Response to the Columbia Student’s Letter To The Editor on Guns & Militias

Re: ”Columbia Student Asks : Is Our Gun Problem: Militia Groups”, December 13, 2016

Facts and Logic Support Gun Rights
Response to the Columbia Student's Letter To The Editor on Guns & Militias
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- We do not have any information as to the purpose of Nick’s article, but it appears he is attempting to persuade gun owners, the “right wing” as he calls them in the article, to join with his side and support the regulations he enumerates in the article.

Nick is showing his anti-gun, anti-NRA (really anti-freedom) bias in many of his statements by using words that evoke strong emotions. Examples include, “There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups.” “Vehemently?” “anti-government?”

Also this whole paragraph is one big opinion:

“Nevertheless, politicians have turned the issue into a staple partisan battle, and it shouldn’t be – it is an issue of national safety, with lives at stake: so many accidental shootings and mass killings could’ve been prevented with proper lock and key storage, and studies show that chances of school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks. There are those on the right that believe the progressive agenda is an absolute, blanket ban on all firearms, and yet, most progressives merely want extensive background checks and storage regulations.”

This paragraph is all emotional appeal with no facts or data. Please provide facts, data, etc., to support your assertions.

Also this one:

“Similarly, to the casual, moderate gun owner … it is clear that certain changes, like background checks, regulations on firearm storage, and regulations on high capacity magazines and automatic weapons are needed.”

Again, there is no attribution for his assertions. Both of the above paragraphs indicate that Nick’s opinion is that the only viable solution is government control. He uses “mandatory” and “regulations” repeatedly. He also shows his lack of knowledge and research when he states that “regulations on … automatic weapons are needed.” It is apparent that he knows nothing of the current regulations and restrictions on automatic weapons [which are many].

Here is more emotionally charged language:

“…we can look at the militia groups that fervently cling to radical interpretations of the Second Amendment.” Sounds rather similar to the statement candidate Obama made in 2008, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Here are a few questions for Nick, as he edits his article:

  • How do you propose these safe storage and magazine regulations be enforced? (Especially without infringing on other rights related to reasonable search and seizure.)
  • How is this an issue of “national safety?”
  • How would these “regulations” have prevented the accidental shootings and mass killings?
  • Do you know how many accidental shootings and mass killings there are each year in the US?
  • Explain how the studies show that school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks.
  • Explain how your proposed regulations would not affect gun owners. Explain how, with these regulations in place, how the militia groups would be able to complete their objectives?

Early in your article, you state, “There are those on the right that believe the progressive agenda is an absolute, blanket ban on all firearms, and yet, most progressives merely want extensive background checks and storage regulations.” How do you square that statement with the following quotes:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) ~

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet Reno ~

“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” – Written affidavit by Fred Diamond, 1984 B’nai B’rith meeting in Coral Gables, Florida

Then-Senator Joe Biden (D – DE) ~

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

Michael Burnham
Germantown, WI

Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric
Eric
3 years ago

Opiods kill more people than firearms now , maybe this student needs another subject. Or medical malpractice another that kills an estimated 400k a year.

james
james
3 years ago

“Well regulated” at the our Constitution and Bill of Rights was authored refers to ‘in good working order’,
‘organized’, ‘in good practice’, etc. not to be confused with government regulation.

“I say your timepiece is well regulated”

David E. Young
David E. Young
3 years ago

Those supporting gun control are always dismissive of the Second Amendment, as well as the Heller decision, because of the well regulated militia language in the first clause, which does not mean government regulated militia. For those interested in a short, simple, Founders’ based view on this to counteract control advocates and bolster rights supporters’ knowledge base, see The Meaning of ‘A Well Regulated Militia’, posted July 4, 2016 at On Second Opinion Blog. http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-meaning-of-well-regulated-militia.html BTW, the author of this piece is having a Bill of Rights Day half price sale on all editions of his two Second Amendment history… Read more »

Paul
Paul
3 years ago

Can somebody PLEASE forward these counter arguments to the student who wrote the article?
Yes, I also give him an “F” for failure to do any research on the “facts” that he writes. Sounds like he just regurgitates what he has heard on the “LEFT WING” media. About the only thing I can see that was correct in its absence was the lack of the term, “CLIPS.”

Robert
Robert
3 years ago

There were glaring inconsistencies in the original article. He claims that most gun owners support a ban in “high capacity magazines” then goes on to call them “high capacity drum magazines” when explaining how the Oregon occupation could have been conducted without infringement. These are two separate issues. All laws, proposed or enacted, bypassed 50rnd drums, instead they focused on “standard capacity” magazines greater than 10 or even 7 rounds. While my personal belief is that 50rnd (or greater) drums are gimmicky, their use base never been documented in a single mass shooting or accidental shooting (just a guess on… Read more »

Kurt Francis
Kurt Francis
3 years ago
Reply to  Robert

Very well spoken. Thank you

Lou
Lou
3 years ago

May I guess this student is from California?

If the purpose of college is to “learn”, lets hope this student does some homework.
The grad so far is an “F”.

martin
martin
3 years ago

Please remember if the Second Amendment falls, it is only a matter of time before the Left in this Nation and their Conservative in Name Only (CINO) supporters destroy the other parts of the Constitution and come after you, your family and neighbors.
I DO believe that the Second Amendment is the only thing standing between the Citizenry and Tyranny on a grand scale in this Country.

jamie
jamie
3 years ago

typical marxist

trying to make taking away civil rights look like absolute common sense and if you disagree then you must be terrorist determined to destroy the world