In an era when we have hundreds of documented cases of discrimination against people for their sex, religion, or sexual preference, and live in a society where the difference between the haves and have-nots is becoming more pronounced with the passing of each day, the Missouri House of Representatives actually considered a bill to stop discrimination against the most aggrieved group of all -- gun owners.
Rep. Wanda Brown, R-Lincoln, sponsored HB 1621, which said, "It will be unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual because he or she has a conceal/carry endorsement or uses a firearm for a lawful purpose."
As far as I can tell, no one has been able to produce a single instance of such discrimination, but in the middle of a session which was supposed to be about jobs (and of course wasn't), this was considered to be so important that it breezed through the House and through a Senate committee before falling short in the logjam of the final days of the 2012 session.
This bill, which most assuredly will return in 2013, follows a long pattern of action in Missouri and in state legislatures across the United States. Year after year, the National Rifle Association sounds the drumbeat that someone is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights, works its membership into a frenzy and continues to justify its existence and, more importantly, raise dues.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida earlier this year brought much attention to the Stand Your Ground laws, which began with the NRA shoving through cookie-cutter Castle Doctrine (or Frontier Justice) laws written by the American Legislative Exchange Council and then passed off by local legislators as their own, which allow people to use deadly force if their lives are threatened.
When the Castle Doctrine bill was first introduced in Missouri, I pointed out that Missourians already had the right to use deadly force if their lives are threatened, but proponents of the bill cited horror stories of lawsuits brought by those who were shot and instances in which people were arrested simply for defending themselves against attackers.
They were never specific when they were telling these horror stories, however. I repeatedly challenged Castle Doctrine supporters to tell me of one instance in which their nightmare scenarios had come to pass. Years later, I sm still waiting to hear from them.
At that time, the bill's sponsor Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, told KY3's Dave Catanese (now a reporter for Politico) there had been some cases in Missouri, not many, but some that fit into that category, but none in the southwest Missouri area he represented, and further pressed by Catanese, he could not name any specific cases from anywhere else in the state.
Before Castle Doctrine, it was the push for conceal/carry laws.
The National Rifle Association has now made it almost impossible to stop average citizens from buying the kind of weapons that no American needs for hunting or for protection -- the kinds of weapons James Holmes had in Aurora.
I am sick of hearing the NRA and its supporters say, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Absolutely, but why in God's name do we have to make it that much easier for them to do so?
And after every incident of this nature, the Aurora shooting, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, Virginia Tech, anyone who dares bring up the idea of a common sense approach to this problem is accused of trying to capitalize on tragedy.
And it works. The drumbeat begins again from the NRA and its snake-oil peddlers claiming that President Obama or some other political bogeyman is trying to use the deaths, "the act of one deranged individual," they always say, to take away the citizens' right to bear arms.
They wrap themselves in the American Flag and the Constitution, and soon, the clamor for an answer to the senseless gun violence that has become more and more prevalent in our society dies down and the NRA can begin creating another non-existent attack on gun rights and issue the clarion call for more money to battle those evil liberals who are lurking around every corner ready to grab their guns.
There was a time when the NRA actually stood as a voice of reason when it came to Second Amendment rights. When bans on assault weapons were proposed, the organization did not always oppose them.
The leadership of today's NRA is still accepting dues from its membership, which consists of people who want the freedom to use guns for hunting and protection, freedoms they have and will continue to have no matter how many times they claim those rights are being threatened.
By continuing to cry wolf and by using their political clout to silence those who oppose them, the NRA is opening the door to more gun violence.
But the membership dues will keep coming.
Follow Randy Turner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rturner229
I have a gun store within walking distance of my house, but I buy ammo online because it's much cheaper and I can get brands the gun store doesn't carry. I buy thousands of rounds at a time because that's not hard to go through in a weekend at the range, and it's cheaper on shipping. 99% of gun crime involves 1 gun, and less than 1 box of ammunition...bought at a local gun store.
So called "assault weapons" are used so infrequently in gun crime it's not even one half of one percent.
Maybe you should be outraged in Alabama over something that has been proven to actually be a problem.
Define "assault weapon".
I am completely on board with you, except for one thing that must be addressed, and that is that it must be illegal to manufacture guns before we can make it illegal to own one. I believe the saying that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. As long as the supply is there, that is true.
And, yes, the entire frenzy over gun ownership is manipulated by those who know how to rile up those susceptible to conspiracy theories...the weakest among us.
That has been tried and does not work. In China the manufacture or sale of a firearm by a private individual is subject to the death penalty. It is estimated that there are over 40+ million illegaly manufatured firearms in circulation and the number is growing.
"As long as the supply is there, that is true."
This is true but it apears you fail to grasp that firearms are very simple mechanical devices that are easy to manufacture with very basic machine tools. Therefore the supply can never be cut off.
The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
And there cannot be regulation when people operate outside the bounds of the law, such as gun smuggling. You are saying that we need to ban semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are already banned MyrtleJune, the only people who have them are military personnel and criminals, but they still exist regardless of how "illegal" they are or not. I agree people have a right to live and a pursue happiness. But what are we to do? Let those who illegally obtain guns rule by trump of force and intimidation because we have none or insufficient means to defend ourselves against such people? You really need to touch up on your gun law knowledge, because you keep saying that automatic weapons aren't already banned.
Restricting gun sales and regulating gun manufacturing? You are aware that companies in which the federal government has dealings to manufacture and product firearms, such as Browning and Springfield Armory, make blueprints that are double
Not 100% correct. Any fully auto firearm that was registerd be for may 19 1986 is available to legally own with the proper paper work and providing it is not ban by state law.
And how exactly do you plan on collecting all semi-automatic weapons if they were outlawed? How do you plan to pay for that? Have police go door to door asking for people to hand over their guns? Yeah that will blow over well...
AND, the "well regulated militia" is a SINGLE national militia to protect THE STATE or country and was transformed into the National Guard.
"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." If you go on to read the Militia acts of 1792 you will see that it only applies to white males between 18 and 45 and has specific list of guns, ammo, gear that citizens can have ONCE THEY REGISTER with the militia and then only when they are called up by the ONE militia for service to put down insurrection internally or attack from outside. THAT is the intent of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The nra proapaganda is deeply ingrained and it's time to return to the Framers intent. It was NEVER to arm the citizens against the government. That is PURE insanity and propaganda by the nra.
You're worried about the color of the sand on the beach while ignoring a tidal wave.
I agree there was no safety involved at all because of James Holmes. On the contrary, he meant to cause others harm. But actually, that story of the 3 year old shooting his father with that gun, as devastating as that is, could have also been prevented by good gun safety in the home. Keeping the gun in a lockbox with the clip and ammunition is always a bad idea with children in the house. You always want to store the 2 seperate, usually in high enough placed to keep out of reach of children. I don't think more guns is the solution by any means, but we need to start evaluating the people buying the guns more critically instead of the overevaulating how what guns we should ban.
Happen to me twice. Someone tryng to break into my house. They change their mind when they were looking do the barrel of a 12ga. Next people use firearms every dat to save lives but you wont here about it on the new becasue that does not sell.
How do you know had there been a lawfull ccw person there he would of not been able to possible stop homes.
My point being, there is no way to catch psychopaths like James Holmes until its too late, he had no criminal background to indicate his future actions and all of his purchases were legal. Even through some might say he bought all his items through unregulated online markets. And I will make this point short because others have touched on it already, but it sounds like from how intuitive James Holmes was from making his own homemade booby-traps that he could have just as easily made a pipe bomb. Or made a chemical bomb. Neither of which have regulated ingredients.
But what I see, is that people look at James Holmes, and they say that the system is not good enough because he was an exception. As well as many before him to commit similar atrocities. James Holmes bought all those things legally. People say that "Red Flags" should have been thrown up because of how much of a arsenal he had in his possession and how many bullets he had purchased. Any pistol owner, can open the instruction manual to their handgun, and most state that 1,000 rounds need to be fired through the handgun so that any malfunctions or burrs can be worked out of the action and the pistol can be considered reliable. His order was not unusual in the slightest. Chad Weinman runs TacticalGear.com (the site James Holmes ordered his tactical gear from), which caters to police officers looking to augment their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paintballers.
Before I go too far, I don't believe our own military is our to "get us", nor am I saying that we need to engage in an arms race with our own military. However, given the course of recent events, such as the state of the economy, relations with china and russia, and even terrorist threats we need to be very careful how we go about putting restrictions on firearms and military surplus equipment. Because who is to say that in ten, twenty, or maybe even thirty years we won't need them?
You must play way to may video games. First and ar15 and and m4 have the same fire power both shoot the 5.56/223. Next in the military full auto in regared to small arms is very not use that much as it is not accurate and when it is used it is used to supress enemie.
To avoid any confusion, the firearms ability to perform as fully-automatic has nothing to do with it. An example of a "pistol grip" is like that seen on an AR-15. And a "full length stock" only means a buttstock or shoulder stock, that is a part of a rifle or other firearm, to which the barrel and firing mechanism are attached.
So moving on, these items like 100 rd. clips, body armor, empty grenade canisters (which you can fill with your own explosives) are available almost everywhere, for almost any model of what would be considered an assault rifle. Go to any gun show or military surplus store and you will see what I mean. Now what I find ironic here, is that people don't normally ask "Why are these items that would normally be for military use available to the public?". Well, I'm sure a vast number of these items come from the very same manufactures and producers of firearms that supply our very own military with their firearms. Take Browning for example, or Colt, or Remington, or Springfield Armory, the list goes on and on. After World War II people don't take into account how many guns and gun accessories and military surplus were in circulation around the world. Every country had a "War Machine" production industry and there were millions of unused firearms just sitting in warehouses.
I am not opposed to guns at all, as a matter of fact I take a personal interest in them and own several myself. But lately I have been seeing an abundance of the question, "Why did James Holmes have such easy access to 100 rd. clips, body armor, tactical equipment, flash grenades, and assault rifles?"
Well let's look at the nature of the question, starting with the 100 rd. clips. There is no use for these in hunting, which brings me back to my opening thesis, "That a guns primary function is to kill, rather it be man or beast." It's obvious that these are the by-products of past wars, or at least an attempt to recreate guns to be used during wartime. For instance, the AR-15 for example bears a striking resemblance to its earlier counterpart the M-16. I would like to take this moment to explain what is defined as an assault rifle. And google, wikipedia, and whomever might say different.
So, you are against the thing that ISN'T the majority of the problem, but you're ok with the the thing that IS the problem. Got it.
P.S. There's no such thing as a 100 round clip. There are 100 round magazines, but not 100 round clips.
P.S.S. The intent of the 2A is to provide the citizenry a last ditch means to overthrow a tyrranical government. It does not say "the right to keep and bear arms...as long as they're weaker than what the government has" We should have access to any arms that are available to any police force in the country...at the very least.
Don't lie about military-style rifles being "banned" from 1994-2004. That is a lie. Only the importantion and manufacture of new guns for public use was banned. Existing guns could be bought, sold, traded, and used during that time.
They love the 2nd amendment. Clearly.
But what about the Declaration of Independence, why no love for that?
Why does their right to bear arms trump my right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
As long as the likes of Holmes can exercise his right to bear arms, the NRA is happy.
But the likes of his 12 victims no longer have LIFE. Holmes, with the aid of his military grade weapons, ammo and gear, took the life of 12 American citizens.
12 children of God.
Also, how much effort do the gun lovers put in to protecting the right to vote? That is in the Constitution, too.
Me thinks that they don't REALLY love the American Constitution as much as they SAY THEY DO.
The world is entirely different than it was when the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution. No American citizen can out-gun the US government. David Koresh attempted to do so in Waco decades ago, and failed miserably.
Holmes is a murderer. We'll learn more in the coming weeks. But prior to Thursday, he certainly had every Right, as an American, to keep and bear arms. He had NO Right to commit murder and mayhem.
As for protecting the Right to vote, no such Right is enumerated in the Constitution. It is mentioned as a right (small "r") in several passages, but is NOT enumerated as a specific Right! That said, I certainly believe it is a Right, and served 26 years of active duty to preserve that COnstitutional Right!
BTW, Koresh did NOT attempt to outgun the US government. He wanted to be left alone, and was assaulted by the central government, in complete violation of every standard of law enforcement!
Semper fi
Are you familiar with David Koresh?
You don't want an arms race with the US government. You will lose. If they wanted you dead, there would be NOTHING you could do to overpower them.
Long ago they invented the weapons you lust for today. It's all old news to them.
Yet every time there is a tragedy like this, the industry keeps bringing out the same old , tired 'solutions'.
There's only one gun control law that should be debated right now. It is the basis for literally every mass-murder we've had over the last 20 years.
Of course I'm talking about the 'gun free zone'.
What a concept. It allows politicians to feel good about themselves for 'doing something' about firearms, and all it costs is a couple of signs.
And a few hundred innocent lives.
Does anyone really think that it's a coincidence that every attack like this takes place in a 'gun free zone'? We're identifying targets for these lunatics, saying 'attack here, no one will be able to resist.'
And resist we must.
Attacks like this are over long before the police can possibly arrive, and these types of attacks have been thwarted in the past by people who fought back.
But that was not an option here. These people were doomed to die once the attack began simply because the theater owner was legally allowed to override their Constitutional rights with a simple 'no guns' sticker.
It's time to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't. The gun free zone concept has been tested and found wanting.
We need to scrap it before it costs still more innocent lives.
Also guns in private hands are almost unheard of.
I know this is not conclusive, but it is a data point worth considering.