The massacre in Newton CT that left 20 children and 6 adults dead has led to a renewed interest in gun control legislation.
After previous massacres many legislators stated that, “Now is not the time for debate”, but the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School has left many Americans saying now is the time.
There has been little debate on gun control since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, and that is where current discussions are focused: re-implementing the ban on assault rifles that expired in 2004.
There is often a disconnect between proposed gun legislation and the belief that the federal government is seeking to undue the traditions established by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
That amendment which reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed“, has been open to debate for centuries – and will continue to be debated – but not as part of the discussion on federal gun control legislation.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation that expired in 2004, the starting point for gun control debates in 2013, banned ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices’, which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds.
The killer in the Newton CT massacre had three weapons,a Bushmaster rifle, a 9mm Sig Sauer, and a 10mm Glock, along with hundreds of rounds of unspent ammunition; law enforcement sources reported the guns as having at least 30 rounds per magazine
The National Rifle Association has been a lobbying entity against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and their reasoning may not reflect the majority of Americans – even those Americans who own guns.
Executive Vice President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, in a fundraising letter stated that, “…the semiauto-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” (Less than a week after that letter, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma.)
The vast majority of Americans, and NRA members, reject civil war as an argument for unrestricted gun ownership; and for many, the main question will be, how many bullets should a gun owned by a civilian be allowed to fire without the need to reload?
In countries like Canada, they believe 5 bullets is sufficient for hunting and protection; in Australia, they think 5 or 10 depending on the gun.
Government in America has, since the days of the American Revolution, both denied gun ownership to certain individuals and simultaneously demanded it. Loyalists during the War for Independence were denied the right of gun ownership in fear that they would bear arms against the rebel army; state militia laws, on the other hand, demanded that males of fighting age not only own a gun – but purchase it at their own cost.
Today, the debate will include whether civilians need guns that fire 5 rounds, 10 rounds, 20 rounds, 30 rounds, 40 rounds or even more without the need to reload…..
Now is the time the time to talk about it…..