patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!
Local Voices

The Time Has Come

Last Friday morning just as the Pledge of Alliance was completed and attendance taken, the students of Sandy Hook Elementary School in a small Connecticut suburb began what felt at first like just another ordinary day.  It was in the midst of Hanukkah and just days before Christmas.  The day was cold and clear, with a bright blue, near cloudless sky.  To every child and teacher there was reason to believe that last Friday would begin and end as nearly every Friday did.

But around 9:30 in the morning, all that changed.

Witnesses including the school nurse and other teachers and administrators say it began with a loud “pop-pop-pop.”  Can we imagine what went through the minds of the adults? The teachers and administrators whose job it was to care for these children, to mentor, teach and protect them?  Whenever what was happening began to crystallize in the protector’s minds there must have been an awful, sick and helpless feeling that ran through their very souls.  They were here, in a building that was supposed to be safe, locked, and secure with hundreds of children assigned to their collective care.  And now someone had penetrated that fragile veil of safety.

This was a tragedy that no one could ever conceive of…no one.  We tend to try to justify tragedies like these as the limited work of a few sick and twisted souls-an irregularity, a fluke, just innocent people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But the school children at Sandy Hook were exactly where they were supposed to be, last Friday morning and exactly at the right time.  They were in their school on a sunny winter Friday on the cusp of the holidays.  The school was securely locked, the administration had protocols in place, and drills had been done for fire escapes, storm winds and even “lockdown procedures.”  But none of it was adequate to deal with a deranged 20 year old who apparently had exhibited significant social and psychological issues much of his life.  A man-boy who killed his own mother that very morning and took weapons  from her upscale suburban home, including two handguns and a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. He dressed in military garb, donned body armor and deliberately drove his mother’s car to the front door of the school.

There have always been sick and deranged people in our society.  Those who fall through the cracks, or go unnoticed or ignored.  People viewed as “odd-but not someone I ever thought capable of that kind of thing.”  How many times have we heard that…after the fact?

Here however is a real fact: every year in this country thousands of children lose their lives in violent attacks by people who used guns, many of them automatic weapons.  I am specifically referring to military issue assault weapons that fire multiple rounds per clip.  No deer hunter or self respecting target practice aficionado could credibly suggest that “practicing” with one of these weapons makes you a good shot.  These are killing machines which allow even the worst marksman to hit almost anything. Surely no hunter, sportsman or true marksman could make the case that automatic weapons, or body piercing artillery makes for a better hunting season.  The statistics and facts in all of this are inconvenient especially for this of us who believe that 2nd Amendment rights are important.

Here’s where I make my big pronouncement:  It is clear to almost any reasonable person, even the most ardent supporters of 2nd Amendment rights, that the framers of our Constitution never meant for 20 year old psychopaths to murder innocents with automatic weapons in a public school.  Clearly the framers meant that the citizen’s rights in their words “to maintain a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” never ever fathomed the kind of carnage we have witnessed in recent years-especially the kind we witnessed last Friday in Connecticut.  Those who suggest otherwise are irrational, delusional or both.  Either way, if a country such as ours which also guarantees its citizens the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” under the very same Constitution, but doesn’t find this in at least some conflict with the mass murder of children in a public school, then they are missing something indeed.

I do not believe amending the Constitution is a good thing, or something we as a nation should take lightly.  That is the brilliance of this document of liberty.  The language chosen by the framers is purposeful and in at least some cases open to interpretation by reasonable men and women.  This maniac who shot all these kids and their teachers…I’m thinking it’s a long shot to call him the member of any “militia.”  We have a pretty good militia in this country already, several branches in fact; we call them the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, US Coast Guard and the National Guard and Army reserves.  They do a pretty good job protecting our nation and each of our “inalienable rights.” Now some in my party would suggest that we need other militias to protect us from those “militias.”  That’s all well and good, although slightly paranoid, but by any definition we can hardly call the slaughtered innocents of Sandy Hook a militia that threatened anyone.  The security of a free state means that we should be able to walk the streets, go to the movies or the mall or send our kids to school and not expect a maniac with an assault rifle and unstable mental capacity to gun them down.  And while the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be “infringed” - does that mean it should be enhanced?  How about hand grenades?  They make great Christmas gifts!  What about homemade bombs? Another great gift for the holidays! Those of the pipe bomb variety make wonderful stocking stuffers-as long as the stockings aren’t too close to the fire.

For 30 years I have worked for Republican candidates –all of whom have supported 2nd Amendment rights.  I have supported the 2nd Amendment and still do, but the time has come for conservatives, those who respect the idea of law and order, of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to wake up and realize there is NO cogent or reasonable argument to license assault weapons.  There, I said it.  I know the old line “if guns are criminalized, only criminals will get guns.”  In fact I’ve used it myself again and again to justify 2nd Amendment freedom.  And the bottom line is that banning these weapons is no guarantee that the sick and deranged won’t get their hands on them.  But as a just and moral and allegedly civilized society, we must be pragmatic enough to see some moral imperative to preventing this kind of carnage from ever happening again.  That gun show loophole with regard to background checks - close it NOW.  Instant background checks for anyone purchasing a gun anywhere?  Make it better, tighter, stronger.  Eliminate the right to “keep and bear” assault style weapons-they serve no useful purpose and make gun owners look like idiots who fight to keep these things in public circulation.  Give states and towns more control over the oversight of individuals who have weapons.  Don’t ban guns-hunters and sportsman should have the right to collect guns for the purpose of engaging in hunting for deer, game birds and moose…..not children.

Every person should also have the right to protect themselves and their property and that’s why I maintain support for any person who applies for a weapons permit and who qualifies to own such a weapon.  If you can’t stop someone from entering your home with the business end of a rifle, or hand gun, then forget it.  You don’t need an AK-47 to stop a would-be attacker or thief who means you, your family or your property harm.

I believe we need to protect the rights of gun owners to own guns-but not just any gun.  I believe that unless or until we accept the fact that with such freedoms come personal responsibility and a moral obligation to regulate, provide oversight, education and compliance to reasonable controls that we have failed a fundamental moral test.  Just as record federal deficits left for our children are fundamentally amoral, so too is leaving to chance the possibility that one more nut job has the chance to kill one more child.  If we turn a blind eye from the fate of these innocents, from the dedication and bravery shown by teachers, administrators, the police and others who witnessed the Newtown tragedy, we have failed a moral imperative that will forever jeopardize our Republic.

I have long believed that when the federal government attempts to control too much, it often fails.  But it is clearly time to look toward some sense of at least trying.  We need to be able to say that we did what we could, we didn’t just sit back and watch, we realized as a civilized society that government has a role and responsibility to try to keep these weapon away from those who would harm our innocents and take away our right to the pursuit of happiness.  Look to Newtown this day for a lack of happiness and the deep morass of loss, helplessness and ruin felt now by so many families.  The time to make uncomfortable choices is now.  We have an obligation.

Abraham Lincoln said it best:

“When an end is lawful and obligatory,

The indispensable means to it

Are also lawful and obligatory” 

The time has come for gun owners and defenders of 2nd Amendment rights to admit that an assault weapons ban is necessary and past due. For the GOP- and all of us who have fought for and will continue to fight for reasonable, responsible rights of gun owners - this is a chance to stand up and be part of a constructive dialogue. If we who understand this issue and believe in the 2nd Amendment most don’t fight for what is right, then our opponents will, and some of them believe the answer is to ban all guns. That too is an absurd alternative.  For who has more credibility, more moral authority on gun ownership this issue than we do?

Hilltopper

9:13 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Mr. Griffin,

Very well put.

I agree but I see the task of defining "Assault Weapons" being somewhat overwhelming to prevent the prohibition of all weapons under the Second Amendment

Dec 17, 2012, Hartford Courant:

"Bushmaster's civilian version of the military AR-15 rifle has a grim history, with links to the D.C.-area sniper shootings. But under Connecticut's firearms laws, considered strong by national standards, the lethal weapon that Lanza employed was perfectly legal to own.

By law, it's not even an assault weapon. Connecticut has an assault-weapons ban, modeled after a federal law that was enacted in 1994 before expiring a decade later. But it takes more than a dark fiberglass body and a menacing shape to fall under the ban."

In my opinion, this weapon has no use for the lawful sport hunter or any other use besides military or law enforcement use.

Regulation for these weapons are far overdue as well as reforms in the Mental Health System, as well as the violent Interent/Video Game Industry, Movie, TV and Music Industries that also glorifies violence, but I guess that infringes on one's First Amendant Rights---

Reply

No Longer interested

11:36 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Thank you for showing leadership in the GOP Mr. Griffin, the party is need of true conservative leadership, not neoconservative sloganeering or talking points.

I agree with very much what you say here, but I have two comments,
We need leadership in helping families deal with mental health issues. The government needs to help families with more resourses.
And, I haven't heard anyone in your political opposition calling for a complete ban of guns.

Reply

No Longer interested

11:37 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Finally, original thinking going on by someone in the GOP.

Reply

Proud Conservative

3:18 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Guns only kill people when they're in the hands of crazy people. Ban assault weapons and the crazies will kill people with small hand guns. And then what.....a move to ban hand guns? The basic problem is the nut jobs who are running free in society. Mentally unstable people who cannot live in and conform to the rules of society should be put away.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

5:41 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Can we send them to your house? That's the way it used to happen in the 1700's in NH - want to go back to that?
Can't we just try to get control of assault weapons, and do the other stuff to help the mentally ill also?
You can keep your rifle for protection and we can talk about the handguns (to be honest, I've been thinking about getting one myself for protection, but I'm probably going to go with the bear spray), but can we just try to ditch the weapons of mass killing?

Comment_arrow

Jan Schmidt

7:16 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

. There are no places for "crazy people" anymore. And that's just part of the problem.

Comment_arrow

Watts

5:41 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

It figures that PC would state something as ridiculous as this:

"Guns only kill people when they're in the hands of crazy people." Plenty of unskilled users have killed themselves, loved ones or strangers when handling guns and how many kids (like the 11 year old in Ohio this week) may find themselves with a relatives gun and while not being crazy, put themselves and others at risk. Or how many sane people simply loose control in a moment of passion or rage. They aren't crazy or all murderers would be let off for being insane.

PC, you take the cake in regards to making some of the most ignorant, rhetorical points that I have ever seen posted anywhere.

Reality Geezer

4:13 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Simple ---no weapons--no deaths from weapons. The mentally ill are the ones who need guns to feel powerful and safe. Grow a spine and get over it................

Reply
Comment_arrow

steve forte

4:38 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

And what about the 200 million already in circulation?

Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

5:35 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Nobody said it would be easy or quick - so we should just give up?
We've been reading posts about how this was not an "assault rifle", an "assault rifle" is an automatic weapon, which are no longer available since a ban was instituted in 1986. According to some, you can't even turn these modern weapons into fully automatic assault weapons anymore because the stuff you have to buy to do that is no longer available because it's been banned. At least that's what the experts on this patch of the internet say.
Hmmm....
So these folks are saying that we can't ban semi-automatic weapons and large clips because it won't work, but nobody can get automatic "assault weapons" anymore because they have been banned.
Huh - seems like a ban works after all.

steve forte

5:03 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Please explain that gem. How do you plan to "recall"

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jan Schmidt

8:45 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Don't do a recall,do a buy back. They just did that in Camden NJ and took in near to 2000 weapons.

That's how Australia began their plan to stop gun violence.

Steve From NH

5:46 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Just read the entire article.
Mr. Griffin thank you, thank you, thank you.
You have my vote and my undying respect and gratitude for the sentiments that you shared.

Reply

steve forte

6:33 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Steve if the ban you talk about above actualy does work, why are we discussing another ban? Probably because freaks just use a different weapon.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

6:54 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

We have bans in place to keep them from using all kinds of weapons. We can't ban cars and fertilizer, they have important, safe, and helpful uses. Although we don't ban them, we do spend much money and many resources to try to make sure they aren't used to kill people.
Are you saying we shouldn't do the same for assault rifles and high capacity magazines which are made specifically to kill in larger numbers, just so you can have some fun at the range or blow a gopher off the face of the earth?

steve forte

8:12 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

If someone has the intent to kill they will do it. The weapon is only the delivery meathod. One that will be replaced by another as long as that intent remains.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Atlant Schmidt

8:27 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Steve:

What other delivery method (short of explosive devices) allows the delivery of death 1) At moderately long range; 2) At a rapid rate, potentially killing one victim every few seconds; 3) Is so easily obtainable, quite likely from untraceable sources; 4) Is so easily portable; 5) Is so easily concealable; 6) Has the capacity to carry its means to kill hundreds within a small box of ammunition?

If you don't have access to RPGs, bomb vests, or Ryder vans full of ANFO, guns are head-and-shoulders above all of the other choices when it comes to mass murder.

steve forte

8:47 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

In the Gabriel Giffords case a pickup truck would have done the same.
A bomb ( the weapon of choice in Canadian biker wars)
A .223 varmint rifle with 2 smaller mags taped end to end
a shot gun with buckshot ( typicly 9 bullets in each x 5 shells is 45 hits)
a 22 marlin with an 18 shot tube
a sig 9mm with 20 round capacity and 2 extra mags

If we have no desire to fix the crazy , then we should just roll over and admit defeat.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Atlant Schmidt

4:36 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Steve:

So how often has a pickup truck been used as a weapon of mass murder?

(And, by the way, four of your other alternatives are, in fact, guns, which is what I was debating.)

Lisa Whittemore

4:49 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

These are America's children. We are discussing whether to take action to protect the lives of our American school children. Shall we take action; shall we stand up? Or, should we do nothing and wait until it happens it again? We have proven repeatedly our willingness to sit back and wait for the next horrific tale of slaughter to play across our tv screens and sear itself into our conscience. In this season of peace and hope, can we not together reach for some kind of justice? The souls of those children, so untimely taken from the hearth and home of their families, await our answer.

Reply

steve forte

6:52 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Atlant, a pickup hasnt been used yet because these freaks have not had to use one. When you take away the current weapon of choice they will move down the ladder to the next available weapon. Moonshine and smuggled booze is not used by alcoholics now as they can access real booze. Take them away and what do you think would happen.
Before anyone proposes legislation concerning guns or anything else, they need to look at human nature. If you need to get to work and your vehicle is dead what do you do? You take your wifes. If you cant you find something else , bicycle , ride from a friend ect. People improvise. If your only goal is to stop people from killing others with assault rifles then a assault rifle ban will work. If your goal is to keep people from killing other people then it needs to be looked at from another angle.

Reply

steve forte

7:32 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012

Atlant , as far as the second part of your comment I didnt realize you wanted to get rid of all gun. I thought the subject was on assault rifles. Apparently Jan was wrong when she said almost no dems want to get rid of all guns. Seems you , ray and don want to . Only about 20 people taking part in this thread . Lets say 1/2 on either side . So it seems about 30% of dems want to get rid of all guns.

Sorry Jan , cant get on board . You mentioned people beleive all dems want to get rid of guns because thats what repubs have been telling them. Truth is , they beleive it because they are reading it many dems are typing it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Atlant Schmidt

8:40 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Steve:

You would be wrong. I'm willing to leave hunting weapons, skeet shooting guns, target shooting guns, and the like, although I would create substantial restrictions on the transport and storage of those weapons and require regulation on the sale of ammunition for those weapons.

But yes, I would attempt to remove all handguns from private, non-LEO hands. The same for faux-military weapons. Other countries have done it and we could to.

Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

9:43 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Not a Dem (Ind) but I'm good with hunting rifles and handguns for self defense in the home (no, you can't bring them onto a playground, let's get real), as long as there is reasonable background checks, a waiting period - you really don't have to be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun.

Stephen D. Clark

11:26 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012

The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

An assault rifle is a weapon suitable for militias. I'd say that, by the lights of the Second Amendment, a ban against them can be struck down by the Scalia Court on constitutional grounds.

Since we no longer use well regulated, privately armed militias for national defense, though, the Second Amendment has outlived its original purpose. We should repeal it so that sane gun regulation for today's United States will be safe from constitutional challenge.

Proposed 28th Amendment: "Article 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Article 2. Congress shall have the power to regulate firearms."

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mike Healey

9:44 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Why not bring back Militias?
Local militias were patriots can train with and store their assault riffles.

Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

11:41 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

We already have militias I think, they're called The National Guard.

Comment_arrow

Stephen D. Clark

5:55 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012

National Guards members do not supply their own weapons.

steve forte

7:37 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

And Mr Clark proves my above point.

Reply

steve forte

8:49 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Just because other countries have done it fosnt mean we should.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

9:41 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Why not? If other countries have proven that you can reduce gun violence and deaths, why shouldn't we try to also? Do you really, truly need more than a handgun and a rifle for hunting and defense? Do you really, truly believe that the US govt and/or the UN is coming to get you? (or maybe the SkyNet computers?)
Does "American Exceptionalism" actually mean that we are exceptionally stupid?

Rick Jones

9:47 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Take notice that all the opponents of gun control, including our junior Senator Kelly Ayotte, have been meticulous not to use the words children, child, boys, girls, teachers, etc. in their statements and comments to news stories here and in scores of newspapers. Common sense would dictate that the safety of our children is job #1. Unforntunately, that is not the opinion of the gun industry supporters. Make no mistake, as far as the NRA and the gun manufactures are concened it's all about the money. The NRA is on paper a non-profit 501 C3 corporation. If so, why does the NRA pay Mr. Lapierre over #1 million a year. Why do the gun manufactures donate 2/3 of the $200 million NRA budget. It's all about the money. Sad, very sad.

Reply

Steve From NH

9:54 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Let's say we say "Uncle" to the NRA and agree that Joe and Jane Gunnut should be able to get their portable long range slaughtering devices (assault rifle, big clip, exploding bullets, etc.). It's all good, we just have to arm the teachers.
So, we should do some planning and start a list, 'cuz it's not just the teachers. I'm also assuming that we're going to stop this silly idea of gun-free zones, so it's not just the schools that are going to have to have some sort of arsenal.
I'll start the list, feel free to add to it, we don't want to miss anyone...

===================
Teachers
Judges
Soccer Coaches
Movie theater ushers
Mall vendors
Stadium vendors
Doctors and nurses
busboys and waiters
parking lot attendants
.....

Reply

steve forte

9:55 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Why not? Ill tell ya why not. Over 80% of gun crime victoms and suspects are famil;y and friends of democrats.The reason non dems dont want gun control is that we dont need it. Maybe the folks on the left should do a better job parenting and tell their kill simple things like not to kill other people.Its no lie that felons who have regained their right to vote vote democrat. Ever wonder why? They were democrats before they were convicted.
Just another example of democrats demanding the gvmt fix a problem they created to begin with.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Steve From NH

11:03 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

Do you just make this stuff up?
P.S. I am an outstanding parent.

steve forte

9:57 am on Friday, December 21, 2012

You guys should go after guns both on a state and federal level. Check in Bill Clinton and ask him how that worked out for him in 94.

Reply

steve forte

12:48 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012

After losing the house and senate. Did you forget that part?

No Steve ,I dont make it up. Prove me wrong.

Reply

Leave a comment