Photo credit: JMR_Photography
The recent school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and the rush to address the gun issue in the aftermath of the shootings, has once again put the issues of gun violence, gun control, and the second amendment into our living rooms. People are asking: Do we need stronger gun laws or do we arm school officials? I’m not claiming to have the definitive answer, but the one thing I’m sure about is that more guns is not it.
For many of the children who survived the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, it will become their first memory of a story about gun violence. My first memory of hearing about a tragedy related to guns was in the fourth grade. Our class took a trip to the court house to learn about our justice system. During the visit, one of my classmates asked the court officer, who was giving us the tour, about his firearm. He told us about the danger of guns through the story of a fellow court officer whose young son (age 4, if my memory serves me) had been killed with his father’s gun. The child had taken the gun from a locked box with a combination and apparently unable to pull the trigger with his index finger, turned the gun around so that he could use his strongest finger, his thumb, to pull the trigger, fatally shooting himself. This story has stuck with me for over 30 years and will always affect my view of guns.
When tens of thousands of people lose their lives each year to gun violence in the United States, more than 30,000 in 2011 alone, it may be time for us to take a new look at the second amendment and at the issue of “responsible gun ownership.” I probably first learned about the Bill of Rights and the second amendment around the time that I heard the story of the court officer’s son. The two seemed unrelated to me because we learned in school that the second amendment was to allow the former colonists to defend themselves and their land should their new government take on the tyranny of their former government. What is the relevance of that second amendment today, and should it be used to defend the rights of anyone to own guns? Isn’t it time that we seriously explore what laws are needed today to address issues facing us today?
In today’s debate, I repeatedly hear those who are defending their right to bear arms, justifiably want to separate themselves from people who have committed heinous mass shootings, by calling themselves “responsible gun owners.” I did an Internet search to see what it meant to be a responsible gun owner. What I found surprised me. Regardless of the search engine I used, the top 20 sites were about people defending their right to bear arms, but with no mention of what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
When I searched for the term “gun safety,” I finally found the fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling. These three rules that have been used by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and adopted by various groups:
- ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
- ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
- ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
While they do go on to cover the safe use and storage of a gun, I find these rules to be unsatisfactory, because they don’t address being a responsible gun owner. I’ve decided to create my own rules. Here are my top three rules for being a responsible gun owner:
- BE CLEAR ON YOUR PURPOSE FOR OWNING A GUN and select a gun that is appropriate to your purpose. If you are a hunter, you need a hunting rifle, not a semi-automatic weapon. If your gun is for protection, be clear on what you believe you need protection from. Get an appropriate gun for the situation. You probably don’t need an assault rifle to protect your home from potential burglary. You definitely don’t need an extended magazine with the ability to fire 30 shots in a few seconds. Store your weapon in a secure location accessible only to you; a metal box with a three digit combination is not secure enough as my court officer story indicates.
- SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE GUN LAWS that prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, being sold or resold without background checks, and prevent military weaponry from being sold to average citizens and being stockpiled by these citizens, who aren’t “dangerous,” until something goes wrong.
- Recognize that for some people, the most responsible thing you can do is DON’ T BUY A GUN. This is especially true if you have vulnerable populations in your home including children or people with mental health concerns.
What rules would you add? Do you think it’s time to relook at the second amendment and its purpose? Share your thoughts with us.
Arthurine Walker
Vice President
Campaign Consultation, Inc.
Andrea Perri
Latest posts by Andrea Perri (see all)
- Fitch the Homeless - May 15, 2013
- A FORCE to End Rape Culture - May 14, 2013
- G’Day Gun Reform - May 2, 2013
While I try my hardest to refrain from debating or speaking in an uncivil manner in regards to gun control I cannot do so on this occasion. Your article and especially your 3 rules are offensive due to your clear lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. First off rule number 1, why do any of us need to be clear on our “purpose” to own a gun? It is OUR right to own guns! Secondly, many hunting rifles are semi-automatic and your “rule” that dictates we should own a rifle other than semi-automatic for hunting purposes is ludicrous. Who are you to dictate such a thing? Why should I be clear on what I need protection from, how about just because? And why do I not need a magazine with a 30 rd capacity to defend myself? Are you some sort of a psychic who can foresee the future and are able to tell me what kind of situations I will encounter in which I will need to defend myself and my family? And just to let you the weapons of which we currently have available to us do not have the ability to fire 30 rounds in a few seconds as you say, which only further shows your lack of knowledge. No military weapons are being sold to average citizens, as I would assume you are speaking of the AR style weapons. Those are semi-automatic as are many other weapons that are currently available to us “average” citizens. They are not fully automatic as you and so many others claim they are. And if I are any other “law abiding” citizens want to stockpile the weapons that are and should be available to us then we shall because it is our right that shall not be infringed. Why is it hard for you and so many others to understand that? No one is required to purchase or possess a gun yet you make it seem as though gun rights supporters are suggesting such a thing. I know many who are in full support of our 2nd Amendment yet do not own a single gun. Our 2nd Amendment is not be looked at in a way that would call for it to be infringed upon further than it already has or repealed as some have called for. It is a GUARANTEED RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Educate yourself…
You are right that I am not an expert on guns or the second amendment, nor do I purport to be. I am a citizen exercising my first amendment rights to freedom of speech. The first place where we disagree is about refraining from debate about gun control. I think debate is healthy and believe it helps us to gain an understanding of other perspectives–something that I value. You seem to vehemently want to defend your rights under the second amendment in much the way I vehemently defend my rights under the first amendment to express myself. That said, the law has made it clear that just because I have freedom of speech does not mean that I get to scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater. I think that just because the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms doesn’t mean we should be able to stockpile an arsenal.
I am not suggesting that we remove Americans’ right to bear arms. I buy my food at the grocery store, but I’m not offended that hunters choose to cut out the middle man. However, if the original purpose of the second amendment was so that the former colonist could defend themselves and their land against the government, there are a few reasons that we need to relook at this amendment that was ratified with the Bill of Rights more than 221 years ago. First, the laws of eminent domain don’t really allow Americans to defend their land from being taken by the government. Second, if you tried defending your land today from the government with the use of arms, I’d say, I hope you like Cuban food. But before you correct me, I do know that Guantanamo is technically American soil.
Every day, laws are strengthened, changed, or repealed. I am not suggesting that we repeal the second amendment. I am saying something that I feel our public officials have been afraid to say because of the fear of upsetting the gun lobby. I think we need to have a national debate about the second amendment and what it means for citizens today. I think that those who feel strongly about their right to bear arms, those who feel that no one should have guns outside of the police and the military, and those of us who fall somewhere in between should have an open and respectful debate that would result in sensible gun laws.
And, I still stand by my first amendment right to say I think that for some people the most responsible thing we can do is DON’T BUY A GUN.
How could we possibly disagree on debate about gun control when I never mentioned that a debate shouldn’t occur? I see no problem at all in open debate. I support you exercising your First Amendment Right but you should take it upon yourself to be better informed and educated on the topics you wish to debate, especially if your going to write an article attempting to dictate how a person should exercise one of their Constitutional Rights. One that explicitly states that it shall not be infringed. And who are to to tell a person that they cannot stockpile weapons? Nowhere does it state that we cannot stockpile weapons. Does anyone tell you that you cannot stockpile food? How would you like it if your food purchases were regulated and you were only allotted so much sustenance? Our Founders meant for the Constitution and our Bill of Rights to be lasting documents. They for obvious reasons knew what it took to defend against a tyrannical government and they knew that if it happened once it most likely could happen again. They knew the best way possible for the people to have a lasting chance against such a government was to guarantee those unalienable rights that would pass from generation to generation. The laws of Eminent Domain changes nothing with our 2nd Amendment Right. And to end this comment I will once again state since it seems to be so hard to comprehend “shall not be infringed”.
Interpretation of laws have to change with time. There is a massive difference between muskets – the ‘arms’ our Founding Fathers were referring to – and rocket launchers. Now I admit, I am being slightly facetious with my choice of weapon comparison, but am simply trying to illustrate the point that modern day guns are much more deadly than those in 1776.
Additionally, the exact language of the Second Amendment that was ratified by the states is the following; “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.” Please note the use of “well regulated.” It is clear that our Founding Fathers expected there to be regulations and restrictions on the types of guns, how many, etc. people could own.
The fact that you even attempt to compare rocket launchers to muskets completely debases your argument even if you are being facetious. Your comment is not even really worthy of a response but I feel compelled to do so as a duty of mine. Which is to inform the many within the population who do not know of what they speak. To get to the point, rocket launchers are not even remotely available to the public so you can’t even begin to justify using it as an example of comparison. Remember, they did have canons in the Revolutionary War which had a devastating amount of power. Your attempt to intrepret our 2nd Amendment Right to fit your political agenda doesn’t work, sorry…. There are several parts to our 2nd Amendment Right, the phrase well regulated is only used in conjunction with Miltia and is not worded with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It only meant for the regulating of a Militia. If our founders meant for our Arms to be regulated they would have ensured to place that in our 2nd Amendment, instead they placed the clear phrase “shall not be infringed.” I will give the exact definition of infringed to better educate you.
infringed: 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.
2. to encroach or trespass
(The Dictionary)
Pretty clear cut definition, now do you understand? And in case you were wondering, the word infringed dates back to the 15th century so it predates the Revolutionary War. Meaning the founders knew exactly what it meant when they placed it in our Constitution. Try as you may to bastardize our Constitution, it will not work. Don’t worry, I understand people such as yourself do not handle facts well and none of this will most likely not change your mind. Thats ok, keep living your life uneducated.
You’re kind of mean, Mike.
I apologize, it is not my intention to be that way. I am just tired of hearing arguments from people on gun control and wanting to change or do away with our 2nd Amendment when they clearly do not know enough about the subject at hand to even form a valid argument. Everyone is entitled to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights however and I hope that that our 1st Amendment Right like our 2nd Amendment isn’t brought into question and become more regulated and possibly even done away with. If you do not believe that is a possibility you seriously need to open your eyes.
I think, perhaps, it would be easier to engage in thoughtful debate with you if you didn’t call those disagree with you ‘uneducated.’ I am not trying to jest at you, but I am curious to know what your background is. You repeatedly intimate that you “know more” than the original poster and I, and I am interested to learn more about that.
I understand. I guess I should rephrase uneducated with just lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. I don’t intend to mean that someone such as yourself has no education so I apologize. I am more than willing to have an open debate with anyone. The founding of our country along with our Constitution is something I am very passionate about. I think it is important for everyone to be properly educated on the founding of our country because it is the reason we are able to enjoy the freedoms that we have today. Many of which are taken for granted. I take it personally when someone attacks one of my Constitutional Rights that are guaranteed to myself and everyone else in our country yet people want to take away those guaranteed rights because of a few people. As far as my background goes, I have 2 years of education in Criminal Justice. 1 1/2 years with a Sheriff’s Dept. and 3 years in the Army. I take it upon myself to continuously educate myself through diligent research. Later this year I am going to back to college to study Political Science and Constitutional Law.
Thank you so much for your response, Mike. I appreciate it. I do have another question for you. With your knowledge and background, what do you propose we do to combat these ever-growing instances of mass shootings? I think (hope?) we can all agree that the tragedies of Newton, Aurora, Tuscon and even more recently my alma mater – the University of Maryland – should never be replicated. How can we as a nation do a better job of ensuring they don’t?
Well, there is no easy answer to your question. First and foremost is to recognize that guns are not the problem, one of biggest problems are people with mental health issues. Laws have been put in place that make it difficult for behavioral health physicians to have people who clearly are a risk to society institutionalized. Another problem is people in communities not reporting behavior of people who clearly have issues and are a danger to society. Such as the man down in Georgia who shot the bus driver and kidnapped the kid. Many people in the community said the guy was crazy yet nothing was ever done about it. I’m not saying to lock up everyone who has mental health issues but there needs to be reform and more oversight in the behavioral health field. That is not a cure all but it is a good start. Background checks need to involve an individual’s medical hisory (mental health) as a disqualifier for purchase. And I do support background checks at gun shows. However, I do not support background checks for ammunition. What people need to understand is that you cannot stop murders, gun control will not make a difference. If that were the case then places such as Chicago would not have a problem. These people who commit these murders, especially the mass shootings want to kill people. It has nothing to really do with their access to guns, they will always find a way. If that wasn’t true then we wouldn’t have criminals. All in all there is not very much that can be done without violating our Constitutional Rights which were put in place for good reason. Our rights are being violated enough as it is. Between limited free speech, limited gun rights and limited freedom from illegal search and seizure. (such as dui/safety checkpoints). The people have already allowed the government to open the door to socialism, although it is limited right now it is rapidly growing. Our government seeks to limit our freedoms to exercise more control over the population. What will you do if the government takes away or severely limits our 2nd Amendment Rights and then comes for the 1st Amendment? As anyone who is paying attention would already know is being done. It is only a matter of time before it gets much worse if it is allowed to continue. Another thing that would help is to reform our Penal System. Longer prison sentences, limited parole and probation, etc.
I think you are right on regarding addressing mental health and the need to reform our healthcare systems to make sure people have access to it. I don’t necessarily agree that institutionalization is always necessary, but treatment is, as is early intervention so whatever the issue is doesn’t escalate. Many insurance providers do not cover mental health costs and the price of medication is astronomical.
I still have difficulty understanding why people need to have military-grade weapons. In the double murder/suicide at the University of Maryland, the student involved had an Uzi. What purpose does that serve other than to cause massive damage? Shouldn’t we as a society say that some guns are acceptable and others are not, regardless of what the constitution says? There are many amendments to add protections why is this different?
If the student had an Uzi it must have been a semi-automatic which means only one round is expended every time the trigger is pulled. If it was fully automatic it means that it was an illegal weapon that he shouldn’t of had in the first place. Which would in turn mean that the law that is in place that is suppose to prevent people from having those weapons which would further mean that any more laws would have no effect. Which of course is common sense. And just to set a few other things straight, if our 2nd Amendment was to be repealed people would still have guns and murders even more so would continue. Do you know anything about the Prohibition? Those anti-alcohol laws not only did have an effect but the made things much worse and led to a lot of unnecessary deaths. Lastly, I will once again clarify. “Assault” Weapons ARE NOT MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS! THEY ARE NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC! If you want a fully automatic weapon you have to purchase a Class 3 license from the federal government which costs a large amount of money and of course is obviously tracked by the government.
The fact that people such as yourself want to so easily dismiss our Constitution is scary. Why stop there? Why not repeal all of the amendments which protect us and let the government do whatever the hell they want. Let them have full control and regulate every damn aspect of our lives. You don’t understand that allowing them to infringe on our Constitution only opens the door.
I am not “dismissing” the Constitution at all, but we have to consider that the country has evolved quite a bit since 1776 – which is why there are Amendments. Further, I never said that people shouldn’t be able to own guns, there just needs to be some type of regulation. You mentioned that if someone had reported Jimmy Lee Dykes, perhaps the entire situation could have been avoided. You also asserted that the purchase of ammunition shouldn’t be regulated, but doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone was buying an inordinate amount, it should be reported as well?
May I direct you to this article? Not all gun owners share you opinion that banning or regulating semi-automatic weapons equates to stripping people of their freedom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seamus-mcgraw/nra-gun-control_b_2658712.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Ok, I read the article. The first problem I saw right away is the fact that it is the Huffington Post which is a clear liberal publication of which I give no weight to their “opinion” pieces. The second thing I noticed was that the author who calls himself a hunter stated that the “assault” weapons that are available to us can fire 30 rounds in seconds which tells me he has no idea what he is talking about. Overall his article is just another baseless article written in a pathetic attempt to justify gun control. To respond to a few of your points, why should I be made to feel like a criminal just because I buy bulk ammo? I buy bulk because it is the cheapest way to go yet I should be investigated just because? Also, there are many people and politicians who wish and do seek to disarm the population. These regulations that are being introduced are just the beginning so they can get their foot in the door. What about the legislation that was just introduced in which it would have given law enforcement the authority to come into peoples houses to check their guns and to ensure safe storage. That is an absolute violation of the 4th Amendment which protects us from illegal search and seizure but I guess that doesn’t matter since the old piece of paper called The Constitution is outdated anyway and needs to change with the times. To hell with it all, lets just have the government have complete control and do whatever they want and forget about our rights.
What you need to understand is that I am not just for gun rights. I am for all of our rights. I am not some right wing fringe gun nut. I am an American who believes that it is imperative that we maintain the rights we have or else everything that was done, everyone who has sacrificed so much in the name of freedom will all be in vain.
The Constitution says that “all men are created equal.” If I am to understand your strict interpretation of the Constitution, it would stand to reason that women are not equal to men – that we are less than.
To begin, the phrase “all men are created equal” is located in our Declaration of Independence not our Constitution. The thing to understand is that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that he meant man as in mankind (male and female) which was the understood universal meaning at the time. As it also states in the bible “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” There have been longstanding debates on this phrase and whether it truly meant all mankind. As many know Jefferson owned appx. 200 slaves yet he was also an outspoken critic of slavery and even wished it to be abolished. After the Declaration of Independence was ratified by the states a number of them took the phrase at it’s literal meaning and abolished slavery because of it. However of course the southern states rephrased it in their own state constitutions. Jefferson never disbanded the slaves he owned and he was heavily criticized because of that. Many believe that what he meant was free men (men and women) are created equal, and since he never freed his slaves most likely meant that was correct in his meaning.
FYI sweetie those are 3 of the 10 commandments of gun safety. The NRA didn’t invent these, they have been taught for GENERATIONS. My Grandfather was taught these rules and was able to safely own and use firearms, he passed on the knowledge to my father, teaching him the same basic rules. My father passed it to me and I to my children. Somehow we have all been able to safely use firearms for hunting and shooting for GENERATIONS and will CONTINUE to do so. Rather than talking about subjects you are ignorant of, why don’t you educate yourself by going to a gun range and learn these time proven safety rules and TEACH them to your children. The world would be a better place if more people did. It isn’t the NRA’s job to teach morality and common sense, it’s your PARENTS job. Instead of wasting your time with a million mommy march, why don’t you teach your children the value of human life and respect for others AND common sense. And if they can’t get that at home, take them somewhere where they can learn it, like a gun range.
Wow, Jeff… not gonna win many supporters with that condescending attitude.
@Jeff, did you accidentally comment on the wrong article? Although your comment is about guns it doesn’t like your addressing anything Rachel and I have been discussing.
@Rachel Honey, i’m not looking for supporters. Was just throwing some common sense your way. As usual, you can choose to ignore it and talk from your backside.
@Mike It was a response prepared for a nut job at the million Mommy march, that also had a link to this article. After reading the dribble from the idiots on the other site, I didn’t have the energy to read all the post here. But I will assume it is filled with the same, ignorant waste of skin the other site has. So have fun trying to explain things who will argue about things that have no knowledge of and will make no attempt to educate themselves. I have better things to do. Fight the good fight brother.
Ok, I thought that might have been the case.
Jeff – Mike and I are engaged in rational discussion and while you’re not looking for supporters, your misogynistic tone negates any relevant comments you may have.
Because you – admittedly – have no idea about my position, let me fill you in. I am in no way advocating banning all guns, nor am I unwilling to learn from other’s positions. Will it change my mind? Perhaps not, but I am always interested in furthering my body of knowledge on any topic.
I find it surprising that as a self-proclaimed responsible gun owner, you aren’t more interested in solutions to stem the tide of the ever-growing incidents of gun violence and the illegal purchase of firearms. The prevalence of mass-shootings should sicken any gun owner, and rather than spewing nasty, hateful rhetoric, I would think that you and those like you would want a workable compromise.