On this special day when America
celebrates the 237th Anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence a key point is often lost, ignored, forgotten or not
even known.
That being, of course, that
independence was solidified only with the conclusion of the American
Revolutionary War in 1783, some seven bloody years and 25,000 patriot
souls later.
And, by the way, at the-then
astronomical cost of $151 million to the fledgling federal government
and the 13 colonial governments. Which, by the way a second time,
mostly came in the form of loans from European states which viewed
any enemy of their enemy as a friend.
Okay, we got those important details
out of the way.
Now comes the second part that really
establishes the bulk of this piece.
Surely many (maybe, most) of the
patriots were riflemen, likely possessing their own flintlocks
originally intended to “tame the wilderness” and fend “off the
savages.”
So important were the colonial
assemblies that were then called militias they were eventually
codified into federal law and the ownership of weapons by individuals
became a Bill of Rights' plank.
Of course the meaning of a militia,
what constitutes “well regulated” and what arms a person can and
cannot own as well as a myriad of other related and sometimes arcane
issues is more hotly debated today than it was when the country was
still taking shape.
In the process we've pitted once
friends against each other, egos standing in the way along with
allowing such nebulous statements as “common sense” and
“reasonable” gun laws to stumble their way onto the debate
platform.
It's sad but true. And as a proud
member of the National Rifle Association I can say that much of what
it says (make that VERY much of what it says) I agree with. So does
my wife, Bev, who has been an NRA member even longer than have I.
That being said I now am going to crawl
my way out of the foxhole and into no-man's land.
I view with a disappointing chuckle the
NRA's rant against West Virginia's junior U.S. Senator Joe Manchin.
Manchin – along with
moderate-conservative Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Senator Pat Toomey
– cabled together what many called a bipartisan proposal regarding
a variety of firearms-related rules. The chief of these being
enhanced background checks via the Internet and at gun shows.
Look, I've read the proposal, and I'm here to say it really ain't all that bad.
In fact, it solidifies some excellent
elements in favor of gun owners.
For starters the measure would allow
those of us with concealed carry permits to buy a firearm without
going through the hassle of filling out the BATF long-form required
when purchasing a weapon from a licensed dealer.
Too, if I were to sell a firearm to an
individual after that person goes through the enhanced background
check I am in the clear if that weapon is later used in a crime.
That's the same exemption now enjoyed by firearms dealers.
I also can sell or give away to my
daughter, son-in-law, grandchildren, wife, brothers, and friends any
of my firearms without jumping through the enhanced background check
hoops.
But to listen to the NRA you'd think
Sen. Manchin has gone over to the darkside.
The NRA has cut an advert in which it
attempts to dump Manchin into the same anti-gun sinkhole as President
Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
That's going too far. Or maybe not, as
the tide of the gun control issue continues to ebb and flow until
saying where the shore meets the water is blurred.
And if the NRA is wrong in attacking
Manchin (and it is, at least at the moment) than the good senator
from the great state of West Virginia has some 'splaining of his own
to do.
You see Manchin has – and I am still
totally at a lost to explain or justify why – agreed to allow
Bloomberg to host a fund-raiser for the senator, who isn't even up
for reelection for another five years.
This fund-raiser is set for 6:30-8
p.m., July 22 at the mayor's presumably plush and heavily guarded New
York City home. There are three levels of donations: $1,000, $2,500,
and $5,000, writes BuzzFeed Politics in a July 2 on-line story.
If you think this was all done behind
Manchin's back please note the fund-raising reception includes the
disclaimer “Paid for and authorized by the Manchin for West
Virginia.”
Huh? Did I get this all correct?
Yep, and so what we have are two sides
– let's properly call them Dumb and Dumber – in a slug-fest that certainly
does neither side justice and which never would have remotely appeared
on the radar less than one year ago.
I guess I could stop here but I pray
stick with me a while longer, please.
Manchin is not the only one who – and
I really do believe he does – says he or she supports the Second Amendment but
seeks some legal methodologies to help ensure that firearms are kept
out of the wrong hands.
That leads us to former U.S. Rep.
Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords and her husband, retired Navy pilot,
Iraq War veteran and astronaut Mark Kelly.
Without boring you regarding the
details following an attempted assassination on her life that left
her seriously wounded, Giffords has taken up the cause of what she
and her husband consider to be reasonable, fair and effective gun
control laws.
They've even formed a 501(c)(3)
charitable group called “Americans for Responsible Solutions.”
The couple is now on its self-described
seven-day “Rights and Responsibilities Tour,” with a stop today
(July 4) in Cincinnati.
A look at ARS's web site details the
group's “solutions,” among them being an enhanced background
check system, a ban on high-capacity magazines, restrictions on the
sale and ownership of “assault weapons” (their words, not
mine), tougher firearms trafficking laws, and increasing mental
health awareness so that such diagnosed persons can be helped before
they can “commit heinous crimes.”
Now, after the long discourse, I come
to the heart of the matter.
My rub – the rub – is exactly how
far do Manchin, Giffords, Kelly, Toomey, et. al. intend to travel
down the firearms restriction/control/responsibility road?
In short, when is enough, well, enough?
In saying they want a ban on
high-capacity magazines do Giffords and Kelly stop at the number 17, 15,
12, 10, or 8?
In saying they want restrictions on
“modern sporting rifles” (my words, not theirs) does this imply a
total ban so that National Rifle and Pistil Matches competitors
become law-breakers, or a homeowner who believes such a weapon is a
good, front-line tool of self-defense becomes persona non grata?
I also wonder if these are Ms.
Gifford's and Mr. Kelly's only objectives.
That raises the possible specter of
whether at some point their organization will also support other
often-talked-about firearms control issues. Among them being
micro-stamping, licensing of owners, registration of firearms, or
background checks on ammunition buyers.
We don't know the answer to any of
these questions because the Giffords and Kellys of the firearms
control movement have never, ever said where they intend to draw the
line in the sand.
And that, most assuredly, hurts their
movement.
If they are unable or are unwilling to
spell out in plain English just how far they will go than gun owners
have the right to stop them at the gate until they are prepared to
give an account of all their intentions.
As for the Honorable Joe Manchin; Sir,
your enhanced background check does fall within my and my wife's
prevue of common sense; but by what strength of West Virginia moonshine
were you and your campaign aides drinking when you all decided to climb into
the political bed with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg?
By doing so you have only eroded
gun-owners' faith in your stated support of the Second Amendment.
As for MY NRA: Please stop acting like
the Titan god Cronus by eating your young. It's embarrassing and unsavory.
Enough said for tonight. Now back to my
latest copy of “Guns and Ammo” magazine.
- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
No comments:
Post a Comment