Growing up in middle-state PA, I have a different interpretation of gun rights than some one from Philadelphia.
Like many others in central PA, I remember the first time I ever shot a gun. I was 15 years old, barely able to pull the trigger without wincing my face in fear of the violent kickback. Still, I eyed the target and fired sixteen times to pierce as many holes in the paper target dangling from its hanger.
Contrast this with a friend of mine from Philadelphia, a young man who grew up in a street gang. He remembers the first time he pulled a trigger: It was not to hunt game, and it wasn’t to fire at a piece of paper. His target was real. His target was a person on a drive-by homicide attempt.
We began talking about gun use, and – surprise! – both my friend and I had very different views on the topic. My friend believed that guns were evil – maybe even demonic – components of plastic and metal intended to do harm. I, on the other hand, noted gun sportsmanship and the self-defense that it provides.
This is the line that divided us; it has become the one that divides our legislature.
On the same day that the PA General Assembly Black Caucus vacated the House deliberation on gun control, a shooting spree erupted in Omaha killing 8 and injuring five. The two events, though autonomous, represent the problems and concerns associated with gun violence.
Any person – gun owner or not – should note that the government needs to take steps to ensure public safety everywhere in our Commonwealth. It is imperative that our elected officials protect our people from dangerous threats wielding a gun.
On the other hand, a huge portion of gun owning Americans – me included – have had no problems owning, maintaining, and bearing their firearms. They have obeyed the law and acted sensibly with the most powerful weapon the average American can own. This, in tandem with the basic rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, should continue to allow them the right to possess their fire arm, one that “should not be infringed.”
As the General Assembly debates state-wide gun control reform, ask your lawmaker to omit their vote. If and when a bill passes, it will be a diluted, powerless law that provides minimal protection to the public and becomes a hindrance to the common gun owner.
Gun control has not been a national issue, and it should not be a state-wide one. Gun control should be handled by the county and municipality one lives in. It shold be local, and local alone.
Only our local areas of residence, Philadelphia in my friend’s case and Carbon County for mine, understand how to best solve the problems associated with gun violence, if any. Giving the task to Harrisburg will not solve any problems. It will create more.
PA Gun Laws are already state controlled
Local municipalities are already prevented from passing their own gun laws by the state’s Uniform Firearms Act, which was brought to you by the NRA and Senator Vince Fumo
Yes. Thousands of
Yes. Thousands of sportsman use their weapons in law-abiding ways. I agree. And I too was brought up a country boy, where hunting was just part of the landscape.
But what has happened with the issue of gun control is similar to what happened with abortion. Both sides fear that ANY COMPROMISE will lead down a slippery slope. When legislation is proposed which limits the number of guns one buys to “one a month,” and it is a non-starter in the Legislature, I have to wonder; “How many guns does a sportsman need?” My father used the same shotgun his entire life and the same two deer rifles. I used the same .22. Multiple gun purchases aren’t the “first step” toward complete banishment of guns, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the NRA and its members.
I will admit that holding the line on guns sales is probably a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left, since there is already a massive number of weapons on the street. It might not make much of a difference, but, if nothing else, it’s a start. Maybe one less nutball will shoot someone…
Pilt
Wonderful post
Your post is excellent. Unfortunately, gun fanatics won’t see any logic in a very reasoned and sensible post. They are so afraid any law could result in more laws restricting their “so-called right” to unlimited and unregulated use of deadly fire-power.
A responsible, law-abiding
A responsible, law-abiding citizen should be able to exercise the right to be armed anywhere the citizen has a right to be. Prosecute criminals and leave the rest of us alone.
And since when do we leave the question of whether or not we can exercise a particular civil right to a local government? Or any government for that matter.
No, he shouldn't
Not if protecting the exercise of that “right” causes other people to die. Of course, people like you don’t care if others die as long as you get yours and the dead are just anonymous names in the newspaper, but the rest of us do. Maybe you’re satisfied letting the killings continue and prosecuting the criminals after the fact, but the widows and orphans of the murdered don’t consider that to be a satisfactory solution.
There is no “right to be
There is no “right to be armed” codified in the Constitution. We all know that the 2nd Amendment was referring to “militias,” not individuals. Spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.
And here’s something I’d like to have answered;
How many “crimes” are averted each year by armed citizens versus how many crime are committed each year by armed citizens?
Oh, and just to be clear, how exactly do we do a “means test” to make sure that a gun owner is “responsible and law-abiding?”
Pilt
How many crimes are stopped ?
Instead ask,
How many crimes are stopped due to a law abiding, gun owner who is able to use their firearm to protect themselves or their family. Lots.
Lots? That’s your
Lots? That’s your empirical data? Lots? Reminds me of “Ghostbusters”....“Get her? That was your plan?”
Listen, I’m a reasonable person. If you can quote me something that PROVES that extending gun ownership, particularly handguns, to the entire populace improves our common good, then I’ll cede the point. I really will! But it had better be something that has been done carefully and has been peer-reviewed and isn’t just anecdotal evidence or a study paid for by the gun lobby or some “think tank” with an axe to grind.
You may be right. But you had better be able to back it up with facts. “Cause that’s all I believe in. That’s all any of us should believe in.
Cheers!
Piltdown Man
Right to Keep&Bear Arms
Dear Anonymous,
You wrote, “There is no “right to be armed” codified in the Constitution. We all know that the 2nd Amendment was referring to “militias,” not individuals. Spin it any way you want, but that is the truth.”
You might be aware that a majority of the public sees it the other way? As you know, the Supreme Court has agreed to render a final decision on the matter soon
I am certain that they will rightfully affirm the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The mere existence of guns does not account for the carnage many cause with them. We can not allow law abiding people to be treated like potential criminals, as many lib legislators attempt to.
On the contrary, the true cause of most all crime with guns is attributable to failed social engineering, which brought about the societal decay we have.
Here is a succinct explanation for the problem, from a reporter at the
Philadelphia Daily News.
“Philadelphia, Daily News columnist John Baer, on gun control measures in general and the Washington, D.C., handgun ban in particular: “It is ille¬gal to have a handgun there. In ’76, the district’s homi¬cide rate was 26.8 per 100,000 residents. Today it’s 29.1 per 100,000.” Adds Mr. Baer: “The truth is that the vio¬lence is a product of social decay,” including fatherless families, and “a drug culture grown beyond reason.” ‘Nuff said. (Tribune Review, Nov. 29, 2007)”
Second Amendment supporters, and all other “free riders”
will prevale here!
You're not wrong...or right!
I don’t disagree with your premise that the actual causes of violence are, in many (if not most) cases completely unrelated to the actual weapon that is used to create the carnage. Guns DON’T kill people. Mostly, they lay around collecting dust or rust (if not carefully cleaned and oiled)
And I don’t disagree that we have deep seeded societal problems that at the root of much of the shooting. Drugs in particular.
Where I probably don’t agree with you is that, even with that said, we should not still allow their almost unfettered entry into the marketplace.
My sense is this; fixing the underlying problems is a “work in progress.” No one really has “the answer.” And most solutions that have been proposed or implemented have been done (by both parties) with good intentions. Or at least I’d like to think that. So, in the meantime, I don’t think it’s much of an inconvenience for people to be denied the right to buy a new handgun every month. This is just common sense.
And as I noted, the horse is definitely out of the stable, but we can’t let that freeze us in place. We have to attack the problem from every side. And until you can tell me what your solution is. I say, let’s start to limit the number of guns out there!
By the way. Baer is a smart guy, but he is a columnist and not a reporter, per se. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is just that. He is not a seer.
Of course, as a Democrat, I would argue that the GOPs politics, which has helped create more millionaires than ever before…and more poverty and pain (particularly in urban areas) are really at the root of this problem…
Pilt
Post new comment