Monday, April 18, 2011

Clarifying Scuttlebutt

After my NPR interview back in January, I received a lot of hate mail and some outlandish comments about my position on gun ownership. Here's a few clarifying points:

  • I only attended two conference calls with the American Hunters and Shooters Association and was on the "advisory board" for only a short period of time when I found it was not my cup of tea. I wanted to further the female perspective in the world of gun ownership, but it was not the right arena in which to do so.

  • I believe that every U.S. citizen who has a legal right to own a gun should be able to do so. When I say "legal right", my intent is to make sure felons, especially those with violent criminal backgrounds, have no right to own and operate a gun. If that makes me "anti-gun", so be it.

  • As a responsible gun owner who uses her weapon for personal defense and protection, I still see no purpose whatsoever to own a weapon with a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds of ammo. However, if someone wants to own one, then it should be registered with the ATF. Not saying a legal citizen can't own one, but as a strong supporter of our men and women in blue, there needs to be some regulation on that kind of power to prevent police officers from walking into an ambush if such an owner takes a turn to the dark side.

  • I'm against any U.S. jurisdiction that prohibits residents from owning a gun for personal protection. We should have the right to protect ourselves with at least the basic protection of a handgun. If I eventually move to NYC, you can bet my handgun's coming with me.

I think of our fine nation's founding fathers and try to put myself in their shoes when they developed the second amendment. Young America was much different back then - hell women couldn't vote and many owned slaves - and the basis of this amendment was likely more for personal protection against the British militia from rampaging into the cities and towns of our young nation. Our founding fathers could not have the insight to the advances in technology - they were thinking with muskets and bayonets, not AK-47s and sawed-off shotguns. If they would have had the insight of how guns and ammo would advance in 200+ years from the time they crafted the U.S. Constitution, I think the second amendment would have been more specifically defined.

Nevertheless, I'm not paid nor have I ever been paid by anyone from the anti-gun side of the fence to take any of my stands or opinions. The only thing that has influenced my opinions is life itself - having a best friend in high school murdered by a felon's bullet; being mugged on the street via a gun; going to the funeral of a highly respected police officer who was blown away by a shotgun fired by a convicted felon; and seeing a dead child on the floor of a bedroom who accidentally got ahold of a gun that should have been locked by his parents. I'm not saying that anyone should give up their guns, but that it's not the worst thing in the world to have such guns registered and known by law enforcement. I'm perfectly happy to let officials know what I have in my house - I have nothing to hide.


  1. From the US Supreme Court's Heller decision:

    "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    Later in the decision, the Court narrows that protection to arms "in common use for lawful purposes."

  2. British gunowners probably also were OK with having their guns registered...

    ...until most all the registered handguns and pump-action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns were banned and confiscated.

  3. If there is no defensive purpose for 10rd+ magazines, why do most police use them?

    (Welcome back. I learned of this site from your critics, but be then you had stopped posting for a while. I am more of a moderate than most online gunowning commenters so we will agree on some things -- sorry to start out with disagreement.)

  4. Since you have nothing to hide, surely then you see no reason to have warrants for searches and wiretaps, right?

    Your narrow definition of the 2A reads little more than a government privilege rather than a check against tyranny - as was the intention of the founding fathers. You seem to forget that while muskets were in common use at the time, this is what the British were armed with and thus were the colonists on relatively equal footing.

    By the way, when do we get to hear some womens' empowerment? Or is that after all your stumping for more gun control?

  5. I compete in practical shooting sports, namely USPSA and 3 Gun.

    As such, I use >10 round magazines in both my rifle and shotgun.

    I've never committed a crime.

    Convince me as to why I should be compelled by federal law, under threat of sanction from law enforcement, to register each and every single magazine that I own?

    Furthermore, in what way would requiring people to put their name on a list do anything at all to prevent crime?


  6. Edit:

    I mean to say rifle and pistol in the above post.

    My shotgun is a traditional Benelli M2, which only holds 11 rounds total and must be reloaded manually.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. I am a wife, a mother of 7 and an empowered woman. Although I do disagree with much of what you said, I do enjoy good tasteful discussions.