Should The Public Be Able To Get The Types Of Guns We Use In Iraq?

I asked this question last week of the candidates for president now campaigning in Iowa, and I think that for most of the American people [pdf] the answer is clearly "no."

In the last 10 days, two states in the heart of the country have sustained mass shootings by people armed with military-style assault rifles - two attacks with assault weapons in less than a week. One shooter attacked a mall full of employees and Christmas shoppers in Omaha. The other attacked a church in Colorado.

Together, they left 12 people dead.

Yet today assault weapons remain perfectly legal to buy in gun stores and gun shows across the country, in unlimited quantities. Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons.

It's also frustrating that when a UPS employee raised concerns on September 13 about the "multiple boxes" of ammunition the Colorado shooter had delivered to his postal box, police officers said there was nothing illegal. No limits on the number of guns; no limits on ammunition; very minimal limits on the type of guns -- no wonder we have problems.

Since the terrible shootings last week, leading newspapers are joining the call. Here is a sample of what they're saying.

The New York Times:"Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public's fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby's absurd claim that assault rifles are "sporting" weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse."

The Philadelphia Inquirer: "The troubled 19-year-old in Omaha used his stepfather's AK-47-type assault weapon to unleash 30 rounds of gunfire on innocent victims, and then killed himself. Who needs a gun like that around the house?"

The Washington Post: "The AK-47 assault rifle that an Omaha teenager pilfered from his stepfather was among the guns outlawed under the ban on assault weapons that Congress and President Bush unwisely allowed to lapse. Why that kind of gun should be so easily available to someone as troubled as that 19-year-old is unfathomable. Eight people shopping or working at a mall died as a result."

To protect ourselves and our police [pdf], these weapons of war should be kept out of the hands of civilians.

Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.

Comments

[Karlitos]

Kelli said:
"[the "progun crowd"]...need[s] to start respecting ALL of our rights ~ inc. public desire to restrict/limit guns for everyone's safety."

That statement (not the person stating it) is roundly obtuse. Public desire, whatever it may be, has no bearing when it comes to rights explicitly protected from government infringement. That's the beauty of the Bill of Rights - it so very often protects the individual from the will of the majority or in some cases, from mob rule. Our democratic process works well, and largely allows the will of the majority to guide law and policy, but the limits to that majority rule are precisely where they butt up in conflict with the rights of individuals as protected from infringement via the constitution.

For example, 99% of the people might one day want the police to be able to search individuals without probable cause or warrant. That would promote public safety...p­articularl­y if such searches were conducted in high-crime urban neighborhoods. But the 4A protects the right of individuals to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right comes at the cost of our ability to arrest and prosecute dangerous people.

The 2A protections are no different. Likewise, 99% of the people might want the government to prohibit civilians from keeping or bearing military style "assault weapons." So what? The government is expressly forbidden to do so by the second amendment, which guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear such arms shall not be infringed. Even fair consideration of the militia clause of the 2A...which outlines an important civic purposes of the guarantee of the right to bear arms...would lead us to conclude that military style firearms have a very reasonable relationship to the preservation to such a militia, and are thus duly protected from government prohibition.

[Karlitos]

Hello from Chicago, Illinois. I've only recently come to browse the comments here, but have a couple points to make.

1) It's profoundly clear that some posters here routinely resort to _argumentum ad hominem_ in response to certain posts. Thus, such replies to arguments or factual claims work to attack or belittle the _person_ making such a claim, rather than addressing the substance of or producing evidence against the claim. That is no way to conduct discussion or argument.

2) Shedances said:
"There is absolutely no reason for any civilian in this country to own an assault weapon. It's absurd to continue to claim that these have a legitimate civilian use for hunting or protection of home & hearth ... nor, are they a 'right' under such skewed, blanket interpretations of the Second Amendment..."

Civilian ownership of military semi-auto firearms, and even real assault weapons, is anything BUT absurd...it's perfectly consistent with the spirit, purpose, and guarantee of the second amendment.

I suspect that this current "assault weapons" hobby horse is going to backfire on gun control advocates. After all, the SCOTUS (in Miller) ruled that protected arms must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"; the court went on to define this militia as "all males [now, including females] physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Furthermore, "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Shedances...we are the militia. I own a semi-automatic rifle and keep it in the spirit of the second amendment guarantee, and the necessity of a citizen militia. I feel obligated to do so - it's my responsibility and, quite frankly, is your responsibility as well. If anything it is YOU who are in the wrong here, advocating the prohibition of those very firearms that are the MOST protected by the spirit, purpose, and guarantee of the second amendment.

[mike101]

Kelli has accused us of reinterpreting what the founding fathers had to say about the individual right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.

Well, here's what they had to say on the subject. You folks judge for yourselves.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

Now ask yourselves, who exactly is doing the "reinterpreting"?

[FarSeeingArt]

The poll Helmke referred to seems to have measured emotional responses to disturbing terminology rather than opinions resulting from informed analysis.
Perhaps one should try gathering a sample and presenting them with both sides with rebuttals and then asking the same questions.

One can only wonder what the response would be if the participants in the following events were asked the same. Participants from both sides and comparing the results, that is.

http://davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Armed-resistance-to-the-holocaust.htm

[shedances]

There are two things I wish to quickly mention.

One has to do with public tolerance of gun violence & such crimes. When you really consider public opinion on this important issue, Americans don't sound as willing today to allow guns/firearms to penetrate our society, in a way that continues to produce murder & mayhem.

And certainly, not if Americans can do something constructive about it.

The progun crowd often falls back on citing large numbers of U.S. gunowners when making their case for so-called 'gunrights' desired by the majority of Americans. However, what they fail to say, is how very different gunowners in this country can be ~ and are, in fact. Not all gun owners want the same thing, & for good reason.

Secondly, what's also interesting about the progun crowd ... is how they use Thomas Jefferson's famous quotations when attempting to push forth an ideological case for their so-called gun rights. This is just another way of manipulating public will, I believe (eg., re-interpreting famous past leaders/pol't figures).

Jefferson (as most should know, if they ever attended high school) was a strong advocate for protecting the will of the people; or, public will, for short ... especially when it concerned free expression. Obviously, I'm referring to the important 1st Amendment guarantees here. However, Jefferson specifically said that "the will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government..." & this reminds me of Paul Helmke's excellent point on respecting the will of such residents as those living in the District of Columbia, for example.

Helmke was quite right to object to the overturning of such desired & passed handgun laws in that particular blog. And, just recently, Super8 makes a good case for what the public says it does not want, with respect to non-military use, ownership, etc. of assault weapons.

If the progun crowd really wants to support such ideas & values, as discussed by our concerned 3rd president & others ... then, they need to start respecting ALL of our rights ~ inc. public desire to restrict/limit guns for everyone's safety.

Kelli

[smokepole]

I just don’t get the anti-gun logic;or is that an oxymoron? Anti-gun groups, organizations, and authors need to at lease become knowledgeable in firearms use and terminology if they are going to convince anyone that their position is the right one. Then again their position collapses once logic and facts are brought into the equation. Go figure…
Fact 1: 12 people died out of 300 million. If that is enough reason to limit a constitutional right then we can start banning a whole lot of things that kill a lot more people and they aren’t guns. The basic logic here is restricting rights for safety is O.K. That reason doesn’t fly for the patriot act and it shouldn’t fly here.
Fact 2: We should ban FMJ because it defeats body armor (it doesn’t expand on impact). Hollow point bullets do expand on impact but the antis think this should also be banned because it is too dangerous. The only thing left is lead, and lead bullets are being banned as well because they are bad for the environment. End result…a ban on all bullets.
Fact3: Anti’s want to ban AK’s because they are so powerful, and Pistols because they are so small. Like bullets, there is no gun that is “just right.”
Fact 4: UPS does not deliver to PO boxes and someone must sign for ammo.
Fact 5: Those newspapers are in anti-gun strongholds and their opinions are “standard anti-gun dogma.”
Fact 6: Helmke, like other anti-gunners, want to ban guns that are “weapons of war” and he cites the DC newspaper. Yet DC thinks they are allowed to ban handguns precisely because they don’t consider handguns weapons of war that a militia are allowed to use under the constitution. Here again we get the anti-gun double talk. On one hand they say “we need to ban assault weapons because citizens don’t need weapons of war” and on the other hand we get “only citizens in a militia should have assault weapons.” So which is it?

[Thirdpower]

So the Brady Campaign feels civilians shouldn't be allowed anything even remotely similar to military firearms yet "Only Ones" who make statements like this are fine:

"We've got the right to take somebody's life and we need these people on their toes," said Nancy Hove, who's sheriff in Pierce County, just across the St. Croix River from Minnesota."

Catch that? She feels the police have a "right" to take a life. Not an enumerated power, but a right.

[MSorgy]

Kelli:

Did you see the new CNN poll?

Majority in U.S. poll support gun ownership rights

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll/

Michael

[arsbadmojo]

To answer Paul's question:
Simple answer - Yes. Why not? I own several of what Paul would most certainly consider to be "assault weapons". They've never shot anyone.

Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp is attributed to this quote, and I think it sums up my opinion extremely well:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual...as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

[molonlabe]

Paul, Kelli.....

Where's taht "growing support" for gun control that you keep mentioning. Where's the "will of the people?"

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[DMeadows]

It doesn't happen very often, but the Brady Campaign sometimes is specific about parts of its gun-ban agenda.

So, one part of the BC gun-ban agenda involves firearms that fire projectiles with a mass of 148 gr or greater at a velocity of 2,750 ft/s or greater. Because that is what can penetrate the four levels of armor Helmke speaks of.

Take a look at your hunting, target-shooting, and home-defense firearms, because many of those fit this specific criteria that the BC wishes to be "kept out of the hands of civilians".

That means your hands. I thought the Brady Campaign talks about not banning guns? Well, as you can see yet again, the walk they walk is definitely different than the talk they talk.

[molonlabe]

For some reason, the HuffPo doesn't want to post my posts today. Hopefully this won't show up twice...

Paul,

If you can point me in the direction as to where I can find those "high powered military weapons" (selective fire and all the works) which are "commonly" available for civilian use, I would appreciate it. I'll buy all they've got. Because the ones's i've seen have a price tag starting around $10,000 - $15,000.

Paul, I assume you supported the McCarthy version of the AWB? The one that expanded the weapons covered as "assault weapons", right?
So you support the M1 Carbine being banned? In case you didn't know, Paul, the M1 Carbine shoots a .30 cal projectile at about 1900 fps. It is so "powerful" that the range manager lets me shoot mine in the pistol booths. The M1 Carbine was originally designed for rear line troops to replace the .45 cal PISTOL. They even designed a hip holster for the M1 Carbine.

Are those the types of weapons you want to ban?

Paul, when you and the bunch actually figure out what an "assault weapon" actually is, please let us know. It will make your posts just a bit more credible. Just a bit.

[Melodyl]

Gun Control is not really a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Both side of the aisle are some very smart people who realize that a machine needs a person to make it do a bad thing.

Unfortunately on both sides of the aisle there are people who are very ignorant and feel that everything is someone else’s fault, and that a sweep of a magic wand, and a new law will make the world a happy place. These individuals are dangerous, the distorted ideas they possess have some power, some wake up and see reality, some see reality and are to scared or just plain too dumb to admit they have been wrong. Others still see a way to line there pockets off stupid Ideas like Gun control. Lastly are the scary ones who embrace the destruction of the bill of rights.

If you look on this site you will see some anti gunners, who have lost their argument so badly but keep returning for more. I think these people can safely be categorized the “Too Dumb Crowd”

~Melody~

[cjl]

In the true spirit of the U.S. Constitution, I think that each police officer and soldier should be limited to having the type of armament and armor that the citizen is allowed.

Remember, the government is supposed to serve the people.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about power. He who has the guns, has the power.

In WWII, the Japanese Admiral refused to attempt an invasion of the mainland United States, because "There is a rifle behind every blade of grass".

Yet there are people who would disarm our citizens, leaving our country powerless to repel any foreign invasion.

The people are the militia, the citizens are all that keeps "the security of a free state". We are the "well regulated militia".

It doesn't matter what type of rifle is used. Law abiding citizens don't use them to commit crimes.

Regarding the "automatic" vs. "semi-automatic", the entire argument is pointless. Anyone who is afraid of select-fire assault rifles has likely never fired one. "Automatic" is only selected when it is prudent to suppress enemy fire. There is no "enemy fire" in one of Brady's "gun free zones".

Isn't it ironic that the most deadly massacres have all occurred in "gun free zones", and the one that was stopped, just last week, was stopped by an armed citizen, in a place where she was legally able to carry a semi-automatic handgun?

[Thirdpower]

Here's a question for those supporting more bans on firearms. From this picture:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/Ammo.jpg

Can you tell me which one Paul wants to ban from civilian ownership, which one Cho used at VT, and which one in a common hunting round?