I hadn’t planned to write about guns. Too much has been written and not much has been done on the subject for 40-plus years. I don’t have anything profound to add to the complex matter, but am writing about how we deal with it.
This column is “triggered” by the Jan. 21 lengthy article in the Minneapolis “Strib” on how the “(G)un debate tests outstate congressmen.” Gun rights backer Congressman Tim Walz jeopardizes his “A” rating (and financial support) by the NRA as he considers the efficacy of background checks and the insanity of promotion and accessibility of military style assault rifles with huge firing capacity.
After almost 70 years of some degree of hunting, 60-plus for North Dakota ducks, I still enjoy some grouse, duck and deer hunting a lot.
So, I don’t want to give up the dozen or so guns my son and I own. Most are old and not worth much dollar wise, but I still want to be able to pass them on to family members, along with the good memories their usage has provided.
A highlight of my early memory is riding along with Dad and uncles, when they drove a few miles west of our farm on Sunday afternoons in quest of partridge (rough grouse).
Later, in my early teens, the best days of the year were those in deer camp — out of school, away from chores and hunting from morn til dark.
I’ve belonged to several hunting organizations over the years and really applaud hunters and conservationists working together for a better environment. But, I declined membership in the NRA decades ago, as it seemingly “aimed” itself toward existence as a Republican front group ala John Wayne and Charlton Heston.
As with other complex political and societal issues, the extremists on both sides regarding guns become more problem than solution.
In this case the NRA, with its money and threatened political clout, has become a huge deterrent to rational action. Even the most rabid on the other side, mostly urban oriented, don’t seem to pose any real threat or contention to “take my guns away.”
The trite statement that “guns don’t kill people, people do” is not a very complete answer. People kill people with guns. Alcohol doesn’t drive cars into people, either, but we certainly restrict alcohol usage. Methamphetamines don’t wreck bodies unless people ingest them, but meth is prohibited.
It is fair generalization that the more guns in circulation, the more people are going to be hurt by guns. I tend to believe those who point to untreated or unsuccessfully treated mental illness as causative of recent incidents of horrendous killing of innocent people across our country.
Of course we need better diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, not just to prevent recurrences of Newtown and Colorado. But, remember that costs big money, which in turn requires taxes, which too many are unwilling to pay.
Remember just a few years ago when Tim Pawlenty and crew moved to cut state taxes by unloading people from mental illness institutions onto the streets or to supposedly cheaper, lesser staffed handling and housing.
I tend also to believe that the glut of depicted and reported violence that permeates our news and entertainment has to have dangerous deleterious impact, with too frequent deadly result.
It is a huge challenge to change our appetite for violence as entertainment. As a society we have allowed it to become prevalent and profitable.
However, the NRA doesn’t help only by passing the buck to mental illness and violence on TV.
The irresponsibility of the NRA is reflected in its own rating system. All of Minnesota’s federal elected officials are rated either A or F. There is no room for grading in between, no B, no C, no D, just 10 times, either A or F.
You tell me why our lifelong hunter sportsman, gun owner and gun advocate Congressman Rick Nolan be rated F. Partisan politics, anyone?
I hope that more responsible heads prevail in consideration of gun ownership and usage. Let’s hope that common sense prevails.
I can submit to background checks. I can scrape up a few tax dollars for better mental health care. And, I can enjoy life and get along fine without a fully automatic high capacity assault rifle designed to kill other people.
Comments (20)
Add commentTyranny and Self Defense
Its not about hunting, Don. You are free to give up your God-given right to self defense and all your personal liberties, but the rest of us won't without a fight.
This column is another one of Don Bye's diatribes presenting opinion as fact and chocked full of lies.
Notice how the radical right views everything as all or nothing
Tusker is a prime example of the radical right framing issues in simplistic 'all or nothing' terms. For example, when presented with very minor, common sense gun reforms, he is only capable of crying, "give up...all your personal liberties", when such reforms won't likely affect him at all.
They also play the 'slippery slope' card
Where one minor gun reform will magically lead to complete elimination of the 2nd amendment, one step at a time.
They apparently don't realize that minor reforms are exactly what Congress, state and local government does.
Naive RWN
RWNut,
Not one thing in Don's column will make any one safer. You are the only one who thinks that personal liberties can be protected through big hugs all around.
The rest of us live in the real world where evil actually exists and bad guys need to be stopped. Sadly, it is ignorance of arrogant idiots like you that are going to lead to the destruction of civil society.
But what do you care, you had good intentions.
Nolan on Guns...
1977 - Nolan states in letter to constituent, "I will vote to prohibit the sale or manufacture os such weapons (small handguns)." Oct 1975 paynesville Press - "I do feel thst most murders are committed with handguns by generally law abiding people." Need more Mr. Out of touch Bye?
RWNs wrong again....
"They apparently don't realize that minor reforms are exactly what Congress, state and local government does."
Minor reforms to laws not the Constitution - BIG BIG BIG difference RWNS.
The Constitution of the US is the Supreme Law of the land. Each State has a Constitution that is the Supreme Law of that State so long as it does not conflict with the duties and Law set out in the Constitution.
When Congress or a state legislature makes a law, it is considered statute law or statutory law. Congress or the legislature can make a law on anything that they have the power to govern. In the United States, for example, state legislatures are vested with the power to make laws on property and divorce, among other things, while federal legislatures are allowed to make laws on matters governing interstate commerce and on issues such as international relations. These are laid out in the Constitution.
No laws of the state legislature can conflict with its state constitution or the US Constitution. No law of Congress can conflict with the US Constitution.
Dapa2 should be embarrassed for his idiotic post, but he isn't
Mr 'all or nothing' Dapa2's flawed reasoning on common sense reforms that lead to more 'well-regulated', reasonable gun regulations implies that NO changes can be made. By that crazy absolutist thinking, no 1st amendment regulations would be permitted, like prohibiting yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Idiot!
Changing the subject
You think making a smaller clip is going to keep someone from being killed by a lunatic? NOPE
You think limiting my right and access to a semi auto rifle to protect my family will keep criminals from doing the same? NOPE
You think registration will make criminals register their guns and reduce crime? NOPE
Common sense....really???? Those solutions do nothing to reduce or address violence. Did you see the video by father of one of those boys killed in Newtown. He says the same thing. Assault weapons ban (which by the way are already illegal) only addressed look a likes and did nothing to reduce violence - you think doing the same will? Typical libeal political bull... throw legislation at it thinking it will fix the problem, same with education through money at it thinking it fixes the problem. Look where that has gotten us...no where but down the road still looking for a solution which as the father in Newton states it correctly - starts at home, and teaching the value of life!
Dapa0, this is an
Dapa0, this is an intelligence test geared toward unhinged rightwing extremists, like you.
Do you think a crazed gunman shooting a group of people will run out of bullets, and need to reload sooner if,
A) He has six-shooter?, or
B) He has a 30 round clip?
Where does it say in the Bible/Constitution/Koran/owners manual that you have a God-given right to have the following:
A) Rocket-propelled granades?, or
B) An assault rifle with a 30 round clip?
Bad people have chemical weapons (those are also bad and can also kill people, you know). Does that mean that, because bad people have chemical weapons, you:
A) Have a patriotic duty as a rightwing extremist to make and possess even nastier chemical weapons? or
B) Just have a god-given right to have them, too godamit? You've gotta protect your family, you know.
Answers
Answer to first question. Neither. They are not the same but with a speed loader it does not take long to reload a revolver. When no one else has a gun in your "gun free zones" what the heck difference does it make?
Answer to second question. Neither but your first weapon is already banned and is not considered a rifle.
Answer to third question. You are an imbicile.
You can make up all the dumb questions you want. I have the God given right to defend myself. That is a natural right. Now just because you gun grabbers think that a 30 shot clip is not necessary, or a semi automatic weapon it is not necessary to have will not change that!
None of those changes you propose does anything to the criminal. Somehow in your flawed logic making my handgun have less bullets is going to keep criminals from committing a crime. Its not and you liberals are just PRETENDING to do something.....WHEN YOU ARE NOT!
DC v Heller
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, TO ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (Emphasis mine)
I rest my case....
Educate yourself RWNS
You should really try and read it some time. You might not ask such stupid questions....
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370 (2008)
Stupid questions in response to stupid posts
Of course they're stupid questions. When a gun-nut, like you, spews such moronic comments, on a subject that you extremists are incapable of having a rational discussion about, of course they are stupid questions.
It's kind of like trying to have a serious conversation with, say, someone's brother who is an unhinged, hateful religious fanatic. You simply cannot reason with 'em.
Hey MR. Bye, if you dont need
Hey MR. Bye, if you dont need a certain weapon, THEN DONT BUY ONE!
Its called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of Needs!" But you probably didnt know that MR Bye, did you!
Idiots!
Who has the duty to protect you?
So here is question for you.... who has a duty to protect your family? Now I am sure you have seen the emblems to protect and to serve on law enforcement but do you know the standing caselaw and ruling on this question?
Courts have ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm see Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d. 1, 1981. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection.
When seconds count the Police
When seconds count the Police are Minutes away!
By the way...
Here are some definitions for you RWNs
Your rocket propelled grenade would not fall under firearm and is defined under Destructive Device: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)
Semiautomatic Rifle: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(28) is defined as:
The term “semiautomatic rifle” means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(4) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle
I see another shooting in
I see another shooting in AZ.
Does anyone else find all these shootings a coincidence?
Naw, Obozo would NEVER allow something like that!
Isnt it amazing that you
Isnt it amazing that you liberals are "Pro-Choice" till we're born.
How predictable the far left
extremists always want to ban anything that they themselves don't like .
Like the prodeath crowd likes to chant
"Don't like abortion , don't have one"
So to the far left extremists I say.
"don't like "scary" guns don't buy one"