Much Ado About Guns

(GOLD RIVER, BC) - Ever since the school shooting in Connecticut last December the US media and web sites have been engaged in an endless stream of rhetoric about gun control. Most of the loudest of it lacking any foundation in common sense with factoids tossed hither and yon with little relevance either for or against the issue except in the minds of those cherry picking them often out of context.

The real block to achieving rational and constitutional control of firearms in the US is the extreme positions taken both for and against controls which leave little room for working out a set of laws that will both enhance protection of the population against firearm violence, while preserving the protections of the Second Amendment.

The worst enemies of those wishing to bring the regulation of firearms into line with the realities of modern society are those anti-gun people who have little appreciation or understanding of the Second Amendment, and what is possible, and choose to pursue a pie-in-the-sky dream of a world without guns, or at least with only guns locked up somewhere under rigid controls.

The worst enemies of those wishing to preserve their rights under the Second Amendment and keep firearms are those in the pro-gun crowd acting like yahoos. People who apparently have a poor understanding of the Constitution and what limits can be legally set on firearms.

The Constitution of the United States certainly grants the right to the people to bear arms. Those that would like to see that right extinguished should get a grip and move on to something more productive. They will never in the foreseeable future manage to get thirty-eight states to agree to repeal that amendment.

Those who seem to worship that amendment, however, also need to come to grips with the fact that the rights in the Constitution are not absolute, and are legitimately subject to interpretation by the courts. Courts, as we know, may change that interpretation from time to time to meet current realities. A prime example of this would be the First Amendment and how interpretation of it has changed over time regarding what one can say or publish, and how one can assemble.

How many supporting an absolutist view of the Second Amendment would also support the same for the First? If the people have an absolute right to possess and carry any firearm that they want, then publishers and broadcasters have the absolute right to publish and broadcast anything which pretty much strikes down laws on pornography, hate speech and inciting criminal acts. It also strikes down any laws regulating the assembly of people, rendering permits for marches, demonstrations, rallies and etc. null and void.

The first part of the Second Amendment states that it exists to preserve a well-regulated militia. Some people like to argue that militia means the people. This is debatable given the context of the time that it was written. The argument can be made that the intent was to empower the states to keep their own militia under arms, particularly important in the slave states, and important to a country that did not want a large standing federal army. The people, then, would refer to members of the state militias who had a right to bear arms.

The second part of the amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course leaves open the issue of what is meant by both arms and infringed. Issues which are up to the courts to interpret.

At the time that the amendment was written the common arm of the people was the muzzle loading flintlock. There can be no doubt that the framers were referring to that. There are no words in the Second Amendment that allow for any arms that have been developed since it was adopted. That leaves the issue up to the courts to decide on the constitutionality of any regulation on the type of arms that the people have a right to bear.

What also is flexible and up to the courts to decide, is what limits are permissible on the right, just like there are permissible limits on the First Amendment. It is certainly within the purview of the government with the assent of the courts to decide not only which arms may be beared, but how they can be beared and what one has to do qualify to bear them.

Some would argue that one must have arms to be ready to resist a tyrannical state. What a pipe dream probably fueled by too much testosterone and too little common sense. Violence by a bunch of untrained and inexperienced people against the military and law enforcement resources of the United States would be both treason and stupid. Ask Chris Dorner or David Koresh, just to name two examples.

Then there is the argument that one should have the right to have a firearm for self-protection. It is a valid argument, but in the best interest of society that right must be qualified. The possession of a firearm presents a hazard to society if the person with it is not qualified to use it safely, or a risk to use it criminally. There is good reason to require those possessing firearms to prove their ability to use competently whichever kind they are allowed to possess, to know when it is permissible to use them, and to be determined neither mentally nor criminally a risk to society with a firearm.

I get a laugh out of the silly argument that if everyone had a firearm with them all the time we would be safer. Just think, it has been said, if a lot of the people at any given mass shooting were armed there would not have been as many killed. Really? Can you imagine what a theater full of testosterone driven, poorly trained yahoos would accomplish? Bullets would fly in all directions and the body count would be worse.

I do not get a laugh, however, about people who have to prove how macho they are by running around carrying a firearm in the open without a valid need to do so. Exposed firearms in environments where they should not be normal are needless intimidation to others, and mark one as a target for the so-called bad guys who will certainly be less likely to be thwarted by someone they see carrying openly than someone who may be carrying concealed.

Unlike Canada, which has too much firearm regulation, the US has too little, and what is does have is a hodge-podge of federal and state regulation. It is really time that the federal politicians sit down and draft clear and reasonable laws regulating the possession and use of firearms that both enhance public safety while protecting the right of the people to have firearms responsibly. Federal laws that will pass the courts who are the final arbiters of what is or is not constitutional.

Jerry West grew up on a farm in Fresno County, California, and served with the US Marine Corps from 1965 to 1970 including 19 months in Vietnam with the Third Marine Division, and three years at MCAS Iwakuni where he became an anti-war organizer in 1970. He earned an Honors Degree in History at the University of California, Berkeley, and did two years of graduate study there. While in university he worked seasonally in fire and law enforcement with the US Forest Service.

After university he worked for a number of years in the international tour industry in operations and management before moving to a remote village on the west coast of Vancouver Island where he is currently the editor and publisher of The Record newspaper serving the Nootka Sound region. He is a Past President of the Northern California Land Trust, and a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous February 28, 2013 4:11 pm (Pacific time)

"I don't see why anyone needs ..." is code for: "I don't do it, so let's ban it." The corollary is: "I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it." Environmentalists say: "I don't know why anyone needs to shower once a day -- my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine." That's the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called "assault weapons" are a "personal pleasure" and "mothers and women" have to decide whether this personal pleasure "is more important than the general welfare." The "general welfare" is every tyrant's excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they "need" something simply because the government wants to ban it. That's true of anything -- but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns. The question isn't whether we "need" guns. It's whether the government should have a monopoly on force. In liberals' ideal world, no one will even know you don't have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster. Meanwhile, we're all required to subsidize their hobbies -- recycling, abortion, the "arts," bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc. Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.

Anonymous February 26, 2013 4:31 pm (Pacific time)

Propaganda from the gun grabbers. Their message never really changes, it's always predicated on making false assumptions to keep people safe. Well the murder rate as per the F.B.I. is less than it was in 1911, and has been dropping for the last 20 years. But, if they manage to succeed in their "incrementalism" in regards to minimizing firearm ownership, who is going to protect us from our protectors? I expect a very large movement to begin, and county sheriff's around the country will be a source of logistical support, tactics and strategy. They are quite organized in my state and have gone on record saying they will ignore any laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. Any large gathering, and they will take place, will put down any and all anti-citizen movements, at this time. In the future, well who knows. Our military is deteriorating very quickly, so I expect status quo for a while. "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - 1984, George Orwell -

Jerry West February 25, 2013 5:34 pm (Pacific time)

Nice rant by Anonymous, might even have some good points, but really not relevant to the topic of uniform national regulation superceding state and local regulations. andnbsp;Of course it may even make the point for that if one considers that lack of such regulation has more to do with the high rate of gun crimes in areas of strict regulation than anything else.

I find it amusing that gun groupies like to cite Switzerland as an example. Switzerland is a good example that the US could learn from: andnbsp;1) Valid aquisition permit required to buy a gun, long guns excepted if not fully automatic or easily convertible, limit of 3 firearms --- 2) Carry permit required for all loaded firearms (hunters excepted) --- 3) firearm and ammunition sales are registered. and more.

Citing Finland as an example might also have something to say to the US: 1) There is no right in Finland to have firearms. --- and 2) Possession of automatic weapons is prohibited, possession of semi-automatic assault weapons requires a license. --- 3) Handgun possession permitted in some cases with a license --- 4) License required to possess firearms or ammunition. and A valid reason must be given for possession and an extensive background check is required. and And so on.

The question arises, is it half the number of firearms per capita, or more restrictive regulation, or both that are responsible for Switzerland and Finland having a lower homicide rate by firearm than the US? andnbsp;Finland's is .45 per 100K, Switzerland is .77 and the US 3.21. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan

The Secret History of Guns ---

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight. -- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

_____________________

Anonymous February 24, 2013 11:53 am (Pacific time)

When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty - Thomas Jefferson Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless “assault weapon” bans are. (In fairness, New York’s Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But the left needs to gin up the most easily fooled voters. Just don’t expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns. Instead, the left will jawbone about “assault weapons” and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring “the gun lobby” to “children.” (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.) Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women. “Assault weapons” are defined as “whatever politicians say they are.” The guns that are banned and the ones that aren’t are functionally identical. They’re all semi-automatics. Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull — that’s the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a “semi-automatic.” The most basic self-defense firearm for women is a “semi-automatic.” Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition. U.S. #1 By Far In Gun Ownership – But, Only 28th In Gun Murder Rate. One of the most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involves the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence. Apparently, as this argument goes, guns or “gun culture” cause law-abiding citizens to transform into murderous nuts. In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence. According to the latest Small Arms Survey conducted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, the U.S. tops the world in civilian gun ownership. We have 89 guns for ever 100 residents. That’s well above Yemen’s second place rate of 55 guns per 100 and nearly twice the rate of Switzerland which comes in third at 46 guns per 100 residents. To put it bluntly, we have a lot of guns. Number one in the world, both by number and per capita. The U.S. is not the world leader in the homicide-by-firearm rate. It does not even crack the top 25 in that category. Instead, the U.S. has the 28th highest homicide by firearm rate of the countries in the report. This phenomenon isn’t uniquely American, either. Switzerland, which ranks third in civilian gun ownership rate at 46 guns per 100 residents, has only the 46th highest homicide rate. Finland, which has the fourth most civilian owned guns at 45 guns per 100 residents, is 63rd on the list. http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/us-1-far-gun-ownership-only-28th-gun-murder-rate

think February 22, 2013 6:08 am (Pacific time)

Second amendment is a RIGHT!

Jerry West February 20, 2013 5:06 pm (Pacific time)

Jay - 20,000 laws (your count) and some of them onerous, that is a problem componded by lack of uniformity across various jurisdictions of government. Arms are a federal right, uniform federal regulation that preempts state and local rules would rationalize the whole thing and provide better uniform protection of the right across the nation. And, what is wrong with a standard process if it is well constructed and fair? A fair, standard process would provide equal treatment under the law. Whether it can be done or not is a matter of politics and will, the stuff that brought about many other things that people said could not be done. Granted, the extreme positions by both ends of this issue make a common sense approach difficult, but that is probably the point since wasting a lot of time on this distracts from more serious problems.

As for your references to what I know or do not know, what it shows is how little you know about me and is a diversion from the issue. You might make better arguments if you dealt with facts rather than assumptions or strawmen. For one you seem to assume that I am opposed to concealed weapons permits which is 180 off the mark (I used to have one, and have experience in law enforcement in the US), in fact I think everyone should be able to get one if they can pass a background check and prove competency in both use of whatever weapons they are licensed for, and knowledge of when it is permissible to use them (ROE if you prefer). For another, this isn't about me or you, but about bringing some sense and reason to regulation of a dangerous tool.

As for the macho comments, it is not gun crimes that are my concern, but the collateral damage caused by people with more testosterone than reason and even less competency. Certainly you are not arguing that the mere fact of possessing a firearm makes one competent to use it, or increases their ability to reason?

Your point about few problems with those with CHLs supports my argument. Perhaps CHLs should be expanded to include possession of any firearm outside of the home?

Jay Eichenberger February 20, 2013 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West currently we have several states, and various cities that have their own specific rules for individuals to get firearm permits. Some of these are quite onerous processes and in two celebrated cases (Washingto D.C. and Chicago) the U.S. Supreme Court directed those political units to change their registration methods. These above city's have ignored the court. What makes you think some national process can be created to have a one size fits all for a registration/training process to have a firearm permit? Possibly you simply do not understand the political dynamics that exist here, and maybe you also do not understand the various firearm systems available to the public? In the case of irresponsible people and the yahoos you reference, well that's just an opinion which has no real grounding in what is going on. I see you spent some time in the military, but that hardly qualifies you to understand the 2nd Amendment and it's current application. I am amazed how liberal progressives and those who reside outside of the states feel thay understand how this country works. They generally offer simplified ideas to complex problems. But in the case of firearms and the crimes we have, it is a simplified process...have all law abiding citizens armed, enforce the current gun laws (over 20,000) and make mandatory jail terms for repeat criminals. This "macho" you reference is pretty irrelevent to the gun crimes we are dealing with here, maybe it's more of a Canadian problem where your criminal violence rates are over twice ours. Come and talk to me in person about weapon systems training and I'll show you just how unqualified you are. Maybe years ago you had a little exposure to what? Maybe M-1, 14, 16--M60 machine gun, M79 Greanade Launcher, .45cal, shotguns, a few smaller pistols? It's a lot different now, and we have millions walking around "legally" carrying concealed, and zip criminal problems with them. So you think we should pull their CHL's in favor of some nebulous traing program you have no experience in designing? Simply put Jerry, the far left would design a program no one would pass to get a gun permit. Enjoy your Canadian adventure, and realize that you simply have no idea what's going on. Berkely, that explains a lot young man.

Jerry West February 19, 2013 6:29 pm (Pacific time)

Dear Person afraid of putting your name to your opinions (12:43pm):

In the context of my piece you are arguing against a strawman. It makes my point that a lot of the debate on this topic is conducted by using facts out of context. My issue is not crime or gangs or homicide incidents in a given population, it is about the rational control of firearms regardless of those issues. Unless one believes that there is an inherent right to have whatever type of firearm one desires from little pistols to RPGs and M2 machineguns or bigger, and the right to carry them loaded wherever and however they choose, then one must believe in the need to control firearms. At that point the question becomes the nature of control, not whether to control or not, and the data is beside the point other than it indicates a problem.

Now, do I believe that the SCOTUS can only allow flintlocks? No, the point is that is what the framers were dealing with when they wrote the amendment. What SCOTUS can do, and the point of my piece, is interpret that amendment in light of current reality and define what is allowed and what is not. A definition that can change with the times. So, in theory they can limit it to only flintlocks, but they do not have to.

If you want to argue restrictive gun laws vs crime rates, feel free, I have been on record for years in opposition to ineffective laws that keep coming forward to "curb crime." (You can find some of them with a web search) However, just because the laws are written to fail is not an argument to not deal with the problem, which gets back to my point that we need to work out rules that will be effective in protecting both the Second Amendment and public safety. The fact that places with restrictive laws are flooded with guns from places with more permissive laws is a good point, which tells us there needs to be a uniform, national, regulation that treats all places equally. Furthermore, the comparison of crime in both places means nothing in the context of how many guns per capita there are. What is more important here is cultural differences and population density.

Your point on CHLs and how a person could lose it for even a minor infraction supports what I see as a positive step forward. Require everyone who has a firearm to have a permit that is granted only after a thorough background check and a knowledge and competency test, and make it a felony to be in possession of a firearm in public without a valid permit. In other words take proactive steps to make sure only law-abiding citizens have firearms, which by your argument would lower crime rates.-

Suicide is a red herring, either side that brings it up in this argument is out to lunch. There are too many other factors involved.

Taking on the government by an armed individual is a fantasy if the desired outcome is significant change, ask Koresh or Dorner. There are more effective ways to challenge the government (which in reality is not "We the People," but the plutocrats or 1% if you prefer) than a front on insurrection. Such an idea is a macho wet dream propelled by testosterone rather than rational thinking. The chances are that the military and the police would supress such an occurance (over 50% of the population both has a good opinion of the President and supports some form of gun control) and if they would not, then an armed civilian force of insurrectionists would not be necessary to start with. They would have the armed force on their side. Also, strict firearm laws do not preclude those serious about protecting themselves against tyranny for secretly stock-piling weapons which is a much better option than running around in front of a tyrant while brandishing arms.

The issue of elites with guns and protection is beside the point, though I would expect anyone serious about this to be a strong supporter of the Occupy movement.

Do liberals operate on an emotional level? So what, some of them do, but so do conservatives and others. Also, some of each do not. Using the liberal strawman to punch on this issue is a diversion. The fact is, many opposed to regulations on firearms are also run on mostly emotion (a lot of paranoia mixed with some macho silliness) with little relative fact behind them. Anyone believing, as I do, that responsible citizens legally armed are both better able to protect themselves and society, would be in support of uniform rules that insure that all persons possessing firearms are responsible and well trained for every type of firearm that they possess.

Jerry: this guy is a troll and most of his comments on my stories I just delete. You've already wasted too much of your time on your excellent rebuttal. Daniel

Anonymous February 19, 2013 12:43 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry: "At the time that the amendment was written the common arm of the people was the muzzle loading flintlock." The government and the people had essentially the same available technology. In your opinion do you think the Supreme Court can [lawfully] rule that we as individuals should only be allowed "flintlock" type of weapons? With your displayed logic they evidently have that power. Are you familiar with the US. Supreme Court rulings on Chicago and D.C.? They have some of the most restrictive gun laws but the highest gun crime rates. The politico's in these locations blame those areas where it's easier to get guns and bring them to those areas as the problem. But in those areas with those less restrictive gun laws, they also have much lower gun crime rates! The data does not support most of your arguement Jerry, but then you live in Canada, and also, like me, live in a low violence/crime area compared to the urban areas of America and Canada. For example in the state I live in, there are over 160,000 CHL's, and their rate of crime, even a shoplifting bust would get their CHL revoked...is statistically nil. That data goes back over 20 years. You can extrapolate these CHL owners to a national database that numbers in the millions and find the same low statistically nil crime rate. We have data from the F.B.I. that shows more people are murdered by "Hands and feet" than by rifles. With over 100 million rifles, and the demonized AR15 just a tiny fraction of the above total, we just have typical fear-mongering from liberal yahoos. The data clearly shows that more firearms owned by law abiding citizens you have lower crime. It is irrefutable. Those who blame firearms for high suicide rates should look to Japan who has twice our rates. As far as taking on the government, please recall the government works for "We the People" and do you think "tyranny" by a government, including ours, is not likely? A quick review of the 20th century says something else. Democratic forms of governments are a minority on the planet level. Do you think our military would shoot civilians? Hopefully not, but why are people so concerned about elites, many like Sen. Diane Feinstein and NY mayor Bloomberg who have 24/7 armed personal guards, putting out false information about firearms? Liberals generally always operate on an emotional level, and have proven not to be reliable when it comes to having an honest exchange of communication and ideas. Gunowners have the facts on our side, and it will be a fullscale battle if and when these liberals attempt to try to smokescreen us with their typical deceptive rhetoric. I am also a Vietnam combat veteran, and am well aware of the dangerous yahoos out there, but their behavior is not nearly as dangerous and deadly as those urban gangs that are spreading all over the country. Who knows how many terrorists are here in staging postures. Police come to crimes that have happened, it's too late then.

[Return to Top]

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News