dubbed a hero by the press and others present--was legally carrying a Glocl handgun, very similar to the one tha the killer used in his mindless rampage.
This hero said that he would have used his handgun to stop the killer had an opportunity presnted itself. Since such an opportunity did not present itself, tbis hero responsbly left his handgun holster, while physically restraining the killer who had dropped his weapon. Another citizen a lady, also heroically snatched the killer's back-up reload magazine from the reach of the killer.
It is not known how many people were legally carrying firearms in that Safeway during the killing spree, but it is likely that it was more than the one hero who mentioned his own concealed weapon. But only one person among that crowd used their firearm wrongly. And although it is said that he legally purchased the handgun he used, it is my understanding that he was not legally permitted to carry it.
But it really makes no diference. A determined killer who is mentally unbalanced and full of irrational fear and hatred, can easily choose an almost infinite number of ways of wreaking murderous havoc upon either an individual or upon a crowd of people. Those living in England and Ireland know htis firsthand. So do those livingin Israel. In fact, in the absence of handguns, much more deadly means of attack have been and still are being regularly used in these countries, who have outlawed private ownership of handguns for the most part.
Individuals driven by anger, hatred, and various other nefarious reasons construct homemade bombs and kill people enmasse virtually every day somewhere in the world. Most of these people have no access to firearms. Devesatating homemade bombs are quickly and easily contructed from simple household items by those who have the will to look for the information. I hesitate to be more specific than that.
One might reasonably ask, "But what harm would such a law do?" It would inevitably and unecessarily place some legal handgun owners carry by legal permit, to break the law. Who always knows when and where a public or elected official smight be holding events? Unless those "legally carrying" kept a constant track on the whereabouts of "public officials" they would likely become criminals by breaking the law without even knoiwing it. But as we know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
And we also can reasonably speculae that the wordingof such laws could come to mean "merely being in the vacinity of a public official," rather than actually holding a political rally. It would place additional undue burdens on the legal system--to prosecute law abiding citizens. That's the kind of harm that is secretly intended to happen by those hoping to eventually completely ban guns.
If the violation of the law was designed to be a felony, then such an innocent happenings of being stopped and charged with with such a "crime", would be permenantly prohibited from even owning guns or having them in the same household, because it is already against the law for a felon to own a gun. And as attested by the number of felons now in prison for illegally possessing a gun, such laws have no deterence upon criminals.
The 1000 yard law would be useless in preventing killings such as the one we just saw in Tucson. Those proposing such laws are ot stupid, so what is their motive. It is easy to discover these reason by visiting anti-gun web sites. They often state their incremental strategies in toward the end of disarming Americans. One reason is to use any such opportunities to publicize and prolong what the feel is negative publicity about private ownership of handguns.
Having realized that it is very difficult to get guns banned outright, gun-banners, who are almost univerally liberally-slanted (begs to question why this is???) have resorted to a more patient and methodical strategy of "divide and conquer"--and they agree that little-by-little (their stated incremental strategy) they will be more apt to erode the rights of indiviuals to own and use guns for legitimate reasons--such as self-protection.
Knowing full well the reasoning behind this liberal incremental strategy of disarming America also explains in large measure as to WHY the NRA, GOA, and citizen supporters of the Second Amemendment are so determined to resist these "small steps" toward a bigger end.
Many are calling for banning large capacity magazines. These are the changeable holders that feed the ammunition into the semi-automatic weapon (often eroneously referred to by gun-banners as "automatic guns"). With just a little practice as taught to police, soldiers, and those who shoot timed competitions, and those trained for self-defense--it takes about one scond to change magazines, thus achieving an unlimited supply of ammunition as long as the user has pre-loaded magazines.
This capability of quickly changing magazines far excedes the capacity of ONE HIGH-CAPACITY Magazine, such as the Tucson shooter initially used. And recall that the killer in tucson had already been disarmed before he even attempted to reach for another magazine. The more shots that are fired successively, the greater the chances of a malfunction due to heat. Although I can't say for sure, one woman stated on the news, that the shooters gun jammed. The hi-cap magazine, may have indeed been the reason if this is true, in which case it actually saved lives.
It is merely my guess, deduced from the tidbits I have heard on the news, that this crazed killer was not very familiar with the use of guns in general and specifically didn't know much about using semi-automatic handguns. That he was able to inflict so much damage in such a short time has more to do with our open and free society with public admirably access chosen by politicians in order to maintain a sense of closeness with their constituents.
Recall two events from past Presidential History: Secret Service agents were very adamant that JFK remain in a closed, bullet-proof, limosine. He wanted to keep the same sense of closeness as politicians still like to maintain. But in this case, it came at the expense of his life--considered among the most tragic crimes in history. Politicians must weigh their own vulnerability of access to the public against the benefits of the same. It is periless for any celebrity, especially polarizing ones, such as politicians. Interestingly, Congressman who was seriously injured in tucson, is (or at least was prior to the tragedy) a supporter of the Sencond Ammendment and herself had a permit to legally carry a handgun in Arizona.
But back on topic regarding banning hi-cap magazines, it is all kind of moot--regarding whether or not a magazine holds seven rounds or forty rounds. Additionally, a so-called large-capacity magazine is the same logic and arguments for and against banning so-called large-capacity magazines for semi-automatic handguns such as the Glock, is exactly the same as those for and against the 1000 yard law. It is toothless, useless (for the purpose of protecting people from crazos), and is all part of an orchestrated plan to gradually disarme the American public.
What harm would there in bannign these hi-cap magazines? Even if their is only the thought of a chance that this would discourage would-be mass killers in the future? The first reason is that it would be an incremental and symbolic defeat of an important provision of the Inited States Constitution, which would likely be misinterpreted and leveraged to further erosion of our Constitutional rights--espedcially regarding the Second ammendment.
Another reason is that among sport shooters and shooting competitions, which is a huge and ever-growing sport, there is some used for the high-capacity magazines--by those who know how to use them to competitive eadmantage, and who are capable of dealing with any malfunctions caused by them. Why should law abidng citizens have their rights curbed for no good reason?
Still another reason for not banning hi-cap mags is that during training, and competitive "real-life Scenario" training leagues that exist for improving the saftey, confidence, and efficiency of citizen gun owners who desire to learn how to properly protect themselves, it is desirable that thye realize by demonstration and seeing first hand, how the hi-cap works, how to disable a criminals gun if the criminal is using one, and most importantly, to realize that a criminal has no advantage by using such a device in the commision of a crime.
This helps abate the self-defender's fears and concerns that might lpace him at a disadvantage if ever actually confronted by criminals intent on doing good people harm. Such practice is used similarly by military troops and law enforcement to train before actually facing real combat or other life-threatening events. I call it synthetic experience. It goes a long way toward preparing for real life situations. Please note that gaining "recreational shooting" expertise has long been associated with surviving rather than dying in combat, for those who later chose to serve in the military or were drafted.
Highly decorated heroes who have emerged as great leaders and almost super-human appearing feats against the enemy, often saving entire platoons, are as far as I know, invariably those who were experts with forearms.--who had gained a comfort level hunting and recreational shooting as civilians. The greatest hero of WWII was at first a pacifist, but changed his beliefs in the need to protect our countries freedoms. He had grown up hunting regularly to help feed his family in rural Tennessee.
The most successful sniper-counter-sniper from the Viet Nam conflict, was a guy who grew up hunting squirrels and small game for food in Arkansas. His efforts and achievments in patience and keeping a cool head and a pin-point shooting accuracy was first learned in the woods. Anecdotal stories abound of those who died due to panic in the face of gunfire from the enemey who lacked such practical skills. I saw this firsthand during my time in the military during the winding down days of Viet Nam. I had grown up as an outdoorsman schooled by my dad and my brothers.
I was immediately selected as an instructor to assist the others in passing their handgun competency skills--based upon our first live-fire dril. I was scared to death by the lack of knowledge and saftey exhibited by those who hd not been exposed to guns as had I. Ihate to think of what may have come of them in battlem with only the brief training they received during bootcamp.
And one more reason for not banning hi-cap mags is that a small industry that provides jobs to a fair number of Americans si built around civilian and law enforcement use of accessories and peripherals used by handguns. By diminishing the ecomomies ofscale--decreasing the numbers allowed to be pruchased by the public, this increases production costs, and may actually cause some manufacturers to go out of business. Loss of jobs. Loss of freedoms. Loss of rights. Why should good citizens pay for the misuse of one deranged man's guns and accessories--especially when this "punishment" visited upon good law-abiding citizens provide no actual reduction ijn the propensity of such crimes as we saw in Tucson. It is counter productive and it is merely being used by the uninformed or the unethical to snow the public.
Using threatening speech or symbols such as crosshairs regarding the voting politicians out of office has been raised. This is just stupid. Although I agree that political dialog has gotten way ugly, it is not any uglier from one side than the other. The exact same words and symbolism that have been used by one political pursuasion have been used by the other, although largely due to a more liberal leaning media bias (readily admited) these words and symbols have been prematurely attributed to the conservative Tea-Party and Sarah Palin--both who gained hte ire of liberals due to their success during the mid-term elections--as motivator for the Tucson killings.
These premature declarations seem to be coming from everyone from high to low in the liberal media and from many uninformed or ill-informed or informed but unethical Democrats . But not all. I was very proud of the class and restraint exhibited by President Obama. I might add thant our new speaker of the House has displayed similar restraint regarding the unfounded attacks upon conservatives.
Preventing the mentally-ill from buying guns has been another suggested remedy for Tucson-like tradgedies. There were plenty of signs that the killer in this event was highly unstablem deranged, and mentally -ill. Yet no action was taken to prevent him from doing anybody harm. This is by good reason--he had not actually done anything that would definitively incriminate him. I do believe that there were failings here, but I don't think that this could have been prevented by passing any law. It is already illegal for a gun-shop to sell a gun to anyone who does not pass a background check. He apparently passed the check because he had no recorded crimes nor did he have any recorded mental illness.
But consider this for a moment. A man volunteers and honorably serves his country in the military--b4aving and surviving, perhaps being wounded, and certainly sacrificing considerably in the process. When his service is over, as a matter of course, she/he is encouraged to receive emotional counselling at a VA facility to proactively help any Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or similar phenomenon often associated with combat. Although he doesn't feel like a nut case he figures, "What harm can it do?" He is afteral a citizen proven good by his extreme sacrifice in the serice of his country.
As a result of knee-jerk freactions over the Virginia Tech Killing incident, Congress passed legislation that required all VA service records to be forwarded to the FBI for use in conducting background checks upon the mental status of discharged veterans.
I(ncidentally, all discharged veterans have also been arbitrarily placed on lists of those most likely to commit crimes against the government, which was only made publically known due to a leak of a memorandum from Janet Napolitano, who heads the Federal DHS, appointed by President Obama--who is a known liberal politician with no qulaifications for a position regarding Homeland Security--other than being on boeard with the Obama Administration's liberal ideologies).
So when the FBI doews a background check on these hero veterans, who have already demonstrated their proficiency in the proper and safe use of weapons--if anyone has--and who have shown their ultimate allegiance to America and likely survived in part because of their pre-service familiarity with guns in sports and recreation-ARE FLAGGED FOR BEING MENTALLY ILL, DUE TO THE POST-COMBAT DEBRIEFING THAT THEY WERE ENCOURAGED TO GO THROUGH TO HELP THEM REACLIMATE TO CIVILIAN LIFE.
Is that fair? Is it an accident? Anyone who goes to the VA hospital has a good chance of being treated for some ind of supposed mental disorder, simply because that's the way it is done at the VA. So perhaps the most deserving, and most capable Americans in our country are not allowed to buy guns--due to some cheap definition of crazy. The little book that pyschiologists and doctors use to lable a particular mental-illness has more than quadrupled during th epast decade--I am tolod--and it stands to get bigger asmore lables are applied to states-of-mind which may deviate from a phatom and non-existent NORM.
If it has not already happened--literally anyone could be labled with some sort of mental disorder that we used to refer to as individual personality. So you or I may be "mentally-ill" by some made-up definition--and not even know it. It won't get any slck cut for you if you truely are disfunctional mentally--but it could keep you from owning guns. So the danger in the great-swounding idea of "preventing all the crazies" from owning guns--is not so appealing when it comes down to a value judgement from someone who was strange enough to be attracted to one of those professions in the first place.
Congress is up in arms and in fear (mostly the liberal ones), afraid of Sarah Palin and the Tea-Partiers, or so they say--who have absolutely provide no reason to fuelo such fears. It is merely the politics of defamation again at work. Soem Congressmen want security provided by the State--which would further bankrupt the nation. This won't work, and they know it. It is a charade.
Some of our clearer-thinking and real-acting no-nonsense Congressmen from all parties have announced their own solutions--practical, doable, and cost effective. Start carrying handguns. Some already have been doing so and more have said they will now begin--including our State Congressman Steve Chon, who is a liberal-leaning Democrat, with the exceptionof the Second Ammendment, which he astutely and whole-heartedly and publically supports.
I am not sure of Congressman Marsh Blackburn form our district a great conservtive leader--if she carries--but she supports the Second Ammedment and I am merely guessing that she carries. You see, it is the same real fear than any American citizen faces--the posibility of being gunned down by a gangster, an enemy, a robber, a criminal, or a crazy. What can we do? We take steps to protect ourselves.
We are careful where we go, who we offend, who approaches us and how, their body-language, their eyes, their intent; we learn to observe our surroundings, we arm ourselves where possible--although this is made difficult in many places by firearms being deamed off-limits in many public or government places. And we learn and practice real-life scenarios ripped from the entries in the metro sections of any metropolitan newspaper as reported daily. This is how we make ourselves harder targets. Does htis gurantee that we will not become a murder statistic? No. Nothing can do that. But it greatly diminishes our odds of becoming a gunshot or violent crime victim.
So htis is what public oficials should do as well. this is the real world. Let me propose another workable solution. The National Rifle Association, the Gun Owner's of America, many local community gun clubs and shooting leagues produce the best of the best when it comes to safely and effectively handling guns. The bar for passing a carry permit is usually higher in any given state than it is for becoming a policemena or an armed security guard. If you are not up the task of self-protection, or feel that it simply wouldn't work for you, I have another possible solution.
(May I say that I grealy admire our greviously wounded Congressman from Arizona, for uspportingthe Seciond Ammendment, and for herself having a Carry Permit for the State of Arizona); it really appears that nothing could have anticpated and stopped this killer nutcase intent on doing her harm--just as was the case with JFK--given his chosen circumstances).
My solution? Approach the nRA, GOA, local clubs or shooting leagues, and ask them to provide a volunteer detail to attend each of your public appearances. I feel sure that they will d it--if their insurance allows it--regardlessw of your politics. They know the score and understand the need for individual protection. They protect themselves and their families and soemtimes the public every day--without any acknowledgement or cpmpensation except the satisfaction of feeling safer.
You needn't fear nor condem these God-fearing realists. It is the un-Godly that you need to fear. These conservative gun-owners are the good-guys. Crime is virtually non-existent among this group. You could betyour life on them.