There have been multiple threads on ATS regarding the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms, given the amount of gun
violence of late. Every year it seems there is a mass shooting somewhere in the United States; each incident producing arguments for and against the
availability of civilians to obtain, not only firearms, but variant types of assault weapons and ammunition. There are lobbyist groups for and against
firearms, most notably the NRA for pro-2nd Amendment rights. The most notable argument I have heard against 2nd Amendment rights is that this was
drafted in a time in our country when the need for the average citizen was necessary. Opponents of the 2nd Amendment claim the amendment was designed
to arm a well-regulated militia, which didn’t include civilians.
As a veteran and a patriot, I obviously support 2nd Amendment rights. Having said this, however, I do not believe the obtainment of a pistol permit
should be carte blanche. Obtaining rifles and shotguns are significantly easier to obtain the handguns, but we’ll address that later in the thread.
There must be a significant vetting process to ensure firearms stay out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally unfit. You see, for both pro-
and anti- firearm folks, there is a dynamic of beliefs, with a range of opinions and beliefs; lots of grey, little black-n-white. But I think this is
true of life in general. The black-n-white we learned as ideal youths blends to grey of adulthood. That has been my experience anyways. In regards to
2nd Amendment rights, I believe our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they drafted the Right to Bear Arms. By including the 2nd
Amendment in the Bill of Rights, in essence, the Constitutional drafters ensured that these rights belonged to the people, and protected the rights of
the individual, not the masses. A review of the language of the 2nd Amendment also gives insight into the thoughts and intentions of the drafters. At
a time when this country already had an established army, the inclusion of the word militia in the 2nd Amendment reveals our four fathers wanted
civilians and individuals to be well armed. You cannot have a well-regulated militia if private citizens are not armed. We had just fought against a
tyrannical government; the drafters knew the citizens had to be well armed to keep future politicians (criminals) at bay.
Recently, Time Magazine has published several articles on firearms, from various authors, and mainly from opposition points of view. I don’t believe
the articles have been completely fair and/or unbiased. Time Magazine reports gun violence in America “is off the chart compared to every other
country on the planet.” Now, while this may be true, other types of violence such as blunt and penetrating trauma is much higher in other countries
than in the U.S. I think it is worthy to mention that one of Time Magazine’s authors, Fareed Zakaria, published a Time Magazine article that bore
close resemblance to Jill Lepore’s essay in The New Yorker. Zakaria admitted him mistake, offered apologies to his employer, his readers, and Ms.
Lepore. What I don’t understand were
Mr.Zakaria’s motives for doing such a forgery, since he offered none (that I recall).
A thread was posted on ATS recently about the author’s disdain of firearms. Although I obviously do not agree with the author’s opinion, I do give
the author credit for posting his thoughts on a public forum. I thought the thread was a little bit elementary, as there have been countless threads
on the subject. To validate this argument today and develop a substantial thread, we as ATS members should really approach the debate from an entirely
unique perspective. Personally, I approach the gun issues that I post on ATS from my own experiences. This allows me to speak practically and
realistically. I think many people, especially anti-firearm folk, base their opinions on theory and third-hand speak, not from personal, practical, or
realistic experiences. Politician are notorious for doing this; especially when they piggy-back legislation on parts of other, more important laws and
regulations. This can be particularly amusing to watch when journalists ask politicians about these “little shoe-ins.” It’s funny to watch them
squirm. If I’m not mistaken this is a type of practice is known as pork barrel politics.
I won’t mention the thread or the ATS member handle publicly but I will divulge the information to certain members I’m friends with. I think the
member is somewhat new and a little green and so I don’t want to embarrass him. Well, he posted a statement in his thread that almost made my head
spin. He said something to the effect “A ban on firearms would only punish the criminals. I had never ever heard that statement before, not even
from anti-firearm folks. It makes no sense. I tried to explain to the OP that a total ban on all firearms, with the exception of LEOs and the
military, would be Criminals. Criminals don’t care about laws and regulations. He disagreed. I can only remark that the OP lacked any practical
experience with firearms or gun legislation. I have a term I “feel-good legislation.” This type of legislation makes politicians feel like they
are doing something about gun control and it also makes their constituents feel like their proposing restrictive legislation on firearms. In reality,
contrary to what the OP believes, this type of gun control only hurts law-abiding citizens and does absolutely nothing to prevent those who should
have not firearms from obtaining them. A great example of this is the disparity between obtaining a handgun and obtaining a long gun, including rifles
and shotguns. In New York State, it may take up to six months to obtain a pistol permit; however, provided an applicant is not a felon, a person can
walk out of any Bass Pro Shop or Gander Mountain with any rifle or shot gun, up to and including a Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle (provided you have
the $5000 to spend that day)! The hypocrisy is that the FBI background check does nothing to prevent an emotional or psychologically unstable person
from obtaining that weapon. I tried explaining to the OP that one more aggravated felony on a criminal’s record would mean very little to him/her.
One last and recent example of feel-good legislation is micro-stamping. Our governor, Andrew Coumo, who has an approval rate of like over 67%, has
also been sucked into “feel-good” gun legislation in order to look tough on gun violence. Governor Coumo has been quoted as saying micro-stamping
will result in the solving of more murders. It’s amazing how naïve this statement is. Micro-stamping may help solve a homicide if the person
committing the crime is legally licensed to that weapon. More than likely this describes a domestic abuse scenario resulting in a death. A spouse or
partner is typically considered a prime suspect until ruled out in most homicide cases. Having micro-stamped ammunition may help conclude this type of
crime but micro-stamping will provide little supporting evidence in cases in which the criminal is not registered to the weapon, which most likely is
going to be the case.