This editorial first ran in the Anchorage Daily News:
Critics of gun-control advocates sometimes accuse them of advancing “feel-good” legislation that won’t make us any safer but lets them believe they’re doing something.
Could well be. One of the strongest arguments against an assault weapons sales ban is that it simply won’t make much difference, especially in the near future, because there are so many weapons in circulation in the United States now. They also argue that the 10-year ban that expired in 2004 did little to affect gun violence. Agree or not, it’s a practical argument that aims to deal in facts.
But the gun-control foes indulge in their own “feel-good” legislation — witness Alaska House Bills 55 and 69.
Rep. Bob Lynn’s HB 55 would allow school districts to decide for themselves if they want to arm teachers or others for school security. Actually, Alaska law already provides a more liberal guns-on-campus policy for officials than would Lynn’s bill. So as a practical matter Lynn’s bill is more reaction than substance. And if he’s serious about having trained people carry the firepower, he should read former prosecutor Val Van Brocklin’s Monday Compass that takes a real-world look at the issue.
Speaker Mike Chenault’s HB 69 is more ambitious and heavily dosed with “Don’t Tread on Me.” That bill declares that Alaska won’t be bound by any future federal restrictions on firearms like semiautomatic rifles, large-capacity magazines or anything resembling gun registration. Further, officers of the state would be authorized to arrest any federal agent trying to enforce such laws.
Any Alaskan banking on state protection in the face of a federal firearms violation would likely have his rights read and his hands cuffed before he could say “Long live Wayne LaPierre.” The constitutionality of such laws, including one already on the books that only applies to guns made in Alaska, is doubtful.
One bill wasn’t well-vetted, the other is a chest-thumper that probably wouldn’t survive its first legal challenge. Neither advances an intelligent debate about guns, rights and responsibilities.
House bills shed no light on way to wise gun laws or a safer Alaska.
Comments (17)
Add comment"Neither advances an
"Neither advances an intelligent debate about guns, rights and responsibilities."
It's interesting you chose a word like "rights" because that's exactly what you and your ilk want to infinge upon.
I was under the impression also
That Federal law and statutes, including the Constitution, trumped state law? Why then, is not the second amendment, the law of the land? Ya can't have it both ways. I really like where it says "shall NOT be infringed" Them Old Dudes knew exactly what might happen in the future, the same thing they just went through. That is why the second IS a "Civil Right"
curt...
Kind of like the rights of those children in Newtown were infringed upon?
bobc...
Not sure what your point is. That there should be zero gun restrictions anywhere in the country?
Wouldn't that run counter to Chenault's position regarding the supremacy of states' rights?
So this articles sole purpose
So this articles sole purpose is to admit that both sides are doing pointless things to address gun violence...waste of space.
True enough, Stu
We already knew that the republicans would do nothing. Worse than nothing, in fact, because they would actively thwart any solution that did happen to emerge.
Exposing the nonsense spewing from Chenault and Lynn was just piling on the obvious.
Lat, Lanza applied his right
Lat,
Lanza applied his right to “bare arms” to take those innocent kids right to life and that is a travesty.
The Sandy Hook incident is very much the same as someone yelling “fire” in a movie theater. Someone who does that has abused their freedom of speech and will pay the consequence. But here is the issue.
We do not take away someone’s right to free speech BEFORE they abuse the right but only after.
What the President/Feinstein/Senate is talking about now is taking away the people’s right to bare arms before they abuse it…simply based on the fact that it may be abused
Stu,The Democrats are
Stu,
The Democrats are attempting to do very little to curb gun violence but ARE attempting to do ALLOT to curb the 2nd amendment rights of the people.
Why do we need the right to
Why do we need the right to bare arms?
To ensure we can do this when and if the time comes:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”…The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776.
The Griego kid in Albuquerque...
...loved to play violent video games like Grand Theft Auto and Modern Warfare. Where is the outrage? This is the same common denominater found in so many of these cases. Lanza, Griego... License those, Lat.
skirkz - video games
Millions of people play video games without incident, every day. My buddy Ken had this point just the other day:
"If violent video games cause violent behavior, then it follows that I should be a multiple platinum recording artist (Rock Band), a top tier formula 1 driver (Forza Motorsports), a successful urban planner (SimCity), and a ruthless world conquering dictator that is benevolent to his own people (Rise of Nations), a successful space pirate (Elite), etc. etc. etc."
You have to put it in context. If a kid in the city gets a gun, but has no constructive outlet in which to learn about it (range, hunting, trap, etc.) then he has no contextual experience. Education isn't just about reading, it's also about practicing good behaviors. Perhaps these shooters had a lack of good role-models. who knows, really. but it wasn't video games, that's for sure...
Austino, Problem is..if you
Austino,
Problem is..if you are crazy maybe you do think you are all those things.
Anything someone does for hours on end is going to have an effect on that person. Look at books, they affect how people think..why would video games be any different.
If we were not affected then advertisers would not spend 5 million a minute on super bowl adds.
noroad
We've missed you since the election.
You bring the 'crazy' back to 'crazy-talk'.
While no number of innocent
While no number of innocent people dying is acceptable, I find it outrageous that the nation is flipping out over gun violence when it ranks so much farther down on the list of causes of death in the US. It's not even close to the top. If we really did care about saving innocent lives they would be attacking your freedom to drink alcohol or stuff your face with fatty foods. But they're not, especially politicians, they are using this to grandstand to get more people to vote for them. If you buy into the argument, either side, your just blind sheep.
If your interested in actual conversations and debates on how to curb violence in society then have at it, but don't kid yourselves or anyone else when you cry infringement of your right to safety or right to guns.
Unless your talking about how to change society without effecting ANYONE'S civil rights your not discussing how to solve gunviolence problems at all.
Say what, Stu?
I'm not sure how you're making an equivalency between grease and gun violence.
Sure, there are other dangers out there besides guns, but those dangers are actively targeted and addressed through legal, epidemiological, and technological means.
You brought up alcohol - look how the laws and public opinion have changed regarding drunk driving over the past couple decades.
And smoking in public, with second-hand smoke.
All kinds of people get maimed and killed in cars, but look at how cars have steadily improved with airbags, anti-lock brakes, and crumple zones.
Guns? Any other consumer product with such a wretched safety record would have been off the market decades ago. Bought a set of Jarts lately?
It's entirely fair to target gun violence. But like you, I have scant tolerance for ineffectual, feel-good political measures, nor for intentional attempts to castrate measures that promise real progress.
rights without limits
There are no rights without limits. That has been upheld multiple times by SCOTUS.
The wisdom of the founders was not the creation of the 2nd amendment. The wisdom was in creating a constitution that allows us to amend it as we have by adding 27 separate items.
Most of the post I read on the 2nd amendment are factually wrong: the 2nd was not included in the actual Constitution it was added during the ratification process by the states. I suggest a web site such as http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html as a place to find the history of the amendments.
islander, The ENTIRE bill of
islander,
The ENTIRE bill of rights was not in the original constitution. The 10 Amendments we call the Bill of Rights were all ratified, at the same time, on December 15, 1791. Initially there were 20 amendments..then 12..then finally ten after the states cut the ones they didn’t like…They all kept what we call the second amendment. Why? Because they wanted to ensure the people had the power to protect themselves from government…and it makes since because they had just faught a bloody revolution to break away from an unjust government…