From box cutters to assault weapons in gun control

Sanjay Sanghoee is a blogger on politics and the author of two novels.  He has written several posts for the Huff Post on gun control and has heatedly talked about the 2^nd Amendment and its shortcomings and misinterpretations.  He notes that it is time to challenge this part of the Constitution and makes a good case for doing so.  I did the same in a 3-part series back in September of 2011: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3.  And I really like Sanghoee’s take on a “well regulated militia.”

But first, it is Sanghoee’s conclusion that “After three shootings, America needs zero tolerance on guns,” of course referring to Aurora, Colo. the Sikh Temple, and bringing in the most recent incident in Texas.  He says: “If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one's home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period.”



Box cutter

Then Sanghoee comments on a recent remark from someone who argued box cutters and airplanes were used to kill people and questioned whether they should be banned.  He answers, “…the primary purpose of box cutters is to open boxes and airplanes are used mainly to transport people over long distances; Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Thus, another ridiculous gun rights analogy is deflated.

Many of the gun control advocates, including myself, agree that most firearms owners are law abiding, but continue to disagree that any of them should have the right to own assault rifles or high capacity magazines.  This concept of wanting this kind of weaponry personifies the statement of Sanghoee: “Guns, on the other hand, have only one purpose, which is to hurt or kill another living being.”  Even Supreme Court Justice Scalia deems them “affrighting.”

Wacky Wayne LaPierre speaking on the 2nd Amendment and Arms Trade Treaty 1 month ago:

In his article on challenging the 2^nd Amendment, Sanjay Sanghoee actually picks apart the decree on gun rights.  There are three things that he finds unclear in the right to bear arms:

1. What comprises "arms";

2. Whether the "free State" in the Amendment has to be protected from its own government or from a foreign aggressor (such as the British at that time), and;

3. Whether the term "well regulated" means well disciplined or with a clear framework of laws.

He goes on to cite the 2008 ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, that established the individual right to own guns outside a militia.  I might add that it does not specify the right to carry them anywhere you want to and not to be able to stockpile an arsenal like James Holmes did in Aurora, Colorado.  It even specifies the possession of firearms “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” 



Assault weapon



The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned an organization as bizarre as the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) or its wacky leader, Wayne LaPierre.  Had they known of either, there would no doubt have been an addendum to the 2nd  Amendment, 2-A, relinquishing such power from potential gun nuts.  As an example of the ludicrous behavior, Sanghoee compares Middle Eastern militants with homegrown American militias training for battle in some wooded compound in the heartland.

    

Sanghoee makes a good point in comparing the fact that the NRA and others hold that it is people that kill, not guns.  But if this is the case, he argues, “…then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms?”  I ask, shouldn’t we at least keep assault weaponry out of their hands?

Its time to defuse the uproar over the UN Arms Trade Treaty ATT

NRA's head gun lunatic, Wayne LaPierre

As it does with anything remotely connected to gun control, the gun rights lobby, led by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), has reacted with overstated alarm to the UN’s attempt to place some kind of control over the international trade of weaponry.  In effect, what the gun nuts are saying is that we should do nothing about keeping firearms away from terrorists or the Mexican cartels, or in general regulating the transfer of guns internationally.

This persistent 2^nd Amendment misnomer of ‘You’re trying to take away our guns’ has become very tiresome, and should be viewed in the same absurd light as the equally wearisome arguments used to back up this prattle.  No one is trying to take away your precious guns for rightful purposes domestically, meaning based on U.S. law and the 2^nd Amendment in this case.  The UN General Assembly resolution 61/89 even specifies hands off all domestic laws.

But we know gun worshippers won’t give it up so we have to keep explaining it to these double-digit IQs.  Put simply, it is a UN sanctioned resolution establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.  You do understand that international, while not exactly the opposite of domestic, does’n mean domestic control, or do you?  61/89 is proposed for people affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers.

George W. Bush, of course, said no to this during his administration, but in 2009 the Obama administration through Sec. of State Hillary Clinton overturned GWB’s decision.  And this immediately got the attention of the international community because the U.S is the world’s largest arms exporter with a $55 billion annual trade in conventional firearms.  Without the participation of the U.S., based on the latter, any treaty would have limited relevance.

A 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate is required for passage and gun rights groups such as the NRA claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the 2^nd amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.  However, the resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”



Pass Arms Trade Treaty



The Huffington Post reported that the propaganda that 61/89 provided a legal way around the 2^nd Amendment and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens was “virtually impossible.”  If you follow them, Snopes.com called it “scarelore” and false.  The Los Angeles times reported that only the fringe element believed this foolishness.  If you want to read more go to Wikipedia.org for a comprehensive understanding of the Arms Trade Treaty.

So recently a guy by the name of Joe Wolverton II, a militant Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, enters the fray through an article in The New American.  He wrote that George Soros, a billionaire and very progressive, is financing the fight “to give the United Nations control of your guns.”  Now that will get the attention of every gun freak in the U.S. and send them screaming to the NRA, who will reply they are right, but send more money so we can fight the battle.

For the most part Wolverton’s article is the kind of disinformation you would expect, except for a statement that the UN  won’t meddle in the gun affairs of individual countries, but with some reservations.  Wolverton cites a couple of red flags that deal in the semantics of quotation marks around a phrase on freedom, and infers the U.S. needs permission from the UN for the right to own a gun.  In each case, he is thrashing around in the ridiculous.

But I have always said that it is good to know your enemy, and a reading of this article proves just how persistent the gun rights fanatics have become.  Wolverton makes the accusation that President Obama and Secretary Clinton will engage all the governments of the world involved in the ATT to gang up on the U.S. and take away Americans’ guns.  He even goes so far to say Obama, Clinton and Soros “have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.”

Now that almost sounds threatening.