If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner (and I have ... at Thanksgiving dinner), why it’s important to own a gun, they’ll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!”
This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted in the 1970’s. It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property. The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years it was for gun control and didn’t mention the Second Amendment as their cause.
Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, “Gun Fight,” what we call the “wild west” had some of the strictest gun control laws we’ve seen as a nation. The shootout at the OK Corral took place, after all, because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance. The KKK was, among other things, a gun control organization. They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed slaves ... but still gun control.
The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRA’s slogan is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” Yes, well regulated — it’s in the Constitution!
Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask, again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like Pat Flynn’s, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska. “Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the government, number one,” Flynn said in a debate right before the primary. “Hunting’s number two. But protecting us against our government is number one.” Remember, Flynn was trying to land a job in the government (he didn’t win his party’s nomination, by the way).
The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something). The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, “bunker busters,” and nuclear weapons. Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles “for protection?” Of course they’re not. They actually do want limits on ownership.
And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why gun owners shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, I’d bet you’d get the same answer as to why we don’t want every country to have the capability: “Because they could get into the wrong hands.”
So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-capacity magazine is an absolute right?
A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.
So we’re not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited. We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.
Guns fall into the wrong hands all the time. More guns and fewer requirements for ownership doesn’t curb this. George Zimmerman was the wrong hands. Zimmerman, a Florida man now infamous for shooting an unarmed black teenager at close range after a 911 operator told him not to engage the alleged suspect and wait for police to arrive, is now being defended by said hyper-political gun owners. There’s no reason a Neighborhood Watch captain should be patrolling his block with a criminal record and a pistol. Zimmerman was a catastrophe realized. Even in the wake of new evidence about this case, the fact remains if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.
The United States is number one in the world in civilian gun ownership. And since we’re not last in gun violence (we’re the 14th highest in deaths — way higher in just injuries) it’s safe to assume that increasing the number of guns doesn’t decrease the number of gun deaths. Just like cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue — making gun ownership unlimited doesn’t make us safer. It’s a lie. A fairy tale of the gun lobby. Completely unsupported by data or logic. A falsehood.
So unless you think all Americans should get Daisy Cutters this Christmas — you believe in regulations as to who gets a weapon, what kind and where they can have it.
Gun control laws are not tyranny — as the family of Trayvon Martin can testify to — a de-regulated militia is.
Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com. [Copyright 2012 TinaDupuy.com, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.]
lauraaz posted at 7:55 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.
Its the right and the responsibility of every citizen to be able to protect
themselves. If you look at the states with the strictest gun control laws
you'll see that they still have lots of gun violence, but the law-abiding citizen who
wants a gun to protect themselves is not allowed to. With strong background checks,
and strict enforcement to penalize illegal possession we can strike some kind of balance.
The answer is not taking guns away from responsible gun owners, its keeping them out of the hands of the people already prohibited from having them and more education of prospective gun owners. There is also no common sense in limiting responsible gun owners from owning a large capacity semi-auto hand gun or rifle. If these are considered as safe and reliable protection for the average police officer, shouldn't a responsible citizen be allowed the same level of protection?
sdjtaz posted at 2:08 pm on Tue, May 29, 2012.
Interesting discussion which bring out both the good and the bad when discussing gun rights. First, gun control is already in place, which is why private citizens can't own military grade weapons. The question is where we draw the line with gun control.
On the good side, many posters here show balance in their discussion. They understand that there is a balance between the right to own a gun and the responsibility that goes with owning the weapon. It is simply using a common sense approach (safe gun storage, trigger locks, background checks, etc...). To the posters, I applaud you.
On the bad side, many fall into the old rhetorical trap that often fail. To give examples, Masterrouge's statement. While individuals may be killed with other forms of weapons, he fails to explain that handguns are far more effective and efficient at killing than any of the other methods that he mentions. Additionally, the potential for mass killings are significantly lower using any weapon other than a gun.
In the end, I suspect that most Americans, whether gun owners or not, would easily find common ground. However, the extremes on both sides scream and yell and ensure that nothing constructive is done.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:58 pm on Sun, May 27, 2012.
Tina: Here's an exercise in common sense. Let's say guns were never invented. Criminals would use swords, knives, clubs, rocks, et al. I believe a person should receive training, but I don't believe in control, because the "typical hyper-political" gun control maniac, like yourself, won't be happy till citizens have no firearms.
Our founding fathers were very wise, you are not.
Louiejr posted at 5:05 am on Sun, May 27, 2012.
Tina ... my idea of gun control is a firm grip . Can you spin that into something ?
The Supreme 9 ruled we can have a handgun ... that's good enough for me .
sockratties posted at 9:32 am on Sat, May 26, 2012.
Statistics indicate that gun control measures that are likely to make the most difference are assault weapon bans, trigger locks and safe storage requirements.
Social influences seem to be another strong factor with poor education (AZ is last of the 50 states), less affluence (AZ is 37, between Missouri and Louisiana), and high availability of guns (AZ is 4th in annual firearms deaths per 100,000 with 18 and 1 of only 3 states that allow concealed weapons without a permit) showing strong correlations.
As one study, following the Tucson shooting, stated “While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.” It has also been shown there is no correlation between higher immigrant populations and higher gun violence.
Perhaps the answer is not gun control, it’s gun owner control. It’s said that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True, but if guns are just laying around waiting to be used it’s easier to pick one up and kill someone on purpose or by accident and much more efficient than a baseball bat. Let’s require trigger locks, and safe storage.
It’s not unconstitutional to require gun registration, even of second hand, gift or privately sold guns, so if one is used in a crime it can be traced to the person responsible for it being available to the criminal. A person would be responsible for the gun until registration is transferred to another owner. For example if a car is stopped for good reason and police find guns, they should be able to check the legitimacy of possession in a data base. This would, over time, reduce the number of guns available for criminal acts while having no effect on legitimate gun owners. If guns have serial numbers removed they can be confiscated and the individual charged. This would have a big effect on drive by shootings and illegal possession.
upagainstthewall posted at 3:21 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
Nuff said. I agree with most of the posts here. Howere, Tina if you desire to change the Constitution, for the better, my I suggest the you start with the 17th and the 19th Amendments and leave the 2nd alone!
VofReason posted at 1:07 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
Yes Tina and what about abortion? That is a women's right over their bodies- right? What amendnment of the Constitution are we relying on for that liberal sacred cow. Leave it to the far left to use the most exaggerated situation to prove the point. How about this? Some crazy nut breaks into your house at 1 am and threatens your family. Strangly, there isn't a police officer posted in your kitchen and you actually have to do something about the situation yourself. Do you A. ask what about his childhood and underfunded educational opportunities led him to chossing this course in life? Or B. Pull out your hand gun and tell him he has two choices- leave on his own of in a box. Hmmm?
chatmandu002 posted at 12:34 pm on Fri, May 25, 2012.
Nothing is perfect and nothing can be perfect, so live with what you got. Let me have my gun.
mvccd1000 posted at 10:49 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
What do they call it when you build up a fake point of contention so you can knock it down with your argument; a straw man? I think this lady should be careful with lit matches... her house is full of them!
I wonder how she spins her argument to fit the fact that while gun ownership is increasing almost geometrically, violent crime has steadily fallen to 40-year lows. Something in her "too many guns = too much crime" hysteria doesn't add up.
onerebel posted at 9:09 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
"The fact remains if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, 16-year-old Trayvon Martin would be alive.“ Then maybe Zimmerman should have just taken his beating and hoped it would not kill him right Tina? Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game”. Andy Rooney
irb1138 posted at 8:27 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
You characterize your opponents as "hyper-political" types who "bark" about the constitution. Haven't we had enough of this kind of shrill debate? Most gun owners are not the angry extremists you've painted them as being, and taking the easy route to ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments doesn't do your point or the issue at hand any justice. It certainly doesn't make me want to trust you, as you say I should.
Rich posted at 7:49 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
The weapon isn't important, the actions behind its use are. Limit us to knives and we will kill as often and as frequently. I don't own a gun and yet have killed a bear with a weapon I do own. I'm not good with a gun, so I don't own one. I do own several weapons I am very good with, actually have a case of trophies I won with them. We need to get along with each other, when we do, carrying a weapon is an irrelevancy. When we don't, it's a necessity. The type of weapon you want to control, in its way. defines you,you want to ban boom-death, without thinking. It doesn't happen except rarely and it isn't really important. What is important is that we feel secure and the only way that happens is to learn, When everyone knows and understands guns, they will become unimportant, as soon as they are controlled, they become important.
samkat posted at 5:54 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
I didn't realize that Brown was a flaming left wing liberal but the truth is seeping out. :-)
abimopectore posted at 5:21 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
Tina,
Trust me, you don't know what you're saying.
RandMan posted at 3:00 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
A couple of very powerful facts that are curiously omitted from Ms./Mrs Dupuys article and virtually every other pro gun control opinion is the fact that each and every day over 64 MILLION REGISTERED GUN OWNERS KILLED NO ONE!!!!!!!
Also conspicuously absent is the fact that EVERY country that has taken the right to bear arms away from it’s citizens has in turn subjugated those very same citizens.
A government should fear it’s citizens, not the other way around. The U.S. Government in deference to the Corporation no longer governs the will of the people, what drastic steps do you think they would take if Americans were unarmed. I direct you to Hitlers Germany, Stalinist Russia, Moussolini’s Italy, North Korea, China, the list goes on and on and on. How many citizens of those countries enjoy the basic freedoms we believe are God given even today?
Americas armed populace represents the largest private army in the world. A quote by Isoroku Yamamoto states “You cannot invade the mainland Unites States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
Activists jump on the misdeeds of a few people to vilify the entire gun owning populace and Mrs. Dupuy’s ill researched stance and uninformed opinion serves to forward an ignorant stance on the subject.
az2008 posted at 2:39 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
I don't agree with the author's conclusions nor her cross-cultural comparison of gun ownership and rates of gun crime (we as a society beat more people to death with baseball bats).
However, she has a very good point. Gun owners do believe in gun control. They support instant background check, limiting projectiles to 1/2" diameter, minimum barrel lengths, no more than one shot per trigger pull.
But, you'd never get that from talking to them -- as they reflexively spout absolutist rhetoric about how the right to arms shall not be infringed. They make it sound like everyone else is violating a religious principle which the gun owner keeps pure.
If we could drop the polarized posturing we might find that there are other common-sense controls that could be put in place. Like, mandatory training in safe handling and the legal requirements for the use of force. I'm not very impressed with how anyone can buy a gun, keep it in their apartment (posing a risk to their neighbors) without the slightest notion of their responsibilities.
OTOH: I think the author would make a more positive contribution if she understood *why* gun owners have the mentality they do. For over 70 years the Supreme Court refused to even address the topic. 40 years into that period lower courts and a handful of academics redefined the right into a state's right. As more circuit courts adopted this position, the highest court in the land continued to decline to hear the topic for another 30 years.
During that time, gun controllers talked about "sensible gun control" when they, at the same time, asserted that there is no individual right to arms and that their ultimate "sensible gun control" was to ban all firearms nationwide (or, limit them to sporting weapons stored at a gun club which the individual had to be a member of.).
When you're not afforded due process by the system, and history is twisted by lower branches of that system to support a political outcome, and the public is constantly told you oppose sensible gun control (without being told that the controllers don't care about sensibility or balancing rights, each control is just a step toward a total ban), it's no wonder that gun owners are hyper sensitive.
The author would improve the debate by discussing how the political/judicial system failed a large segment of society for many decades. Perhaps examine whether leading proponents of gun control can be trusted. Are they really looking to balance rights and responsibilities, or do they see any control as just one step closer to their ultimate goal of there being no right to arms.
I think the author is just contributing to the traditional polarization of the two sides, continuing misunderstandings (unintentional or deliberate) which prevent the majority of Americans from seeking common ground, understanding each others' concerns.
downtownresident posted at 2:23 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
Tina,
I can't imagine what "awards" you may have gotten.
Maybe one for pointless raving about a subject about which you appear to be pitifully uninformed.
R_Harwell posted at 2:19 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
Dang... should have finished reading before posting. It's also possible that had Zimmerman been unarmed, Zimmerman might have been the one carried to the morgue.
R_Harwell posted at 2:15 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
Actually, it was Virgil Earp that was attempting to disarm the cowboys at the OK Corral. Virgil was Town Marshall and "deputized" brothers Wyatt and Morgan, along with Doc Holiday.
spyderdog posted at 1:45 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
guns ownership an extremely important part of being an american, however theres something to be said about taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (i can pretty much promise you that every single illegal gun on the streets was a legal gun at some point), and lunatics. this is something the state of arizona has greatly overlooked. gun ownership isnt the issue here. its responsible gun ownership, and the state of arizona has made it almost impossible to accurately create an environment promoting that with the yosemite sam approach to things they have created here
Cnsieler posted at 12:25 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
While I am waiting Chew On these Stats
Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.
Here's the math. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey --there is an average of 207,754 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year.
There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year. That makes 31,536,000 seconds/year. So, 31,536,000 divided by 207,754 comes out to 1 sexual assault every 152 seconds, or about 1 every 2 minutes.
Cnsieler posted at 12:24 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
I will await your response....
Cnsieler posted at 12:21 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
My point is that we need to worry less about "Gun Control" and worry more about what it means to be a responsible citizen. You use the Zimmerman Case like we have an epdemic of such cases...I am sad because right or wrong does not bring a 17 year old back....
Why don't you call the recent victims of sexual assault in your local area and ask them if they believe in Gun Control? If you were faced with a possible sexual assualt would you like the right to defend your self with everything including deadly force?
Cnsieler posted at 12:14 pm on Thu, May 24, 2012.
No I believe in Liberty and responsible gun ownership. I believe that we should not kill. But I also believe that the right to defend yourself against agression. I ask you a question, What takes more Lives, Guns or Cars? How many responsible car owners drink and drive?
43 thousand killed and 3 million injured
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]