A middle ground on gun limits
By Charles E. Schumer,December 19, 2012
Since the massacre at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School, many are wondering whether this tragedy might finally provoke action on guns.

The answer is, it could. The reason may surprise gun-control activists.

A post-Newtown examination of our gun laws would be the country’s first such effort since the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which struck down the District’s handgun ban and affirmed an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms. The case, decided by the court’s conservative bloc, was originally viewed as a setback for advocates of gun safety. But embracing the ruling could actually create a new paradigm for gun control.

The gun debate of the past two decades has devolved into a permanent tug-of-war between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advocates of gun safety. One side has viewed the Second Amendment as absolute; the other has tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist. The result is a failure to find any consensus, even as one mass shooting after another underscores the need for sensible reform.

Heller told the two sides that they were each only half-right: The right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, but reasonable limitations are allowed.

The first part is something many gun-control advocates did not wish to hear, but it was a needed dose of reality. Before Heller, the goal of some gun-control activists was an outright ban on handguns. Heller removes that possibility for good. Progressives should move on and work within the ruling. This means no longer harboring ideas of a future liberal majority on the court someday overturning Heller. It also means that states and localities should abide by the spirit of the ruling, not just its letter, and not seek to impose undue burdens upon law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The truth is, it was bad strategy to ever deny an individual right to bear arms and, similarly, the special place guns hold in our culture. That mentality alienated potential allies in the ideological middle of the gun debate — something I learned three years ago when my friend Ben Nelson invited me to Nebraska for my first hunting trip. I returned with true respect for how, in many parts of America, gun ownership is not just a constitutional right but a way of life. It has the same meaning in Nebraska that playground basketball did for me in my Brooklyn neighborhood. Heller understands that reality.

In the current state of play, moderate gun owners have become convinced by the NRA and other, even more radical gun organizations such as Gun Owners of America that the goal of all gun-safety advocates is to take away their guns. These owners view even the most reasonable gun-safety proposals with suspicion, fearing a slippery slope to a ban on firearms. This paranoia is what gives the gun lobby its power.

It wasn’t always this way. After the assassinations of leaders like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in the late 1960s, the nation enacted sweeping gun-safety laws — and the NRA did not stand in the way.

The NRA was less political in that era and more focused on providing practical assistance to its members, much like AAA does today for automobile owners. But in the 1980s, the group became more militant. Part of this was driven by new leadership, which sought to expand the group’s membership rolls and collect more dues.

But this radicalization was also abetted by those who really were seeking an outright ban on guns.

Now that Heller has ruled out the possibility of anyone ever taking away their weapons, gun owners should be more open to some reasonable limitations. No individual right is absolute, after all. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, no one has a right to falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, nor to traffic in child pornography. Likewise, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms also comes with limits.

We need to refine those limits in the wake of what happened in Newtown.

The guns issue will remain thorny, but Heller points the way toward a possible compromise, under a new paradigm. All of us — especially progressives — should embrace it.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/opinions/35929421_1_gun-debate-gun-safety-laws-gun-owners

a compromise that sounds logical

Merry Christmas Ms. Harmony!

You're the one who likes to talk apples and oranges but you don't know the difference between a long range and a short range weapon. One is accurate with less brutal wounds and not so concealable, keep aggressors at a distance. The other leaves a big hole at short distance and stops what gets thru the door.... not so accurate, and the offender has to be closer raising the risk of failure.

That's gun ignorance for an example

Send a sniper with a pistol to a hostage situation..... right!

arent snipers trained with their weapon though?

some common sense doesnt require special education to figure out,,,,

would a civilian have run out the building and far enough away to use the 'sniper' weapon before all those children died? doubtful

yeah, in cases like this, where people imply that others IN THE SAME area as the victims could use a weapon

the short range seems just fine to me,,,,

Again, apples and oranges. The police inside the building were carrying small arms to search, but the snipers outside had rifles.

That is one of the questions of the "single shooter" staements. The coroner said the children were all killed with .223 rifle rounds, but the early news and police reports said they found his rifle in the trunk of the car he was supposed to have driven to the scene. It was also reported that when killed, he had only 2 weapons on him....both handguns! It was also reported that the shell casings recovered at the scene were from the Bushmaster .223 that he was NOT armed with.

good grief,, THE SNIPERS, are not everyday citizens,,,they are TRAINED WITH THEIR WEAPON for a specific purpose

what need would an untrained citizen have for access to the same weapon professional snipers use?

if the question is whether someone that had been armed at the time taken out the shooter, I imagie that someone would be amongst the people in the school when it happened,, which would certainly not be someone needing to use a LONG RANGE Weapon,,,,


I think its sad that people wish to have these guns around children at all, even behind a mask of wanting to protect them

but it makes much more sense to me , if thats the case, that they dont have SNIPER type weapons to do so,,,,but rather the weapons that are more for close proximity shooting,,,

Again! "They are trained with their weapons."... so that makes it ok to you. So why would you wish people to fear an object, keep proper education in using and respecting it out of the public conversation, knowing they are NOT going away!

That's like saying let's just lock up everyone we think might be crazy because we don't want to expose our children to them! It's a violation of the same rights to a persons freedoms granted in our constitution, and would jail about 40% or more of the population seeking mental health issues and taking psychotropic drugs for it!

You advocate drug and sex education but not guns... that is hypocracy!

first

it makes it ok if people are well trained in the harm and use of weapons for them to have them,, YES,, one reason why Switzerland works well

TRAINING along with a check of mental capacity BEFORE weapons are issued and then a reasonable limit to the types of weapons and ammo available

YES,, thats what I support, such training and crime/mental history check should be MANDATORY Before owning ANY gun,,,,




second , yes we should FEAR certain objects in the wrong hands, such as bombs, poison, grenades, ,, to name but a few

if you wouldnt put them in a babies hands they shouldnt be in an UNTRAINED persons hands or the hands of a mentally ill/criminal person


Third, I advocate optional education (not requisite) about the harms of drugs, or guns, and about the potential consequences of sex

I advocate requisite education about where babies come from, being we were all once babies, I feel thats a relevant lesson to learn,,,,

To you then I would say this..... you are destined to live your life in fear, always a subject, always a victim. It does not sound like much of a life to me, merely an existence.

The more we educate, the safer we are! As any child who drives a car needs a permit to learn, so should it be with those wishing to possess ANY firearm, but not the restriction of them!!

Bad people will continue to have guns, make bombs, use poisons or any other type of killing option at their desire whether a citizen is allowed to have them or not....THEY ARE NOT GOING AWAY!

Until you acknowledge that very real fact you are only fooling yourself!

The Assault-Rifle isn't even available to the Public in it's Military form!
Yet,the anti-Gunners constantly are implying that it could spit out all sorts of Rounds in a second,when it actually isn't any different from a semi-Automatic Rifle.
Will fire about the same amount of Rounds as the semi-automatic Pistol!
How do we ever explain to the Public that they are shamelessly lied to by the "Experts" of the Press?

As we argue the 2nd amendment, we should also remember (think about) the media moguls who pedal carnage for sensationalistic value while "hiding" behind the 1st amendment!!...

wonder what would happen if the Second Amendment were repealed!
What would happen to their First Amendment?

you still haven't got a Clue about Switzerland!
The Government won't issue Ammunition for the Military Rifles to be kept at Home,but the Citizen is free to buy any amount at the Gunshops!
Only Government-Issue is under that restriction,NOT private Ammunition!
I could go Wednesday and buy a Box of 1000 rounds if I feel like!
Besides,Civilian Firearms outnumber Military ones about at least four to one!
And Ammunition is freely available at Gunshops!
So,please stop with the Dis-Information already!

Blaming firearms and not addressing the cultural or mental health issues that are really to blame in most cases is the easy way out for those in denial.

It is never the depraved individual that is to blame.

Yes indeed....Give a child too much sugar and see what happens to his teeth....

so,what's the Beef of the Press about "Assault-Rifles"!
Have they completely stupid now?
Are they now so dishonest to do the Hatchet-Job for the Politicians who seek to disarm the Public?

Ones only security against a potential attacker is their questioning the possibility that you are armed.