In Rich Moniak’s piece “The Second Amendment has limits” published on Feb. 20, Mr. Moniak refers the shootings in Connecticut and to ‘military style assault guns’ that he states Congress should ban because ‘they’re not hunting weapons” and “the vast majority of Americans don’t think they’re needed for self defense.”
Mr. Moniak does not cite his sources for those statements, but the vast majority of Americans were at one time in favor of slavery.
Should peoples’ rights be subject to the whim of popular sentiment? I don’t believe they should. Also, no evidence has been released to the public about the tragic crimes in Connecticut. No evidence has been presented that ‘military style assault guns,’ as Moniak puts it, were used in those senseless killings.
Interestingly, Mr. Moniak wonders “which category do military style assault guns fall into?” It’s understandable that he should wonder, because his phrase: ‘military style assault guns’ is a contradiction and confusion of words.
Webster’s New World Dictionary’s primary definition of “gun” is “a heavy weapon with a relatively long barrel fixed on a mount, as a cannon or machine gun.” The Second Amendment reads: “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.” By bear, means to carry as an individual, which lets out a heavy machine gun or cannon. So, presumably, Mr. Moniak meant to say “military style assault rifle.” But that is still a confusing term, as an assault rifle is defined as a rifle or light machine gun capable of fully automatic fire (Small Arms of the World, Smith & Smith, 1969).
Assault rifles include the AK-47 and M16, the standard U.S. military service rifle. Semiautomatic civilian versions of these firearms, such as the AR-15, are not assault rifles, and they are what is being targeted in proposed federal gun confiscation legislation.
Moniak’s phrase is thus further trimmed by the facts to “military style rifle.” If “style” is the criteria by which something could be banned, each of us could come up with many things we would like to see prohibited. However, nothing in the Constitution permits the federal government or any state from banning ownership of a product based on its style, just as nothing in the Constitution permits limits to be placed on the Second Amendment.
The framers realized the importance of the Second Amendment, as they listed it right after free speech, because if we don’t have the Second Amendment, we could lose all of our other rights. Weakening the foundation our freedoms are built on will not bring us safety. We should examine the root causes of violence in America and start vigorously prosecuting criminals who use firearms in crimes, rather than demonizing and criminalizing law abiding firearms owners who stand ready to protect our security and liberty. Legislators who trust in the honesty, decency and patriotism of the American people would never support bills that will weaken the Second Amendment and treat the entire population as violent felons.
• Rafferty is a Juneau resident.
Comments (56)
Add commentGood Article
...
finally some clear thinking on the matter
Thank you for the clarity Mr Rafferty. I heard you speak at the 223 Day of Resistance Rally. Your words were refreshing, You thoughts clear and your facts well grounded. I am often amused at the lack of logical thinking from the anti-gunners when they believe they will be safer if we just get rid of the guns or when they say we just don't think you need a gun with more than 7 bullets.
The interesting thing to me is when these same people are afraid or in fear of their lives or property they "religiously" call a good man with a gun to protect them. It defies any logic I can understand. If they approve of a good man with a gun to come to their collective rescue, why do they not purchase and train with the firearm of their choice? I just do not understand how and why they would allow themselves to set themselves up to be a victim?
Excellent article.
Thanks!
Military style...
...vehicles? Clothing? Boots? Sunglasses? Ever own a Mini-14? It's a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223. I would bet millions of deer have been harvested with that caliber, though many consider it inadequate for deer sized game. It is certainly a tad light for larger game. My Mini-14 came with a wood stock and a 5 round magazine. Stamped in the metal were the words Ranch Rifle. Definitely a handy tool for a rancher. The only thing needed to turn this rancher's tool into a "military style assault rifle" by anti-gun politics is to put a plastic or composite foldable or collapsible, pistol gripped stock on it. Add on a foldable bipod, flash suppressor, red dot or laser sight, longer magazine and a strap that allows it to hang right-side-up, it is still just a "scary" looking Ranch Rifle. The AR-15 has nothing over the Ranch Rifle in accuracy, functionality or dependability. Putting a racing stripe and a spoiler on a Geo does not make it a race car. It's just a "scary" looking Geo.
I largely agree...
...with Mr. Rafferty's essay.
We should not be focusing our efforts on banning certain types of guns. We'll get lost in debating definitions, as Joe correctly points out, and there'll be so many loopholes and exceptions to the ban that it will be functionally pointless.
At the same time, I don't hear him arguing that there should be zero limits or regulations on our 2nd Amendment rights. He rightly advocates focusing on the human side of the equation, such as vigorous enforcement of the laws regarding gun crimes.
I would put the registration of guns and gun owners in that category. One of the core rights granted by our Constitution is the right to vote, and yet we need to be registered to vote. Why not a similar registration to own a gun?
If I am convicted of a felony tomorrow, or am diagnosed as a schizophrenic or drug addict, no one knows if I have a stockpile of guns in my basement. That information should be known. Likewise, if I have these 'shadow guns', who will know if I turn around and sell them to known felons or illegal aliens?
The argument against registration is that a repressive government could then round up our weapons, thus making us powerless. I guess that's a valid concern, but how likely is that to occur compared to the very real and present concerns of nutcases and felons with guns today?
Mr. Moniak
I know Mr. Moniak and I believe he spoke only to hear himself make noise. He's never had a clue and apparently still doesn't.
I get extremely offended when anyone wants to take away our rights for their own personal agenda when it is NOT the will of the majority.....
It just occured to me....I'll bet Mr. Moniak voted for Obama...
Pink stripe?
So, Lat. would you allow an illegal alien to be licensed for gun ownership? You know, like the proposed North Carolina drivers license with the pink stripe and the words "No legal status".
Comments
Great article. Moniak's rant made no sense. Several years ago there was a funny letter to the editor published in Guns & Ammo magazine. A fellow who had grown up in the Bronx had registered his Mini-14 as NYC required. After he moved to Montana the NYC mayor and police decided to confiscate many firearms, including Mini-14's. Because the fellow didn't respond to demands that he tender his rifle to NYC police they used a battering ram to burst into the Bronx house he once owned (to the surprise of the new owners). So he wrote a letter from Montana to the NYC mayor saying the Mini-14 was in Montana and the NYC police were free to come try to take it. He warned the mayor that his neighbors would help defend the RKBA however so the Mayor's goons should come knowing some of them would not return to NYC.
I believe that gun registration will always be followed by confiscation, as it has in Chicago, Canada, Nazi Germany and many other places. And universal background checks is gun registration.
There is an incredible AP news story in the Daily News today about NYC police accused of plotting to kidnap women and cook and eat them. I am not making this up; look for yourself. So don't worry, to be safer you should turn in your firearms and the police will protect you; just ask the NYC mayor. And just ask the liberal media; if you have a gun in your home your home is not safe.
Latitude, nothing is stopping you right now from telling Obama, JPD and the FBI what guns you own. Give them fingerprints, serial numbers and what brand of tampons you use if it makes you feel safer. The rest of us will keep our gun ownership practices as far away from government as we can, and we will use our guns to do so if required.
Good Read....
Thanks for the good Read......
national debate
generally includes the phrase "assault weapons", as in the "assault weapons ban", which is defined specifically in the proposed legislation. The term usually includes assault rifles, as well as other similar firearms.
While I don't always agree with the vast majority of Americans, the following statement means nothing:
"Mr. Moniak does not cite his sources for those statements, but the vast majority of Americans were at one time in favor of slavery."
And the vast majority believe in Christianity... does that mean I can tell Christians that they are wrong because at one time the vast majority of Americans also were in favor of slavery? I wish, but so far it hasn't worked.
"The framers realized the importance of the Second Amendment, as they listed it right after free speech, because if we don’t have the Second Amendment, we could lose all of our other rights."
Same goes for the first amendment, however, you aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Restricting the availability of certain weapons for a certain group of people who are interested in mass murder is what the discussion needs to be about. However, all I ever hear is talk of the 2nd amendment being taken away... what voices in your heads are telling you this?
2nd Ammendment's ranking
There is no particular ranking of the importance of the first 10 amendments according to scholars at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. There were in fact other amendments proposed at the same time as the ratified first ten. One of those remains to be ratified. The proposed amendment that did not pass dealt with representation based on population. It failed while the other ten did pass. Had it passed the current 2nd Amendment would have been third on the listings. Would that have made the firearms right less important?
The fact is the 2nd amendment was added to our Constitution and was not part of the original concerns of the founding fathers. The founders were concerned with a process for allowing changing of the Constitution by addition of deletion through the amendment process. That is the wisdom of the founders: the ability to have foreseen the need for change and adaption. Those who continually profess changing the 2nd amendment is anything but constitutional need to read the entire Constitution with all the provisions provided for.
Excellent read. Let me add
Excellent read. Let me add something to his facts. I have mentioned this before regarding the term Military weapon. The anti’s want to ban the AR and the likes because they claim they are weapons of war. Nothing could be further from the fact. There are several rifles out there that were definitely designed for the purpose of killing soldiers which are used every day by target shooters and hunters. The Mauser 98 designed by the Germans was used as there standard rifle for infantry men. The actions are highly sought after for use as hunting rifles. The 1903-A3 SPRINGFIELD is another rifle that was designed just for the military but is also sought after for its ability to make excellent hunting rifles. So for those who claim to hunt and are not worried that the Gov. will take their 30-06 beware. When or if the ARs are banned and the powers to be realize that it made no difference to crime at all they will soon be looking at those hunting rifles. They will place a new designation on them, they will be known as Sniper Rifles. And we all know that we as civilians don’t need a sniper rifle to kill a deer. Also there is no such thing as a high capacity magazine clip. You have one or the other, a M1 Grand for example uses clips “striper clips” which are inserted from the top. ARs use magazines which are inserted into a magazine well from below.
“However, all I ever hear is talk of the 2nd amendment being taken away... what voices in your heads are telling you this?” As an intelligent person all you have to do is pick up a newspaper, watch the news and all you here is’ we need to remove or amend the 2nd. So yes there are those who are concerned and have every right to be so.
comment
The rights in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution merely acknowledges the rights exist in the event that freedoms earned by blood are later tossed aside by a tyrannical government. The rights cannot be superseded by the Constitution nor can later changes to the Constitution modify or remove these rights. The most cursory reading of what the Founding Fathers intended will give you this information.
We must be on our guard for those who would tell us that we must give up our freedom in order to be safe.
Always look down the road
Always look down the road when it comes to this administration. Everything they propose is but an incremental step in achieving the end game.
How 'bout that DOJ memo that the NRA got their hands on, somehow, but thank goodness there are still some people seeking the truth.
"The DOJ memo states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.”
"The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
"The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns."
We're Americans, people, not French or Norwegians or Australians.
Could be the reason it's estimated that 67 million guns have been purchased since Obama was re-elected.
Well Done
An excellent article and a good response to the absurd Moniak article. It seems that most of the anti gun lot are either ignorant or choose to deny the very grounds that this nation is established on. It matters not that even if a vast majority declares guns evil and demands controls, the minority is protected completely in their right to bear arms. Just as free speech, no matter how offensive by a minority, is protected by the First amendment, the right to bear arms is totally protected and assured by the Second amendment. This was the brilliance of our forefathers and the very reason that we have a republic, not a democracy. If we had a democracy it would be possible that we all had to drive a Kia and eat polish dogs on Wednesday merely because the masses (majority) could demand such limitations. To the contrary, the Second amendment exists in the event that tyrants decide to toss aside our constitution. Look at all the unarmed countries in the world, some in dire straights because the people can not resist because they have no power. Guns will continue to fall into hands of kooks and fanatics. We need to protect ourselves against such, but illegally restricting gun possession by lawful citizens is not the answer.
Don't overthink this.
Yes, it's a good response, and so are many of the other comments. But we don't need to justify our position. It's a very simple response: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Calypso
You make good points. No reasonable American could disagree with you, especially in regards to Obama wanting to take our guns away. Years ago I paged through one of the Obama autobiographies at Costco (he has written or had written for him more than one) and he said in that book that Americans should not be able to own handguns.
All of us right now need to write Begich, Murkowski and Young, and we need to do so every day. As a Democrat Begich can head off these so-called universal background checks. So please call, write and email Begich, Murkowski and Young every day. This is a dangerous time for all Americans who understand and value basic freedoms.
Calypso, I just heard of that
Calypso, I just heard of that memo and found it in whole. Very interesting read. But most of us already knew how this would play out. This administration knows and believes that full confiscation is the only way to go. The Democrats have always known this and will do whatever it takes to accomplish a gun free America. There just trying to figure out how to do it without the misinformed realizing what just took place. The frog in the pot effect. It’s not for the kids, not for the people. It’s nothing but control.
calypso,
I see you've been paying attention to the rhetoric... blowing completely out-of-proportion a memo detailing the current administration's position on gun control and it's inevitable ineffectiveness. Yes, the toothless gun restrictions proposals will do little to curb gun homicides in America. Yes, the only effective solution would include gun-registration and gun-confiscation (which by the way does not include unlawful search-and-seizure. California has had gun-confiscation for 5 years now and it's legal and no one lawful is in danger of losing their firearms).
What does a memo outlining the effective gun-control solutions based on research have to do with the administration's policy? Not much, since the administration has no hint of sponsoring any of the effective solutions. Where's the memo showing the Obama administration was interested in enacting these? Because their platform doesn't indicate anything even remotely close to what your doom and gloom post would have us all believe. Keep drinking the kool-aid... You know, all the NRA had to do was hint at tyrannical gun confiscation and just sit back while the debate shifts further and further from any kind of reason and logic. Look at the posts on this message board... get real. There is no legitimate national debate that even remotely resembles gun confiscation.
And Mark Begich, our scary liberal democrat Senator, is a lifelong NRA member! As a democrat he hasn't even indicated support for anything beyond mental health legislation. haha, he want's to get reelected. He knows his reelection is already in question as a conservative democrat in Alaska. Partisanship is already strong against him. He doesn't stand a chance being a moderate conservative in this state... which is pretty pathetic, but that's another story.
Fire!
Cheesy,
Using the old argument that yelling "Fire" in a theater is illegal therefore restricting firearms is perfectly legitimate doesn't make sense. No one walking into a theater is rendered incapable of yelling "Fire!" in advance. Everyone carries an "assault" voice. It's the misuse that is illegal, as is the case with firearms.
We could apply duct tape to the mouth of everyone entering a theater so they can't yell "Fire!," but that would cut into concession stand profits. On the other hand, I'd be happy if folks were required to check their cellphones/iThingies on the way in.
Lou
holder
got caught with his (filtered word) in his hand over the fast & furious means of gun contol. Now the pos
Potus is trying to do it thru........wait fo it. Its for the children, but I've got to wonder how many kids have been killed by his little gun running stunt.
True enough, Lou
But the theater can prevent you from entering carrying a bullhorn, and that wouldn't be a curtailment of your freedom of speech.
When the zombie apocalypse happens...
You all will be begging me and my AR-15 to protect you.
too bad our 2nd amendment constutionalist can not
read the entire Constitution and those parts that empower the procedures to amend it.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the firs and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Amending the existing 2nd amendment would not infringing on anything. It would be following the exacting provisions of the founders.
cheeesyputz
Are you really that dense or intentionally deceptive? ATF is not an Arizona agency. The BATF(E) is a federal entity. Who do you think signs off on their actions? Did Holder personally put all those guns in the hands of Mexicans? No. But, HIS operation did. Does any CYOA court ruling you hear about make you bow down and say "Yes sir, master sir!"? Of course the crap is going to run downhill. But the pos operation came from the top. Betcha Barry knew about it, too.
geewizz
Cheesy if you’re going to post a link you might want to read it first. If you want to spin like a dreidel at least let us know first. Last paragraph “Now that Department of Justice has released its report, its high time that President Obama stop stonewalling and grant Congress access to the documents it badly needs to complete its own investigation. If indeed the DOJ investigation has been thorough, what does President Obama have to hide?”
I find it hilarious
That people are saying that an assualt weapons ban would lead us down a path of destruction and would lead America down a path like that of Nazi Germany... then later mention that America had an assualt weapons ban in 1994 through 2004.
Hey, AKjustice- Where was this "good guy with a gun" during the columbine shootings? Look it up. Also, you do know that Virginia Tech, the site of the worst shooting in US history, has a police station on campus, right?
Yes, when we are in trouble or need help, we will call the police. Who wouldnt? Didnt you go to school and learn to call the police when you or your family is in danger?
superhero
Gun Free Zones, just as the Aurora movie theater.
i think you missed my point
AKjustice was going on and on about how the presence of a gun would make everthing better but im pointing out that the two worst shootings in American history had guns present. I'm not arguing that gun-free zones are immune from shootings, im arguing that the presence of a gun doesnt always make things better like he was implying.
So how did the lack of guns...
...work out in these shootings? The good guys left their guns home.