nation
Unabomber submits update to Harvard alumni book
More in nation

politics
Obama birth certificate OK'd by Arizona official
More in politics

local
Police dog finds ailing man in Lewiston
More in local

maine
No charges for passenger who caused jet diversion
More in maine

Update the Second Amendment

Gary David
Letters |
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 9:09 am

The Tucson sheriff who let loose with his inner feelings about civility when he gave the first television update of the Arizona shooting was well spoken. Civility has left the building.

The "talking heads" on TV and the radio are talking louder, faster and more furious; they have as many as four people talking, all at once, shouting over each other. The politicians are following suit.

The time has arrived to get the Second Amendment tweaked for the 21st century before another "civil” war breaks out. It’s brewing.

There will never be any ties to what happened in Arizona, other than one person with a very serious problem.

Let’s get at least one thing done right — better gun control. I venture to say there are more people for it than against it. We just need to have politicians with a better backbone to meet the NRA head on. Push it to the Supreme Court, then amend the Second Amendment. Our forefathers would surely agree, given what we have to deal with now.

Arms have their place and in that place they should stay.

The time has come.

Gary David, Lisbon Falls

More from Letters

J. Grover: Religious state of Maine
R. Baskett: Council's decision promotes civic engagement
M. Jalbert: Taking earmarked money
M. Richard: It will be up to the voters
N. Willard: Support love, not hate 18
more

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Gaffer's picture
verified

Mr. David seems to overlook

By George Fogg, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 14:04

Mr. David seems to overlook many points in his letter and his many comments. THe 2nd Amendment has been amended over 2000 times already ssince it was pout into our Constitution. What has that done for stopping the acts of a crazy man. It appears ro me that both law enforce ment and others in Tuczon should have recognized this young mans actions and done something to reign him in. Trying to stop gun violence by more laws is futile. There is no way to change the SA without doing serious damage to our freedoms. I nfor one do not want to rely on the police to protect me. They always show up after the fact and oversee the cleanup. What Mr. David needs to do is read just how and why the SA was out into our Constitution.

veritas's picture
verified

The Second Amendment has never been amended.....

By Ronald Riml, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:12

That would take either a Constitutional Convention or else ratification of 3/4 of the State Legislatures of a 2/3 vote in Congress.

"Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified."

--> http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

verified

Thanks for the information on

By Gary David, verified user — Sat, 01/15/2011 - 23:19

Thanks for the information on that.

mrnpchick's picture
verified

Thank you for pointing that

By Ed Enos, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:40

Thank you for pointing that out. Could you imagine the chaos of a Constitutional Convention?!

Wayne Back's picture

Chaos ...

By Wayne Back, unverified — Sat, 01/15/2011 - 15:07

Anyone can imagine it because we have a walkin' talkin' example called the European Union. Their constitution is about the size of the Manhattan phone book, only harder to read. Better look quick, though, I doubt it will be around much longer.

Wayne Back's picture

I must agree (choke) with

By Wayne Back, unverified — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 16:31

I must agree (choke) with (gag) Veritas (retch). In this context, the verb "amend" has a very particular meaning. A state may enact a more particular gun law, and SCOTUS may declare it unconstitutional, but usually only after some entity has brought suit claiming harm or loss. Again, this process is difficult, intentionally so.

By the way, the 2nd Amendment cannot be changed. We can add another amendment that modifies its effect, but the original is still there for posterity to read. For example, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) is still there unchanged; the 21st repealed it, that is, undid its effect. They remain intact as abundant and, hopefully, sufficient evidence that government has no business engaging in social tinkering.

verified

I learn something every day!

By Gary David, verified user — Sat, 01/15/2011 - 23:22

I learn something every day! Thanks. Looks like I was "out in left field". I'll take some of that humble pie thank you.

verified

Overlooked much probably, but still concerned

By Gary David, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 18:01

What I was thinking was to modify the SA to include all the federally banned weapons and structure it so all states could use it. I know states have their unique laws but wouldn't it be great to have the same gun laws and controls no matter where you went? I was just thinking that the 2nd Amendment would be a good place to start, where it's so vague. This letter has been a learning experience!
I would love to see some facts on how many instances a person has used his weapon to stop or prevent some sort of crime. My letter is probably fruitless but I believe having a weapon for protection is as much. I'd need facts to change my mind.

taxpayer's picture

Here's a fact. Every law

By taxpayer, unverified — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 19:34

Here's a fact. Every law abiding man and woman has the right to protect themselves from both criminals and tyrannical government. Here's another fact. We have more guns than people in our country and they are not going anywhere. If firearms were ever banned only the criminals would have them and lawful citizens would have no way to protect themselves. One last fact. If you think you're going to rely on the police to protect you from the bad guy with the gun which he probably bought on a street corner, not through a legitimate source with a background check, you'll be sadly mistaken. They usually show up in time to draw a chalk outline around your lifeless body. Its every responsible citizens' right, in my opinion, to protect themselves and other innocent people from those who would wish to do them harm. No weapons law will ever stop criminals from doing what they set out to do. After all, they are criminals and could care less about the law. Thanks for listening!

verified

Your Facts, that's fine. Just not mine

By Gary David, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 22:02

The only fact is the right to bear arms. Show me where the people are dealing with the problems of criminals and the tyrannical
government with their weapons. I watch the news and haven't seen any. I'd like some facts that substantiate what you're explaining.
Facts on people protecting themselves. Figures that outline where people have used their weapons to stop/hinder crime. Show me those and I'd begin to reason with you. Until then what your describing is pure theory, and don't use the colonial days like most people. That's
the past, it's gone forever, this is the future.
I totally understand the issue of criminal access to guns. I just believe we can make it harder for them.
It's so interesting how there's so much negativity about law enforcement. Why is that I wonder. If that's a problem people should go to meetings
and vote them out. Then we see what the results would be, and it wouldn't be pretty. We'd revert back 100's of years and start over again. Not in my lifetime if I can help it. There's no anger in this. I listened. Thank you for listening also.

Ronald's picture
verified

Mr. David. "Studies indicate

By Ronald Miller, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 14:08

Mr. David.
"Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property."
You can find many real facts on people protecting themselfs through the "the armed citizen" www.americanrifleman.org
Its a shame that more news medial outlets do not show the cases of gun owners protecting themselfs. Hopefully, this will help you get the facts you desire.
Personally, I believe, that our "Fore Fathers" were beyond their time in the writing of the Constituion, and its serving this country of ours very well as it was written.

verified

Checked the site but nothing found as of yet

By Gary David, verified user — Sat, 01/15/2011 - 23:18

I checked the site Ron and couldn't find anything specifically but I'll keep looking. Quite honestly I'd trust
a non biased group putting out that kind of information. Each side had their agenda as you know but I'm not disputing
you. If what your saying is in fact true it should be in the media, unless there are other facts that aren't as positive . Since I started this letter I have found out some interesting things along the way. What no one seemed to really explain, or explain well for me was what we have for controls already. I decided to find out for myself and, with the help of my local law enforcement was pointed to some places. One of them was the ATF. That site answered a lot of questions. Most of them actually. I now stand corrected and informed. It seems, at least federally, we have plenty of controls already in place and, and that my letter was "out in left field" as some would say and I now realize it. I'm only left with concerns for concealed weapons and what sets the qualifications. I hope people replying here realize I'm no one man kamikaze looking to ban guns. I only have a concern for the lack of morals and ethics people seem to be showing now along with the ability to pack a weapon. One concerned citizen feeling the two don't mix. Nothing more nothing less.
I agree with you about our forefathers but it doesn't hurt to make sure it always pertains to how the country is changing. I thought automatic weapons should be in there. Wrong. Federal laws cover that. Onward I learn eh??

taxpayer's picture

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/U

By taxpayer, unverified — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:06

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/07/16/nola.shooting/index.html How about people being murdered by the police after Katrina? How about people having their guns confiscated by the New Orleans police after Katrina when they are simply trying to defend their homes from looters? How about Suzanne Gratia-Hupp who, because of stupid laws, had to watch her parents and many others die because she obeyed the law and left her gun in her car? When you're ready to talk reality we'll talk again. Until then keep living in your little fantasy world.

taxpayer's picture

http://video.google.com/video

By taxpayer, unverified — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 11:07

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675# This may help.

northwoods's picture

Mr. David, I know each month

By northwoods, unverified — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 22:50

Mr. David, I know each month in the NRA magazine they have multiple stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves. I believe there would be something on their website (not sure never been to their website). In the Bangor daily a week ago or so had an article that a women used the threat of a firearm to prevent a burglary. I can give you personal examples of people using firearms to protect themselves from animals.
For examples of people dealing with tyrannical governments most wars are examples of that depending on what side of the line you are on. Ex. Afgans fight against Russia. Depending on what side you are on is a great example but I don't think Russian have the same out look on the war as the US does.
There was a debate between the NRA president and an ANTI-gun leader over Great Britians ban. It had a lot of intesting facts and if I find the name of the debate I will post the name of it for you.
Personally I like law enforcement officers, the main problem is they can only help once they get to you. Most of the time cops won't even start your way until you call and tell them you need help. Ex. this fall I spent alot of time in the back country with no cellphone signal and a hour drive to the nearest person/phone. Now if I got into trouble and needed help I would either have to wait for Border Patrol (great group of guys I may add) to pass by or I was SOL.

taxpayer's picture

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st17

By taxpayer, unverified — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 19:41

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf

northwoods's picture

I would like to point out the

By northwoods, unverified — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 02:06

I would like to point out the fact that there are limits on gun rights. We have laws saying felonies, domestic violence, mental problems, and etc. will make you unable to own a legal firearm. The court can order a person to give up their firearms for a number of reasons. The law prohibits you from carrying in certain places. As mgr said certain weapons are illegal and to get the permits to get other weapons are brutal to get. So Mr. David how do you want to tweak our rights and what other rights should be tweaked.
To answer your question on why people "fear" the government. For me I personally think that anyone with absolute power will abuse it. If you look at the Bill of Rights you can see that the Founding Fathers saw that too (my opinion). What I mean is that most of the first amendments were made so that the government couldn't abuse its power.

mgr's picture
verified

What is your Motive?

By Mark Gravel, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 01:04

Mr. David,
What is your motive here? Is it to save lives, or are you using this tragedy as a means to push ideology?

Homicide by gunshot is statically low compared to other death statistics. Moreover, those states and districts with the most stringent gun regulation have more gun related violence than some states with the most relaxed regulations, take Washington DC for example.

Many states already restrict firearm access to high risk individuals. You keep asserting that we should tweak the 2nd amendment but provide little in terms of proposal. Unless you completely outlaw firearms to the general public, the criminal element and the mentally unstable will find access. Loughner may have done far more damage if he drove a vehicle into the crowd – what do you do then?

Moreover, the founding fathers were far more caviler with firearms than we are in the 21st century. Please name one 21st politician that would duel over a disagreement? Now ask the same question of a 18th century politician - http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/duel-participants.html.

These events, albeit tragic and unacceptable, are anomalies and statically insignificant in relation to cause of death.

With all due respect, I believe that most of your argument is based on ideology rather than reason and altruism of life. You could save far more lives by championing good dietary practices since heart attacks kill far more Americans than homicide by gun.
Cheers

verified

My Motive is .....

By Gary David, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 17:44

My motive is simple. Concern for the way this country is going, no morals, no ethics and anger that's brewing under the radar. People with guns mixed with anger aren't a good mix, even for the person with a good head on their shoulders given the one bad situation.
I was thinking that making some modifications could improve the controls somehow. I can see some very troubled times ahead.
I can't believe we've done everything to help gun control. If we have then .... that's it.

mgr's picture
verified

Here is your chance - what will you do!

By Mark Gravel, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 00:49

Mr. David,
Clearly you have a lot of passion on this topic. That being said, you still fail to provide specifics in your responses. What about the 2nd Amendment would you change?

What weapons do you what to see regulated, restricted, or outlawed?

Handguns – Do you want all handguns to be outlawed? Regulated? how?

Shotguns – same question.

Long rifles – same question.

Other ?

You have written a great deal on this blog, but I’m still not clear where you stand. Please answer the questions above, so I can better understand your point of view. You have a quill and the constitution before you, what will you do?

Just remember people will find a way to get what they want. Passing laws to restrict access to firearms will not prevent people from obtaining them. Just look to the war on drugs to see how that is going. Moreover, if just passing a law compelled good behavior, we would have empty prisons. While that type of thinking is naive, so is thinking regulating firearms will alter the concerns you have.
Regards

Jabba's picture
verified

I agree with you tron...

By Andrew MacIsaac, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:04

I know you are not accustomed to reading that! So in order to prevent you from having a coronary, let me qualify the statement. I too think that it's a bit ridiculous that citizens have assault rifles, and grenade launchers. It's true that the Founders could not foresee the future. They recognized that fact. That is precisely WHY they created an amendment process. If the Constitution is properly amended to forbid assault rifles, grenade launchers, et al., I would support it and defend it as vehemently as I defend the Constitution as it now exists. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. If we agree that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the government could not take muskets away from the citizenry. And if we agree it was because they believed that the citizens should be able to defend themselves from criminals and a government that has overstepped it's boundaries. Then it must be clear that for the government to limit citizens to pistols and hunting rifles while the government itself has assault rifles and grenade launchers, is a contravention of the framers intent.

mgr's picture
verified

How more can you regulate weapons that are already illegal?

By Mark Gravel, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 01:17

Fact: Automatic weapons are illegal own without a Federal Firearms license.
Fact: Grenade launchers are illegal to own.
Fact: Ammunition clips that hold large number of rounds are illegal in most states.
Fact: Some individuals have them anyway.
Conclusion: Just because a weapon is illegal, doesn’t mean someone will not risk the consequences to have one. The rank and file that own guns, do possess these. Why do you want to restrict liberty based on the actions of a few individuals? How more can you regulate weapons that are already illegal?

mgr's picture
verified

The rank and file that own

By Mark Gravel, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 01:20

The rank and file that own guns, do[n't] possess these [types of weapons.]

verified

This makes sense ... except for the last part!

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:19

This is where I was headed. I'm stopping at the devil's advocate part tho. If I ain't mistaken there weren't much of a
police force, FBI, CIA and other law enforcement back then so we don't need to be equal in fire power with law enforcement now. Their intent was valid for back then, not now. If we have to keep up with them just step back for a moment and think about where that would lead us. They can't even keep up with the drug cartels!

tron's picture

The founders wanted to insure

By tron, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:32

The founders wanted to insure that the government would NOT take muskets away from the general population. I'm for that. However an automatic weapon, a bazooka or grenade launcher is NOT in the second amendment, so it should be regulated. NEVER does the second amendment state that ALL guns are sacred.

mrnpchick's picture
verified

All three of the weapons you

By Ed Enos, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 20:31

All three of the weapons you mention are heavily regulated or outright banned (against the law) for the general public to own. I do now a specific permit must be had to own any automatic weapon.

mgr's picture
verified

Misleading Information

By Mark Gravel, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 01:39

“However an automatic weapon, a bazooka or grenade launcher….” All of the weapons here are already regulated (i.e. illegal to own by the general population). Mr. David is proposing applying additional regulation to what is considered legal today – handguns, shotguns, and long rifles – signal shot, revolver and semi-automatic. Please note there is a difference between automatic (illegal without special licenses) and semi-automatic (legal).

verified

Precisely the point!

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:48

That's about what I was getting at. Sometimes it's hard to explain in words? This is where I would like to see the politicians sit down with the NRA and any other pertinent people, and discuss the situation, with their heads on their shoulders and guns turned in at the door. Come up with something viable THEN get it to the Supreme Court. Then, we have some better guidance to the states.

Wayne Back's picture

The 1st amendment doesn't

By Wayne Back, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:17

The 1st amendment doesn't mention telephone, radio, TV, internet ... Do you really want to preserve free speech only for 18th century media, verbal and print, and "regulate" everything else? You can kiss this site goodbye. May as well do it anyway, because the regulation starts 2/1.

verified

We're going on a tangent ?? by the way ......

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:03

Wayne, you're treading into another area that I have problems, careful! LOL
I really didn't want to touch on this yet but, here goes.
I know the regulators have passed something but don't remember what but it's likely charging a fee. I do
know there's plenty of flak. The internet, mobile devices, facebook and many other things
have grown beyond any ones expectations. Sound familiar? What was a fun thing, the internet,
has turned into what can be termed very loosely, a very very dangerous place. Like hate and guns,
hate and unaccountability have a way of making people's lives miserable. Enough said. My wish for
using the internet is that everyone should have to register an IP address, name address and the
whole works! No more anons. More controls from this guy! Don't get me started! This is about weapons!

Wayne Back's picture

SCOTUS is Supreme Court of the United States

By Wayne Back, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:59

What do you disagree with in my statement about the Founders? All I said is that they made the amendment process difficult, on purpose. Oh, and several of them expressed that sentiment in different ways: He who would yield liberty for security deserves neither.

I heard your ideas very recently from some pundit: The Constitution was written a long time ago and the language is today confusing. To him, of course. OK, please propose amendments that would adjust the document to account for current and future situations. In the late 18th century, there were wars, guns, and violent imagery and rhetoric. Read the old broadsides and letters. The technology has changed, that's all.

verified

Never heard Supreme Court called that .. thanks!

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:38

What I disagreed with, and I should have been more explicit, was this part referring to the founders, "and today would be appalled at the sudden rush to trade liberty for security". I don't want to trade anything. Adjust for the current times and they could understand. They made it difficult to change the Constitution and we have laws that make it difficult for the government to overrun the people. To refer back to "the old" days just doesn't cut it any more. This is the age of the internet, unaccountability and hate like never seen before and most of the hate is just lurking under the radar. Hate and weapons just don't mix. Guns just happen to be the choice of weapon.

Barb's picture

I agree with Wayne. Like the

By Barb, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:59

I agree with Wayne. Like the Virgina Tech shooting we again have a mentally unstable kid buying a gun and using it to kill others. Something needs to be done when a kid exhibits this sort of behavior. Mental health intervention should be a must for anyone that exhibits unstable behavior in a school setting.
As for the sheriff, what he said was inappropriate to say the least. I would have to say it would be against policy to give a personal opinion and jeopardize the case. You never usually see a law enforcement agency giving a personal political comment even before the facts of the case are collected. He was out of line. There is a time and a place for political comments and this was not the time or the place.

veritas's picture
verified

Elected Officials get to voice opinions.

By Ronald Riml, verified user — Fri, 01/14/2011 - 10:59

Or are you all for for muzzling them also, Barb? - If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has almost fifty years of law enforcement experience; and has been elected to the Office of Sheriff seven times. He's not exactly 'civil service' who have to keep their mouths shut about opinions there, and I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about you as to what jeopardize a case.

So what's your qualifications? How do they stack up against Sheriff Dupnick's - and how many times have the voters returned you to office to do a job?? We're not going to get a straight answer out of you - and no doubt you'll be gone come February 1 as a phantom who won't back up their opinions as Sheriff Dupnik does.

Old Bill's picture

Death of liberty

By Old Bill, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:43

Mr. David, I beleive the framers of our Constitution specifically provided for gun ownership to prevent the government from obtaining carte blanche to start seizing them. Gun ownership is our only guarantee that we maintain our freedoms from an ever-restrictive government. To amend or rescind the Second Amendment is the first step on that slippery slope that will end with confiscation of our guns. When that occurs, our liberty will be dead.

verified

The Constitution was written

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 14:59

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago and, as great as the writers were, they in no way could envision what we have today. Why are people so afraid of the government? I feel it can be amended to better suit the current and future times. Rights with limits.

rdarluv's picture
verified

Tweak it today, tweak it

By Mark Elliott, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:22

Tweak it today, tweak it tomorrow, tweak it next year, in five years, again in ten years and before you know it, there is nothing left and our children will not enjoy the rights we have today.........

verified

Don't be so negative!

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:14

I don't see that happening. It's a risk that it wouldn't get done right the first time and would need a tweak. Many laws have been that way
and a big example are the drug laws. Massachusetts had a firearm law that had to be tweaked many years ago because of mandatory jail laws.
Nothing EVER perfect, or even close sometimes. I just think we need something better.

ReaganRepublican's picture
verified

You need to understand

By Tim Lajoie, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:37

You need to understand something, Mr. David...I don't surrender my rights because some deranged nut abused theirs. One of the first "inalienable rights" asserted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was "life." I have the inalienable right to protect my life...it is not a privilege, sir. Typically that is done with the right to own the means of self-defense. If I surrender my right to arm myself, I have then surrendered my right to life to...who? The local authorities? The military? You, Mr. David? No, it is my God-given right to defend my life. Shall we also outlaw machetes, baseball bats, or other device that may be sued to kill someone? The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect you from being deprived of your God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abolish it, or "tweak it," at your peril. Thanks for reminding me to send in my NRA membership dues.

verified

Understand? I'm trying to use reasoning

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:18

Why are so many people afraid of the government? My thoughts aren't to abolish but to tweak, as you say, to deal with what's going on to meet the 21st century. Rights but rights with some limits. Maybe this would provide a base for the stricter controls that are so badly needed. A broad base that all states could use. I'm all for guns but, guns in their right place. If everyone were armed think of what that would be like! Just my thoughts.

fatandhappy's picture

Mr David

By fatandhappy, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:36

I am from Arkansas where things are quite a bit different from here. Everybody does have a gun. Even my mother and grandmother had an assortment of rifles, shotguns and pistols until the day they died. My Mom was an avid deer hunter. I got my first .22 auto for Christmas when I was 10. But everyone in the rural community where I was raised was taught to respect guns and to use them as they were intended.

I would love to see some idiot walk into the local diner back home, and pull a gun to try to rob it. He would immediately have an arsenal of guns pointed back at him.

Maybe that's why we see very few gun crimes. Criminals have to worry about the citizens more that they do the cops because the citizens are everywhere. If you stop at a gas station or convenience store along the freeway in Arkansas you will see the clerks wearing some serious sidearms.....but they never, ever get robbed.

Guns are used in crimes....but they also deter crime.

veritas's picture
verified

Arkansas' 'Robbery Rate (per Capita) four times that of Maine

By Ronald Riml, verified user — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 11:26

Sorry F&H....

"Robbery" - which is one of the FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) classifications of crime - is roughly described as "Taking of property of person by force or the threat of force" This normally involves a weapon; fireasrms and knives being the most common.

In reporting year 2008, Arkansas' Robbery rate was 99.1 per 100,000 population; for the same year, Maine's was 25.3 per 100,000 population.

"Aggravated Assault" - An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

In 2008, Arkansas' Aggravated Assault rate was 361 per 100,000 population; for the same year, Maine's was 63 per 100,000 population. That's almost six times higher than Maine, per capita.

These figures are compiled from the FBI UCR reports --> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf

No doubt many of those violent crimes involved guns - as you say everybody has them.

northwoods's picture

Happy I think you would find

By northwoods, unverified — Thu, 01/13/2011 - 02:13

Happy I think you would find rural Maine similar to Arkansas.

verified

I envy you in Arkansas!

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:02

I see why your happy! If every state had the results that you say you have we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately
that isn't the case for many states and like in many areas, the many have to suffer for the few. You don't
like it, I don't like it but, sometimes it's what we're left with. I get really mad when I have to open a bottle of aspirin
with the different layers of sealing because some idiot thought it cool to taint them.
I agree with what your saying but that's as it applies to where you are. It's different across the country.

Wayne Back's picture

Sheriff Dipstick ...

By Wayne Back, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:29

... proved just that the shooter is not the only lunatic in Tucson.

Mr. David, SCOTUS plays no part in creating legislation or in amending the Constitution - although lots of folks want them to do both, especially when those folks can't get what they want at the ballot box. The intentionally hard process starts in Congress and ends with the states. The Founders did that deliberately and today would be appalled at the sudden rush to trade liberty for security.

A gun did not cause the tragedy in AZ, a lunatic did - a lunatic for whom it was already illegal to possess firearms. If the sheriff can blather his opinion, here's mine: The AZ equivalent of DHS knew the kid was severely mentally disturbed but couldn't tell any other government agency (like one looking at prospective gun buyers) for fear of violating the kid's privacy rights. You want to avoid situations like this in the future? Pass a law that forces firearm buyers to yield up enough privacy that an effective background check can be performed.

verified

I'm not familiar with SCOTUS.

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 14:50

I'm not familiar with SCOTUS. The intent of my article was not to trade anything and I disagree with with you on the Founders. I'll always respect what they did but they could not have envisioned what we have today, no way. I believe in the right to bear arms but with some 21st century reasoning, like some limitations. A base that all states can deal with, be uniform and the states could then add what they need. An example maybe WHO has the "right". I'm not for removing, just limiting.
I understand what your saying about privacy rights. Privacy is a whole other issue. Somehow I wish these issues could be tied together but there are "rights" that seem to get abused.

fatandhappy's picture

Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun

By fatandhappy, unverified — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:22

The police weren't there to protect a congresswoman and a federal judge. They can't be everywhere all the time. Do you think they will be there for you if you are faced with a crazy killer?

Gun regulation won't keep the bad guys from getting guns, just the good guys.

Basically, you propose stripping law abiding citizens of their guns, but the criminals will still have them.

And yes, this guy in Arizona was a law abiding citizen (no felonies) before this happened. He has no criminal convictions at all, so how do you propose the government could have prevented this? You would have to take everybody's guns to stop people like this.

This issue here is THE MAN, not the GUN. The gun didnt jump up and kill anybody by itself. He could have found a way to kill even if he didnt have a gun.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun..

We need to stop blaming the gun.

verified

McVeigh is not the Issue

By Gary David, verified user — Wed, 01/12/2011 - 21:44

McVeigh comes under what you call a crazy killer. We both agree. That's a whole different issue.
I'm am not advocating stripping anything from anyone qualified. What I'm saying is adding something to the amendment
that states something other than right to bear arms. Someone further down this thread explained it better than I. Using
words like bazooka, grenade launcher, Sherman tank, something that has some reason to it. The tank was a bit much but you get where I'm going?
People in the know should be able to come up with something that matches the 21st century and beyond.
The line about the gun didn't jump up and he could have found some other weapon is still, and always will be, beyond good reasoning. Guns don't move unless moved (or goes off!) and he really didn't find another way. To do what he needed to do required something unique is my guess. Something that he could hide but do a lot of damage is my other guess. The man was the problem, what he used is a concern, the 9mm and the magazines.

Advertisement

business
Oxford Casino on track to open in early June
More in business

lifestyle
Otisfield luncheon to feature apron theme
More in lifestyle

opinion
Cutting census a bad idea from a sad Congress
More in opinion

sports
Softball: Hornet rally past Raiders
More in sports