Hello Mr. McDowell.
Thank you for your comments. In order for you to understand why I support gun control, please go to iUniverse and write my name. You will be able to read the preface, contents, Chapter 1 and part of Chapter 2 of my book, America's Great Gun Game: Gun Ownership vs. Americans' Safety.
So noted.
Now that you have read about me and my conversion to support both state and federal gun control, let me tell you a bit more about myself. At one time I owned three guns, but I didn't want them in my house as my daughters were growing up.
My dear Mr. McDowell, I grew up with my two siblings in a household with a variety of handguns, shotguns, and rifles. It was part of our childhood.
This is a bit off topic, but I respect your right to remove firearms from your household if that's your chosen life style. But you must also equally respect the rights of others to raise their children with firearms in the household. So long as we have that understanding, there's a starting point for discussion.
In addition, I strongly support hunters as my grandfather, father, and brother were all avid hunters. During my teeage years I enjoyed hunting, but I enjoyed target shooting more than hunting small game and deer. My daughter who is a forensic scientist for the Illinois State police also enjoys target shooting. This has nothing to do with this topic, but when I meet someone the first thing I tell them is that I have run 17 marathons.
Well that's an interesting resume, and we've both gone off topic now, so I think we're even.
Let me tell you a little bit more about my book. In Chapter 2, The Second Amendment and National Rifle Association, I cite two Supreme Court Justices, the former president of ABA, and the former dean of Harvard Law School. All of these constitutional scholars state that there is a need to revisit the Second Amendment and to interpret it for the 21st century. For example, former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger stated, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any type of weapon."
Well, I agree and disagree. I fully agree that Justice Burger's statement about the 2A is accurate. I disagree however that there's any need to revisit the amendment and "reinterpret" it.
By "reinterpret", you essentially mean to completely change the meaning of it do you not? In other words, you want to change the meaning of it such that Burger's statement would be incorrect? Is this correct or am I mistaken?
Mr. McDowell I am not a legal expert, but I am a mathematician. Mathematicians do not flippantly change the meanings of their symbology and notation. We do not decide that "+" now means anything other than addition to use a simple example. It stands to reason to me that clearly we know what the 2A means.
Is it not incredibly dishonest to want to just change the meaning without striking it from the Constitution or amending it through the process outlined in that very document? If we just go willy nilly saying "I want to change what this statement says to suit me without going through the legislative process to change the actual law" we are inviting not only tyranny but a complete collapse of the rule of law.
I very much take issue with the idea that you seem to be implying that someone like a Supreme Court justice should legislate from the bench and so arbitrarily change the meaning of a law. And that's not just because it's that particular law, it's because it completely throws the whole structure of our government out the window.
Mr. McDowell, my suspicion is you are clever enough to deduce that "legislating from the bench" or using some other "workaround" method besides actually changing what the 2A says (namely by passing a new Constitutional amendment) is an easier means by which to pursue your agenda. However I completely object to your implied methods and your assertion that "reinterpreting" laws is how we should run our country. That totally defeats the point of having written rules in the first place.
The best quote in the chapter is James Brady, Ronald Reagan's Press Secretary. He doubted that "...the Founding Fathers imagined a time when over 30,000 people each year are dying from gun violence, when high powered military-style weapons like AK47s with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when a 14-year-old can take his father's gun and mow down his classsmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two year old can easily fire it."
Did the founding fathers ever envision a time when thousands of people have their very identities stolen each year, when could have high power computers just like the military uses which process untold bytes per second with hundreds of megs of RAM, when a 14 year old could use his father's computer to launch devastating viruses, or a 2 year old might happen upon an internet browser directed at some highly inappropriate pornography?
Mr. McDowell, the people who wrote this document had just fought a war they would not have won without the military weapons of their day. They had been in a fight which they had intended to win. Had AK47s been around, the Founding Fathers would have wielded them in battle. In fact, in the main body of the constitution itself, there is a provision for privately owned warships.
The 2A was an afterthought, the logic being that if warships were privately owned, no one would dare try to restrict something as piddly as a mere rifle. It's true they didn't know what the future held, but the actual technology makes no difference. The intent is clear.
Check this out.
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm
There's plenty of historical evidence to back the assertion, they wanted the people of their new country to be armed with effective contemporary weapons.
If we follow your logic, the 1A needs to be "reinterpreted" as well since the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated something like, say, the internet. It's far too powerful for mere peasants like you or I to use, isn't it?
In chapters three through five I discuss gun movements and gun laws since 1922. I cite Attorney General Homer Cummings several times in my book. He was Franklin Roosvelt's Attorney General and was the architect for the 1934 and 1938 federal gun laws. He said: "Show me a man who doesn't want his gun registered, and I will show you a man who shouldn't have a gun."
I am a man who does not want his gun registered. Explain to me why that makes me innately dangerous. I doubt very much you or anyone else can.
Also, if you want to really understand gun laws, go back to the Civil War at least not just the 1920s.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
Short version: Gun control is a primitive throwback to a racist society. A progressive government should eliminate it.
I spent hundreds of hours researching and writing this part of the book and have only received positive feedback on it.
Nor do I make my claims flippantly.
The last five chapters focus on guns and women, guns and children, handguns, concealed weapons and what I call 'REALITY TIME."
As I indicated above I carefully read your emails. Although some of them seem mean spirited, I was surprised that several said you would read the book, but not buy it.
I'm in that boat. I'll read all evidence available. I've been reading materials from gun control organizations for years. But why should I give money to something that I know in my mind and heart is wrong, and even evil?
I don't begrudge you for selling your book, but what's important here, the message, or making a profit? There's nothing wrong with making a profit of course.
I could bombard you with links of free reports from a variety of sources which show a much more compelling and accurate assessment of the situation, and they all fall firmly on my side of the fence.
Some seemed open-minded. Several mentioned that gun control would lead to confication. This is ridiculous. Can you imagine the U.S. government coming to your homes and taking your guns at gun point?
Why not? It's already happened in several western countries not entirely unlike our own. I doubt a door to door confiscation would be the immediate course of action naturally, but what happened in England and Australia could easily be recreated here.
Some also questioned the need for licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms,
I do. I resent the state assuming that I'm a criminal and forcing me to prove I'm not. That's guilty until proven innocent.
while other thought I should have used the term "illegal guns."
This was an excellent suggestion.
Why do we need licensing of gun owners and registration of guns?
To prevent bulk sales by "straw buyers." Here is how it works. Typically guns are moved from the legal to the illegal market by criminal entrepreneurs, gun traffickers. But since felons cannot pass the federal background check to purchase guns, traffickers hire people who can pass the background checks to stand in for them to make purchases. Traffickers often accompany their straw buyers into gun shows, point out the guns they wish to purchase, provide cash and watch as the straw buyers make buys. Once the purchase is complete, the trafficker and straw buyer exit the store; the latter receives a service fee and the former takes the handguns to which he cannot be tied, as he was not the legal purchaser. This is how it works folks: The handgun will now be passed from the legal to the illegal market and the trafficker will sell his ill-gotten guns on the street corner to thugs, to drug gang members and on playgrounds to violent teens.
Sir your only real point here is that criminals do not obey laws and find ways around them.
Obviously a national system of licensing gun owners and registration of all guns would help to solve this problem.
If all criminals were to start obeying the laws and not circumventing them, then yes you might have an argument. But you just made the point, beautifully might I add, that criminals work around laws or break them.
To paraphrase a quote here, you can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's insane!
The results would appear to be fewer deaths by firearms.
I demand proof. Reasonable demand is it not?
In addition to preventing bulk sales, states can pass "one gun a month" laws.
But that's so asinine and arbitrary.
First of all what I do with my money is my own business. If I wish to buy four guns at a time, that's my call.
Second your guideline is completely arbitrary. Why one a month? Why not two? Or why not only one every six months?
That whole idea is just ridiculous and baseless in fact. It's also harmful to stores which sell guns, and companies which make guns and that means less jobs for Americans. Why should they suffer for making a legal product?
Why would any law-abiding citizen be opposed to licensing and registration?
1. Dignity. I am not a criminal. I refuse to be treated like one.
2. The only person who should have to do this is a criminal. But a criminal has no reason to license or register his guns.
3. The implementation is unfeasible and ridiculous, and so large it's impossible to process all the data efficiently. Canada is a great example of how such a registry is far too expensive, inefficient, and of no real use to law enforcement. There are as many guns as people in the US according to some sources, do you really think it's practical to do this? Furthermore I refuse to pay for it.
4. Privacy and security. Firearms are valuable. Any sort of registry will inevitably be infiltrated. The last thing I want is for a criminal or just any random government employee to have access to all my personal information plus the information about the valuable guns I own. They could be stolen by corrupt officials, or those same officials could sell my information to the black market, or a criminal might crack the security on the registry on his own.
5. Furthermore, in the event of a worst case scenario, I am potentially at a disadvantage if someone else knows I have firearms. I'd much rather have an ignorant violent attacker than an informed one.
I could go on but that's enough for now.
Here is a list of things that could be done to reduce illegal trafficking (each of these points is amplified by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)
1. develop a gun tracing database.
2. combine data from different jurisdictions
3. supplement databases with information from police investigations
4. undercover stings of gun dealers
5. increase oversight and inspection of gun deals
7. reduce illegal gun carrying
8. personalize guns
9. encourage use of BATEF's and NIBIM system
10. require gun manufactuers to micro-stamp their guns
Why would any law-abiding citizen be opposed to these methods?
I'll respond item by item.
1. The implementation of this database would be impossible. What if I go sell my gun? Your tracing ends right there.
2. I want my privacy protected.
3. What does this even mean or refer to?
4. Or here's an idea: just let the vending of guns be legal, and that way we don't have to waste millions of tax dollars on undercover stings.
5. I want my privacy protected. Furthermore it's really none of anyone else's damn business what kind of guns I purchase. Also, this measure is easily defeated by anyone knowledgeable of firearms. Many firearms can be altered to different configurations and even calibers, so your database information would be meaningless.
6. There is no item six.
7. We do that now. There are so many laws about where you can't carry a gun. They're obviously ineffective so why continue this practice?
8. Why should I have to personalize my gun? The whole reason I bought certain guns is for the easily interchangeable parts and accessories. Furthermore what form would this personalization take? I would wager whatever it is, I am clever enough to defeat it if I wanted to.
9. Don't we do that now? Once again why continue?
10. Microstamp what? Furthermore this technology is unproven, proven impossible to implement in cases where it's been proposed (such as in California), and easily defeated by anyone with knowledge of firearms and how they work.
In addition, the NRA constantly states that the judiciary needs to enforce the laws on the books. For example, Wayne Lapierre, executive vice-president of the NRA, has stated before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime that it is reasonable to have mandatory background checks for gun-show weapon sales, that it is reasonabe to prevent all juveniles convicted of felonies from owning guns for life, that it is reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free Zone Act and that it reasonable to expect the full enforcement of Federal firearm laws by the federal government. I don't know anyone who doesn't agree with LaPierre's statement.
Well now you do. I disagree very much with it.
This is the part where gun control supporters disagree with gun rights advocates. LaPierre states: "We think that it is reasonable to demand that when a lawful gun buyer passes the criminal background check and purchases a firearm, records of the transaction should be destroyed immediately." This is NONSENSE. Why don't we do the same with cars? The reason is that we want to be able to track the car if it is stolen and to be able to link the car to the owner.
We probably should do the same with cars. The reason why the records must be destroyed I've actually already detailed, but namely because it's my right to buy what I want and not report it to the government.
Eight-eight percent of women and 73 percent of males agree with me.
I don't care. If 90% of people agree 2+ 2 = 5 it still isn't so.
My last point deals with guns and women and guns and children. The statistics are overwhelming and easily accessible on the internet.
They're also skewed. Many of these reports on "children" include 18-20 year olds for instance.
I cite many statisitics in my book, and I am very careful in drawing conclusions.
I can throw statistics at you too.
It is obvious we have too many guns in our society.
How so? Are there actually so many guns in the streets, people are tripping over them? Are people falling into piles of discarded AK47s and drowning in them like it was quicksand?
It's not the number of guns, it's how often they are misused.
Dr. Catherine Christoffel, a Chicago pediatrician and spokeswomen for the fifty thousand members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the American Medical Association: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated."
Never mind the Second Amendment Foundation or the late Jeff Cooper, it's obvious the authority on firearms should be a pediatrician. Or how about an accountant? Why not a patent attorney?
Silliness aside, why turn to anybody besides somebody who actually understands firearms, their use, and the implications thereof? This is like asking a plumber how to bake a cake when there's a baker we could be talking to instead.
She went on: "Get rid cigarettes, get rid of secondhand smoke, and you get rid of lung cancer.
I would say that's wrong. Plenty of people who never smoke, who don't live with other people who smoke, get lung cancer.
It is the same with guns. Get rid of guns, get rid of bullets, and you get rid of deaths."
I promise you good sir if all firearms were to instantly disappear, we would all still die eventually.
She concluded her speech with "A handgun in the home turns so many situations lethal."
Lethal for who? The guy that wants to take your six year old daughter away so he can rape her and then strangle her?
In fact over 750 spouses each year are killed by firearms. As far as I know no one gave their spouse a lethal injection, but a few were poisoned.
No, 750 spouses were killed by murderers, not firearms. Your poison example only proves that killings will happen even if the guns aren't available.
There are over 500 organizations operating to stop gun violence against women and chicdren. Many organizations exist in most states. I am proud to be associated with Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. You can identify organizations in your state by going to the internet and writing the name of your state and "gun violence organizations"
But these groups also want to pass laws I don't agree with and they do not share my passion for freedom and sport. They want to take away something which is my right, which I also happen to enjoy. They're also widely considered to be kooks by many people I respect. Why should I join them?
As I wrote at the beginining, I appreciate your emails. <snip>I have already made enough money to buy a cup of coffee.
Why should I give you, or anyone else, money to do something which is directly harmful to me Mr. McDowell?
