Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers said we should be able to protect our homes and children. A single gun with five shots is more than sufficient to protect ourselves and our homes. For hunters, a shotgun for hunting is all that is needed. Any weapons with more capacity than that should be banned. One city had the right idea: a metal detector at the door with one armed guard in each school. More parents should take control of their children. Parents should instill in their children the difference between right and wrong. And, ...
Mr. Perchesky,
Please provide a reference or two where "our forefathers said we should be able to protect our homes and children" as you put it.
The discussions available to us in the Federalist Papers and private letters seem to refer only to defense of the nation or, more importantly, defense of liberty.
One thing needs to be absolutely clear: the Second Amendment has *nothing* to do with having weapons for home defense or hunting. No reasonable discussion about gun regulation can be had unless that is understood.
At the very least one should read (several times) the SCOTUS decision from 1939 in US v Miller that outlawed short-barreled shotguns. (And those nine wise souls were apparently unaware that the US Army issued thousands of short-barreled shotguns in World War I for use in trench warfare.)
12-24-2012 Mass murderer William Spengler killed 2 people with his "hands" and 2 with a single shot rifle and burned down 7 houses.
11-10-2012 mass murderers Monserrate Shirley, Mark Leonard, and Bob Leonard killed next-door neighbors, John Dion Longworth, and second-grade teacher Jennifer Longworth by a gas explosion that destroyed theirs and 32 other homes and put 12 others in hospital
DERANGED MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE KILL
FIX OUR MENTALLY ILL HEALTH SYSTEM
PART ONE
In reply to Jerry Perchesky; you covered a quite large spectrum of proposed answers to reform gun laws. Now, let's take a moment to look at each one, individually;
I truly believe a metal detector is necessary at each school. Although this is sad to subject our youngest children to these type checks / searches, the fact is, this is the society we live in today. However, to go past this drawn line is wrong and not in the best interests of child development. Our schools are NOT a prison environment! Therefore, I still do not believe in armed officers / guards inside our public schools! I will say there should be post certified officers, not guards, on every campus. However, their presence must have limitations;
"The BChap Church Rule" - When I worked for the prison system, upon request of an inmate's family, periodically prisons would allow certain inmates, who qualify, to attend the funeral of an immediate family member's death. I had frequent disputes with prison officials since I refused to bring any types of weapons and or firearms into any house of worship. Although I accompanied the inmate inside a church, my weapons were more than adequately secured on gun racks within the prison van. Litigation on this matter was found in my favor. The same should apply for our schools. No one, including law enforcement, except during emergency operations, should ever enter a school with any type of weapon or firearm.
I agree that, as you stated in your letter to the editor, "that parents should take control of their children. Parents should instill in their children the difference between right and wrong." You're absolutely correct, Mr. Perchesky. However, the fact is, many parents of today, when it comes to raising their children, do not understand what "command presence" is. In other words, they cannot seemingly comprehend inside the lines of abuse and the other side of the extreme, which is neglect. To simplify this even more, many homes do not have any type of "consistent structure" for their children to follow. Parents of today do not want to hear that in raising their children, they must go the "extra mile" every day.
This, where you say, Mr. Perchesky, "Our government should take a much stronger stand to keep weapons of destruction from coming inside our borders," I really have to take issue with.
I wrote a quote several years ago that said, "A federal government who has showed themselves incapable of stopping human intrusion at our borders, is certainly not capable of seizing the contraband that smugglers often times bring with them." >B. Chapline<
PART TWO
And finally, Mr. Perchesky, our prison system is not a deterrent to committing crimes in this country. In the first place, incarceration is not the same as it used to be. Thirty years ago prisons were a horrible place to be. Many inmates were forced to work all day at hard labor. The prisoners did as they were told, because if they did not, the consequences would be quite severe. In today's prisons, work is an option, and in many cases the most severe punishment while in prison is the taking away of privileges that they should never have had in the first place. Today, most criminals view prison life as a "lazy man's heaven".
While your letter to the editor was well intended, Mr. Perchesky, it is not possessed with practical solutions. Until, "We the People", and our government representatives get their heads screwed on right, your goals and solutions that you spoke of are utterly not attainable.
Crazy Spangler, 62 years old, in Webster, NY a quiet town on the banks of Ontario was a convicted felon. He plead guilty to manslaughter for killing his 92 year old grandmother in the 80's with a hammer. He had 3 guns. All gotten illegally. One an AR-15 rifle. He set fire to his house and car so he could kill the firemen, volunteers, who responded to save him and the neighborhood. He killed two of the firemen and seriously injured 2 more. Then he killed himself. His sister was also found dead in the house, not certain yet due to her burnt remains, whether shot first or died in the fire. In all, 7 or 8 houses burned down. How and where did he get these guns?
Rights have two direct powers: The power to do and the power to be. And they also have indirect consequential powers. The rights may be guaranteed by the Constitution but the powers are not. Those are regulated.
CarmineD
Obviously Jerry you have never went hunting, except for maybe birds.
I was with you, Jerry, until you decided just how many and what type of gun a citizen could possess. You have no "right" to take anyone's "Rights" away and owning a weapon for any reason is a Constitutional "Right." There already are plenty of rules and regulations on the books regarding who may and who may not own a firearm. Nuts Like Spangler don't give a rats ass about them or any other impediments put upon an felon banning them from possessing a firearm. They'll latch on to one - one way or another. Impediments only make it more difficult for the honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen to obtain a defensive weapon if that is his or her desire. Those folks actually obey the law and you'd penalize them for doing do. That's back-assward, Jerry.
Not all republicans are toeing the NRA line.
"I don't think the NRA is listening," Luntz said. "Most Americans would protect the 2nd Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone.
That at gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there and then without any kind of check whatsoever. What they're looking for is a common-sense approach that says that those who are law-abiding should continue to have the right to own a weapon, but that you don't believe the right should be extended to everyone at every time for every type of weapon."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26...
"A single gun with five shots is more than sufficient to protect ourselves and our homes."
Perchesky -- my, aren't you just full of advice on what the rest of us should and should not do. Take the recent home invasion in the news here a few days ago @ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
4 invaders total. Imagine -- with a warning shot gone, one bullet for each one left. Not even the average cop in a tense situation is that good a shot.
"One thing needs to be absolutely clear: the Second Amendment has *nothing* to do with having weapons for home defense or hunting. No reasonable discussion about gun regulation can be had unless that is understood."
boftx -- not true. That was explained in the Heller and McDonald decisions. But mainly here it's Nevada's own Constitutional protection on firearms that matters.
**already used up all my on-topic quotes**
David Gregory, the anti gun zealot NBC TV host possessed and displayed a 30 round clip in his DC program in violation of DC law, and is under investigation. Ironically, Gregory sends his child to the same school ( Sidwell Friends Quaker) as Obama's which is protected by 11 armed guards. Liberals have no problem hiding behind guns when it benefits them personally. What hypocracy!!
The 2nd amendment is in place to protect us the citizens from an out of control federal government or any others that might attack our country or our Constitution ("foreign & domestic") , nothing to do with hunting! Without the 2nd amendment we would be specking Japanese and our Constitution would be gone!
Jerry Perchesky....please oh please......encourage your Democrats friends in Congress to attempt to pass a "one gun rule" and "hunters can only use a shotgun to hunt" rule.
Please....please....with suger on top....please do it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely,
The Republican Party
Boftx: Miller is perhaps not the best precedent to use in the modern environment. The justices held that:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
It also looked at the meaning of the word "militia" and determined that:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
The first quote appears to restrict the right to bear arms to those arms that are necessary to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Today, that pretty much allows the banning of single-shot rifles, small hand-guns, air guns, bows, etc. and requires unrestricted possession of fully automatic firearms, explosive devices like hand grenades, fighter aircraft, tanks, etc. with a limit based only on the individual's ability to pay for a weapon.
The second quote extends that right to ALL males (and probably females under modern interpretations) with the physical ability to act together in concert for protection. That is far more than current members of the active military services, beyond members of the national guard, beyond military retirees/dischargees, even beyond the right-wing-popular private militias. If you can physically act in a group (type unspecified - a group of paraplegics? A 7th grade PE class??), you are entitled to bear all the various weaponry you want/can afford. And there's no wiggle room for those mentally or emotionally unfit for active military service so long as they are PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of acting within a group. Of course, there is no requirement that anyone can act ONLY within a group.
renorobert,
You picked up on exactly the point I wanted to make: there is case law from SCOTUS that would imply that assault rifles are *exactly* the kind of weapons that are protected and that the kinds of weapons that some people say are okay are in fact not.
The Heller and McDonald cases sugarcoat the Second Amendment in their own way.
Unlike almost any other country (and I am not aware of an exception but I haven't looked) we consider it an inherent right to own weapons that are capable of being used in a military fashion. The entire Bill of Rights is an expression of a deep mistrust of a central government.
Conversely, the Constitution has indications of a mistrust of the population in general. (Primary case is the Electoral College, as well as our being a republic and not a true democracy.)
The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, is an attempt at implementing a government based on the principles laid out in our Declaration of Independence. Again I say, no rational discussion can take place on this (or several other topics for that matter) without using that as a starting point.
"David Gregory, the anti gun zealot NBC TV host possessed and displayed a 30 round clip in his DC program in violation of DC law, and is under investigation."
Houstonjac -- so much for those clamoring for new laws banning those kinds of clips.
"The Heller and McDonald cases sugarcoat the Second Amendment in their own way."
boftx -- no they didn't. They explained it exhaustively (157 + 214 pages) for the first time ever. In Heller the court thoroughly examined your Miller. Distinguished it, didn't overturn it, nor did it consider it controlling on the Amendment.
"Parents should instill in their children the difference between right and wrong."
What a revelation! Why didn't parents think of that earlier in our civilization?
We need a full and complete ban on assault rifles,
PERIOD!
And a full ban on mega-clips, PERIOD!
Crazy republican gun nuts can stick their assault
rifles where the sun doesn't shine.
PERIOD!