![Brady Blog [image]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/common-images/page-headers/brady-blog.jpg)
On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun and nearly 40 are murdered with guns.
These sobering statistics came back to me when I read Glenn Reynolds’ disturbing op-ed encouraging government mandates that people have guns in their homes. I was angry and alarmed that some might take these proposals, and the flawed statistics on which they rely, seriously.
I’m glad that the people of Kennesaw, Georgia don’t suffer from much crime, as Mr. Reynolds writes. But they didn’t before the town passed their 1982 ordinance requiring gun ownership, either – an ordinance the town’s leaders admit was symbolic and has never been enforced. Mr. Reynolds says crime dropped after the law passed, but a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research1 argues that Kennesaw’s crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward. On the other hand, these same researchers found that Morton Grove, Illinois had a “large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports” after that city banned handguns.
Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.
Here are some additional facts: After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crimes, including a murder and an attempted murder.
Mr. Reynolds sprinkled his essay with other highly questionable data. He wrote about “the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws.” He apparently took this claim from a questionable study which compared just one city to three countries, and used different victimization surveys in different time periods. According to David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, “no study is referenced that compares a large sample of cities, states or nations” on this issue.
Hemenway, in his book Private Guns, Public Health (University of Michigan Press, 2004) goes on to mention “a more reliable study” using Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 U.S. states and data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey for 330,000 households, which found that “U.S. counties and states with more guns have higher rates of burglary and higher per capita rates of ‘hot burglary’” and that “[h]omes with firearm collections are considered prime targets for burglars.”
Have small towns with little crime seen a significant reduction in crime if they mandate guns in the home? No. And government should show more respect for the right we all have to choose not to have a gun in our home.
Do burglars clearly avoid houses where there are guns? No. And since the fear-mongering of the gun pushers makes guns so popular and easy to fence, I’m sure most burglars are happy to steal them whenever they can.
Did guns help public safety in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? If you ask the police, they’ll say no – abandoned guns and armed criminals made an already difficult rescue job even more terrifying.
As long as someone is not a minor, a convicted felon, subject to a domestic violence restraining order or otherwise a “prohibited purchaser” and wants to have a gun for sport, for collecting or personal protection, he or she is welcome to have one. They should realize, however, that this gun, according to Hemenway, “increases the risk of murder for family members” as well as “the risk of suicide and unintentional firearm injury.” Particularly if there are young children in the home, I would urge gun owners to take precautions, and lock the gun up in a safe – even though some gun pushers seem to be against that, too.
There are common sense things we can do to help make our communities safer, including cracking down on rogue gun dealers, requiring background checks on all gun sales, and limiting bulk sales of guns. The arguments of those who push guns and try to force more of these dangerous, unregulated weapons into our homes should be viewed with skepticism.
References:
- McDowall, D., B. Wiersema, and C. Loftin (1989). “Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglaries?” Sociology and Sociological Research, 74: 48-51.
(Note to readers: this blog entry, as well as past blog entrees, are co-posted on www.huffingtonpost.com)
A recent article in the British Journal of Criminolgy titled “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” concludes that suicide by firearms was the only parameter that the National Firearms Agreement might have influenced. In other words, the NFA did not reduce firearms-related homicides, suicides or accidental deaths!
Michael
Why don`t you and your followers admit that you oppose the private possession of all guns.You have never tried to overturn gun bans in places like Chicago,Washington D.C.or Morton Grove.You tried to outlaw most hunting ammo by calling them Cop Killer ammo.At least the NRA is not a bunch of phonies like you and Sarah Brady.The gunlobby is strong because it respects the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.You can have Soros ,Boxer,Schumer,Feinstein and the rest of them.
In regards to Mr. Helmke’s comments about firearms increasing public safety after Hurricane Katrina, let’s look at what happened. Major Nagin illegally ordered the confiscation of lawfully-held firearms from citizens. (Nagin, who initially denied this happened, has now admitted it did happened and says that citizens can come get there guns if they can provide proof of ownership!) Also, there are documented cases of armed civilians defended their lives and property from looters during the three days when law and order broke down. (Another example, during the Rodney King riots, Korean businessmen defended their stores from looters using assault weapons.) Check out http://www.givethemback.com to see the other side of the story!
Of course the police are going to deny that firearms were useful in preserving public safety! Nagin and the police chief are currently being sued buy the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation for illegally seizing and failing to return citizen’s firearms! Anything they can do to make civilian ownership of guns look bad will help their case!
Mr. Helmke continually denies that the Brady Campaign promotes gun confiscation and over-turning the Second Amendment and that all they are concerned about is crime control. Yet, his convenient ignoring of what really happened during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans shows that goals of the Brady Campaign have not changed from the days of Pete Shields and Handgun Control, Inc.
Mr. Helmke, if you ever want any credibility with most gun owners, you are going to have to start acknowledging that there is a legitimate self-defense value to owning firearms. Once you do that, then some real dialog can begin.
Michael
Mr Helmke, you are absolutely right. Where is the “common sense” in having a loaded firearm in the household for protection purposes? Any “gun pusher” should be able to realize that when faced with a split-second self defense situation, that it takes virtually the same amount if time to go to your gun safe, unlock it, take out your weapon, load the magazine, load the firearm and chamber a round as it does to pull it from its hiding spot to use it. I mean really…what are these gun freaks thinking? It is unfathomable to think that these red-neck, neo-nazi gun toters actually value the well being of their families over liberal political agenda. Geez.
“After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crime”
Would that imply that the guns were sold through federally licensed dealers? (Since the purchase was recorded on a 4473, I’d assume the trace was how they knew the guns were sold at a show) And therefore the sales would be unaffected by the closing of any “gun show loophole?” So, why make sure to explain that they were purchased at a show?
I’ll tell you what “common sense” means to me, Mr Helmke. Common sense is my dad taking me out to the back yard when I was 5 years old and teaching me how to handle and RESPECT a firearm. Common sense is my Dad teaching me that you treat EVERY firearm like it is loaded, and you never point it at someone or thing unless you intend to shoot or kill it. Common sense is realizing that virtually every inanimate obtect in a person’s environment can be used to inflict harm. Common sense is having personal responsibility because you are concerned about consequences, and that you know right from wrong.
Violence is all around us Mr Helmke. It’s because of a rapidly changing world. One with too many one-parent households, too much criminal recidivsm, too much socio-economic disparity, not enough discipline, too much politically correctness. Not because of inanimate obejcts.
[…] Or at least they find his writing to be disturbing. Either way, it makes me happier to be on the Instapundit blogroll! […]
Ho-hum, Paul.
[…] Via bitter, the Brady Bunch doesn’t seem to like Glenn Reynolds: These sobering statistics came back to me when I read Glenn Reynolds’ disturbing op-ed encouraging government mandates that people have guns in their homes. I was angry and alarmed that some might take these proposals, and the flawed statistics on which they rely, seriously. […]
On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun and nearly 40 are murdered with guns.
Soo… what happened to the accident rates in Kennesaw, GA? Seems strange to start the piece off with that and not talk about accidental firearms injuries anymore.
“Did guns help public safety in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? If you ask the police, they’ll say no – abandoned guns and armed criminals made an already difficult rescue job even more terrifying.”
That’s interesting. I’m a Louisiana cop and no one asked me. It is my considered opinion that the lawful use of firearms and the unorganized militias that sprang up in the midst of the crisis were crucial to maintaining order in parts of the city.
As a point of fact, many agencies who sent officers to help decided to leave after Nagin issued his confiscation order.
[…] Say Uncle tips me off to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership Blog. It seems that they are accepting comments without moderation. What they (The Brady Campaign) haven’t figured out yet is that their particular brand of propaganda strategy requires endless repeats of the same damn lies until people take their claims as truth. Letting in dissent from just anyone with a browser would ruin the effect. It can’t last. I’ll give it 48 hours, tops, until they put some kind of moderation in place. […]
“armed criminals made an already difficult rescue job even more terrifying”
Yeah, when half the cops (who the Supreme Court has ruled have no legal obligation to protect you, anyway) have left town, and the other half are busy looting Wal-Mart, the last thing you want when surrounded by armed criminals is a gun in your hand. Truly clear thinking by Helmke and his gang of ignorant hoplophobes.
I’m going to buy another gun today.
Heh.
That’s one more evil gun off the streets (and in my safe - Yay!!).
You can thank me in the form of Brady Bucks, which I will use to buy more weapons!
And believe me, I’m buying them as fast as my wife will let me!
To feel safe, I may move to DC where guns are banned and therefore they have no murders. Jack.
Paul, you’re a traitor to the constitution you once swore an oath to uphold. That’s called treason.
Yawn,Paul.
Paul writes:
“Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.”
Please relate this to the population of Kennesaw for the same years.
Thanks,
Fred
Your goals are to disarm Americans. Admit your true intentions. Every time you pass another politically correct gun law, you harm Americans.
Paul,
Give up. It won’t work. You tout all of these gun-control measures in the name of public safety, and you know that it has no effect. The ultimate goal is the elimination of gun ownership by private citizens, and you know it. Why, I can’t say. I won’t get into conspiracy theories here. If you think that a gun free Utopia could be a reality, you are living in an alternate universe. Fine, just don’t try to make me live there also. If you want to make life hard for the criminal element that’s fine by me, but nothing that you propose does that. It just makes life more difficult for the law abiding gun owner.
Let me quote Ashton O’Dwyer following Hurricane Katrina.
“TREAT ME WITH BENIGN NEGLECT!”
Kennesaw’s population increased from 5,095 in 1980 to 21,675 in 2000. Estimated population in July 2005: 30,522.
Typical Liberal BS. They pull their information out of context so it will coincide with their agenda.
What a load of crap. I refer you to the incident which happened on Ocean Drive in Corpus Christi, Texas this past fall.
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5537694&nav=menu192 _2_6
If people like you had their way in this country, that mother and her son would be dead right now.
Ok, if gun control has so much support then why are the comments so overwhelingly pro gun?
Don’t any of the “million moms” or whatnot own a computer?
I do appreciate the discussion, it’s big of you to allow this, especially when it appears that your “argument” is being so publically trounced.
It’s even more of a compliment to the fine folks of the Brady campaign when you realize that computers and the internet did not exist 230 years ago. The founding fathers had no idea that this would ever exist. So by the logic of the Brady campaign, the first ammendment doesn’t apply.
It takes a brave man to stand up and take it like this. Not real smart. But brave. Good on you.
Come and take them !
I grew up in Kennesaw, and what is missing from your “facts” on crime in Kennesaw is that in the period stated (1982 and 1986) the population of that area (Cobb County) more than doubled. Kennesaw was a one horse town for a long time, but I didn’t recognize the place when I came back from the Army in 1988(I left in 1984).The two lane road I lived off of became a four lane divided highway in 2 years time. You people distort and lie, and only people with water sloshing between their ears believe you.
I’m going to buy the most evil looking handgun I can find in the gun shop tomorrow, and all because of you idiots. Maybe something in .50AE
Molon Labe
Your reference to “questionable sources” ammuses me. For every questionable pro gun source you quote I can quote a dozen questionable anti gun sources, some of which are plain manufactured propanga. Aside from the sport and colectible aspect of gun ownership by millions of respectable, law abiding citizens the next time you lie in your bed in the dead of night with nothing more than an alarm clock for protection, I want you to imagine the sound of breaking glass and heavy foot steps down stairs in your kitchen. Then I want you to realize that the average police response might be 16 minutes. You feel “lucky”?
Alot of hot air in this article. I was a police officer for 6 years and have worked the corrections side for the last 12. I’ve seen both sides of crooks and can tell you for a fact they’re more worried about armed citizens than they are the police. Crooks understand the rules of engagement for police and dont like the idea of having citizens shoot them. If they knew which households were armed they’d skip them for sheep like the brady bunch.
I applaud the Brady campaign for what they do for our wonderful nation. Keep up the good work.
Miter Benisderty
Disarming law abiding citizens is unethical, unconstitutional, and obnoxious.
In a state of emergency, I am required to provide food, shelter, as much medical care, and security to my family, and my immediate community. Katrina and other events (LA riots, etc) have told us that in many cases it comes down to the individual to provide until things return to normal. Without the tools to do this, we are left out in the cold.
These are simple principles that the settlers of this country brought here, and despite our advances in technology, we still need to have basic preparations in place to fend for ourselves in times of crisis. These times of crisis certainly appear to be arising more and more, and we need to wake up and take responsibility for ourselves and our families. Governments have not shown the ability to help everyone in a crisis, and in reality, they should not be held respoinsible for the more able bodied members.
“Common sense” gun control is not common sense. The rifle above the mantle, the cubbard of food, the extra blankets, the community spirit with our neighbors…THAT is common sense, and is what will keep this country going.
Wow, this is the most ridiculous piece of tripe I’ve read in a long time. At the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility. Banning guns might only affect the rates of suicide by gun and won’t really do anything else.
What it does is makes it hard for law abiding citizens to attain firearms for lawful purposes like defense of their person, family and properties or target shooting or something else.
Criminals don’t heed laws. More gun laws only affect law abiding citizens that already follow the law.
Go home.
I agree with gun mandates. My great grandfather was a slave, and thanks to the “Black laws”, the original gun laws in this country, there was nothing he could do in his own defense.
Malcolm X- I don’t call it violence when its self defense, I call it intelligence.
There is no picking of any cotton in my future. I wont be disarmed and I wont call 911 to protect me or mine.
With all due respect, this is absolutly nuts. Who in their right mind believes that taking away my firearm, thus preventing me from protecting my family, is doing anything other than giving criminals the “OK” to do as they please. After all, if they KNOW that people are not armed, they will do as they please. You folks are harming American citizens and don’t seem to care, shame on you. If you are pro-criminal rights then why don’t you just say so!
You guys don’t have the slightest clue. The ONLY thing more gun lefislation is good for is talking guns out of the hands of the good people of this country. Criminals don’t follow laws (if you hadn’t noticed). There can be as much gun law as you want, and then the only people with guns will be the criminals. The Founding Fathers of this great nation would be ashamed knowing we have political clowns like yourself and other democrats taking away the rights that this very country was built upon.
I am a police officer and I recommend
a gun to nearly all violent crime victims.
We cannot be everywhere and people
have to be able to protect themselves.
You and you organization do a great
diservice to this country.
“There are common sense things we can do to help make our communities safer, including cracking down on rogue gun dealers, requiring background checks on all gun sales, and limiting bulk sales of guns”
Common sense, like thats a theme the Brady Campaign knows about. Please define “rogue dealers, and bulk sales.” Its my legal right to buy as many guns as I wish, when I wish. I defended this country here and abraud, and I’ve earned the right to own what I used to keep this country free, so that you can blog half truths and misinformation.
On the above page you say
“On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun and nearly 40 are murdered with guns”.
Just curious, but how many law abiding citizens use guns to prevent becoming a victim of a crime, and by this I also mean how many would be rapists or muggers have turned to run away after the law abiding citizen had drawn their gun?
Remember there are a lot more people killed in car accidents then gun accidents, and a suicides will always find a way, don’t demonize guns cause someone wants to die or faisl to follow safety rules, that’s like demonizing spoons cause people die from obesity related diseases.
There are 40 gun murders a day in the USA? I wander how many victims there would be if no one had a gun to defend themselves with?
40 gun murders, how may golf club, baseball bat, hammer and knife murders are there? Should these items be banned as well?
Errr…
If the folks in Kennesaw need your advice, Paul…
I’m sure they’ll let you know (I would not waste too much time waiting by the phone).
RAH
With a campaign as large as yours. I would like to think that yourself and your employees have at least taken some college english classes. If that is true. One of the first things you learn in any english class college or high school is that plagairism is illegal. The second thing you learn is that making up false information is immoral and unethical.
Throughout your blog. You throw around a lot of facts and statistics. But the problem with that is you don’t quote any sources as to where these facts and statistics are coming from. I’ll give you some examples from your blog.
“On an average day in this country, two or three people die and approximately 30 are injured from accidental firearms shootings; about fifty more die by suicide with a gun and nearly 40 are murdered with guns.”
“Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.”
“Here are some additional facts: After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crimes, including a murder and an attempted murder.”
With all these so called facts none were backed up with sources. Are these facts actually true or just made up propaganda?
Here is a fact for you. Gun ownership is not illegal for law abiding citizens. My source for that is the American Constitution. You should read that sometime.
But as I mentioned plagiarism is a crime. So instead of trying to create new laws to force on us. Why don’t you try enforcing the laws that are already here. You can start by contacting the police and letting them know that you are commiting a crime. By plagiarising material and acting in an unethical manner.
I note that you like to compare yourself to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). However they never tried to ban vodka (the assault weapon of drunk driving), small bottles of Mad dog (the junk gun of the drunk driver), or tequila (the .50 cal sniper rifle of the drunken motorist). The MADD groups has been successful because they are intellectual enough to know that an inanimate object is just an object. Go after the career criminals and leave us law-abiding gun owners alone.
Mr. Helmke,
You show statistics from Kennesaw, GA, where burglaries increased from 35 in 1983 to 70 in 1986, and you somehow correlate this with thier mandatory gun ownership law, yet you don’t effectively explain this correlation. Were thefts of firearms the motive for the increased burglaries? If so, how many of those burglaries involved the theft of a firearm? Were firearm thefts rampant in 1986? If so, why wasn’t that mentioned?
The truth is you are taking an increase in crime over a period of time and attempting to correlate it with gun ownership. In a simple burglary, a firearm is not even used, otherwise it would be classified as an aggravated burglary, or robbery. I agree with you that the government should not mandate firearms ownership. It should be an individuals right to take on the responsibility of firearms ownership, but they should not restrict it either.
As a police officer, I face the realities of violence on a regular basis. As a first hand observer, I can tell you that the way to combat violence is to deal harshly with the criminals who commit these acts. Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens is not the answer. I do my best to protect my constitution everyday, and that means all of it. The fourth amendment must upheld and protected as zealously as the second. And I will not allow anyone to undermine it in any way, even if it sometimes makes my job harder. I take the words “shall not be infringed” very seriously.
It makes me feel good that when I leave for work at night, my wife has the knowledge and responsibility to use a firearm, any firearm she chooses, to protect my daughter, and I will do everything I can to keep you from taking that away.
Respectfully,
Pedro77
Wow, look at all the comments applauding this column. Well, not this one, but certainly the others…no…where are your faithful, Paul? Surely a reasonable and widely supported position on such an important issue should draw SOME kind of notice from supporters? But no. How do you figure your readership at this blog splits on the gun issue? 80/20? 95/5?
You guys lost. Bad. You didn’t win that big during the last administration. The Dems that were elected last year, all the important votes like Webb and Tester, they’re all pro-NRA. Did you READ Webb’s letter just before the election? Nobody cares about the Brady Campaign. Not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the governors, not the public, not the individual donors, nobody except maybe the Joyce Foundation and some unscrupulous polemics at Harvard and “Sociology Today”, or whatever. Pack up your crap and go home. Go fight childhood diarrhea in Africa or some damn thing that makes a difference to somebody.
Paul? Are you willing to come out of your ivory tower and practice what you preach? I know some very nice public housing complexes here in Dallas where you could live and prove that no one “needs” a gun.
I think the interpretation of the Second Amendment cited here by posters is very inaccurate. Most of you who support gun ownership still are aware, I’m certain, that the amendment’s author (James Madison, I believe?) was talking about the militia; not private gun ownership. Moreover, proponents of stronger gun legislation (such as the Brady Campaign & myself, as well…) recognize the threat to public safety if gun control standards are lax. Open your eyes, people! The Brady Campaign & its president give us a chance to find a more acceptable middle ground during this ongoing debate/struggle of mushrooming private gun ownership vs. additional federal government controls. Flippant attitudes about gun violence ~ esp. when talking about youth ~ only remind us of how we easily we can become ‘our own worst enemies’ in the fight for greater personal & public safety.
Pretty much everyone in sociology and criminology has switched from being anti-gun to being either neutral or pro-gun. This is because all the evidence points to privately owned guns being an equally or more significant deterrent to crime than the entire criminal justice system (Kleck, Social Problems Vol 35 No 1, 1998). A lot more people would be on board with the Bradys if your agenda wasnt so at odds with the truth.
The only researchers that remain on the side of the anti-gunners are being funded by the Joyce Foundation, Soros and their subsidiaries. And so far they have produced nothing but a series of easily rebutted lies backed by cherry picked data and statistical trickery. Like using absolute crime figures in a region with an increasing population, while completely ignoring all the gun-banning jurisdictions that have been rewarded with skyrocketing crime.
Unfortuantely for your organization, most legislators want to serve their constituents and they want to solve problems. Your agenda wont produce the results they want. Your agenda, when implemented, makes crime far worse than before. That a woman is raped at knifepoint instead of at gunpoint is of little consolation when you consider that she might not have been raped had the rapist been afraid of encountering an armed victim.
Ending private ownership of firearms only clears the way for unopposed coercive mischief, whether it be from a criminal underclass or from an overreaching government. I dont honestly beleive you are too naive to be aware of this so I have to know what your end goal is, once you have disarmed us.
This country has slowly begun to walk away from its heritage… some Americans are even in a full sprint to escape it.
A firearm is nothing more than a mechanical tool. Parents and schools have started to cater to the wishy washy crowd who whines about what they don’t like. Alcohol, guns, smoking, pollution, gasoline, red meat, free trade, foreign aid.. you name it, it’s fair game for someone to advocate banning it because they do not like it.
The simple fact is that guns are dangerous when put into the hands of individuals who are untrained, uneducated or unqualified in the use of firearms. Just as we all learned that when driving, you drive on the right side of the road, children in this country should be taught what firearms are, what they are capable of, and why they exist.
Our Constitution enumerates a right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Some want to interpret that to mean that only the military or professional militia they define as the national guard are to whom this right applies. Well, the national guard did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, so how can that argument be used. At the time, the militia of this young country was EVERY able-bodied man, whether or not enrolled in the military.
People think that police officers are in favor of nobody owning firearms except police officers or military. I’m sure there are those who do think that way. I am a police officer. I feel, as does nearly every other officer I’ve ever met, that individual citizens of this country not only have the right to arm themselves, but that by not doing so, they do themselves and their communities a disservice, by not providing themselves with an effective means of protection of life. It is not the job of police agencies or officers to “protect” individuals at the moments they are being attacked. In a generic sense of the word, it is their job, but that sense means that the police investigate and arrest suspected criminals and admit them into the justice system. Prosecutors and judges do the rest. Sadly, prosecutors and judges do not seem to feel the need to penalize those who would use firearms in furtherance of criminal activity.
America has been turning into a country of convenience, and it is sad to see that basic rights such as the ability for our citizens to provide a guaranteed method of defending their life or the lives of their families if/when it would ever become necessary.
Those who advocate the blanket ban of firearms should not only be ashamed, they ought to re-consider why this country has become the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Paul, could you please use the gun crime statistical data from CA,IL,NYC and DC to defend your position on gun control? I am eager to see how you spin it into someting positive that benefits your agenda.
Regards,
Jason
There seem to be too many NRA supporters coming out of the woodworks, to express their views that they are absolutely right about lesser gun control ~ and that everyone else, who supports the important efforts of the Brady Campaign are absolutely wrong. That’s unfortunate ~ they cannot seem to see the bigger picture here. We are ALL affected by guns, even if we don’t chose to own one ~ but are unfortunate enough to see others hurt or even killed by them. A relative of mine was killed by a gun, while giving a speech in the late 1950s. Though I did not experience this directly, it affected that branch of my family deeply. They have never really recovered from it.
But I must say, the police officer who claims (above), that he actually encourages people to possess guns ~ because he can’t assure their safety ~ well … that’s unbelievable (and I would add, very wrong for him to do). I hope his superior sees what he wrote above, and fires him. I find it very difficult to believe also, that it’s a universally-held belief in the police depts. across this country to encourage citizens to take up arms. Baloney! Most I’ve met as a former city police beat reporter (in Chicago) want to see violent crimes down … not up. And, the PRESENCE of weaponry contributes to an increase in violence ~ not the other way around. If you missed this basic fact in police academy training, then go back & learn.
Just to clarify my last sentence:
“If you missed this basic fact in police academy training, then go back and learn” … I’m referring here to the police officer (”Dave”), who posted his views about promoting gun ownership to citizens ~ not to the Brady Campaign president.
I am shocked, quite frankly, by what some people have written in opposition of stronger gun control laws (though, I realize, it’s an old argument, they are making); and I couldn’t be more opposed to individual police officers encouraging citizens to bear arms for their own safety ~ this just increases fear & very likely, accidental shootings/deaths.
Keep up the good work, Brady Campaign & Paul Helmke! Judging from some of these statements, you’ve got a lot of educating to do. It won’t be easy; but it is necessary.
Hey Kelli L…
please do not involve yourself in topics which you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING about.
Your “points” are emotionally based and have no weight at all (look at all of the PROgun comments on an ANTIgun website). If you would have READ the comments before your post, you would have seen that the second half of your diatribe has been covered (and discredited).
You are trying to bring emotions to an debate that has enough already (specifically by your “but the children” whining). It’s a typical liberal trick but one that has not worked this time.
You liberals MUST understand that CRIMINALS commit crimes! CRIMINALS commit murder! CRIMINALS use illegal means to gain access to LEGAL firearms. And until you liberals start doing something about those CRIMINALS, you will not do anything to solve this crisis.
Thanks!
“The Brady Campaign & its president give us a chance to find a more acceptable middle ground during this ongoing debate/struggle of mushrooming private gun ownership vs. additional federal government controls.”
See Kelli, your problem here is that you imply that you believe the problem is “Private gun ownership”. This is why we are all against you. If you took a step back and understand our point that the mere existance of guns in private hands is not the problem, but criminal and unsafe use of those guns, we would get a lot farther in solving the problems of violence.
You mention youth in your post. This is interesting, because 80 years ago, there were NO federal gun laws. A 12 year old could go into a hardware store and buy a Thompson submachinegun (Tommygun) with no paperwork or background check at all. Despite this, I don’t recall hearing about any school shootings…
The point is, over the last century or so, restrictions on who can own guns and how they are purchased have increased, but so has gun violence. The point can be made that the success of gun control as a solution to gun crime is inconclusive at best.
The over 99.9% of gun owners in this country are law-abiding people and would not affect the crime rate regardless of what sort of weapons, or how many they own. The problem we have is that we understand that once we, the law-abiding, give up our guns, there is very high likelyhood that we will NEVER get them back, regardless of whether our disarmament actually causes a reduction in gun crimes.
The criminals, by definition, will not follow these laws, and will have guns if they want them. Look at drugs as an example: Anyone who wants them can get them.
As for your comments regarding the militia, I offer this:
“The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”
That was an excerpt for Federalist #46, written by James Madison, where he states that the militia is made up of armed citizens, should always be many times larger than the standing army, and is instrumental in dealing with tyrants both at home and abroad.
So, to sum up, The militia is composed of gun-owning citizens, and gun ownership is not the cause of gun violence. Therefore, you cannot take away our guns by the Constitution, it won’t do any good to take away our guns, and 80 MILLION armed American won’t let our guns be taken.
But if you must try, MOLON LABE.
IMHO, these comments reveal the range of feelings & positions on the issue of gun control ~ even amongst those who all identify themselves as firmly being ‘pro-gun’ etc & in the same ideological camp, so-to-speak. Someone writes, for example, that guns are simply mechanical devises ~ which, in my view, is just meant to downplay the dangerous weaponry part, which concerns so many Americans. Another claims that the Brady campaign is losing steam & not making headway in its cause ~ however, if that were the case, why would soooo many in opposition still feel the need to come forward & make their voices heard? And, yet another seems to be passing the buck to the citizens & the court system ~ saying that, as a police officer, he feels its people’s jobs to look out for themselves; because officers cannot protect everyone, etc. I couldn’t disagree more.
Honestly, some of the comments shocked me when I first read them… but then, I took a necessary step back & realized, that the crucial Brady Campaign Message ~ through its highly dedicated president, Paul Helmke ~ IS getting out (despite the NRA); and that they ought to be proud.
Kelli
(rewritten submission)
gun laws can no more be generalised than any other stereotype. the systematic dumbing-down of America, starting with Stella’s suit against McDonald’s, needs to stop!
The American public needs to take responsibility for it’s actions. If education of our children remains a back-burner issue, we can expect nothing but disappointment. Our kids are being taught that…
being obese is SONY’S fault!
being ignorant is your teacher’s fault!
being violent is TV’s fault!
IT DOSEN’T TAKE A “VILLAGE” IT TAKES PARENTS TO RAIS KIDS!!!
I HAVE 5 KIDS THEY DON’T JUDGE.
THEY DON’T PRESUME.
THEY DON’T TAKE GUNS TO SCHOOL.
guns have not “TURNED” my family to menaces.
“I think the interpretation of the Second Amendment cited here by posters is very inaccurate. Most of you who support gun ownership still are aware, I’m certain, that the amendment’s author (James Madison, I believe?) was talking about the militia; not private gun ownership.”
-Comment by Kelli L. at 10:09 am on January 26, 2007
Continuing…
You probably are on to something there, Kelli.
Boy!
I bet the BILL OF RIGHTS was probably misnamed…
It probably should have correctly been called “OUR RULES & STUFF FOR YOU GUYS” (much better sounding).
It really is just a GOVERNMENT list of what they want & feel like doing -jus’ so we peasants know (big of ‘em).
I mean, THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE matter little, right -why would they enumerate those? It’s such silly stuff to get in the way of benevolent social engineering.
Breaks my heart that you guys & them don’t get a carte blanc.
RAH
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. — Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
The Dalai Lama: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
“Jesus said, ‘But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” (Luke 22:36)
“If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2)
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” (Luke 11:21)
“Though defensive violence will always be ‘a sad necessity’ in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men.” St. Augustine A.D. 354-430
“Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.” — Walter Mondale, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, 4/20/94
In response to the person that mentioned Madison above.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. — James Madison
Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. — James Madison
James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the nation’s highest court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.” Richard Henry Lee wrote, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
Well… we all here know that the brady campaign’s main goal is to eventually disarm americans… although they mask it by saying they only want more laws. Now Tell me… Paul, Kelli L and other anti-gun people. IF we ever are disarmed, and someone breaks into your home… what will you be armed with? at BEST, a butcher knife… what will HE be armed with?…-the Tech 9 he just stole from some drug dealer after a deal went bad. IF law abiding american citizens are disarmed, who will be armed?… 2 groups of people- Law Enforcement, and the criminals… do you really think they give a d*mn about the equivalent of a “prohabition” of guns? its like the bootleggers did when the actual prohabition went down… this “disarmament” thing is plain dangerous. nothing more, nothing less.
Kelli L.needs to face reality.I’ll deal with my own safety and welfare before I rely on law enforcement.All I can say is good luck.
Well, that is INTERESTING.
It seems “Kelli” has a post the is a “rewritten submission”…
While MINE WERE DELETED (me evidently being less than respectful of our has-been ex-mayor blogger & pol hack…and his sole water carrier).
Let me guess: should I be surprised that the place that dislikes the SECOND AMENDMENT…
Plays a bit loose with the FIRST AMENDMENT?
Can’t take the HEAT, can you…anti dweebs?
Surprise, surprise.
RAH (expecting a dweeb to delete this any sec now)
I must eat crow (really!) and recant -somehow I see they reappeared…must of been a site glitch.
Sorry Paul & Kelli!
RAH
Rick ~ It’s OK.
But you see now, how easily one can draw the wrong conclusions. I asked the tech. folks to delete my prior posts, so that I could rewrite my views more appropriately. No matter how antagonistic some of the posts have been in this debate, I didn’t want to follow suit.
The truth is, even if I was in the ‘pro-gun’ camp (sorry, but can’t think of a better term to apply here…), I still would recognize the need for good, capable people with loads of integrity ~ like the Brady Campaign & Paul Helmke ~ to be working on this important issue.
Toby ~ Though I grew up with rifles/shotguns in my parent’s shed, I have never owned a firearm … and, I never, ever will. Protection can be achieved without a gun, I believe. I am happy not to be dependent upon a firearm, for my personal safety or that of my family. It is far too dangerous, esp. when children live in a home with a gun. I just won’t take that risk.
We are coming, I think, from very different directions, in this conversation. Where you may see guns as mostly proactive (ie., to prevent being injured or killed in a home break-in, for example); I see them as reactive. Proactive, for me, means learning self-defense techniques; installing alarm systems in my home for safety; and esp. learning how not to be a victim.
Thanks for reading,
Kelli
Mr. Helmke
I really wish that the Brady people would just admit that your real aim is to completely disarm the American people. I am a police officer and a SWAT officer for a large city and I absolutely support the right of the people to own firearms. There are a lot more members of the NRA in the rank and file of police departments than there are members of the Brady group. In fact, most police officers hate the Brady-ites and what they stand for. Citizens have absolutely used firearms to protect themselves and their property. While it did not make national news, New Orleans police officers have told me personally that many citizens were able to save their lives and their property from looters only because they had guns. You and the Brady-ites are flat wrong.
Kelli L:
You claim that the interpretation of the Second Amendment used is inaccurate, and I agree. However it may be your interpretation that is lacking. For what is this militia that is alluded to? Current Federal law defines it as all males between 18 and 45 who are not members of the military. Would you be more comfortable if firearms owners gathered together to create well-regulated militia units versed in the methods of modern combat and armed with the arms applicable to modern warfare? What is the militia if it is not private gun ownership. Truly the inspired model for the militia of the times was Switzerland, a federal republic in which individuals keep and bear military arms. Would you instead that the government issue to citizens M-4 carbines, M249 SAW’s and M240B’s?
On the face of the argument the Brady Campaign and I have the same goal; to reduce the amount of unintentional and illegal harm done with firearms. If only the Brady Campaign would join with us to promote a proper understanding of firearms safety many accidental injuries could be avoided. What a shame it is that they instead push for abstinence above informed use! That they have no interest in teaching firearms safety courses, yet the NRA does is indicitive of who is truly interested in saving lives.
I may not check back here. Feel free to contact me at johhny(underscore)e(at)yahoo(dot)com if you are interested in learning the truth about firearms safety.
KELLI plz read this about the national guard.
I will repost this if i am censerd.
Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Constitutional scholars have noted that there is no historical basis for the claim that the Second Amendment only protects a so-called “collective right” of the states to arm militias. Author, attorney and constitutional expert Stephen P. Halbrook sums it up succinctly, writing: “If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.” (That Every Man Be Armed, Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984)
Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm, testifying before Congress in 1995, told Rep. John Conyers, “It is very hard, sir, to find a historian who now believes it is only a ‘collective right.’ [T]here is a general consensus that in fact it is an individual right.”
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the nation’s highest court also recognized that the right preexisted the Constitution.
In U.S. v. Emerson (2001) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is subject only to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions” that “are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right.
During the Bush Administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice have recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is an individually-held right. (www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).
The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia” has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militia “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militia consist “of the whole people.”
The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the “well regulated militia” referred to in the Second Amendment. “The Militia of the United States” is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., §311; 32 U.S.C., §313), with the Guard established as only its “organized” element.
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Clearly this “Kelli” is a Brady stooge, and also, comments that are not beneficial to the Brady platform of lies are being deleted, which is NOT in the spirit of free and open discussion, which I had always believed to be a cherished American value.
The United States Supreme Court discussed the meaning of the militia in a 1939 decision which was based on traditional views ex-pressed in state court decisions. “The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of ap-proved commenta-tors. These show plainly enough that the Militia com-prised 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 bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. . . . In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult males inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defense. The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.”
The sentimental role of the citizen-soldier is found in the parallel to the Roman Cincinnatus who left his plow in the field to answer his country’s call. The Supreme Court in one of the very few rulings rendered on the right to keep and bear arms, looked at the historical context in which forces consisting of citizen-soldiers had developed. “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource from maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”
Most of the political writers of the colonial and federal periods were intimately familiar with the liberal political writings of the Enlight-enment. One of the most writers who exercised great influence on the development of the American mind was James Harring-ton (1611-1677), the philosopher of property rights and economic determinism. Harring-ton called the militia, “the vast body of citizens in arms, both elders and youth.” Harrington also noted that the militia consisted of “Men accustomed to their arms and their liberties.” Commenting on Harrington’s thought, Sir Henry Vance the Younger wrote that the militia comprised those who “have deserved to be trusted with the keeping or bearing Their own Armes in publick defense.”
A more contemporary writer was the first great economic philosopher, Adam Smith (1723-1790), author of the influential treatise, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. Smith defined the term militia as, “either all the citizens of military age, or a certain number of them, to join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on. If this is found to be the policy of a nation, its military force is then said to consist of a militia.”
A French contemporary of Smith’s, Hilliard d’Auberteuil, observed that “a well regulated militia [is] drawn from the body of the people.” It is “accustomed to arms” and “is the proper, natural and sure defense of a free state.” He cautioned his readers that a standing army, on the other hand, was destructive of liberty. French military theorist Comte de Guibert expressed little admiration for militiamen who were not well disciplined. Having witnessed American militiamen in action, he described the citizen-soldier a as “real barbarian” who is
terrible when angered, he will carry flame and fire to the enemy. He will terrify, with his vengeance, any people who may be tempted to trouble his repose. And let no one call barbarous these reprisals based on laws of nature [although] they may be violations of so-called laws of war. . . . He arises, leaves his fireside, he will perish, in the end, if neces-sary; but he will obtain satisfaction, he will avenge himself, he will assure himself, by the magnificence of this vengeance, of his future tranquility.
Sir James A. H. Murray in his New English Dictionary of Historical Principles, defined the militia as, “a military force, especially the body of soldiers in the service of the sovereign of the state, [who are] the whole body of men amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether drilled or not . . . . A citizen army as distinguished from a body of mercenaries or professional soldiers.”
Simeon Howard (1733-1804), writing in Boston in 1773, said that a militia was “the power of defense in the body of the people . . . [that is], a well-regulated and well-disciplined militia. This is placing the sword in hands that will not be likely to betray their trust, and who will have the strongest motives to act their part well, in defence of their country.”
Justice Story in his Commentaries defended the militia system. He wrote, “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic usurpation of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military estab-lishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expense with which they afford ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government, or trammel upon the rights of the people. The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Benjamin Franklin defined the militia as a voluntary association of extra-governmental armed troops acting under their own authority. Franklin wrote that a militia is a “voluntary Assembling of great Bodies of armed Men, from different Parts of the Province, on occasional Alarm, whether true or false, . . . without Call or Authority from the Government, and without due Order and Direction among themselves . . . which cannot be done where compulsive Means are used to force Men into Military Service. . . . ”
Source document: Militia Treatises
by
James B. Whisker
Professor of Political Science
West Virginia University
In every case, no definition of the militia may be
said to preclude the individual citizen acting on
behalf of himself, his neighbors, or his family, to use force of arms in their defense, or for any other lawful purpose.
Brady lies. It is the very wellspring of misinformation, disinformation, distortions, untruths, and simple, bald-faced lies.
Only a fool would look to the Brady Campaign for guidance as only a fool follows a liar.
i would just like to say that all this anti gun politics is nonsense for the simple fact that citizens of this fine country helped gain our independence lol explain to me someone how u get any where in the second amendment that a american citizen does not have the right to own a firearm this entire country is a defending group of people if u want to admit it or not thats what we are if this country is invaded we are the frontline defense until our military can act my opinion take care of the real problem the black marketing of guns drugs hell even organs get tougher on high crime areas put a police officer every hundred feet if u have to you say to much money i say politicans take a pay cut and people in this country with money chip in dont nag and nag about it if you are not willing to help i believe if a citizen sees a crime you should be able to make an arrest and what do you need today in this world with armed criminals (which is the problem)we need guns thank you and goodnight god bless
Please read this and stop erasing my comments
In U.S. v. Emerson (2001) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is subject only to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions” that “are not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . . . All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.” Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the right.
The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia” has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militia “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militia consist “of the whole people.”
In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James Madison noted that the amendments “relate first to private rights.” Sen. William Grayson observed that they “altogether respected personal liberty.” Tench Coxe wrote, “[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Thank you, Groucho ~ I take that as a compliment! An interesting, well-researched perspective you offer, too. It was very dense, and took me some time to read it thoroughly. Just pls. remember, that knowledge isn’t always the same as insight, into an issue. There’s a great deal more at stake, in the area of gun control, than simply a debate over the interpretation of the author(s) of the 2nd Amendment, as I’m sure you are already well aware.
Kelli L.
(p.s. ~ Kelli is my first name, you don’t have to italicize it. It’s real.)
Kelli,
In your above post it sounds to me as though you’re implying that we can ignore the bill of rights. Can we ignore our right to freedom of speech and religion because there is “a great deal more at stake” due to the war on terror? Whether or not something fits into the constitution/ bill of rights should be the only area of importance in a debate involving the law.
Matt ~ I don’t agree with your line of thinking on this: that, “whether or not something fits into the constitution/bill of rights should be the only area of importance in a debate involving the law”. No, this simply isn’t correct. And just to clarify, I’m not implying anything about ignoring our country’s bill of rights, now or ever. If I had been, I would have stated it quite clearly.
A. ~ Gandhi is hailed by many as the father of peaceful, non-violent protest. To use his quotes as an argument for a pro-gun stance is like ’stretching a rubber band’ beyond recognition. This would offend a great many who believe in Gandhi’s life & work, as I do.
Thanks everyone for reading my personal thoughts/views on this important issue,
Kelli
Ok Kelli, tell me then, if a proposed law does not fit into the bill of rights would it still be acceptable and would you consider it? If your answer is yes, then yes you are implying that its ok to ignore the bill of rights.
Matt, this isn’t Law & the Constitution 101. It’s a discussion on gun control (historically, yes … those issues are important, too) & also, in the present-day ~ what’s happening in our society right now (eg., gun pushers, dealers, problems with fact checking in registration backgrounds, purpose & uses of privately owning firearms, how easily the wrong people get guns & use them to harm others, etc., etc.). There’s much more to it than simply arguing the 2nd Amendment; but, there’s no way I can convince you of this & I wouldn’t even try. You have to understand all the facets yourself; do your own homework. Have you ever seen firearms stashed at a gang hideout, used for horrific purposes? I have. When I covered news events in Chicago, and went through an old hideout while the ATF men were searching for addl. explosives. It’s not a pretty site. Where do they suppose they get all of these firearms? Think about it.
so tell me KELLI L… if SOMEONE BREAKS IN AND YOU TRY SOME THAI-CHI BS DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU HAVE A CHANCE… HE WOULD SHOOT BEFORE YOUR HAND COULD BE RAISED, AND YOU COULD BE IN FULL TILT OF COMING AT HIM. or in your absence of having posessed a firearm, do you think you could beat him to it… heres some statistics for you… it takes about .25 seconds or less for an experienced gunman to pull a trigger on a firearm which instintaniously sends a bullet directly out the muzzle of the gun at approx. 1000-2000 FPS depending on caliber. it takes the average Tai-Kwan-do master .45 to acheive any kind of strike, and even longer for an accurately placed hit which could also be fatal. if your method of defense is az baseball bat… it can take up to one second for you to strike a decent blow… maybe longer if your physical stature is not that of an athlete… or of corse you’ve just woken… which you probably have being that it would be a break in 90% of the time. 911 takes 30 seconds to pick up, dial a phone, and start hearing a connection to 911. it then takes approx 4 min.s to describe your situation to an operator in your distressed state… and another atleast 10 minuites for an emergency response vehicle(cop) to show up…. sometimes more, sometimes less… oh yeah, and the average break-in and robbery takes place in less than 7 minuites by an experienced burgler… and roughly the same for a robbery-homicide… if you defend yourself with a firearm and it turns fatal, being in that you have to shoot him/her… the coroner takes 25 min.s to get to your location… i’d rather wait and let them figure out what all happened after the fact.!
Kelli, try this simple experiment, if you dare:
This evening, around 9 PM, pick up the phone, dial 911, and say you think there’s a prowler in your back yard. Now hang up and immediately call for a pizza delivery from any of the nearest shops of a major pizza chain.
Care to bet which will arrive first? Police or pizza?
Second scenario:
It’s 3 AM, you’re alone asleep in your house. You wake up to a noise and hear someone rummaging through your belongings. Nobody should be in the house but you.
You peek into the hallway and see what looks like
a decent sized man crossing into your living room,
and he MAY be armed from what you can see.
In your bedroom, there are two items available to you. Neither one is an escape route. One is a telephone (and it works) so you can dial 911.
The other is a reliable handgun.
Which one is more sure protection for you in the
next few minutes? If this intruder enters your
bedroom, which of these items will he be more
immediately concerned with? You making a phone
call or you pointing a gun at him?
You don’t know this guy’s history but clearly his
mere presence says that he doesn’t have much
respect for the property rights of others, and
is likely to be willing to do whatever it takes to
keep witnesses from being a future problem to him.
So what do you do? Hide, dial 911, grab a gun
and prepare to defend your life? Some combination thereof?
Or will you just let him rape you if he wants and hope that he’ll settle for that without doing
additional harm to you?
The mentality of the person who does not see that it his or her own primary responsibility to provide for his or her own EFFECTIVE defense is the mentality of the VICTIM.
While there IS a need for gun control, it is ONLY a need to find a RATIONAL way of ensuring that your INTRUDER is not armed (and better, isn’t even an intruder) but YOU, the law-abiding citizen, shall
ALWAYS have access to an effective means for your own defense.
It is absolutely foolish to think that the police are there to protect you. THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB.
It is the job of the police to arrive at the scene of the crime, collect evidence, attempt to locate and detain the perpetrator, and submit evidence to the state prosecutor for future trial. To pick up the pieces and figure out what happened. Police RARELY are able to respond to crimes-in-progress rapidly enough to stop them in progress.
You would indeed be a fool to trust the police to be your first line of defense when they are several minutes away, but a gun is as close as you choose it to be and should be considered to be a loyal and trusted friend who won’t get scared and run away when you need it most.
You really need to seriously think about that.
I have one relative who has actually fired a gun at another human being, several times, in the course of stopping an armed robbery in progress. And he is not in law enforcement. if this can happen so close in my own family, it can certainly happen to your own family as well.
Will you be armed when you must be?
Kelli,
Many have given you background on some of the history of the second amendment. If I may paraphrase your response I take it to be, “the history is good to know but we must deal with the problems we have here and now.” I suggest to you that the Brady Campaign is not at all interested in doing so. The NRA does more to contribute to firearms safety than the Brady Campaign has ever done. Their results are real, measurable and effective.
You commit to us a laundry list of sometimes related problems that have complex influences. These are not things that can be easily solved with the band-aid of further law making. Would the Brady Campaign commit to serious, real world solutions they might gain credibility. I think this may be why there is so much criticism from some quarters. There are those that would not trade liberty for safety. There are also those that would increase further the power of the government in their lives for a net gain of zero. Until the Brady Campaign and other such organizations can devise real solution to real problems they will continue to lack credibility.
Just FYI ~
I should mention, that the gang I’m referring to was “El Rukn,” well-known in the Windy City. I will never, ever forget going through their hideout/headquarters, before it was demolished (why my former bureau editor assigned me to this story, as a rookie reporter, I’ll never know… what a tough breaking in) & feeling sick-to-my-stomach at the sight of how violence permeated their lives.
Even after I left journalism, I never really forgot those kinds of depressing images (as you can no doubt tell). In a way, it was good to see this, though. It opened my eyes. And down the street, there were children riding bikes, playing, and living their lives, as though they had no idea the danger that was right around the corner. Of course, I’m sure their parents knew.
Guns are very much apart of dangerous lifestyles in other large metropolitan U.S. cities, as well ~ not just Chicago ~ and, even if it’s not El Rukn, it’s someone else with similarly harmful intentions. And they will, I believe, obtain firearms wherever and whenever they can ~ and it makes you wonder, Who in their right mind would distribute/obtain/sell guns to these people … knowing full well how they intend to use them?
This is why gun-control efforts are so crucial, IMHO. And, before I leave my soapbox today on this very interesting blog, I must stress the importance of working with the Brady Campaign. Understand and appreciate their efforts at making society a little more safe.
There are even posters, like Jared, who mentioned that he has some similar goals to those of the Brady camp. So, if that be the case, then find a way to work with them … rather than take the easy way out by belittling their efforts or saying that they really want to take everyone’s gun away. That’s simply not true. Interestingly, I would say that I’m even less moderate on this issue than the Brady folks ~ who believe that specific types of private gun ownership (eg., hunting, protection/self defense, etc.) are acceptable.
Thanks for reading & sharing your views,
K
While Gandhi was a peaceful man he clearly believed in ones right to self defense. It is better to defend yourself than roll over and die.
A lot of illegal guns used by gangs come across our porous border that the liberals don’t want us to clamp down on.
Self defense and alarms? Won’t stop a bullet or someone larger and stronger, and they also learn the same fighting techniques.
Police will be fifteen minutes late at best. If your alarm goes off immediately, company calls police and they come as fast as they can, you can already be dead.
To readers ~ please disregard #48 and #49 of my posts. I have asked the tech. folks to delete those, as they were not expressed very well & I rewrote it in a later submission.
Z3n ~ Obviously, you & I have a different way of communicating, not to mention different views on who can post their thoughts/comments. In my opinion, everyone’s posts are welcomed, even if they differ from my own (including yours).
PromptCritical ~ It’s basic. The main issue is, of course, gun control. Period. But, gun ownership is a necessary part of that equation. I don’t see how you can talk about one, without considering the other. Wish I had more time to give to this ongoing discussion; but there’s always another interesting blog in the near future, to consider.
Thank you,
Kelli
Kelli, I see no problem with using the words of Ghandi in this context. It seems that one of the tenets of the gun-control movement is that violence, in any form, for any reason, is unacceptable. Ghandi had the wisdom to realize that, while he was a man of peaceful means, sometimes violence is necessary.
If you are of the opinion that violence is not the answer, how would you deal with a violent attack? You may at first say that the chances of that are extremely slim, but if that is the case, why all this worry about guns?
Lets just say for the sake of example, you are at home alone, and someone breaks down your door. Obviously, this person is up to no good. You would probably call the police, right? So would I, while at the same time arming myself in case they don’t arrive in time to help.
You don’t own a gun because they are dangerous and you think violence is bad. But why did you call the police then? That’s right: Because they carry guns, and know how to use them. If the robber does anything violent, he will most likely be shot. In your case, by the police, hopefully before he has a chance to hurt you, or in my case, by me before he has a chance to hurt me. The difference is, I consider my chances of being uninjured better than yours, considering police response times.
Why does this fit so nicely with Ghandi? He advised violence over cowardice. In my above example, I could point out that your decision not to provide for your own defense, but relying on someone else to “do the dirty work” could be an example of cowardice. That is probably unfair to you. For all I know, you may be a kick-boxing champion and would have no problem beating the crap out of someone much bigger than you are. But then again, violence never solves anything…
In response to post 73:
Kelli, what is the point of this organization then? Seriously, if the purpose of the Brady Campaign is to get laws passed, then the constitutionality of those laws is absolutely relevent.
From the gun owner side, specifically me, these laws are all unconstitutional. But that is beside the point. I have come to realize that lawmakers really don’t care if the constitution is being violated. IF they think the law is a good idea, they will pass it, end of story.
At this point I try to explain that the existance of guns in the hands of private citizens is a freedom that far outweighs the cost of them in the hands of criminals.
Here are some basic numbers: There are approximately 80 million gun owners in the US. They own approx. 195 million guns. Many people, myself included, own more than our fair share. From Brady’s own statistics, there were about 30,000 firearm-related deaths in 2002. Since odds are that at least a few of those incidents involved multiple deaths by one shooter with one firearm, the percentage of gun owners that caused deaths is less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent. The percentage of involved firearms is less than half of that.
You mean to tell me that even though 99.98% of firearms are not used to kill people, the problem is guns in private hands? Not passing the stink test at all.
There is a reason I posted the link in post 52. If you haven’t read it, please do. I used to think that the world would be better without guns, but then I realized that violence existed for thousands of years before the invention of the firearm. In a violent world, the firearm gives the weak and the few the ability to protect themselves from the strong and the many.
You cannot prevent violence by eliminating the tool of it, only by addressing the causes of it. Unfortunately, too many seem to have said “That’s to difficult, lets ban guns instead.”
Again, the anti-gun arguments are intellectually dishonest because banning guns will not solve the problem, and the debate takes attention away from finding out what will.
Besides, if you guys somehow succeeded in taking away the guns, and the problem doesn’t go away, will you help us get our guns back? I thought not. That’s why we will never trust you. We know you just want to ban guns.
Food for thought: The manufacture of machineguns for sale to private citizens was banned in 1986. Previous to that, anyone could make and register a machinegun, or buy a new one, provided they passed an extensive background check and payed a $200 tax. Now only the ones made before the ban can be owned and they cost obscene amounts of money. You probably say the ban was a good “common sense” law. Since machineguns had first required registration over 70 years ago, to today, only two registered machineguns have ever been used to murder anyone. In one of those cases, a police officer did the murdering. In the name of compromise, and in light of how little they are used in crimes, would you support allowing average law-abiding citizens to own affordable machineguns? Once again, I thought not…
The problem is not, and never has been, a matter of gun ownership by any LAW-ABIDING citizen. It has always been a matter of the intentions and the actions of CRIMINALS, instead.
I’d venture to guess that everyone who has posted a comment here is a law abiding, good, honest, and decent citizen. Working on this presumption, it doesn’t matter in ANY way WHAT we have in our gun cabinets or what our preferred type of firearms-related recreational activity is. Whether it’s hunting ducks with a shotgun, deer with a bolt-action rifle, or fun at the range with an “evil black assault rifle look-alike”, or participation in any of a number of nationally publicized machinegun shoots that occur every year, NONE of these people or activities poses ANY threat to any other law-abiding citizen.
I understand completely that your stated goal is to stop the usage of guns in CRIMINAL activity, and that is certainly a noble goal that NOBODY could disagree with in principles, unless they are themselves criminals or have criminal intent.
But banning guns isn’t the answer. It’s not even close. Because it’s ALWAYS the criminal element that holds on to their guns after all law-abiding citizens have turned theirs in when their government demanded it.
You want a perfect solution? Come up with one that doesn’t interfere with MY unrestricted rights
as a law-abiding citizen to own and use firearms for any lawful purpose, but manages to keep criminals from getting them.
That sounds like a really difficult task. And actually, it is, because nobody can predict when a good person might snap or be pushed too far by the circumstances in his or her life.
However, what CAN be done is to recognize those with a history of gun-related violence and LOCK THEM AWAY FOREVER.
Any person who commits a crime of violence against another person and uses a gun or any deadly weapon in the commission of that crime should simply never see the light of day again. If they never rejoin society, they can’t do it again.
And the threat and PROMISE of assured punishment of this type will by itself act as a deterrent.
Our criminal justice system as it is now is not an adequate deterrent as there are so many cases when utter scumbags have ended up being set free after having suffered little if any real punishment. THAT is the fundamental problem that MOST needs addressing, and if it is addressed properly, it will by itself solve other problems.
I think that if you were to take some time to evaluate the raw statistical data on gun-related crimes nationwide, and group first time offenders in one group and repeat offenders in another group, you would see that it’s a FEW people who commit REPEATED crimes with guns.
Take them out of society and suddenly things will be a lot quieter.
I will never support any measure that is aimed at criminals but has a direct negative consequence for those who have no criminal intent. Gun control laws are an example of such a measure.
Personally, I would totally support any measure that strikes the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and ALL other federal and state gun control laws, from the books, forever. There should be NO regulation whatsoever on guns in any way, shape, or form.
However, the law should aggressively enforce laws pertaining to the USE of those guns. An armed criminal should simply never be let free.
CJ
Hi Prompt ~
The Brady Campaign has never advocated taking away everyone’s firearms, or the right to legally sell & possess guns. We all are aware of this. Rather, they are working very hard for tougher laws on the books, for everyone’s protection ~ not just your’s or mine; but every individual’s … & for good reason. I feel bad for them, that they have to even deal with some of the people who respond on these blogs (who are obviously being rude & antagonistic, in order to ‘bait’ them).
Secondly, IMHO, many in the pro-gun camp are so extreme in their views about no one having any say in their right to possess firearms (eg., not a watchdog group, not the feds, not anyone …), that they conveniently hide behind, what I see as their skewed interpretation of a sort of blanket-protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment (eg., my poor history teacher would cringe if he saw what NRA folks are saying about the Bill of Rights…) ~ rather than deal with the very real problems of gun violence in our society. It’s not that hard to be educated in this. Just open up a newspaper & read. It’s all there, in black & white.
A minor case-in-point, if you will, at how easily one can buy a firearm these days:
A few months ago, over the holidays, I was in an antique shop where an adolescent boy of around 15 - 16 yrs. (not much older, I think) bought a rifle quickly and easily, while he chatted with the clerk about his gun collection & she smiled seemingly approvingly. In this store, there was a particular dealer there (who rented space) who was selling guns from the two world wars, knives, etc., along with an assortment of various war paraphernalia like Nazi uniforms, insignias ~ and, anything older than about 30 years could be labeled “antique.” So this rifle could’ve been from as late as the 1960s or ’70s.
The buyer had someone with him, obviously; because he wasn’t old enough to have a driver’s license. {Not old enough to have a driver’s license; but old enough to purchase a gun … Good God} He paid, and left in about 5 minutes, much sooner than I checked out. I watched in line, and just shook my head. Who knows if that particular firearm he now owns works or not ~ or, is repairable or not? That’s not the issue. But, can’t you see how easily ~ even a child ~ can obtain a gun?
I’m sure you can.
But the NRA doesn’t want to acknowledge these types of problems. And quite frankly, many people (myself included), just don’t expect a lot of good to come out of an association like the NRA. However, they do expect a lot of good to come from working with the Brady Campaign. That’s why you don’t necessarily see them posting a lot here … they’re out there; but they know too much about the history of the way the NRA deals with opposition ~ and they may not wish to be put in harm’s way.
Can you blame them?
And a more specific question for the gun dealers posting here (of which, I’m sure, there are several): How do you suppose the gun store owner who sold the firearms to the very, very sick man, who then went & gruesomely murdered the Amish schoolkids in Penn. last fall in a case that shocked the nation (if not the world!!), felt afterwards? How could anyone live with himself/herself after that? And I’d imagine, if they did their job properly, the police dept. in Pennsylvania investigated the store & the gun dealer where the weapons were purchased, VERY thoroughly. Not a positive outcome, even for a dealer who’s probably used to hearing/reading about gun-violence?
It’s not fair to assume, either, that the comments about the police not being there to protect the citizenry, is widely held. I must add, of the various police I met while in my journalism days in Chicago, I can’t recall a single one who would say that it’s a good idea for citizens to be armed ~ especially, not ‘to the teeth.’ Most I talked with, say that’s a very bad idea. And of those I got to know or interviewed for stories, I would say by & large, that they do want to protect individuals, families & communities, as best they can. They live here too, ya know. It is much more possible, though, when people work with them.
A. ~ I cannot stress enough that Mahatma Gandhi was a peace-loving individual, who taught Indians how to passively resist British imperalism without bloodshed & violence. He is deeply respected, the world over, for his reform using civil disobedience & non-violence; and I honestly believe that you need to go back & re-read the history of India’s independence from Great Britian. I wish I could contact Gandhi’s relations’ representatives (such as his grandson’s, who still gives public appearance/speeches throughout the world), to give you an accurate picture/understanding of this great indivdual’s beliefs.
Lastly, I’m closing my end of this particular, interesting conversation; as I’m tired & have a lot of work to do. I hope you all understand.
Kelli
Why are you quoting statistics on Burglaries in Kennesaw? Burglaries are normally crimes of Breaking and Entering into an EMPTY home or place of business.
Would be the same as if you reported that there were 100 cases of shoplifting in Kennesaw before the law and 100 afterward.
What are the VIOLENT (person on person assault, rapes, robberies, and murders) crime rates for the same years–and compare that with the population (per capita) for the same years.
Let’s look at city-data.com:
Crime in Kennesaw (2001):
* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 0 rapes (0.0 per 100,000)
* 7 robberies (31.5 per 100,000)
* 15 assaults (67.6 per 100,000)
* 51 burglaries (229.8 per 100,000)
* 370 thefts (1666.8 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (108.1 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 117.1 (higher means more crime, US average = 330.8)
Crime in Kennesaw (2002):
* 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
* 2 rapes (8.8 per 100,000)
* 4 robberies (17.6 per 100,000)
* 19 assaults (83.8 per 100,000)
* 60 burglaries (264.7 per 100,000)
* 426 thefts (1879.6 per 100,000)
* 24 auto thefts (105.9 per 100,000)
* City-data.com crime index = 133.6 (higher means more crime, US average = 328.4)
Considering that the majority of Assault charges are from fights (no weapons involved)…looks like Kennesaw is a pretty safe place to live overall…
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.
Infringed.
It’s a simple word. It has a simple meaning, and always has.
Put simply, ANY interference is infringement.
The authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were careful in their phrasing and wording, except that they would have been unaware of the intentional and selective alteration of the PERCEIVED meaning of some of their words by people and organizations that have agendas that are contrary to the fundamental principles of liberty and freedom.
It is no accident that authors applied the word “infringed” to the second amendment. They meant what they said and they said what they meant.
Any and all other “interpretations” and “definitions” of the second amendment that conflict with the pure and simple meaning behind “infringed” are interpretations and definitions that have no basis in the letter OR the spirit of the second amendment as it is written and as it was meant to be interpreted by its original authors.
Those who create and adopt such skewed interpretations and definitions are nothing less than the enemy of true American freedom, and should be considered to be nothing less than traitors.
Kelli:
In regards to your story…
“The buyer had someone with him, obviously; because he wasn’t old enough to have a driver’s license. {Not old enough to have a driver’s license; but old enough to purchase a gun … Good God} He paid, and left in about 5 minutes, much sooner than I checked out. I watched in line, and just shook my head. Who knows if that particular firearm he now owns works or not ~ or, is repairable or not? That’s not the issue. But, can’t you see how easily ~ even a child ~ can obtain a gun?”
Did you see who filled out the yellow BATF form for the firearms purchase? Can you really be sure that the buyer was only 15 or 16 (some states allow long guns to be sold to 18-year olds)? Are you sure that it was a real firearm instead of a replica? (I am sure you get my drift.)
If the dealer truly did sell a firearm illegally, he should be prosecuted. I don’t think that even the NRA would argue that point. However, I don’t think that you have all of the facts and without those you should be making a judgement on the gun sale.
“anything older than about 30 years could be labeled “antique.” So this rifle could’ve been from as late as the 1960s or ’70s.”
There’s no polite way to say this: you’re a liar. Antique firearms are classified by the federal government as being from before 1898.
Michael ~ in this respect, we can agree!
I should’ve reported it right away, or called the owner of the antiques mall & spoken with her directly. But I let it go. I knew their business had been hurting because of the Internet; & I didn’t want to seem heartless. The owners are nice people. I didn’t want to see them upset over something that had already occurred, & that they could not change. But there’s still time, I know ~ if it continues to bother me, I can call & talk privately with the owner. And, yes, he wasn’t 18 (unless he has a medical problem) ~ he could’ve even been younger than 15. But let’s hope not. I’ll keep you posted, after I muscle up the courage to talk with her, hopefully this week.
Kelli,
You claim that the Brady Campaign has never advocated taking everyone’s right to sell and possess firearms. Actually you said guns. On that point I note that you are correct, the Brady Campaign never has advocated any restrictions on naval guns, nor cannon, nor modern artillery piece. However they do advocate restricting the right to sell and possess firearms. In at least one case listed on the Brady Campaign website they went to court against the manufacturer of the Tec-9 for manufacturing and selling their firearm. They were also involved in a suit against Bushmaster for the manufacture of their rifle. These are just two attempts to restrict the legal sale of firearms.
You mentioned that the Brady Campaign and I both share the same goal; that people may live in greater safety with firearms. I fail to see any actions that the Brady Campaign has taken towards these ends since the Brady Bill and its Instant Check system. How many courses have they held to help adolescents safely handle firearms? How is it that we as a nation can teach safe sex but can’t teach safe shooting?
There are many other ways we can make America safer, some of them are simple, some of them are very complicated. If the Brady Campaign is so interested in this issue why are they spending so much time and effort attacking firearms manufacturers, dealers, and the NRA instead of working on the problem of reducing violence in America.
Michael ~ a more thorough answer…
Apparently, others have contacted the store already (long before I did today) about it selling guns & firearms to both adults & children without checking for a license. One such dealer in particular, sells guns & war firearms (no, they’re not props or replicas, I asked her) which according to current gun control law, he is entitled to do at an establishment without a license, as long as it “isn’t in work