More on Gun Control
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
2013 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
        Sen. Diane Feinstein proposes a ban on 157 makes and models of guns that include rifles, pistols, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons. The ban would also include fixed ammunition clips that hold 10 rounds or more. The senator says such a bill will pass "if America rises up, if people care enough. Enough is enough. But it depends on America and it depends on the courage of Americans." Could it be that the Senator believes that if you don't agree with her stance, you don't care about America, that if you don't want her form of arms control, that you do not have courage?
        The Police Chief in Salinas, California, Kelly McMillin, supports Feinstein's proposal, as he says it would "keep dangerous assault weapons away from killers who are intent on mayhem." Does this elected official really believe that? Where has he been? California has a ban on military-style assault weapons, and even in Salinas, a crime ridden area, McMillin admits, weapons that show up in gang violence "are the run of the mill that you would see in any typical firearms retailer anywhere in America." The fact that you can't disarm killers "intent on mayhem," from acquiring any arms they want, seems to escape the Chief. What takes the cake is that Chief McMillin believes that a tax of $1 per bullet would push the cost of shooting their weapons above what the criminals could afford. Surely he doesn't believe that killers walk into retailer gun shops, like any other law-abiding citizen, and purchase ammunition? And a high price will keep them away? It's hard to believe some people.
        Maybe Republican Sen. Charles Schumer of New York has a point. He feels that "Congress could impose a "reasonable limitation " on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms." Seems to me it all goes back to the problems of what the makers of the Bill of Rights said, what we think they meant, whether we care, and how the Congress and the courts interpret the document, either literally, or in light of today's world. And those are not easy topics for any assembled body to agree on.