In 2017, police in South Carolina, during a routine traffic stop, discovered military grade machine guns stolen from a National Guard Armory. (WSOC TV, 12/21/2017). As far back as 1974 what was described as “enough armaments to outfit a full Army company” was stolen from a Guard Armory in Compton, CA (NYTimes, 07/06/1974).
Some stolen military weapons, according to the AP, have been used over the years to commit violent crimes in Boston, MA, 2016 and Albany, NY, June 15, 2021. In Dec, 2021, a Pecos, NM man was charged with stealing and selling military weapons from an armory near Santa Fe. He was also arrested on drug charges including fentanyl. As we have seen, gun running and illegal drugs go hand in hand.
I say all of this to show with all the regulations and difficulties securing weapons, we can see criminals still get guns. Case in point: the ease in which the alleged Highland Park shooter, even with a troubled background, got guns. Add to that how progressive DAs, in states with very restrictive gun regulations, release violent, repeat offenders even when guns are involved in the crime.
Progressives won’t address the criminality of crossing the border illegally, wanting instead to focus on the causes. But when it comes to mass shootings, they never want to address the causes, only the fact a gun was used. Call Biden’s election illegitimate or say Hunter’s laptop was not Russian meddling and you get suspended from social media. That same crowd then expects us to believe they can’t detect a social media trail leading to mass shooters. That is pure progressive bunk.
Crimes committed with guns must carry the full sentence and violent felons not released back on to the streets only to repeat the crimes. Until then, all the political talk of new gun laws which only restrict the people who obey the law will just create more violent crimes.
Ralph Miller
* * *
Once again, I believe Ralph Miller's opinion is incorrect.
I do not dispute the facts he cited about armory thefts. Or that gun running and drugs go hand in hand: after all, if you can smuggle two high profit items for the same cost, why not do it? I agree with the ease with which the last two mass murderers obtained their weapons.
It's the last paragraph of his letter with which I disagree.
"Crimes committed with guns must carry the full sentence and violent felons not released back on to the streets only to repeat the crimes. Until then, all the political talk of new gun laws which only restrict the people who obey the law will just create more violent crimes."
He advocates gun crimes carry the full sentence as a deterrent to gun crimes. A reasonable man would be deterred by the likelihood of prison time for his actions. However, to date, that likelihood has not been a deterrent. I do not believe the perpetrator thinks that because he may get a shorter sentence, he commits the crime. Nor will a longer sentence will deter him from committing that crime. He has already made up his mind.
In the second phrase (violent felons not released . . .), Mr. Miller appears to be advocating life sentences for violent felons (presumably gun crimes). But has the prospect of not being released been a deterrent. Supposedly, those that murdered with guns were aware of the possibility of life imprisonment or a death sentence before the crime. Did that deter them? No. Some had a death wish.
Solving this nation's gun problems cannot be solved instantaneously. Because of the Second Amendment, there will always be gun crimes.
What must first be addressed is the availability of AR-15 type weapons allowing the firing of shots as quickly as one can pull the trigger. We must stop the most heinous of mass murders first. We may not prevent all deaths, but will prevent many just by limiting the speed of firing and reloading. If that means people who otherwise obey the law believe they are burdened without that type of weapon, we already have a precedent: automatic weapons have been banned. They are already imposed upon.
As for banning, we are also banning books despite the First Amendment ( . . . or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; . . .). So there is precedent.
Second, ammunition that is manufactured for war should be banned. This type ammunition not only kills violently, but if not killing, wounds violently. A coroner should never have to resort to DNA for gunshot victim of identification. Nor should anyone suffer the agony of knowing their loved one was violently ripped apart.
Joe Warren
* * *
Joe Warren, I think your opinion has many holes in it, and not from gunfire.
The Constitution, as you have noted, does guarantee many rights, but all of those rights "end" when you trespass upon the rights of someone else. For instance, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," ends for someone when they use "arms" to kill (other than special circumstances like self-defense, military action, etc.). If they choose to "kill", this infringes upon another's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, just as abortion "kills" someone that has not trespassed against another and is denied their right to life. The "methods" that can be used to take the life of another are endless; car, knife, bomb, hammer, fist, pipe, etc.
Just a note, a semi-automatic 9mm handgun can be "shot as quickly as one can pull the trigger" and ARs come in 9mm also.
There were roughly the same amount of deaths each year caused by auto accidents and guns here in the U.S., so would you ban "fast cars" in order to curb auto related deaths?
I deal with many people that are inconvenient, costly and I just don't want to have that "burden" of them in my life, but that does not give me the right to "kill" them.
To sum this up, the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, abortion is not. The right to "life" is also given in the Constitution and abortion denies that. Simply, I do not see the relationship between these two at all.
Patrick Lee