Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
As founders knew, America needs guns
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Brian Till’s Saturday column (“In search of the source of America’s gun obsession”) is laden with absurdities in his futile attempt to make the point that America’s “framers” did not have the present gun climate in mind. I disagree.
Mr. Till begins by using FBI statistics to bolster his claim that there are too many guns out there. Perhaps, perhaps not. There was no FBI in Thomas Jefferson’s day to count guns. There was no one around to tax or regulate guns.
You know what? We not only survived those days, we became a great nation. And when our forefathers issued a call to arms because the Redcoats were coming, citizens grabbed their “assault weapons” of the day — swords, flintlocks, cap and ball, whatever — and rode to the challenge.
I agree with Mr. Till that the framers weren’t thinking of assault rifles in the same exact context in which you and I think of them. But to men in the 1700s, the weapons on hand were “assault rifles.”
But I’m confident that the kind of weapons society had in 1776 was not the issue. The real issue was that weapons were needed to keep that society free. The founders knew that!
Today, the Redcoats are replaced by a world of untold enemies, all with the same intention ... to kill Americans. Who knows when, and against whom, we will have to “grab our guns and ride in defense of our country.”
Unfortunately, every so often someone like Mr. Till comes along to question the Constitution in some Don Quixote effort to dilute the original grand design the Founding Fathers had for this country. I hope there will always be men of sound judgment around to remind the Brian Tills of the world that America enjoys its great freedoms because of the weapons we have, weapons that not only protect us personally, but also defend our way of life.
Discussion: 23 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Was there an ulterior motive in parking the stripper-mobile?
- CityCenter hotel welcomes new employees with gala
- Notebook: The Shark and LJ circle
- Forrest Griffin writes his own ending at UFC 106
- Harry Reid’s hopes hitched to health care reform bill
- Politicians waste no time spinning latest jobless numbers
- What might result from a national airing of Ensign’s dirty laundry
- Police arrest 2 more in fatal shooting of Metro officer
- Willis makes big difference in UNLV’s 78-69 victory
Blogs
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny’s correct prediction of Osmond vs. Osbourne
Politics: The Early Line
Sen. John Ensign affair to resurface on 'Nightline' (1 Comment)
The Greene Room
MWC Winners and Losers: Week 12 (1 Comment)
Culture and Entertainment
UFC 106 walk-in music: Griffin changes his tune, secures win over Ortiz
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (9 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (2 Comments)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
- 27 Fri
-
DJ Scooter at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Fabolous's birthday at Jet
Jet | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Mixology Monday at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
DJ Red at Tabu
Tabú Ultralounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Automatic Tour at The Square Apple
The Square Apple
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
I am not against private gun ownership of handguns and rifles, but why should anyone be allowed to own high powered machineguns, AK47, bazookas, RPG's, etc? Why should private citizens be allowed to buy and own armour piercing bullets, grenades, etc.?
Any gun owned by a citizen should not be capable of rapid fire, armour piercing power...Why does someone need a high powered automatic rifle for hunting?
Remember Columbine? How did students get their hands on those automatic weapons...it was their irresponsible parents.
Leave it to a gun apologist to invoke the 'redcoats are coming' gun defense. I agree it was important for citizens to own guns in the 1700's - there was no standing army!
I think some of these people that think every American needs an assault rifle have seen Red Dawn one too many times. You would think some of those people that are capable of thinking clearly would realize that the dangers of readily available military-grade weaponry far outweigh the supposed benefits should the A-rabs come parachuting in.
vsestini,
The criminals at Columbine (yes, criminals, not just students) did not use "automatic weapons".
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "hunting"
"bazookas,RPGs, grenades, AK-47s" are not available over the counter at gun stores, gunshows etc. Or for that matter on the "street corner" in a illegal sale. You might want to go to Mexico for that. (Private ownership of military-type guns has been ilegal there for 50+years. That is working well , right !)
As far as "need", I always question when someone else makes a determination as to what my "needs" are. Do you "need" a vehicle that "you" drive on MY Public Roads that will go twice the Legal Speed ? Keep in mind that over 50 thousand + people die on the roads each year in accidents, mostly having to do with excess speed & or drinking !
There was an old bumper sticker that simply stated "Teddy Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns".
What say we punish the people that mis-use them ! Did you know that there are over twenty-thousand gun laws on the books nationwide. Is that not enough?
Let's be totally honest. The framer's knew the biggest danger to Freedom would come from within. They feared a strong national government because history showed them governments consolidated power and became abusive.
We have many examples since. Hitler was first elected as was Mussolini. Chavez was elected and Mao came to liberate. Castro took control in a massive popular movement that has run political prisons to protect him as leader for life.
The constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms because a government cannot usurp control from an armed populace.
The most powerful individual firearm in existence at the time the Constitution was ratified was a flintlock. Inaccurate beyond 30 or so yards, slow to load, and by today's standards about as powerful as the average .22 pistol.
Now, tell me...why do you need an AK-47? And despite whatever you say Saladin, you can buy such a weapon at gun shows. I saw the report just 2 weeks ago on 60 Minutes showing dealers with semi-automatic weapons like the AK on their tables for sale. About 2 hours worth of work on that and you can return it to full military spec.
My grandfather owned guns. My father keeps guns for protection. But there is no rational purpose for keeping a weapon solely designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
And really, you think that even having that kind of weapon is going to protect you from the most technologically advanced military in history? That's some serious freakin' paranoia there.
Doug Dem,
Here we go again with the magical word "need".
Funny that all the other Amendments have been found to have an almost un-limited scope of growth. (Can you say InterNet, etc). Where is "Need" factored in ?
"two hours of work on that" (not quite !)is called " making of a machinegun". That has been a Federal Crime (Title 18, USC) roughly since 1986. That's called being a Criminal. Maybe you "need" to research your facts.
As for firearms in general, you want to be the person to decide what is rational, to you, that is ?
As far as "freakin' paranoia", yes I do detect quite a bit of that.
Once again, the laws are on the books, and have been. Maybe we "need" to apply them and jail the folks that break them ? Oh, that's a "need" I have. That "need" we will just discount and forget?
You seem to forget the premise of "Innocent Till Proven Guilty". Now we take an inanimate object and give it "Magical Powers ", "Evil Powers". "Touch It And you are not responsible for your actions any longer." Or quite simply ,living within our Laws. Thats a "Need"(your term, not mine) I've been fond of for quite a while also.
You need to ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Why do you, or anyone else, NEED a weapon whose only function is to kill a lot of people in a quick amount of time?
We can count on neiman for brilliance such as this: "a government cannot usurp control from an armed populace." However, he has been bitchin' that the government already has, Obama in particular. So instead of grabbing his UZI, he loaded his teabag.
Question: If the nasty ol' Government sent a squad of Rangers over to your house to "control" you and your family, pray tell, what are you going to do? Defend your Alamo? Against the guys and weapons we destroyed Iraq with? How many surface to air missiles do you own with which to take down the Stealth fighters the big bad GOVERNMENT will "usurp" your sorry a$$ with .
DougDem,
Once again , don't we NEED to put Lawbreakers in Prison? What new restrictions will prevent anti-social,abberant behavior ? (Criminal Acts)
StanG,
What am I going to do?
How bout ,call my lawyer & have my day in court.
"Defend my Alamo"? Wow! Thats out there!
"big bad GOVERNMENT", I don't think I said that. Sounds too violent for me!
DouglasDemocrat wrote:
"Why do you, or anyone else, NEED a weapon whose only function is to kill a lot of people in a quick amount of time?"
The hope is nevering being in a situation where killing anyone is your last option.
Your hope is the mere show and/or warning shots from superior firepower will in its self be a deterent.
Do you understand Doug?
One can't assume who their enemy may be, it may be a standing military of invaders or a gang of rioters.
One cannot assume there will never be a need, while being prepared for "worse case" scenarios.
Still don't understand?
Perhaps a review of the 1992 L.A. Riots upon the streets of AMERICA for several days will help?
Law enforcement was unable to adequately defend citizen's lives and property. Private citizens which adequately defended their own lives and property from being looted and fire-bombed utilized firearms designed as you say to "kill a lot of people in a quick amout of time."
Law and order was not restored until the military obtained control after several days of unlawful lethal acts by criminal rioters.
Don't think such could happen again?
Don't bet on it, tough economic times make people desperate, a Rodney King beating, a Presidential assassination, a tax mandate from Carson City, who knows what may trigger massive social violence?
For those relying upon laws for protecting themselves and family particularly in 'violent lethal scenarios'; remember laws are merely words.
It's not about being paranoid it's about being adequately prepared to protect your life and family during 'worse case scenarios' when calling 911 goes unanswered.
Doug, people NEED weapons to protect themselves from liberal miscreants like yourself. Why do you NEED to eat? Why do you NEED any other freedom afforded by our founding fathers?
The argument that we should be stuck with flintlocks is dumb at best, freaking ignorant at worst.
Using that same analogy Surgeons shouldn't use anasthetic and doctors wouldn't be allowed to use MRI's (oh wait, that's Obama's health care plan, LOL). You libs need to get with the times. If a conservative paints you libs with a broad brush you get your panties in a bunch, but the same freedom loving libs want to limit freedoms and rights for conservatives, crazy.
I have been a gun owner since I was 12, I have never converted any weapon to "automatic" and have never shot at anybody for kicks and grins. I am a 45 year old law abiding citizen and YOU want me to give up my guns because someone went "off the reservation" and killed another person.
It's OK for you to take my freedoms away, but I better not infringe on your SILLY beliefs or I am a homo-phobe, racist, backwoods hillbilly, bible-toting, inbreed that is intollerant and uneducated.
Do you see the problem? Other than yourself.
"people NEED weapons to protect themselves from liberal miscreants like yourself."
Did getalife really say that? Now THAT is a bunch o' hooey. Stuff & nonsense. BALDERDASH & FALDERAL!Our "founding fathers". GIVE ME A BREAK WITH THAT CRAP ALREADY. They have rolled over in their graves so often they are but dust in the wind. I think their crystal ball from two hundred twenty years ago was a little fuzzy on the gun thing. For example;
Did you know, in the latest available statistics from 2000-2005, the CDC reports that EVERY DAY,
on average, 3 CHILDREN DIE from accidental gunshots? three kids, every single day, 5 years running.
Think on that.
Better check your stats!
CDC "stats" include all up to the age of 17. And the number of these "children" that are involved in criminal acts (read that as gang-related) are ? Oh,thats right, they are all lumped together.
You want to play numbers? Try this, compare to the number of children that drown in pools (about 10 times as many) each year.
What do you have against the Laws as we have them? Is that to easy a solution ?
Guess I don't have the right to defend myself if needed?
There is that NEED again.
There is an old bumper-sticker that went: "Teddy Kennedy has killed more people with his Oldsmobile than I have with my Guns". It's still true!
You need to research how well the "No Guns Program" has worked in the UK & Australia. Report back to us next week on the rate of violent crime there & its upward climb since the enactment of those laws.
Do we NEED those "evil-child-killing-pools"?
And your "crystal-ball" is so much clearer,right!
"Today, once again, 60 million guns killed no one"
DouglasDemocrat asked why anyone would need an automatic weapon, such as an AK47, not why anyone would need a regular fire arm.
I too wonder why anyone would need an AK47. I understand having a hand gun for protection, or a rifle for hunting, and I support and defend that right. But why anyone needs an automatic assault weapon is beyond me. Besides wanting to take out a bunch of people in a short amount of time, that is.
Whichever side of the issue you are on there are a couple of points I would submit. All firearms by their very design were originaly intended to kill humans more efficiently than what they replaced. Newer firearms were designed to kill people more efficiently than the older ones.
You can hunt or rec shoot with firearms but their original purpose was to be used on people.
Now the biggest issue of all is the lack of accountability for those that misuse them. From lack of training or stupid judgement people get killed by others and it is called an accident.
I don't have a problem with firearms, It's the people with them that scare me.
castle; "it's the people with them that scare me."
AMEN to that.
Why is it though that the gun nuts think gun control advocates are out to "take away their guns"?
This is the bothersome part to me of the anti gun control argument. NO ONE that I'm aware of is advocating banning "guns" per-se, and the folks that go off on that particular tangent have no credibility. It's not a matter of your personal freedom to bear arms; It's the manner & method of obtaining guns in general, and the availability of assault-type weapons under the guise of "sportsmanship."
As for saladins crack about CDC statistics; dude,
I couldn't care less if they include those up to 17 years old. They are still our kids, and when they die it's a horrible, horrible thing.
Gmag39 wrote:
"For example; Did you know, in the latest available statistics from 2000-2005, the CDC reports that EVERY DAY, on average, 3 CHILDREN DIE from accidental gunshots? three kids, every single day, 5 years running."
No verification was made to gmag39 claim since no source link was included, thus disgarded.
However, according to the CDC source cited, unintentional firearm fatalities in the United States in 2005 ages 1-14 revealed a percentage of 01.83% relative to all other unintentional fatalities i.e. MV Traffic, Drowning, Fire/Burn, Pedestrian, Suffocation, Natural/Environment, Fall, Struck by or Against, Other Land Transport, which percentages were higher.
Furthermore, there is no statistical evidence revealing how many children 1-14 lives were spared in the U.S. in 2005 due to firearm proliferation, ownership, show-of-force, usage, etc.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe...
Conclusion, gmag39 has no credibility regarding the topic matter.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE.
1. - Declaration of Rights.
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.
[Amended in 1982. Proposed and passed by the 1979 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1981 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1982 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1979, p. 1986; Statutes of Nevada 1981, p. 2083.]
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 12. - Militia.
Sec. 1. Legislature to provide for militia.
2. Power of governor to call out militia.
Section. 1. Legislature to provide for militia. The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the Militia of this State, for the effectual encouragement of Volunteer Corps and the safe keeping of the public Arms.
Sec: 2. Power of governor to call out militia. The Governor shall have power to call out the Militia to execute the laws of the State or to suppress insurrection or repel invasion.
What a joke.I take it you guys dont own guns. I own a AK-17 and AR-15 (2).22 sniper rifles and a Glock 27. If you ever taken (which i dout) a gun class you will see the nut jobs that own a gun. Im protecting my self from that guy. Assault rifles are not ment for hunting big game. I have one the because my brothers came from the military and made up for lost time by going out shooting. FOR FUN.
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. and when 5hit hits the fan.. and it will. I will be ready.You think when 5hit gets really bad people arent going to try and take what you have. food.. money..and guess what, they will take your life to get it. I hope it doesnt get to bad but whos to say it wont.
Hope for the best and prepare the worse
bringiton, "(2).22 sniper rifles", nice to see any rifle with a scope gets tagged a "sniper rifle" that's like saying anybody with a keyboard can spell or use grammar.
Keyboards don't misspell words, people do!
Ignorance drives the debate in many sectors of policy, get educated and at least TRY to understand the other side.
getalife,True to me its just a rifle if even that.But it court its something else. I figured it would be a easy target to see if any one knew the difference.
So if the cartels get in our back yards with assault rifles. They expect us to defend ourselves with what? Handguns? yeah right.
I guess you can count a 22 caliber as a sniper weapon. A 223 which is also called a mini 14, AR16 or in military use M16 is a 22 and 3/10th caliber. More common might be the 308, 30-06, 300 or the other 30 caliber weapons. For distance the 50, 41, and 33.8 caliber might be more suited.