- Posted January 14, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Meet Me Half Way
Laws that I feel that could be enacted that would not violate my 2nd Amendment rights.
I am a proud, law abiding, gun owner. One that is concerned part of that statement is going to become false in the very near future. I will leave it up to you to figure out which part will become untrue.
I am all for upholding the current gun laws and changing or adding a few if it will impact the violence created by individuals using guns.
Require me to have a permit for each of my guns - OK, as long as these requirements are able to be met by the average law abiding citizen that is not being seen by a doctor for mental or psychological reasons or on medication for the same, that can pass a background check, and can answer the questions on the current form 4473 in the appropriate manner. Not the same requirements a class III license, but not as lacksed as current requirements.
Background checks for every gun I want to buy in the future, whether it be from a dealer or a private sale - OK, again I'm law abiding, I have nothing to hide there. I'm all for the private sale checks, in fact add a background check on the gun I'm buying. Maybe it was involved in an incident that no one is aware of. I would like to know this before I buy it. Punish those that lie on background checks.
Assault Style weapons with large capacity magazines - well I like those. I would not go out and buy a basic model corvette when I could afford one with all the options. I like what I like. I do not get much time on a range; I do not want to spend that added time having to reload magazines. Time that I could be putting rounds down range. I do have weapons that have bayonet lugs and bayonets on them for that matter, the main reason for that is that they are on a couple of home defense weapons for the shear intimidation factor. Nothing says welcome to my home more that having a light shining in your face pointed at you while mounted on a 12 gauge shotgun, which is illuminating a nice bright shiny bayonet that is on the end of an extended tube magazine, filled with 00 buckshot and slugs.
Mandatory training before I am issued a permit to buy a gun - OK, sign me up, especially if it is designed for that particular gun I'm about to buy and is about the particular reason why I'm buying that gun (home defense, hunting, personal protection, target practice, etc...). I think this should be mandatory whether or not you are trying to get a concealed carry permit.
Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns - OK, with a law enforcement background I can't believe that this is not already mandatory. To me this is only part of being a responsible gun owner. If one of my guns was stolen and involved in a shooting I would think I am as negligent as the person that stole it or pulled the trigger, if I had not reported that gun stolen.
One thing I do not agree with in the current talk about second amendment rights is that the amendment was written in the days of muskets; assault weapons do not correlate. I beg to differ. When that amendment was written the musket was the assault weapon of the day. If the revolutionary war was fought on the same precept, that we go against the British army with inferior weapons, instead of equal firepower, where would we be today? Don't get me wrong I am not saying that every citizen needs a Ma deuce, apache helicopter, box of grenades, and a tow missile. What we do need are weapons that will defeat tyranny if called upon. A weapon that would make an aggressor think twice before he invaded our land or a tyrant trampled upon our rights and freedoms. The Chinese will soon have a fully functioning aircraft carrier, one that will be capable of spreading socialism, repression, and everything democracy stands against to anywhere in world they would like. I would like to think that they may have the same consideration as the Japanese did during WWII about invading our country....a gun behind every blade of grass.
I do not think any of the above violates my second amendment rights. If this is what I have to do to keep my precious weapons, guns, assault rifles, whatever you want to call them, so be it.
I think gun owners need to meet the non-gun owners somewhere in the middle, the trouble with that statement is exactly where the middle is. No one is ever going to be fully happy with whatever is decided upon, but each side is going to have to give a little to get a little.
Thank you for letting me use my 1st amendment rights to express my views on the 2nd amendment.