• Comment

Time for a 'reasonable discussion' on gun control

Posted: December 16, 2015 - 12:12am

In view of the latest round of mass killings conducted with auto-loading weapons, this time in California, perhaps a reasonable discussion of some prohibitions on types of firearms is in order.

In D.C v. Heller, the Supreme court rendered an important decision which settled most of the ambiguity surrounding the Second Amendment, in that it upheld a right for individuals to keep and own firearms for personal and protective use. It also states this was not an unfettered right and recognized jurisdictions could lawfully restrict or prohibit types of firearms, which could be adequately described as “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

We respectfully submit, for the general population, the overwhelming portion of which is not part of a well regulated militia, and not serving in any capacity with respect to the protection of the state, that any weapon of an auto-loading nature is “dangerous and unusual” and should be prohibited from private ownership. There are numerous types of firearms which provide for personal security and sporting recreation which do not remotely pose the threat to society as does the auto-loading weapon, of which the purpose is to expel a great amount of ammunition in seconds.

More specifically, personal weapons should be prohibited from being capable of auto-loading or utilizing a detachable magazine. The weapon should not be able to fire more than six rounds of ammunition (think revolver) without being reloaded.

Such regulation would not inhibit vigorous self-defense and sporting/recreation opportunities. Over time, and yes it would take time, as auto-loading weapons are removed from availability, it would limit the opportunities for mass shootings by decreasing the ability of anyone to engage in rapid and sustained fire against citizens.

At the very least, the shooter would have to stop to reload and provide some time for folks to escape or defend themselves.

Auto-loading weapons available to the general public serve no bona fide purpose and are demonstrably dangerous to the public. The compensated withdrawal from public ownership and prohibition of sale would be overwhelmingly for the greater good. They are “dangerous and unusual,” and if you have trouble understanding that, go to any military base, or visit a police department, and see the exceedingly careful restrictions they place upon their employment and use – and keep in mind, these folks are the “well regulated militia” the Constitution is speaking of.

In this time of mass killings, it is easy to be swayed by those who proclaim we should all be armed. Nonsense. That is as empirically flawed as combating a flood with more water, disease with more germs, or fire with more gasoline.

Think about it. For once, let our community lead the way.

– James Ward and
Albert Ward, Grovetown

  • Comment

Comments (1)

Riverman1

Constitutional Right For A Reason

Lots of misunderstandings in this letter. The Constitution is pretty specific that individuals have the right to bear arms. The military and police are NOT the well regulated militia. A militia is drawn from the people on short notice to protect the country from foreign invasion OR a tyrannical government here. The very fact the people are armed prevents foreign and domestic would be dictators from trying to steal our country. The idea set forth in the Constitution was to arm individuals the same as soldiers are armed so our people couldn't be run over. In the modern era, rifles with magazines are most certainly the norm. If an ISIS terrorist is firing a rifle with a large magazine somewhere in this country, I want Americans able to fire back with the same capability. The DC court ruling that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be barred tells me someone can't possess a bomb of some kind, but the Constitution is absolutely clear, a gun that is the norm for infantry soldiers is a right for everyone. Deal with it.