In Congress, the Uphill Battle for Gun Control

Reader Comments
Back to article

I have to take issue with several things written herein.
First, we are not a "democracy," but a Constitutional Republic. By that, I mean that our Constitution guides the government, with the Bill of Rights limiting what government can do to the individual's rights. In most cases it is nothing whatsoever. Those that try, and succeed, are treading on dangerous ground, acting in a treasonous manner, and against the oath they took to "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic/" The problem is that once they suggest, vote for, or sign laws which abrogate the rights of the citizenry. they fall into that area which becomes treason to the very government they have sworn to uphold.
Certainly, there are many tragic deaths because of gun control, but as Thomas Jefferson wrote to Archibald Stewart in 1791, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree." The end result of this is further tragedies, played out daily in our media, as rogue elements of criminality use guns to perpetrate criminal acts, often in places where no law abiding citizen could be armed.
Mary May of MO states guns killed those people, not protected them. The problem could be that all those people were either under age based on the laws, or in (law abiding citizen) gun free zones.
She states she wants to control my guns. Well, well, isn't that quite tyrannical of her? When she runs for office, people had better vote against her right away, or the next thing you know you'll only be able to eat mashed up potatoes, and boneless chicken, and fish. Do-gooders are all around us, but those who wish us well through tyrannical means haven't a clue as to where their righteous indignation may lead, nor, do they care.Edmund Burke related, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts (encroachment: see meaning of infringe)...the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Thus, people like MM of MO, are in essence, tyrannical, evil, and wholly unfit for office, let alone prepared for what life has to offer.
Finally, let me let all of you in on a dirty little secret the government has been hiding, and the major pro-gun groups are unwilling to press. The fact is there are three rulings which have determined that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints, on the individual. This means that pistol permit, or other gun permit systems are unconstitutional on their very face, yet, the pro-gun groups keep pressing for these permit systems as if this is suppsed to make them look like such nice fellows. After all, here they are, willing to submit themselves to the government for record, and background checks to determine their worthiness. The founders must be turning over in their graves.

Paul Rusin of NY 4:56AM April 09, 2008

How will the Democrats approach the gun-control issue now that Washington D.C.'s admittedly hard-line gun laws (ban on handgun ownership; rifles and shotguns need to be locked up or disassembled) is up before the Supreme Court? The local ban on functioning firearms will certainly be invalidated, but the high-court justices certainly will provide for an N.A.R. (no-absolute rights) loophole that at least will allow many state, local, and even federal guns laws currently existing to already stay in place.
Note that Democrats appear to be less committed to pushing sweeping federal gun restrictions than they were in the year 2000 (the same year their party lost the White House).
Since the Supreme Court obviously will allow for a N.A.R. loophole in it's interpretation of the Second Amendment, that will encourage Democrats to spport such a constitutional interpretation.
Gun owners should not worry about the mainstream Democrats pushing for federal legislation requiring owners to be licensed or guns be registered, for bth Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a January debate in Nevada both rejected the twin ideas of national/federal licensing and registration.
There is the question of whether or not Dems should try to renew the old federal ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons (1994-2004). Maybe not.
Certainly, one idea that might gain more adherence is federal funding of gun buyback programs, where people are paid money or some other prize for turning in their firearms-a practical, voluntary approach to gun policy. If it's voluntary, it has to be constitutional.
Buyback programs could not only receive federal funding, such programs could also be narrowly tailored to target (albiet voluntarily) certain types of firearms: the aforementioned, so-called assault weapons; 50-calibre rifles (especially powerful, miltary-style guns), and fully-automatic machine guns.
The 2008 Democratic platform could propose a moderate plant on guns: enforcement of existing federal laws by hiring more federal agents, support for a moderate Supreme Court decision on gun rights to recognize both the rights of private citizens AND an N.A.R. loophole, states' rights on licensing and registration (instead of making them federal policy), and federally-funded, voluntary buyback programs.
The issue is not the diffrence between Democrats and Republicans on guns, but between 2008 Democrats and the same party five-to-10 years ago, or between pre-2000 and post-2000 Dems.
Nonetheless, some gun owners are NOt willing to forgive and forget Democrats for "past sins", and consequently vote Republican.

JVJ of MD 7:32AM April 06, 2008

I am glad I didn't buy this magazine to contribute to the biased propaganda I just read for free online.
The author is clearly for gun control. How can she say that the polls show people want to protect gun rights (even if they don't own firearms), and then bash the fact that the government isn't giving gun contol any teeth?
How about enforce the laws we have and let's not government decide whats good/bad for us? I am glad I am from Missouri, a state that recognizes this.

Chuck of MO 11:53PM March 23, 2008

Haha, you silly little sheep.
The NWO will take your guns and there is nothing you can do about it.
They decide what happens in this world, not you.
They care not for laws or pawns like to get in their way.
After all, if I were in the same position the elite are, I WOULD NOT EITHER. I would have taken your guns LONG ago.
You do not deserve freedom if you don't even know what it means.
You deserve to be betrayed from within like the germans.
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security, deserve NEITHER"
While you got the chance GET AS MANY GUNS AS YOU CAN AND HOLD ON TO THEM UNTIL YOU NEED THEM. You will know when you need them. The day that someone knocks on your door asking for your handgun is the day that your freedom really does go down the drain.
That day, will be the end of the end. Not the beginning of the end. The END of the END.
The only thing stopping them from total control is YOU. They fear you. They are cowards. The elite are smart, but they are cowardly perverts who can't get erections and had no friends in school. They are cowards.
They can't fight on GUN on GUN. It has to be you unarmed and them ARMED (using your tax payers money of course).
And even then... the elite don't have to get their hands bloody themselves. They just send your own troops or foreign troops against you.

Jagger of HI 1:38PM March 21, 2008

"And in 2005, Congress gave gun manufacturers immunity to lawsuits if their firearms were used in crimes."
This was passed because under the Clinton administration they fugured out they could use predatory lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The law suites may not have a chance, but the legal cost was going to push them out of business, the goal of the anti gunners.
This law would have not even shown up if it were not an anti gun tool.
Thanks for not giving a full story here.

Larry of VA 5:29AM March 17, 2008

As an example of journalistic bias it is perhaps useful,
but not as an example of factual reporting.
If anyone requires evidence of the failure of so-called
"gun control" they need look no further than D.C.
As for recent mass shootings, ask yourself why they weren't
occurring in such frequency in the days before so-called
"gun free zones"?
Criminals do not obey ANY law which inconveniences them.
It really is true:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

Doug of AZ 8:53PM March 13, 2008

As I approch 60 and recently medically retired because of a rare spinal disease (adhesive arachnoiditis-from surgeries, epidurals, spinal blocks, etc., do your homework before any of that), I have never felt so helpless in my life. It remined me of traveling by car and truck 10s of thousands of miles across this great country, and talking to the traveling elderly. they may be weak or handycapped but are not stupid, they are armed, they told me they sleep better. Now all these years later so do I. They will never tell you that but believe it. The stories I've heard of just laying the gun on the dash as the same mysterious car noticed during the days travel pulls in but cruses on past or pulling a gun at a rest stop to end something bad. They are an independent bunch and sometimes travel in packs so watch out.
As paranoid as this or that governmet killed so many of it's citizens sounds and as true as it is, don't look any further than the registratrions and confiscations that have already taken place here in the US. NY, CA and lets not forget the confiscation at gun point of that woman in New Orleans (one of 100+), after which she was knocked to the ground by OUR OWN police & military. That's why the NRA AGAIN came to the rescue with law suites to return the guns and lesislation to forbid the taking of our arms during a national disaster. You heard ealier about how citizens banned together taking their turn at watch over the neighborhoods, protecting each other from gangs. That is until they were disarmed when the police and military got control 5 DAYS later. The person that mentioned the 93' riots in LA forgot to mention that after the police and miltary finally got control there and told the store owners to take their guns home, wer're here now, that their stores were then looted. Or the people that saw what was happening and tried to get a gun but found there was a 15 day waiting period. BUT IT's HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!! Sorry, that's the law. Before you go to sleep tonight, Google Katrina problems, read up then think about it as you drift off. I sleep just fine, as do the millions that voted for people that stood true to the Bil of Rights.
You don't know where the next problem is going to come from or what kind of situation it will leave you in but one thing you can count on is the trash will come out of the woodwork to take advantage of the situation and YOU don't know what they want. With an open mind go to this web site supported by millions that have found insurance there that can help in situations like that, nra.com In their 120+ some years they have taught 100s of thousands of people like you and I to be our own insurance policy. I challenge you to find a course on blowing heads off innocent people, go ahead.
One other item not mentioned was there is another reason the gun control freeks don't bring up gun control much, it's because during the Clinton years when gun control was full trottle, more guns were bought, reloading equipment, ammunition and components, than at any other time in our history. They put more guns on the street than anything the NRA could have done. The states also took control and concealed carry took hold, along with other pro gun legislation and boy those "assault rifles" sure became popular, going for 3-4 times their original value. Real help to the industry, thanks.
In closing I just want to say, leave me and my Bill of Rights alone! You've put to many people in harms way already ("More guns, Less crime" by John Lott, it's stood the test of time).

Frank Walker of ID 7:59PM March 13, 2008

The Bill Of Rights is an untouchable list of specific things that the government MAY NOT encroach on, and specifically enumerates the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE - never 'rights' of state of federal governments (which do not have rights, only powers).
"Shall not infringe" is incredibly precise language and leaves nothing to be guessed at. Any limitation or regulation is an infringement, and violates the constitution.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to guns is to pass laws against the criminal use of arms, never to tell The People what they can or cannot own.

Daniel Watkins of TX 6:35PM March 13, 2008

The statement that there is a "lack of solid research on exactly which laws help reduce gun violence" is completely false. I reply to that falsehood with just two words: John Lott.

Ed of MD 5:55PM March 13, 2008

You want to control my guns? Fair enough. I want to control your reproductive organs. If they're misused, why, you might spread disease, contribute to the surplus population, or be involved in the murder of an unborn child.
Where do we place the serial number?

AK of 4:14PM March 13, 2008