Guns, Guns, Guns!

The Supreme Court and New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.

In the 2021 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. This is a Second Amendment case that could have far reaching consequences on carrying guns in America.

The case basically revolves around the right, under the Second Amendment, to carry guns in public for self-defense. Two people who applied for an unrestricted license, in New York state, were denied a license and sued.

Now the Justices will determine whether or not the rights under the Second Amendment can be restricted. The Court’s decision could be very bad for America. Should the Court rule that plaintiff’s rights have been violated, it would potentially affect every gun law in the country. You can bet that the lawsuits will begin flying should this happen. The gun nuts will be frothing at the mouth to get to carry concealed guns in public.

Let’s consider this some. Many times in the aftermath of a mass shooting, someone spouts off about if only someone would have been armed, they could have intervened and stopped the massacre. I’m not buying that line of thought. Look at the Boulder, Colorado, shooting. Ten people died, including a veteran police officer. The large majority of people walking the streets are going to confront the triple F choices in a shooting incident of this type. Flight, fight, or freeze are those choices. Most untrained people will do the last, freeze. That’s perfectly understandable too. The shock of a situation like the Boulder shooting will freeze you while your brain is trying to process what’s happening. In Boulder, police were in a sustained gunfight with the shooter and could not take him down. Police officers are trained to confront violence, to overcome any fear and take action. Yet, the shooter was able to keep up the fight until deciding to peacefully surrender to the police.

Now, imagine yourself inside that store, carrying a concealed firearm. The only training you have is shooting at paper targets, that don’t shoot back. If you overcome your fear and break out of the freeze mode, you pull your gun and do what? Are you going to pull a John Wayne and have a high noon shootout with the bad guy? If you do, consider yourself dead. Are your going to tactically advance on the shooter and take him out? Do you even know how to do that from training, not watching television to give you your “training?” Somehow you get to where you see the bad guy and open fire. Have you considered who you might be endangering with your gunfire? If you miss, who might be hit and possibly killed? What about the bad guy shooting back at you, in which you might get hit and possibly killed by that fire? Think it through, you know the truth. Remember, your adrenaline is going to be pumping my friend.

Now, one BIG question. How are the police going to know YOU aren’t a bad guy and shoot you, possibly killing you? Do you expect the police to politely ask you who you are? Nope, likely you’ll likely be in a situation where police bullets are flying your way too. In dangerous situations the police are trained that everyone is a possible bad guy until proven otherwise, unless they are uniformed police. That’s for their own safety. So, still think you can take down a shooter John Q?

But, let’s look beyond a mass shooting incident to just plain everyday life. The Governor of Tennessee recently signed a bill into law allowing the carrying of concealed firearms without needing a license (Texas is working on the same type of law too). Now, your a police officer on patrol and make contact with a driver and passenger in a traffic stop. You know anyone can now carry a concealed weapon, so how are you going to approach the vehicle? The police I knew and worked with will do so with their gun in their hand. A police officer will be potentially dealing with a gun carrying citizen in any contact with members of the public. Can you blame them? I would pray that those citizens don’t make any move that a police officer would interpret as an act of reaching for a weapon, because you’d likely get a bullet or more for your movement.

Then, I consider having an armed public out there. How many hotheads will decide to handle their anger by pulling out and using their gun to settle disputes? Do you potentially want to die over a parking spot argument, or some other inane issue?

The hardcore Second Amendment believers want just what the Court may decide. They don’t believe in any laws “infringing” on their Second Amendment rights, most of them being of the Republican persuasion. Hopefully you know they’re lying right? They don’t want convicted violent felons to have guns, even if that felon has completed his/her sentence and paid “their debt to society.” Also, they don’t want those who are mentally ill from carrying guns either. After all, they are not in their right minds. Well, unrepentant felons don’t care about laws do they? If they want to they will go armed. As for the mentally ill, since they are not in their right minds they don’t know that they shouldn’t, or can’t, carrying a gun. Plus, if there is no licensing requirement, no one will put them on the radar to stop them from going around armed.

Do these type of laws guarantee our protection? No, they don’t. But, they can cause law-abiding citizens to refrain from unlawful activity. There are no absolute guarantees. Heck, the Boulder shooter was supposedly known to the FBI prior to him killing ten people. Yet, he was legally able to purchase the firearm he used to murder ten people.

I’m a gun owner and I support the Second Amendment. I just do support the belief that the Second Amendment prevents implementing reasonable gun laws, like concealed carry permits for instance.

You shouldn’t believe it either.

Until next time

Dark Ages of the Second Amendment

Conservative lies about the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I am an owner of firearms, as allowed by law. But, I do not believe the Second Amendment provides the right to unrestricted firearm ownership.

The latest tragedy of a mass shooting, resulting in ten deaths, in Boulder, Colorado, is just another reason of why the lies of the Second Amendment arguments by conservatives need to be put in it’s grave once and for all. Americans are fed untruths by gun proponents and gun “rights” organizations, much as the priests tell parishioners what the Bible says and what they are to believe.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that ANY law pertaining to gun restrictions infringes ownership and is unconstitutional. It is the blindness of regular citizens and the lack of their use of common sense that continues to breath life into this belief. Constitutional “rights” are infringed every day. Freedom of speech in the First Amendment does not give a person the right to scream fire in a darkened theater, the freedom of peaceful assembly does not give the right to block roadways, sidewalks, building entrances, or carrying out the lawful (and constitutional) exercise of government, for example.

Plus, the Second Amendment allows for “infringements” on the right to keep and bear arms. No citizen is allowed any weapon they wish to own. Ergo, owning a bazooka, or a machine gun, or a fully automatic assault rifle without a federal firearms license, or a sawed off shotgun (meaning a barrel length under 18 inches long), or a grenade, are all unlawful. It’s common sense. An individual has no reasonable use for any of these weapons and it is the proper behavior of the state and federal governments to enact laws preventing or restricting their ownership. Conservatives and gun rights groups don’t want you to know this, they want you to listen to their preaching only.

It is reasonable to restrict firearms and their ownership. Even conservatives believe this when it aligns with their political beliefs. I don’t see conservatives fighting to allow gun ownership by people with felony criminal convictions or allowing minors to own firearms. It’s their dual standards that allow firearms to be possessed and used that led to the murder ten innocent people in Boulder and eight innocent people in the Atlanta area, and on and on. Why do any of us need weapons that hold 20 or 30 rounds of ammunition in a rifle magazine, or more than 10 rounds in a pistol magazine? How is restricting magazine capacity an infringement of one’s Second Amendment rights? In fact, if laws prevented the ownership of semi-automatic pistols, that law wouldn’t infringe on your right to own a firearm. Revolvers holding six rounds in the cylinder would be legal to possess to protect yourself or your family. If it takes more than six rounds to stop a threat of death or serious bodily injury then I suggest the user is a bad shot and needs time on the range.

Further, the conservative gun rights folks continuously fight to extend the meaning of Second Amendment rights into other areas, such as the right to carry a handgun concealed without a permit and to carry it anywhere, such as the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (yes lady, I’m talking about you). Yet, concealed carry laws do exist and haven’t been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws are meant to protect the people in a society, not to allow crimes to be committed. Would any law have prevented the mass shootings in Boulder or Atlanta? The answer is no. But, had only a revolver been used, the shooter would need to reload after six shots. This would have given people a chance to flee or even stop the shooters. Reloading a revolver isn’t as fast as changing a pistol or rifle magazine. Oh sure, if the shooter has a revolver quick loader and plenty of practice in reloading a revolver with it then it might not change the outcome. However, the huge majority of people do not have this type of training in sufficient amounts to make them experienced experts. I know this is true since I’ve owned quick loaders for revolvers and did regularly practiced with them.

Yet, the conservative lies on the Second Amendment continue and allow such tragedies to happen. Is it altruism on their part to protect the rights in the U.S. Constitution, or is it money and political power that drives their motivations? Personally, I believe it to be the latter. Politicians want the backing of groups like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America to bring them funding for their campaigns and votes to continue their hold on power. I’ve never liked, nor been a member of, the NRA or any gun rights group. They exist only to attack any attempt at reasonable gun control. If these groups didn’t exist, would the majority of the American people demand more laws restricting gun ownership? I’m betting they would. Every mass shooting says yes, we need laws restricting gun ownership, just as much as we need some laws protecting the right to own a firearm.

Conservatives, especially Republican members of the U.S.Congress and State legislatures, are wrong and are supporting evil by fighting against any gun laws in America. Their actions are self-serving. They care not about the people they serve, just the money and power they can get.

All we can do as reasonable, common sense, people is to give the survivors and families of the mass shootings our condolences for their loss and promise them all that we will fight for reasonable laws, like assault rifle and high capacity magazines bans, universal background checks, and waiting periods to receive purchased firearms to help protect America. It is time conservatives grow up.

Until next time