The issues and of course, my stand on each of them.
This Page Last Updated 10/30/2013
Not an NRA Member? Shame on you!
We would not even be having this conversation on the topic of gun rights in America if it wasn't for the hard work and dedication of the National Rifle Association. You say that you don't have the money??? An Associate Membership (no magazine) is just $10.00 per year, that's less than three cents (-$0.03) each day. Before you do anything else, do your duty and support the NRA through your membership. JOIN THE NRA TODAY. You can save $10.00 on a regular annual membership by using the link I've just provided, making it just $25.00. JOIN TODAY.
Why should lawful and upstanding gun owners pay the heavy price of diminished freedom? We must penalize criminals further when they choose a firearm to commit a crime with. We should attach severe penalties to a crime when a gun is used to commit it.
Gun control laws only serve to diminish freedom and liberty. Gun control laws are always a precursor to tyranny. Read your history books.
According to the Uniform Crime Reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, those States with the strictest laws regarding the sale, possession and transfer of firearms, have about ten times (10X) more incidence of violent crime than those States with little or no gun control laws.
Check out the statistics for yourself if you don't believe me. Be sure to compare States like California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Washington D.C. and Massachusetts with States like Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and North Dakota.
Incidents of violent crime average about 1100 per 100,000 Citizens in States with strict gun control laws. Violent crime rates in States that are only covered by the Brady Law are about 110 per 100,000 Citizens.
* Takes you to another page.
Should there be additional penalties involved when a criminal chooses a firearm to commit a serious crime with?
YES There should be additional penalties imposed after a criminal's conviction when they choose to carry, brandish, fire or hurt someone with a firearm.
Gun possession by law-abiding people should never be viewed as negative by the media or our elected officials.
There is enough irrational fear of firearms in the world. We should concentrate a lot more of our efforts on criminals who choose firearms to commit serious crimes with.
How difficult is that concept to comprehend? REALLY?
I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, EACH STATE DESPERATELY NEEDS TO ENACT HABITUAL OFFENDER LEGISLATION SUCH AS "THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT". FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON GUN OWNERSHIP WILL BE IGNORED BY THE VIOLENT AND OBEYED BY THE LAWFUL. WAKE UP!!!
Should there be a federal firearm ownership permit that spans the nation and requires all Citizens who own firearms to obtain and carry a license to own firearms?
NO A federal permit would most definitely be unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers knew that a powerful central government body having knowledge as to which Citizens own guns and which do not, opens the door to possible tyranny and dictatorship. In order for a dictatorship to take hold, a tyrant to come into power or a Fascist government to strictly limit individual freedom, the People must first be disarmed. I would never favor anything that unlocks the door that keeps tyranny at bay.
Furthermore, those who are inclined to commit violent crime, DO NOT concern themselves with obtaining a permit before they carry out their evil deeds.
Many people try to make a comparison between a license for cars and a license for firearms. To place these side by side is absurd nonsense.
Driving a car is a privilege granted by your State of residence that can be revoked, and owning a firearm is a pre-existing right that the United States Constitution guarantees against government encroachment.
The comparison between cars and guns will never hold up to intelligent and informed scrutiny. Usually, you will see this comparison made by individuals who don't support the Constitution. These people usually tend to not be too interested in facts, truth and justice.
Should there be a waiting period of three (3) days or seven (7) days to allow someone to "cool off" before they kill someone out of rage?
NO A time period between the desire to purchase a firearm and the time a firearm is received would actually end up COSTING more lives than it would save!!! A woman in an extremely abusive relationship who believes that she is about to be killed would be denied prompt access to a firearm for protection. Hundreds of thousands of abused women every year escape an abusive relationship before it escalates into violence, but for those who might need immediate access to a firearm, waiting a week for it could be DEADLY.
Furthermore, anyone would has the character, mindset, attitude and lack of morals to obtain a firearm and murder someone, will not be deterred or changed by a waiting period. Some waiting period advocates portray this time period as a life saver, when in reality, it will not stop someone who is inclined and willing to commit murder.
CRIMINALS DON'T WAIT FOR THEIR GUNS, WHY SHOULD WE?
Should all gun owners be required by law to keep all their firearms under lock and key at ALL times?
NO Accidental firearm deaths are certainly a very tragic occurrence and can happen in any town at any time. However, accidental deaths that result from the mishandling of firearms are at their all-time low and have been decreasing nearly every year.
Trigger locks and gun safes are a great idea!! I use them all the time and you should too. However, having ALL firearms in the home locked up and secure at all times, precludes their use in any type of home defense situation. The ability to bring a firearm into use in the middle of the night can be a lifesaving act. Indeed, every study shows that firearms are used for self defense over 2 million times a year in the United States. The violent criminal has the advantage during a break-in at night. To learn more about self-defense go to my "Self Defense" page.
Proper firearm education and training is the best answer to dropping accidental deaths lower and lower every year. One of the major reasons that these accidental deaths are still on the decline, is that tens of thousands of school systems across the country are inviting their local gun clubs and NRA Certified Training Counselors and Instructors into their schools to teach gun safety to kids. To learn more about gun safety and kids go to my "For Kids Only" page.
It is true that a good part of the guns used in crime are stolen from the homes of legitimate, lawful and honest gun owners. When you are not home, ALL FIREARMS should be in a safe bolted to the floor, or at the very least have a trigger lock on them. Secure gun cabinets are also a great idea and can be found for about $150.00 to $200.00.
Should every Citizen who desires to purchase a firearm, undergo a firearm safety training course?
YES I think that a firearm safety course certificate should be required in order to purchase a firearm, as long as it is each State that requires it and that it is not a federal law. Furthermore, the State should also make sure that the Citizen is not charged any money for the required course, and their names and addresses are not compiled for future confiscation attempts.
Let me explain before you curse me out. I just know I am going to take heat for this one, so here is my "Feedback" page.
If we want the United States government and the governments of the 50 States to adhere to the original intention and meaning of the Second Amendment, then we must also advocate some level of State mandated safety training.
The Militia Act of 1792 had every male of every State between the ages of 18 and 45 in the State's Militia. Of course, as we all know, the militia laws are still in effect and have not been repealed. Whether we like it or not, we are all either in the Organized Militia or the Unorganized Militia.
How can we push the Second Amendment in everybody's face, then say that we should not be properly trained in the use of a firearm?
We cannot choose which parts of the Second Amendment we want to believe, or else we would be just as bad as the anti-gun people who insist on interpreting it incorrectly.
Should we have in place the National Instant Check System (NICS)?
YES, BUT... I think that the least restrictive method of making sure that felons, mental incompetents and those under 18 years of age, don't purchase a firearm at retail, is an instant computerized check system, which would supercede all State license and permit systems.
This system I advocate is not currently being used. What I advocate here is a system where every gun dealer would have a keypad and phone number to call with the prospective buyers information in front of him or her. The dealer would then send the buyers information through a keypad device and if the information matches a known felon, of course the purchase would be denied.
By "instant check", I do mean INSTANT. I do not mean 24 or 36 hours. I mean at most two to three minutes.
We can go into any department store in the country and pay for an item by credit card, and the account is automatically checked against a national database of cardholders within a few seconds in most cases. Why should prospective gun buyers wait three (3) days to a week for the same service?
After the buyer makes the legitimate purchase, the records of the sale should not be kept by the National Instant Check System.
Should we prohibit the ownership of certain types of firearms?
NO A ban on ownership of a certain brand, type or model of firearm would only apply to the legitimate sales made between a gun dealer and the citizen who obeys the ban.
Cocaine, heroine and crack are illegal, and you cannot purchase them at retail. But they are readily available in almost every city in the United States to those who are willing to break the law to obtain them.
The same thing would apply to a banned class of firearms. A black market would immediately spring up, supplying these newly illegal guns to anyone willing to break the law to get them.
Illegal firearms would come into the country, the same way other illegal things do.
Just ask the people of Australia. Gun related crime is rising every year since they BANNED and DESTROYED all lawfully owned and registered guns. The same case is currently playing out in Great Britain. Crime where handguns are used has climbed nearly every year since their total ban on lawful possession of handguns in November of 1997.
A ban on firearm sales would apply to retail outlets only. An illegal gun runner, a drug addict selling a firearm and a stolen handgun from a home break-in would not be affected at all by a ban on firearm sales, yet this is where most criminals are getting their guns in the first place.
78.8% of guns that are used in crime come from the friends and family of the felon, or through burglaries, robberies, on the street and through the narcotics trade. The remaining 21.2% were either unknown or purchased fraudulently at through misrepresenting their identity and falsifying documents.
Clearly, if there was a ban on firearms, the illegal sources of firearms that are outside the reach of federal and state regulations, would take over and provide illegal firearms to those who seek them out. It's very basic marketing rules. The basics of supply and demand would come into play.
The only people who would suffer as a result of a ban on firearms, are those who would obey the law in the first place...
Guess what??? Bad people do illegal things in secret!!! What is so dang hard to comprehend about that statement???
Should we limit all Citizens to a purchase of only one (1) firearm per month?
NO A limit on a single firearm per month is unconstitutional. It is also an unreasonable restriction on the liberty and freedom of the honest and lawful gun owner.
At first, it may look like a harmless, almost pointless restriction, but the fact remains that it does not affect those willing to commit violent crime.
Can you envision your local hardened, drug crazed, criminally insane lunatic waiting a whole month to purchase a gun because he just sold his last one for a bag of crack???? I don't think so. The mere suggestion that this restriction on liberty would drop crime rates is laughable.
This type of restriction would not work to reduce crime. Therefore, the "next step" to increase our safety, would be to reduce this to one gun every six (6) months, or one gun a year, or decade....
It would open the door to more and more restrictions. Remember when the Brady Bill was all they wanted??? Do you remember that the Brady Bill was portrayed by the politicians and the media and the beat-all, end-all solution to violent crime committed with firearms? Well guess what the statistics show? It has not served to drop rates of violent crime committed with firearms. In fact, even the New England Medical Journal has even admitted that it "has had no affect". So what is the new answer to stopping crime where guns are used? More gun control.......
Should our government have a list of who owns which firearms in the United States?
NO A nationwide, or statewide database of every firearm owner, violates privacy laws and the United States Constitution. A database of who owns what, opens the door to future possible confiscation.
Anywhere in history where a dictator has taken over a country and oppressed its Citizens, the first step, almost invariably, was to severely restrict or confiscate privately owned guns.
National firearm registration would not bring an end to government control of firearm possession. Gun registration of this scope, would be the beginning of the end for the Second Amendment.
In Haynes V United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), argued on October 11, 1967 and decided January 29, 1968 in the United States Supreme Court, it was decided that those who possess firearms illegally and commit crime with those firearms are under no obligation to register those firearms with the government.
It was found that under the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, the criminal does not have to register their firearms. Criminals are protected against firearm registration because they might incriminate themselves, if they do so.
Canada has registered handguns since 1934 and has never, ever, not even once, solved a crime with its registry. This was pointed out by Canadian Member of Parliament, Gary Breitkreuz during a session of Parliament.
Only the lawful, honest and upright Citizens of the United States, would obey a law that requires their guns to be registered. Anyone who is scatterbrained enough to believe that murderers would register their guns, should be examined thoroughly by their local psychiatric specialist.
Let me get this issue straight...when gun related crime rises, the government responds by proposing to make a list of law-abiding gun owners. Does this make any sense to anybody? I THINK NOT.
"A system of
licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun
ownership to the bourgeoisie."
Should our federal and state governments be involved in suing gun makers?
NO No government agency either state or federal, should be launching frivolous, useless and immaterial lawsuits against the manufacturers of firearms.
Holding manufacturers civilly and or criminally responsible for the unlawful, immoral and criminal misuse of their products, makes absolutely no sense and is foolish, unreasonable and absurd.
Using the same logic that promotes these lawsuits, we can now sue car manufacturers because they make a product that you can break the law with. Cars can exceed the speed limit, let's sue the car dealer because he sold something that you can use to break the law with...gimme a break!!
Do we sue cutlery manufacturers for a stabbing? Do we sue sporting goods companies when a baseball bat is used for an assault or murder? No of course not. Then why is government suing firearm makers?!?!?!?!?
As far as the notion that gun makers are not concerned about safety, that is altogether downright nonsense. If you have purchased a new gun lately, you would know that the manufacturer places a lot of emphasis on gun safety.
They always include numerous pamphlets, brochures and notices about how to properly handle firearms. The belief that they are not concerned about gun safety is a ludicrous assumption.
It is plainly illogical to try and hold gun makers responsible for the criminal use of their products in crime. Anyone who thinks this is a great idea, really needs to make an appointment with a mental health professional.
Any government official who stands behind these feebleminded, inane lawsuits, certainly shows their ignorance of the truth about firearms, how they work and what their capabilities and limitations are.
In fact, most people who stand behind gun control laws, really do not know what they are talking about. That is very evident. Reading some of the passed legislation in my home State of Massachusetts, the wording of many of the General Laws in regards to firearms are ambiguous and vague and demonstrate a clear ignorance when it comes to firearms knowledge.
Nearly all firearm manufacturers consist of small family-owned businesses that have only a few hundred employees. Lawsuits such as these could force these small businesses into bankruptcy. In addition to that, these businesses make a consumer product whose ownership is protected by the United States Constitution.
Firearm manufacturers should not be sued for the criminal misuse of their legally manufactured and non-defective products!!!
No More Lawsuits
People who support these dangerous lawsuits clearly demonstrate their complete ignorance of this issue.
Should concealed carry in a public place be allowed in all States?
YES Concealed carry in a public place, by lawful, honest, considerate and alert gun owners is most assuredly a deterrent to criminal activity. And it is protected by the Second Amendment. The antique term "bear arms", today means carry guns. That translation is not contrived... it's the truth. Something that anti-gun people have never been interested in.
Someone inclined to commit a violent crime against someone, will never attack someone they think is armed, alert and prepared.
An honest and thoughtful gun owner who chooses to carry a concealed firearm in a public place, ALWAYS has safety as a first concern.
It has been clearly demonstrated in city after city and State after State that freeing up concealed carry laws, always leads to a drop in violent crime.
The false notion that freely allowing concealed carry, would lead to a drastic rise in shootouts has never materialized. The belief that liberalizing concealed carry laws, would be hazardous, is totally false. Lawful people carrying firearms in a public place is ONLY dangerous for the would-be felon. THAT IS THE TRUTH, LIKE IT OR NOT.
Should the government require gun dealers or gun manufacturers to provide a spent case and bullet for identification purposes?
NO Efforts like this, shift blame for violent acts on an inanimate object instead of on the unlawful, immoral and uncivil acts of violent criminals.
This inane and impractical brand of legislation places too much of a burden on gun manufacturers and dealers.
99.8% of all firearms and 99.6% of all handguns are not used in any crime, in any given year. It would be a colossal undertaking to compile and store this information.
It would be a total waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and would not do anything to curb crime or affect the criminal mind in any way whatsoever.
In the two states in which it is currently being done, Maryland and New York, there has been over 55,000 firearms that have been ballistically imaged, and not a single crime has been solved through the use of their databases.
Nearly all the major firearm manufacturers are small family owned businesses that consist of 400 employees or less. Placing an extra burden on these small businesses and the small sporting goods businesses that sell firearms is just plain wrong and a waste of money, time and effort.
Not only that, but these pre-owned identifications will change over time. Many misinformed people think that "Ballistic Fingerprinting" is something akin to DNA and this is not true.
Over time, the land and groove marks on the bullet will change to some degree. The markings on the case will also change over the life of the gun. Furthermore, the ejector markings on the case will also change, not to mention the fact that the ejector can be replaced, which would make any early identification of the firearm completely useless. The firing pin may also be replaced, thereby making the captured ballistic image totally useless.
The barrel itself can also be replaced, or the barrel may also be easily changed through the use of a commonly available round metal file introduced into the breech end of the barrel.
Ballistic Imaging Technology is useful only when comparing a suspect's firearm to a recovered bullet at a crime scene. A massive database containing every legally owned firearm would entail colossal expense, while being nearly useless in solving crimes without known suspects. It would really only result in a national gun registration scheme.
And let me finish this issue with a simple fact. That fact is that those who are willing or inclined to commit the most heinous crimes known to mankind, including murder and rape, would never voluntarily have their unlawfully owned firearms sent in to be "fingerprinted". Anyone who thinks a murderer will voluntarily ship their guns away for imaging, should see a psychiatrist for a thorough mental health check-up.
Should "Smart Gun" technology be mandatory equipment on all firearms sold?
NO Technological advances that will permit only a single owner to use a firearm, will, in my opinion, end up costing more lives than it is intended to protect.
This technology does not exist in a form that is reliable enough to be included on any firearms, let alone making it a mandatory requirement. At the very height that this technology has achieved, it works reliably only about 80% of the time.
In my opinion, a firearm should work reliably and consistently through ten (10) full boxes of ammunition (500 rounds), in order for me to advocate its use in self defense. This "Smart Gun" technology simply cannot meet this most basic of requirements at this time.
Not only is the "Smart Gun" technology, not smart enough, but I don't want my firearms to be able to be fired by only myself. In a self defense situation in a home, any adult or responsible adolescent, should be able to use the firearm to defend the home if necessary.
If the technology becomes 99.999% reliable at some point in the future, I would want it to be able to be customized by the owner to allow for multiple users in the family, or to allow a friend to use it for target shooting at the gun club.
If the ability of a gun to recognize its user, becomes extremely reliable at some point in the future, it should be offered as an option, by the manufacturer and never required by law. This "Smart Gun" technology, should be required to survive in the free marketplace, just like any other new option or feature offered to the public.
"Smart Gun" technology, may not be for everyone. Some people may love the aspect of being the only one to be able to use a particular firearm, while others may not want the strict limitations on use it offers.
If you can think of another issue that I should address, just E-mail me.
|Copyright © SaveTheGuns.com 2000-2016 all rights reserved.|