Get Over Guns, America

Once again, Democrats face the vortex of gun rights. They probably lost Congress in 1994 largely because then-President Bill Clinton backed the outlawing of assault weapons. This is so nuts. I grew up learning to shoot critters with my 20-guage shotgun, but I never EVER considered it a constitutional right. As an 11-year-old stripping the skin off squirrels I decided against such a thing. Frankly, it made me a bit ill, and I suddenly resolved to give up killing animals, even if it was for food. (Squirrel stew is tasty, by the way.) But I never imagined such a thing as defining my status as an American -- and I still don't.

Craig blogs daily on CQ Politics.

 

 

Follow Craig Crawford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craig_crawford

Comments

[harryjohnson]

I'm a democrat. I have a concealed handgun license and carry on a daily basis. I'm not a member of the N.R.A and I don't hunt. I agree that "assualt weapons" need the quotation marks because because that term is used by the anti-gun crowd as a scare tactic. My reading of the 2nd is that you have the right to keep and bear arms is in case you need them, period. 2nd amendment or no 2nd amendment, I will always be armed unless they stick me in jail. I came very close to being robbed on two different occasions in the last couple of years, once by two men in daylight, once by one man at night. To keep it short, everything turned out o.k. My firearm was the determining factor. I have not really seen this situation addressed here. To me there is nothing more basic than the right to defend oneself. If anyone posting a comment would care to speak to this issue, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind, I weigh 140 lbs, don't know martial arts, have arthritis, can't run, can swim quickly assuming there's water close at hand, could get a cell phone ( these attempted robbieries happened very quickly) forget the cell phone and the cops. The bottom line "one never knows"

[derby]

Craig, it's simple: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Granted, you do not have the Constitutional right to hunt every darn critter under the sun, and I respect your decision to eschew hunting at such an early age. I do not hunt, myself, although I appreciate the focus and serenity of target shooting. But the Second Amendment has never been about hunting, and it never will be. Nor does owning a gun define you as an American any more or less than serving on a criminal jury, working as a poll clerk on Election Day, or being that one guy who always speaks up at City Hall meetings. We collectively embrace these not just as freedoms, but also as inherent and inalienable rights (and, at times duties), and it is in this acceptance that we define our national identity to a certain degree. It's not about that 20-gauge shotgun, nor is it about a Stoner or a Kalashnikov. It's about your right to own any, all, or none of the above.

[wisewomcat]

The "gun issue" is one of the reasons I don't classify myself as a Democrat. I believe that the population should be well armed. Mind you, I understand that there are idiots out there that shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, but overall I believe that most people should own firearms.

Our revolution from England would not have been possible without weapons. That's exactly what our Constitution reflects. If the government ever gets completely out of our (the People's) hands, then it is our duty to take it back by force.

If Bush would have decided to cancel the Presidential Election indefinitely, and assume a dictator role, would we not have wanted guns so that we could rise up and enforce our Constitution?

I felt bad after the first squirrel I shot too -- watching it twitch there on the ground until it finally died. I made the same decision as you did, and chose to never shoot at them again. If the world economy completely collapsed though, you can bet I would want a gun and would be glad to use it for food or protection.

[wisewomcat]

Oh yeah, I originally started my other comment as a reply to say that I agree with derby -- but I forgot to actually put that in!

[rcharleshale]

After you read some of our founding documents, especially when they talk about gun ownership, and their purpose - I'd like to see your comments on that. Seems you had some emotional experience regarding guns, and their use, perhaps someone was pushing you to shoot squirrels. The purpose of the citizenry of this country having guns was for one thing - to maintain our liberty from tyrants.

[DBC]

NO ONE BUT, THE POLICE / ARMY / AIRFORCE / NAVY / MARINES / SECURITY ; SHOULD HAVE ANY GUNS, EVER .

[derby]

The Second Amendment, buttressed by DC V. HELLER, proves your statement obsolete. It is time to cultivate tolerance for those who make the conscious decision to own and use firearms responsibly.

[OdinsEye]

1. The Second Amendment says otherwise.

2. All caps is very rude.

[djcrsn]

Sorry to inform you, but the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court says otherwise

[rcharleshale]

Oh Brother - have you read any founding documents?

[PlaceboStudman]

Although I don't currently own a gun, as a disabled man I can definitely see the potential need for one. Considering how many people might see me as a potential victim because of my small stature, it may be absolutely necessary for me to have and use a gun in self defense, because, frankly, I do not want a mugger close enough to me to use a knife, or a wild animal close enough to me to bite or use its claws.

[sanaaiman]

short and sweet.

[OdinsEye]

"I grew up learning to shoot critters with my 20-guage shotgun, but I never EVER considered it a constitutional right."

No one is saying that hinting is a constitutional right. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

[SgtMac]

Neither do I. I own a number of guns, 3 pistols, a rifle, 2 shotguns, I have a State of Oregon Concealed-carry permit, I don't hunt and I'm not a member of the NRA. I am also a retired Army Staff Sergeant and Iraq veteran.
While I do own firearms, that fact is not of primary importance to my identity as an American or my political outlook. Most of my friends who own guns, and not all do, are of a similar viewpoint.
I base my political outlook, and my votes, in accordance with how I think the country should best be run and I can't understand how making one issue of paramount importance, be it gun laws, abortion, energy policy, relations with China, immigration or any other single issue, is sensible.

[BusGreg]

I am a gun owner and a liberal demodork. I consider gun ownership a right and with that right comes a responsibility to exercise this right. I am however diametrically opposed to anything that comes from the Natl. Rifle Assoc. as it is nothing more than knee-jerk right wing fear mongering and as far as I am concerned does nothing to further the gun rights debate. I fully support back ground checks and would also have no problem with registering my fire arm(s).
As far as President Obama is concerned, he has done more for gun owners than any other democratic president, considering the right to carry a gun in Natl Parks, a bill attached to the recent Credit Card legislation. I am also in full agreement that assault weapons need to be banned PERIOD!. They serve no purpose other than assaulting someone, hence the name. Assault weapons have no sensible use and anyone needing an AK-47 and a 20 round banana clip to go deer hunting ain't no hunter and should look for a different hobby.

[Berettasskeeter]

Please define "assault weapon", and tell us how it is any different an "assault weapon" is from a Remington Model 8.
Semper fi

[dynwit]

In what way is a hydrogen bomb different from a stick of dynamite? Why have regulations on either one?

[Toonadude]

A Lambourghini Gallardo is a car powered by an internal combustion engine.
Honda Civic - same thing.

Rem Mod 8 - semi-auto rifle (I know Odie - I pull = 1 bang).
Civilian "Black Rifles" - same thing.

Many people (including me) support the rights of Americans to own all of the above items.

Many people (including me) have issues with the type of person who owns the Gallardo and the Black Rifle and thus we tend to avoid them. Deal with it -- it is my preference and right to do so and there is no need to "refute" my opinion / preferences on that point (Odie).

And while I think BusGreg is off base on AWB --- he has the NRA pegged.

[OdinsEye]

Assault weapon is a re4dundant misnomer used to scare people. The idea is to make people think they are bannng full-auto machine guns used by the military. In reality the firearms "banned" were functionally no different than far more "acceptable" firearms.

BTW, most states have a magazine limit for hunting and the civilian semi-auto AK-47 fires a cartridge considered to be barely powerful enough to hunt deer.

[rcharleshale]

Assault weaponry should come perhaps with registration, but you may actually need them if you ever had to fight against our government. What a strange thought, but who knows, we've seen that in our lifetimes in many parts of the world.

[beatbox]

The problem is, Craig, is that the right to bear arms IS a constitutional right. I may even agree with you that it is out-dated, but it is still in there. If people don't like it, we have a process to amend the Constitution.

[dynwit]

It's only a right within the context of a "WELL-REGULATED militia." We got nuttin like that right now.

[OdinsEye]

Incorrect.

The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on participation in a militia. The militia phrase simply tells an important reason to not infringe the right, but it does not tell us why or why the right exists.

[Berettasskeeter]

The militia, as meant by our Founders, was all able-bodied adults, not the Army or National Guard. As such, the militia referred to in the 2d Amendment DOES still exist! And the Supreme Court agreed in Heller.
Semper fi

[Peleador]

The placement of the comma dictates that the well-regulated militia was a rationale, not the dictate of the law. Whatever happens before the comma is meaningless to the actual legality of owning a gun. In fact, no federal gun law is technically constitutional. I'm not sure any state or local ones are either.

The guns are there to protect people from corrupt, tyrannical government. These things go in cycles and we appear to be heading in the direction of another revolution. Maybe not now, maybe not even in 20 years, but at some point, if things don't veer back to something approaching legal, people will feel compelled to take matters into their own hands. Or maybe some of the states will just secede and send the proper message.