George thinks Jim’s being unreasonable about 2nd Amendment rights, suggesting we redraw the line to ensure “assault-type” weapons that are really dangerous – as compared to the somewhat dangerous guns – are banned.
Here is the original email (dated Aug. 16) that I responded to. I have shortened the email a bit to exclude the introduction and the close. My own emphasis is in bold.
I am listening to you speak right now talk about guns. The right to bear arms is fundamental. I just don’t understand why gun rights advocates get their arms up about assault rifles and automatic weapons. Look, we aren’t allowed to buy tanks, bazookas, rocket launchers, and other weapons of destruction. Why aren’t you up in arms about that. There is a line somewhere that must be drawn to protect the general populous. The line needs to be drawn on one side or the other of these assault type weapons. Why can’t we move the line to disallow one more weapon type. When our forfathers gave us the right to bear arms, they were talking about muskets and pistols. So why can’t we accept owning rifles, shotguns, and handguns. All with a six shot limit. I feel safe. Why don’t you and the NRA feel safe with that? The right to bear arms is built on the premise that we should be able to protect our family and community from invaders and an oppressive government.
I just don’t understand why your opinions allow no room for discussion and a moving of your mind. I just don’t understand why you never have a moderate thought in your head. Lastly, I just don’t understand how the public can listen to you and Rush, day in and day out. It really sickens me.
- Do you realize there is no difference at all between many hunting rifles and the so called “assault weapons” except for the way they look? These sport rifles/self defense rifles in many cases literally have the same ammunition, they just look evil and that seems to bother people. “Assault weapon” is a term made up by the anti-gun movement and no, ‘AR-15’ does not stand for “assault rifle 15.” In the firearm industry, I’ve heard the term assault weapon as referred to (exclusively) full auto rifles.
- Six rounds will not be enough in a self defense situation. Heck, 10 rounds may not be enough. I’m happy you feel safe with six rounds, just don’t limit my choice.
- 2nd Amendment advocates are not asking for the right to own a tank or a bazooka. Fully automatic weapons are rarely if ever used in a crime and they are heavily regulated by the federal government. Heck, sporting rifles are rarely, if ever used.
- Violent crime and murders have been down an average of 4.5% and 5.1% respectively for each year between 2007 and 2010. I’m not one to say that more guns have reduced the crime rate since many other factors are involved, but you’d be hard-pressed to prove more guns have contributed to a higher crime rate, or the rate would be lower with your proposed limits.
- Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes are less than one-half of what they were in 1994.
- The percent of violent crimes involving guns has dropped from 11 percent in 1994 to 7 percent in 2008.
- The federal AWB expired in 2004, there has been zero uptick in crimes using “assault weapons.” It’s so infrequent, crimes with rifles barely make it into the overall statistics.
- Hi-capacity magazine limits don’t work. During the federal AWB, the Columbine shooters used both high-capacity and normal capacity magazines. [Once the federal AWB expired the] VT shooter used a Glock 19, for which he could have easily purchased 17, 19 or even 33 round magazines … he did not use them, rather had normal capacity 10 rounders plus a few 15 rounders.
- If the 2nd Amendment was written to “protect our family and community from invaders and an oppressive government” (your words) do you really think those invaders or the government will follow the six round capacity rule?
- Do you really think the government will be able to confiscate all of the 30 round P-Mags (as an example) that are out there? You realize the only people who turn them in would be the law-abiding citizen right? Criminals – by definition – don’t give a damn about the law.
So, my convictions are based on facts and the right to self defense, and your convictions are based on emotion. Can you see that?
You can not base your decisions on emotion and outlier incidents that rarely occur when you look at the grand scheme of things. Does that make the family of the victims feel better? Heck no.
We live in a free society where sometimes, tragic events occur. Kids die in backyard swimming pools, should we ban pools? Kids are hit by cars when they are on their bikes, should we ban riding a bike in the street? Home invaders use baseball bats, phone cord and gasoline to kill families. Females are raped by knife-wielding men in their own apartments. Do you suggest we start restricting access to baseball bats and knives? Maybe you’d suggest having TSA-level security at every baseball game, mall entrance, movie theater, office building and school?
In a free society we accept these things can and do happen. Risks do exist in a free society and sometimes those risks are devastating to people. It sucks.
I’ll take my freedom thank you. I’ll obey the law too. All of that said, maybe we should take a look at the real problem here when it comes to the ever-rare but devastating “mass shooting.” How do we treat and deal with those we know who might be mentally ill? I’m convinced that society – over the last few decades – has taught the public to ignore those who may need help … it’s always someone else’s problem.
Then, we have to put the violent criminals away in jail.
What say you?
After waiting for 16 days, George elected not to respond to me. Either he used a throw-away email or he is ignoring my response. Either way, it shows George really does not have a rebuttal or did not want to hear my response in the first place.