Thursday, January 10, 2008

I'm for gun control...I just don't trust the government to do it

I thought about writing this post after the mall shooting in Nebraska and the church shooting in Colorado but it really seamed as if it would be in bad taste to try and make a point about keeping the populace unarmed and how we really can't expect law enforcement to be in time to do more than draw lines around the victims. Not that law enforcement isn't diligent, but an active shooter that has five minutes that knows what he's doing can do a lot of damage in five minutes, police procedures slow the police even farther.


The really perverse thing about the gun ban in Washington DC is that the Supreme Court has decreed on several different occasions that police don't have to respond. Including a case where the police were called in the District of Columbia and somehow the call was lost in the shuffle and the police didn't respond after fourteen hours the women were raped and beaten. In the case titled Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181) SCOTUS again declared that the police aren't required to respond. The question that needs to be asked is, 'if the police don't have to respond and the people of the District can't defend themselves with as little as pepper spray does the politicians like criminals more than law abiding citizens?' With the Second Amendment case coming up, it will be interesting to see if this comes up, and it will be interesting if the District lawyers answer this.


Part of the reason, I don't really want to trust the government with gun control is because at least every other year we get stories about how the FBI looses computers, money, and firearms. By now I'm sure we've all seen the video of the batf agent that brags about his professionalism looses respect for his tools and shoots himself. Now negligent discharges can happen if you forget the four rules of gun handling.


After I had a break-in at my apartment where I caught the guy I finally got the idea that I needed to take gun control into my hands, because if the crazy guy that broke in took a firearm and I didn't secure it I would be morally responsible even if I weren't legally responsible.



My gun control believes don't stop at the four rules or here, I work on firearm retention techniques if I were ever unfortunate to face a thug. I've debated about getting a double or triple retention holsterbut concealed means concealed and if I can walk passed police armed chances are a bad guy isn't going to notice and on the type of holster I prefer I have yet to see a double retention system so I'm holding off for now.

I shoot regularly so I can handle my firearm. I've written before that chances are in North Dakota the more likely threat comes from the four legged attackers. Hitting what needs to be shot is just as important of form of gun control as keeping a weapon secure. Since I'm someone that carries I'm concerned with this I have hollow points in my pistols because I don't want the round to go through what needs to be shot and harm something that I don't want to destroy.

There was a question on my thoughts on limits on what I think a private individual should own. Well, the best place for me to start is from the time the Second Amendment was adopted there were no limits. The 'modern' machine gun first appeared in various forms during the Civil War. The most famous of course was the Gatling gun. For 73 years, there was no impediment for full-auto weapons. In 1934, the national firearms act was passed requiring a $200 tax stamp to own full-auto weapons. $200 dollars during the Depression not only removed the egalitarian ownership of the full-auto weapons because those that were poor aren't going to waste money on such an item, but it didn't affect the haves. This act was sold allegedly because of bonnie and clyde (never mind he stole his Browning Automatic Rifles from National Guard Armories) and the gangsters. In reality, it was a money grab, and the part of my brain should probably have more tinfoil has wondered if it was a move to prevent some kind of a rebellion (see the Veteran's riots during the early part of the Depression. Don't have any real proof, it's something I may have tried at the time and it's just something I've always wondered because the party line doesn't make any sense). A 1986 gun law permanently put full-auto weapons out of the hands because a private citizen can't buy a full-auto weapon newer than 1986, thus a gun that should be worth $900 is worth the price of an SUV because of the supply and demand.

Personally, I think everything short of WMD's should be available to the populace. I would love my own personal Apache. I was watching a deal on the History Channel about how military equipment was mothballed. I was watching as they destroyed M-16. If it wasn't for the 1986 law the government could have auctioned off the rifles, and gotten a return on our tax dollars. Again, the 5.56 round is pretty good for coyotes.

I believe if you know you have a problem with anger, booze, and drugs have the self-control to stay away from firearms. Owning firearms are part of our freedoms and our rights, but there is an inherent responsibility to other Americans whether or not you are a gun owner. One of the amazing things I've learned about myself since I've started carrying is I'm nicer and more patient with other people. If you listen to the brady's the reverse should be true.

If your going to strap on a pistol, leave your ego and anger at home. If you can't do it don't buy any type of tools from wrenches on up.

2 comments:

Randolphus Maximus said...

Thanks for answering my question Dakota Ranger,

I'm more of a "theoretical" 2nd amendment guy and came to the conclusion awhile back that if you follow the original intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights there cannot be any restrictions on gun ownership and the idea of registering weapons with the government would have made the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves (not that they probably aren't doing it already if they could see our Republic now).

I was curious about your response because based on your posts it seems that you have more than a passing interest in guns in general.

DAKOTARANGER said...

The one group I'm opposed to owning is the same group that should never be allowed to vote...that of course are felons. Once they commit a felon they technically loose their citizenship