To gun rights advocates, the debate since the Connecticut school shooting is more than just a battle over who gets to own what kind of weapons.
It's a fight over freedom, misinformation and society's right to protect itself.
"Once you start regulating and banning weapons, you start going down a slippery slope," said Marc Greendorder, a San Ramon Valley attorney and gun owner.
Patch talked to an array of gun rights advocates this past week. Here's what they think in general about some of the recent gun control proposals.
They oppose California's current assault weapons ban and are against any kind of national prohibition on such weapons.
They aren't opposed to background checks, but they also aren't comfortable with a national database of gun owners.
They don't necessarily oppose a 10-day waiting period if it's only for the initial purchase of guns and not subsequent purchases by the same person.
They reject the notion the Second Amendment of the Constitution is outdated, saying the nation still needs to have armed citizenry.
"The AR-15 is the modern day equivalent of the musket," said Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation.
Guns and ammunition are serious business in California. Combs said there are close to 20,000 gun sale transactions on average day in California.
Since the gun control debate reignited after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Combs said gun sales in California have tripled.
The spike is being drive, gun advocates say, by people's fear that certain weapons will soon be banned by the government.
"Whenever a serious conversation about gun control starts, the market will respond," said Combs.
The talk is quite serious among the nation's politicians.
Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to unveil his commission's recommendation on new gun laws on Tuesday, with universal background checks being a top priority.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a bill this month prohibiting the sale and manufacture of military-style assault weapons.
House members, including Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, plan to sponsor a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.
State Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley introduced legislation last week that would regulate the sale of ammunition in California.
Gun rights advocates view these proposals as dangerous infringements. They feel there are other ways to reduce gun violence in our country.
Gun restrictions
On a basic level, gun advocates object to restrictions because they believe it violates the Second Amendment's guarantee for citizens to "bear arms."
"I don't understand why we can have restrictions on weapons when we have the consitutional right to own weapons," said Greendorfer.
He added he is not against restrictions on certain individuals such as convicted felons, but he feels the Second Amendment prohibits the ban of an entire classification of weapon.
Greendorfer, who is a hunter as well as gun collector, said there are personal reasons for his views. He is a first generation American whose unarmed ancestors were dragged out of their homes in Czechoslavakia in the 1930s by armed Nazi soldiers.
"To me, it's not so much an argument about rights. It's a reaction to what happened in World War Two," he said.
Michael Baryla, the owner of Tracy Rifle and Pistol, said citizens owning an array of weapons is the best way for society to reduce gun violence.
"It's having your destiny in your own hands," said Baryla. "Having rifles in the hands of citizens is a protection for the public. There is no correlation between tougher gun laws and a reduction in crime."
His sentiments are echoed by Jay Jacobson, the president of Franklin Armory, a gun manufacturer in Mountain View.
He said if weapons are taken away from citizens then "we have a situation where only the bad guys have guns."
"In all these shootings, the incident stopped when another person with a gun showed up," Jacobson said.
Advocates also reject claims that individuals do not need guns that fire rapidly and fire more than six shots.
First, they say the word assault weapons is a "catch all" phrase used to categorize rifles that aren't really much more powerful than standard hunting rifles.
Second, they believe there are times when you need the ability for rapid and multiple fire. Combs said if a gun owner is faced with an angry intruder or a powerful animal such as a mountain lion, they want to be able to get off more than one round.
"The number one thing is you want the ability to have a follow-up shot," he said.
Combs acknowledges weapons such as machine guns and bazookas are rightfully restricted. He believes the criteria should be what weapons are commonly used and are necessary for personal self-defense.
Waiting periods, background checks
Gun advocates don't object in general to background checks of gun buyers to make sure they aren't ex-felons or have documented mental health issues.
They also don't mind a waiting period of three or 10 days for someone who is buying their first weapon.
What does bother them is waiting periods for people who are making subsequent purchases of guns or ammunition.
Jacobson said a waiting period for someone who has also already passed initial checks is a waste of time.
"That doesn't make sense," he said. "It's asinine."
Baryla agrees.
"I don't think it does anything to curb violence," he said. "It's just a restriction on commerce."
Baryla does oppose a national database of gun owners. He feels it's an invasion of privacy. He notes data can be misused as in the case of a website that has printed the names of licensed gun owners in New York City.
Jacobson prefers the current system where law enforcement agencies can ask gun manufacturers and sellers for information if they are tracing a specific weapon.
"There are other ways for the government to get what they need," he said.
Greendorfer is less adamant than the others. He thinks waiting periods are "pointless," but he doesn't have major objections to them.
He also is in favor of a national database of gun owners and believes the federal level is the best place to oversee it.
National debate
Gun advocates are concerned by the current national debate on gun control.
They feel there is a lot of misinformation about weapons and a lot of emotional rhetoric.
"It bothers me a lot," said Greendorfer. "If there's an intelligent debate, I'm all for it."
They say they want the public to remember the overall picture and the fundamental issues at stake.
They point to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Communist China under Mao Tse-tung as examples.
"The people are the militia. There is still a need to keep the government in check," said Baryla. "Guns are the first thing to go when a government wants to control people."
If you'd read the SCOTUS opinion in Michigan v. Sitz you'd know the majority did not rely on the fact that driving is a privilege. The issue was whether a compelling State interest (reducing drunken driving deaths) could be used to trump the constitutional protections against unreasonable search/seizure and the need for probable cause. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority: "In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment." In that statement replace "drunken driving" with "heinous gun violence", then replace "motorists" with "individual gun owners", and finally replace "Fourth Amendment" with "Second Amendment." I'll do it for you: "In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing HEINOUS GUN VIOLENCE, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual GUN OWNERS who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the SECOND Amendment." Well regulated.
"Some level of individualized suspicion is a core component of the protection the Fourth Amendment provides against arbitrary government action. . . . By holding that no level of suspicion is necessary before the police may stop a car for the purpose of preventing drunken driving, the Court potentially subjects the general public to arbitrary or harassing conduct by the police. I would have hoped that before taking such a step, the Court would carefully explain how such a plan fits within our constitutional framework." So as I said, we slipped down the slope of State security trumping Constitutional protections about 20+ years ago. Then it was drunk driving and sobriety checkpoints. After 9/11 it was airport screening and line-forming at the front bathroom. Today and for the next several years it will be guns. If you didn't fight against these intrusions then, you have no leg to stand on today.
Why? Because THEY ARE EASY TO MAKE. Any machinist can turn out a working automatic weapon. Any semi-auto weapon can be made automatic with a metal file. It may not look pretty, but it will certainly kill a lot of people. What about those high capacity magazines? You can take ANY low capacity magazine and turn it into a high capacity magazine. You can even make one from scratch. A magazine is just a case that hold the ammo wiith a spring that pushes it into the gun. Ban the ammunition then? Again, something that's fairly easy to make. Lead for bullets can be scrounged from tire weights, fishing weights, and even car batteries. Anyone who reads the internet can make smokeless gunpowder from ingredients readily available and unregulable (you can't ban cotton and electricity!). If guns were illegal, they'd be worth $1000 each. Unlike growing pot, there would be no telltale smell or big electric bill to give away who is making them. Won't that be tempting for all those kids who can't find a job? Buy a $300 hobby tool and go into business! We haven't been able to stop drug use by banning drugs. All we did was fill our prisons with drug users. How can anyone think we can stop gun possession by banning guns? Deal with the root of the problem. It's people and their antisocial behaviors.
@Nancy: There are over 300 million privately owned guns in this country do you think they would not be available to criminals if they were banned? Do you not think we would reimport the guns our attorney general sent to Mexico during fast and furious (first attempt to get gun control and it backfired)? Criminals in total ban countries can still get guns it's law-abiding citizens cannot so they are defenceless!
"The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..." Any questions?
Where do you crazy people keep thinking I'm getting this thinking from my teacher? How do you come to that conclusion? The Soviet Union had a constitution and individual rights, it was still totalitarian and Communist. So, your point is false. A Statist country still can have a constitution and individual rights, though Statism and Communism are slightly different. There are different definitions of Statism. You don't know the kind that I advocate, therefore you cannot draw these conclusions. Regardless, in every economic system, it's collapsed. Capitalism caused the US economy to collapse, Communism caused the USSR to collapse. It's time for Third Way Economics to take its place, given the utter failure of the left and right.
Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. The rate is less than 0.1% In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) as well as some some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.)
Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime.107 Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. --Gun Licensing Leads to Increased Crime, Lost Lives, John Lott, L.A. Times, Aug 23, 2000. Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. The rate is less than 0.1% In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) as well as some some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.)
Firearms in private hands are used an estimated 2.5 million times (or 6,849 times each day) each year to prevent crime;240 this includes rapes, aggravated assaults, and kidnapping. The number of innocent children protected by firearm owning parents far outweighs the number of children harmed. --Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997 All the facts continue to show more guns less crime but you still have your head in the sand (I said sand..I'm being nice)
no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries Very clearly means The US is not stuck on a christian worldly view...this was a treaty with Muslims afterall and it would not have been possible without it. Every other aspect of the US is solidly based on christianity...our currency, our pledge....Your definitions of governments are splitting hairs the root is communism. Capitalism did not ruin our economy it was the rise and influence of liberalism/socialism.....This is good stuff but off topic.....stick to the second ammendment stuff! :)
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." - Thomas Jefferson "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson "We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ." -Thomas Jefferson "In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."- Benjamin Franklin Socialism and liberalism did not allow Wall Street to ruin our economy. That was purely Capitalism. Or maybe you don't have the intelligence to comprehend.
The military would not fight it's own citizens...this has been asked in a survey --http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm (this is just a quick source I found I'm sure there are others) Firearms in private hands are used an estimated 2.5 million times (or 6,849 times each day) each year to prevent crime; this includes rapes, aggravated assaults, and kidnapping. The number of innocent children protected by firearm owning parents far outweighs the number of children harmed. --Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997 So if we ban guns we are better off? EVERY instance of gun bans around the world have shown the opposite..learn facts before you sound foolish! --John Lott "more guns less crime"
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/occupy-raleigh-attacks-our-nations-christian-foundation/ The 2008 crash was a direct result of Bill Clinton coersion of banks to make risky loans and his ending of Glass-Steagall. George Bush has a lot to blame because of his appetite for spending...now Obama (a progressive, communist,socialist,statist)has doubled down on spending has run up more debt in 2 years than 8 years of Bush. You will ignore this.. Just keep calling names when you lose arguments...that proves my point!
You say I'm taking from a biased website.....so you give me a biased website as a counter-argument? At what grade level did you drop out of school? Obama is nowhere near being a communist or socialist. His politics are center-left at best. Statist? He's nothing like me. He's too much of a, for lack of a better word, gentleman to ever be a statist. He's no socializing private enterprise, he's not demanding the workers own the means of production. He's a centrist. Keep talking, Paul. I need a good laugh for today.
Ben Franklin: Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.' "I have been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and ... I was never without religious principles." But he is not a christian? I'm curious if there could be anybody on here that could possibly agree with demented ideas? I can't stomach to even debate with such a disrespectfull twisted little communist as you! Enjoy your government cheese and life as a slave to your government!
1. State control of real property. Team Obama repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage. 2. Progressive income taxes. Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1 percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax. 3. Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors re-institution of estate taxes. 4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America (causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all American investments); 5. Centralization of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state. Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction.
7. Increase state control over means of production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on which most other industries depend—energy. 8 Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of Americorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.
9. Control over where people live. Team Obama doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book, “Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.) 10. Free education. Obama has sought a federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his 2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs. Clearly Barack Obama’s policies have a distinctly Marxian flavor to them. (copied from a well written article) All of this is right up your little commie alley!