Saturday , 26 July 2014
Breaking News
There possibly is a middle ground in gun control
R. Kenneth Bluh

There possibly is a middle ground in gun control

R. Kenneth Bluh

Once again the question of strict gun control or no gun control has hit our headlines.

This time, with the Aurora, CO shooting that killed 12 and injured more than 50 at the opening night of the Batman sequel, it has brought out those who want to eliminate all individual gun ownership in America and those that feel that the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns — any type of guns.

Like it or not we will never forbid the ownership of guns nor will the right to own unlimited weapons continue to be guaranteed. The question is: Is there a middle-ofthe- road approach that all, or at least the majority of Americans, will support?

First, the right to own guns will remain part of our constitutional guarantees. Second, we must accept the fact that hunters and individuals at firing ranges do not need assault weapons, such as an AK47, that would not just destroy a target, but missing the target, would destroy the entire firing range.

I have friends that go hunting in Wyoming every year. Asked if they would like an AK47 to hunt elk, they laugh. Not only do they bring home trophies to hang in the family room, but they fill their garage freezers with wild game meat to enjoy the entire year. An AK47 would end the idea of bringing home the “meat;” there wouldn’t be meat left to bring home.

The question that is more difficult to answer is: What are the appropriate limits to individual gun ownership and who would monitor them? Certainly, almost everyone would admit that if an individual buys, from three different sources in a very short period of time, three weapons including an AK47, he or she must be anticipating more that hunting elk in Wyoming or practicing at the local gun club.

Gun ownership registration by the federal government or state government is looked upon as the first step to total gun control and is totally unacceptable to a great number of Americans. And, at least half the country would not buy such a proposal — even if its sole purpose was to keep individuals from stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

However, like it or not, registration is the only way to prevent gun and ammunition accumulation from taking place. If not the government, then who could monitor gun and ammo control?

The National Rifle Association!

The NRA believes in the right to bear arms. They also advocate, in addition to their main goal the defense of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, education and the proper and safe use of firearms.

So let’s ask the NRA to step up to the plate and establish a private program that will monitor gun accumulation, buying sprees for short periods of time, that would give them the ability to see who was creating arsenals and put an end to additional gun and ammunition sales to that individual. The NRA would alert all gun dealers, flea markets and gun shows to discontinue sales to that individual.

And, government would not participate.

The NRA would know that the whole nation was watching its performance. Backers of the right to bear arms would be intently watching to make sure that the NRA got it right in order to keep government out of the registration process. It also would placate the other side, which would acknowledge and recognize that someone is watching for massive accumulations of weaponry such as the recent shooter who had accumulated thousands of rounds of ammunition in a short period of time, enough to arm a small army.

Don’t like the idea of NRA participation? Okay, let’s hear your suggestion. As long as both sides, those in favor of unlimited gun ownership and those who want to limit gun ownership to the military, will not meet in the middle, with suggestions good or bad, we will continue to see disasters such as we experienced in Aurora, CO a few weeks ago.

Let me hear from you with your ideas, Send e-fax to 786-441-4059 or email to KBluh@AmericanBSM.com

We appreciate your opinions on this column whether in agreement or disagreement. Please send your comments to (fax number) 305-662-6980 or email to letters@communitynewspapers. com The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this newspaper, its editors or publisher.

3 comments

  1. I object most strenuously to some of the "information" Kenneth Bluh uses in his latest political hackjob, I mean piece. I took it at face value, but if it was meant as humor I will apologize as I missed it.

    "Second, we must accept the fact that hunters and individuals at firing ranges do not need assault weapons, such as an AK47, that would not just destroy a target, but missing the target, would destroy the entire firing range."

    It appears that Bluh has confused a low powered rifle cartridge with a cannon shell, apparently fired from a battleship. It would take at least that large of an explosive cannon shell to destroy any of the many ranges I have fired on. A brief investigation into current laws (which I suspect would involve leaving the interesting fantasy world Bluh has invented in his head) would easily prove that, 1: people are not able to purchase 16" + cannon shells at any gunshop in the U.S.A., or anywhere else. 2: People are not physically strong enough to carry a 16” barreled cannon by themselves. Also the recoil would remove your shoulder at the least, if you could. 3: People are not attempting to use said cannon shells to hunt deer, elk, pheasant, paper targets, politicians, or journalists with delusions of competency. That the last 2 are not occurring may be a critical defect the the American mindset, or just a reflection of tolerance beyond stupidity.

    (Continued)

  2. "I have friends that go hunting in Wyoming every year. Asked if they would like an AK47 to hunt elk, they laugh. Not only do they bring home trophies to hang in the family room, but they fill their garage freezers with wild game meat to enjoy the entire year. An AK47 would end the idea of bringing home the “meat;” there wouldn’t be meat left to bring home."

    Below is a list of 'specifications'. Specifications is a multi-syllable word that is used by people who are actually responsible for the accuracy of what they write and say. It would appear to me that Bluh is not one of these people.

    Cartridge
    AK-47 (7.62×39):123 grain projectile at 2400 feet per second.
    154 grain projectile at 2100 feet per second.

    .30-30: 130 grain projectile at 2500 feet per second.
    150 grain projectile at 2400 feet per second.

    .30-06150 grain projectile at 2900 feet per second.

    .270150 grain projectile at 2850 feet per second.

    Please note that both the .30-30 cartridge and the .30-06 cartridge have been in use for over 100 years, and the .270 is getting close to that. All of these cartridges have been used to humanely harvest elk by hunters, and are still used today.

    For those who can't remember (or didn't pay attention to) high school physics (attention Kenneth Bluh!), Kinetic Energy is calculated by squaring the velocity of the object, multiplying it by the mass (weight), and dividing by 2. KE = (½) * m * (v)^2. I believe it's still in physics textbooks today. It will take intensive argument, hand wringing, arguing, politicizing, whining, poll taking, and ignoring of the laws of physics by journalists of Bluh's caliber, but the rest of people who are over 5 years old can look it up online, if they can't find a physics textbook.

    Specifications and terms such as kinetic energy are used by people to attempt to accurately measure things, as opposed to gauge measurements by the “I have a feeling” calculation, which involves guessing, BS'ing, and random number multiplications on a scale that can only be estimated by perhaps 5 supercomputers in the world.

    You'll note if you do those calculations (or find a website that can do them for you) that the AK-47 round is no more powerful (and significantly less so than some cases ) than those antiquated cartridges that people like Bluh's rumored friends' use every year to hunt elk, and they magically have plenty of meat in their freezers. Is there a rational real world explanation for this? Or, more “I have a feeling”?

    “Certainly, almost everyone would admit that if an individual buys, from three different sources in a very short period of time, three weapons including an AK47, he or she must be anticipating more that hunting elk in Wyoming or practicing at the local gun club.”

    Why would anyone with a double-digit IQ or better “admit” this? There are plenty of reasons this could be happening without any dark, sinister purposes in mind. For instance, replacing your firearms lost in a house fire after the insurance check arrives. Transferring firearms that your uncle from another state left you in his will. Or perhaps starting into 3 gun competition after trying it out with friends a month ago. Can you guess how many guns are used in a 3 gun competition? Psssst, hey Bluh, it's 3! Cowboy shooting is even worse, it takes 4!

    “However, like it or not, registration is the only way to prevent gun and ammunition accumulation from taking place.”

    The reason we know that these guns were purchased legally is that the firearms purchased were registered. That didn't seem to stop the shootings.

    “So let’s ask the NRA to step up to the plate …”

    So if you have an idea that is so stupid even the government won't do it, it's now someone else's responsibility to do it? Why don't you do it Bluh?

    “As long as both sides, those in favor of unlimited gun ownership and those who want to limit gun ownership to the military, will not meet in the middle, with suggestions good or bad, we will continue to see disasters such as we experienced in Aurora, CO a few weeks ago.”

    As long as we have people, we will have situations like Aurora. Evil cannot be legislated away. You cannon whine evil into submission, you must stand against it, even if you are the only one there. Once can whine about the tools they used, but Oklahoma City was done without guns, as was 9/11. Fancy pieces with this with fictional “information” and “sources” do not help us solve the problem of evil. Perhaps we should start with solving the problem of stupidity first.

  3. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting