I removed and delivered for destruction or non-violent use certain weapons in my house that are not primarily needed for self-defense or hunting.
An AR-15 and other assault style long guns went to a law enforcement agency that collects such weapons for demolition by have a foundry melt them down. If I want (and I do) I can attend, verify that the weapons I wanted destroyed are there and then witness the destruction.
Will it make a difference in a society where mass shooting are frequent occurrences? No. But I have decided that my wife and have no real need for assault style weapons in a life where we have pistols and other long guns for self defense, marksmanship and hunting.
Selling the weapons were, in our opinion, a dangerous contribution to a society where too many such weapons are already in circulation. Destruction was our only viable decision,
This means no assault style weapons, no sniper-related rifles or no other weapon with a primary use for illegally killing human beings can be found in our house. Yes, we own models of weapons that are identical to those used for crimes of violence. In today’s society with so many firearms out there, the ownership of a weapon, along with the proper training to use it, is necessary for self-defense.
We have pistols, primarily for self-defense. I keep my marksmanship up to date with regular visits to the range. We also have hunting long guns. My wife and I grew up in hunting families and both hunt animals for food from time to time. And I have some collector items that are in a secured gun-safe or on loan to museums.
Our decision to get ride of what we now consider unnecessary armament has been under consideration in recent months but became final after the killing of 49 victims and wounding 53 others in the Pulse night club in Orlando.
The killer used an assault style Sig Sauer MCX rifle as his primary weapon for the attack.
While assault style weapons are not the only weapons used to kill people they have become the “weapon of choice” in too many of the mass shootings in our country in recent years.
Besides the Orlando shooting, a man and woman armed with AR-style guns killed 14 and wounded 20 others at a holiday shooting six months ago.
The shooter who killed 12 and wounded 58 others in a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 used an assault style weapon.
That was the same year when a man armed with an assault style weapon killed 28 and wounded two at an elementary school in Newtown, CT.
A database compiled by Mother Jones magazine found assault style weapons used in seven of eight high-profile mass shootings since July of last year.
Over the last 10 years, the assault style weapons are the one used in 14 public shootings — half of those since June of a year ago.
I once owned a large arsenal of firearms. I’m licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I will maintain my CCP and certain weapons for self-defense and hunting.
As a life-long supporter of the Constitution, I feel the debate involving the Second Amendment has grown to extremist positions on both sides of the issue. The amendment was, in my opinion, never intended as a license for anyone to own and use any weapon of their choice. In a society ruled by laws, there can — and should — be necessary limitations to prevent violence.
Once a life member of The National Rifle Association, I dropped that membership because of the association’s “our way or nothing” opposition to rational attempts to bring our obsession with guns under control.
The NRA’s latest tirades following the Orlando massacre convinced me that more attention needs to be paid to their misuse of facts and use of misinformation to muddy the debate.
Before the Orlando massacre, the NRA-owned Republican majority of Congress stopped a modest proposal “to deny transfers of firearms to persons known or suspected to be engaged n conduct related to terrorism.”
The suggested rules were not, as claimed by the NRA, an assault on the second amendment, The organization has used that lie too many times
As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post:
The legislation couldn’t have prevented the massacre; it wouldn’t have taken effect for months. But it highlights an absurd situation: Lawmakers have known for a long time that those suspected of terrorist activities can legally buy guns, but the Republican majority, putting Second Amendment absolutism above modest national-security considerations, is refusing to fix the problem.
At least twice before, the same House committee had votes on the same proposal, and both times it was also defeated — in 2015, by a vote of 32 to 19, and 2013, 29 to 19. The Senate, for its part, voted down similar legislation in December, following the San Bernardino, Calif., killings.
In my opinion, America would be better served to return to the law that outlawed assault style weapons with one caveat: Tightening the law to prevent slight modifications of the weapon design to allow continued sales through loopholes.
I also support a return to limits to magazine capacities. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords went down from shots fired by a Glock semi-automatic pistol with a magazine that held 31 9mm rounds.
Although I own, and sometimes carry, a Glock 17 semi-automatic sidearm, I do not own or use the high-capacity magazines. The 17-round magazine is more than enough and I could live with a 10-round one if the law that once placed such limits nationally were to go back into effect.
It is too bad that the NRA cannot live with some modest gun control proposals that might allow others to live on the bloody streets of America. None of the proposals cited so often by the NRA attacks the second amendment. It limits those who feel like they should dress up as wannabe soldiers and act like Rambo.
Proposed limitations could also save lives but saving lives is not part of the real reason the NRA plays political hardball. The association gets most of its funding from the gun manufacturers and the primary purpose of the NRA is to protect gun sales and profits.
They, and the gun fanatics that follow their obnoxious and callous reasoning, don’t really care about gun safety or the increasing numbers of innocent victims who die at the hands of those who find it easy to buy weapons legally and then deploy them for illegal and violent purposes.
We have taken a small step to remove some weapons of unnecessary violence from circulation where gun ownership is, in my opinion, out of control.
Copyright © 2016 Capitol Hill Blue
(Edited to add additional information and to correct typos.)