Before I continue, you should know I have been recognized by the NRA in the Armed Citizen section of a past publication, when as a sheriff, I defended the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
I still feel the same way and consider myself a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, as reasonably intended.
However, our founding fathers could not have reasonably envisioned the massive rate of fire and mass killing capacity that many modern "weapons of war" are capable of producing.
Personal self/home defense, hunting and sport shooting are one thing and something I support. Everyone having easy access to high capacity "weapons of war" capable of mowing down scores of innocent people within minutes at the local mall, work, school, concert, ballgame, restaurant or church is quite another thing and something we have to get under control in this country.
Common sense indicates it's not a good idea for everyone to have such easy access to these "weapons of war" with extremely high capacity magazines.
Our national leaders need only look at the number of innocent men, women and children who have been slaughtered in mass shootings using these weapons to know we have a problem in this country. One of the worst problems in the civilized world.
We can "promote the general welfare" through sound public policy and still uphold the legitimate intent of the 2nd Amendment at the same time.
Our government is us and our own government is not our enemy. Let's find a way to use the Constitutional power of our government to reasonably reduce and control the proliferation of "weapons of war" onto the streets of America.
It's time to find common-sense, bi-partisan solutions that still allow law-abiding citizens to be armed for self-defense, hunting and sport purposes, but keep "weapons of war" out of the hands of those that are using them to slaughter scores of innocents in minutes.
Tim Gobble
Former Bradley County Sheriff
* * *
Well Tim, aside from the fact that the 2nd Amendment you claim to support has nothing to do with “self-defense, hunting, or sport”, gun deaths from “weapons of war” being used to mow down innocent people at malls, churches, etc. are a very small percentage of all gun deaths.
If you really wanted to drastically reduce gun violence through a reduction in arms, you’d also need to concentrate on the ones used in most killings, handguns. So are you prepared to try and outlaw and confiscate all firearms? To do that, you are going to need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That might not be easy, but let’s say you are successful. Are you then prepared to have the U.S. government go around and attempt to confiscate all the 350,000,000 guns in the U.S.? Australia attempted this very thing and they were successful in confiscating approximately a third of all their firearms. Assuming we were able to get the same percentage, we’d still have about 230,000,000 guns floating around out there. I just don’t see that helping much.
Maybe instead we should just try our best to keep the crazies and the terrorists (but I repeat myself) from acquiring guns. I’m not sure how to do that, but making a law that says Tim Gobble can’t own an AR-15 isn’t going to help.
Mike Willingham
* * *
The California shooting illustrates a point that should be obvious: No matter how thoroughly you “vet” Middle-Eastern refugees, there is no way to ensure that only peaceful immigrants are admitted to the U.S. There was no reason to suspect that the California shooter was going to commit this act, just as there was no reason to suspect Mohammed Abdulazeez would attack Chattanooga military installations.
There is no reliable way to tell who is dangerous already, and who will later become dangerous. Islamic State uses social media to encourage moderate Muslims to commit violent acts. Muslims who immigrate to the U.S. are more predisposed to become influenced by Islamic State recruiting efforts. Reports from Europe indicate that IS actively recruits refugees.
If vetting the immigrants won’t work, then admitting them is dangerous. Most people realize this, but our leaders are bent on bringing them in anyway. If 100,000 or more refugees are admitted, how many of them will follow the example of Syed Farook, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, Mohammed Abdulazeez, and Nadal Hassan?
Rather than rethink this dangerous immigration policy, our President’s response to the shooting is to call for more gun laws. He claims to be doing so in order to make us all safer. But this is not the true motivation. If he wanted us to be safer, he wouldn’t import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Islamists. His goal is not your safety. His goal is to disarm you. To make you defenseless and dependent. To make you like the once proud, but now disarmed, people of Europe, who watch helplessly as their home is invaded by millions of so-called refugees.
The President claims to care about your safety, but instead of taking the obvious precaution of keeping Islamic immigrants out, he assaults your right to defend yourself, your family and your country. Mr. Gobble says that this government is not the enemy; when you look at its actions and carefully consider the possible motivations, you are forced to come to the opposite conclusion.
Jay Underwood
Ooltewah
* * *
The writers of the Constitution knew it was only a matter of time before a large centralized federal government would be trampling citizen’s rights, so they sat down and wrote a Bill of Rights that was meant to protect “we the people.” They may not have viewed the federal government as the enemy but they certainly understood it was a necessary evil that should have limited enumerated powers as evidenced by the Bill of Rights. In addition we can be certain without a doubt they had more vision than any of our currently or formerly elected leaders.
Gun grabbers constantly demand law abiding citizens turn in their weapons yet the courts have continuously ruled that it is not the job of the police to protect the individual. So when gun grabbers can create a law to take “weapons of war” out of the criminal’s or terrorist hands then come back and preach to the rest of the law abiding citizens who own “weapons of war.”
And by the way gun grabbers can’t remove weapons from the terrorist or other criminal’s hands, they can only remove them from law abiding citizens.
Fox News just ran an article concerning mass killings that pointed out since 2009 until the middle of this year the United States has an annual death rate 0.095, there are seven countries with higher rates than the United States.
Unlike the founders who distrusted a large centralized federal government because they understood the propensity of men and women in power to abuse their power gun grabbers and those like them, meaning those that believe government should have no limits over the people distrust and loathe those who agree with the writers of the constitution.
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Mike Lynn
* * *
Mr. Gobble,
I respectfully disagree with you in regard to how our founding fathers viewed the purpose and need for the 2nd Amendment. Our founding fathers believed that people should be armed not to hunt nor for individual protection, but to stand against the tyranny of government.
Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist Paper No. 29, "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
George Washington also believed, "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … "
Ted Jameson
* * *
Mr. Gobble,
Your claim of supporting the 2nd Amendment seems somewhat questionable since you keep referring to certain firearms as “weapons of war”. I think since the inception of firearms they have been weapons of war. That was the original purpose of firearms and has continued to be the main purpose for them. So that being said how do you propose to classify weapons into categories? At one time a flint lock weapon was considered a weapon of war. Now we have semi-automatic pistols and rifles along with revolvers. Which of those do you plan on banning as weapons of war? When you take away firearms and people begin killing with compound bows, crossbows, swords or baseball bats will you start calling those weapons of war and take those too?
First off maybe you need to take a deeper look at the Constitution and what its intent was when written and citizens were given the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about having weapons to hunt or for sporting. The reason the 2nd Amendment exist is to have a standing militia and to keep any tyrannical government in check. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the need for armed citizens. “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.” Thomas Jefferson “It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.” Thomas Jefferson
You need only look back to the II World War to see that even the Japanese recognized it would be a fatal mistake to invade the United States because they would have been fighting not only the military but half of the country who also were armed.
Our problem is that we have no way of knowing who is crazy, radicalized or on any given day who will snap and go off. On the other hand the percentage of those who do carry out mass shootings is miniscule compared to criminals who obtain firearms illegally.
Here is a novel idea, why don’t we actually prosecute people for gun violence and put them in prison for a very long time.
In the meantime, stop allowing violent extremists into our country, keep a data base on mentally ill and restrict them from obtaining weapons of any type and do away with gun free zones. Why not allow law-abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms and require them to have some training, then allow them to carry them without restrictions. Imagine if the two Muslim terrorists had walked into that venue in California and began shooting only to be met with gunfire from say 20 different people. What do you think the outcome would have been? Sure some people would probably have died, but how much sooner would it have been over and how many fewer lives would have been lost or people injured?
Mr. Gobble, frankly, sir, your rhetoric sounds a lot like the liberal left. Are you planning to run for public office again and in doing so playing both sides of the fence? I am disappointed in your opinion article and thankfully I don’t think you will get much support, at least not in Chattanooga.
Mike Cox