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 commentskirkz
How about we first discuss the police station/armed guards in schools that didn't really work out....
Again...
...how did that work out?
superhero,
So is your point is that places that ordinary citizens aren't allowed to have guns are safer? If so, your choice of examples kinda blow your own argument out of the water. Students and instructors, in gun free zones, can call the Police when in danger. And when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I know from listening to the scanner, that when JPD gets priority calls their response time is far better than the national average, typically 3-9 minutes unless the call is out the road or N. Douglas. That is fantastic, and kudos to them. The response time for my .44 is 1500 feet per second. If someone is threatening your family, do you really want to wait 3-9 minutes?
Do you have a home fire extinguisher? If so, why? In the event of a fire, just call the fire department, preferably from outside your home.
dartbucks
My point is that the presence of a gun does not make anything safer, like you guys are saying.
And you do realize that
Columbine had 1 armed guard, who was outside in is car at the time Harris and Klebold started shooting? Also Virginia Tech has over 125 academic buildings and covers a bit over 4 square miles. No way could they have enough officers to cover that. Their response time was approximately 3 minutes after Cho started shooting, but the doors were chained on the inside.
touche...
So, what you're saying is that these two instances were a fluke and a good guy with a gun will now protect everywhere else?
Can you please read all my posts before you respond. I was responding to AKjustice going off on a rant about how a good guy with the gun will save the day, when im pointing out that this apparent "good guy with a gun" was nowhere to be found during these times. The presence of a gun does not change a thing.
You're hunting ducks with a paddle, hero.
As tough as it may be for you to comprehend, if just one of the instructors had been armed, might not Cho have been put down way before he shot so many people? He was already going to commit suicide. Imagine if he had been wounded 15 or 20 seconds after he started shooting. Quite possibly would have ended himself a lot sooner.
I'll leave this comment section with one last post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/armed-school-security-gua_n_250...
Again...
...the GOOD guy left his gun at home like he is required to do. So how is that working out for you?
Actually, ill address your comment before I go
Yes, you are correct, if someone just so happen to have a gun at the right place at the right time and shot Cho, they could have possibly stopped him from doing the massacre. Or the bullets could've missed and hit an innocent bystander, adding another injury. Or Cho could've shot the person attempting to shoot him and take the gun from that person to commit more murders...
Now, imagine if an American soldier had been in the crowd during a Hitler speech and shot Adolf and saved over a million jews from genocide.
What if, what if.
Anyway, im going to head on back to reality. Peace.
I can count an hour and 17 minutes...
...that you have been away from reality today.
you should
quit talking to yourself and join the discussion.. ;)
you've got me confused here
So, the armed guards and police officers are not the "good guys" that you speak of?
Also, people leaving their guns at home is working out great for me actually.
skirkz,
There is an Arizona division of the ATF. You do know this, right? According to a congressional investigation the gun running operation that led to a boarder agent's death was isolated to the Arizona division of BATF. Don't shoot the messenger on this one. Don't believe me you are more than welcome to take a google adventure and determine this for yourself. And I'm obtuse for mentioning this report? Do you know what 'obtuse' means?
isldandhopper, I don't know what article you read but the one I posted goes something like this:
"Congressional Republican investigators have singled out five employees in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to blame for the botched anti-gunrunning operation known as Fast and Furious, in a report on the scandal obtained by Fox News."
details...
"In a hearing before the contempt votes, Issa insisted Holder offered "to provide subpoenaed documents only if the committee agrees in advance to close the investigation," adding, "No investigator would ever agree to that."
But Justice Department officials have disputed that account. A Justice Department official insisted last month the documents at issue "show no intention or attempt to conceal information or mislead (Congress)."
Nevertheless, Boehner has said that a civil lawsuit to obtain the documents would be pursued."
The last paragraph does not resemble what you read. Maybe you don't know how to follow a link online. I'm not sure what the problem is but this article isn't the only one reporting on the fast & furious investigation that has since concluded and no further investigation continues to this day. In case you are wondering Holder is still AG and no charges were leveled against him. No one is spinning here... you just have a hard time accepting the truth. Accept it and get over it.
How many innocent people die
How many innocent people die in the crossfire?
Seems like every day we read reports of people being killed for simply having the misfortune to cross paths with someone fearfully clutching their gun.
Why are we Americans so afraid? Why are we so quick to use deadly force?
Hi
http://equalgunrights.com/petition-PM-3549
cheeezwhizz
Every state has federal offices. They all are directed by D.C. The Feds dropped the ball. You can't spin that.
Skirkz,
ob·tuse
/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective
Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
Difficult to understand.
Synonyms
dull - blunt - dense - slow-witted
I never said the feds didn't. The ATF is a federal department. In fact I provided a link showing the feds (ATF) are to blame and the specific federal agents responsible. Again, I can't spin what is painfully obvious and in fact common knowledge. You called me obtuse for clarifying all of this. Maybe you meant to direct your comments toward isldandhopper. I don't know...
Ay, Carramba, queso!
Adonde esta su madre, queso? I didn't call you obtuse! But, if the shoe fits...!
The author makes good points
The author makes good points on what qualifies as an 'assault' weapon. Back in the Brady bill days, the definitions were...strange, in many cases (ability to fix a bayonet?). So some education is definitely in order.
Where he loses me is in his concluding paragraph. Things like the elimination of high capacity magazines, background checks for all firearm sales, and a national firearm registry are things that a majority of Americans believe in. None of those things "weaken" the second amendment, or even restrict gun ownership. The fear-driven, slippery slope argument of these things leading to confiscation are ridiculous in the extreme.
Mr. Rafferty ends by asking legislators to trust in the American people. I'd say that's advice he'd be well advised to take himself.
cheeesy
It was the link you posted & nowhere in it did it infer the doj was cleared of anything. Other than what the doj spokesperson said. Go back & click on it then read it, try reading the whole artical this time
Bait and Switch
Guns rights is a wedge issue used by Republicans to get middle class white men to vote against their own economic self interest. They get them distracted with the gun rights issue while they're cutting taxes on Big Oil- taking money from everyone in Alaska and giving that money to BP, Exxon and Conoco. No one is taking your hunting rifle away-you're looking the wrong way and getting your pocket picked.
Killing people
Funny how all these 2nd Amendment "patriots" envision not giving their lives for their country and freedom, but instead seem focused on killing other people. With guns. The irony of the vicious circle escapes them.
Enough with the semantics of
Enough with the semantics of what type of "arm" the 2nd amendment speaks to. The founders clearly intended the 2nd amendment to be a check on government tyranny enforced by the government's standing army. To be a legitimate check on the government's army we the people should be able to buy the same weapons the standing army has access to. You don't have to agree with the founders but I challenge anyone to provide documentation where the authors of the 2nd Amendment limited the scope of "arms" in any way.
That said, the whole idea of a well armed militia of free men is to secure the liberty of the free man. We would rather enjoy the fruits of our labor, take care of our families, and engage in our representative government than have to wage war against a government run amuck. The armed freeman is the last deterrent against a government overstepping its well defined bounds. The better armed we are the better the deterrent we will be and that allows us to set aside the idea that our government can force us to do that which we the people do not choose to do.
One of We
Bravo... Well said One. More common sense.
Bye the way, Welcome to the meat grinder.
@One
"The founders clearly intended the 2nd amendment to be a check on government tyranny enforced by the government's standing army."
No. At the time of the Bill of Rights, there was no standing army. In 1792, the Legion of the United States reformed the army, then disbanded in 1796. It wasn't until the War of 1812 that the government saw a need to have a standing army.