The debate: then and now

This July 4th marks 240 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the beginning of a long and difficult war for independence from Great Britain. The reasons why the colonial Americans sought their freedom from British rule are many and varied, but taxation and poor treatment by British authorities are among those commonly mentioned.

There was also some measure of gun control involved here as well. If you remember your American history, you know the phrase, “the shot heard around the world,” refers to the British attempt to confiscate a store of firearms and powder in the Lexington/Concord area of Massachusetts. A small group of militia hastened to defend that arsenal and, quite frankly, had their butts kicked by the British regulars sent to do the confiscating.

This marked the literal beginning of the warfare that eventually led to the founding of our country as a nation.

Let’s fast forward to today’s America. There’s been a lot of media time given to various gun control measures since the Orlando killing spree. The same calls for restrictions erupted after the San Bernardino shooting. The Democrats in Congress staged their sit-in to demand a vote on gun control.

Most of the media reports have focused on the perceived need to eliminate private ownership of the AR-15 style firearms used in both referenced shootings. I find it ironic that the media has argued for this gun control measure and downplayed the fact that both shootings were done by terrorists. Not much time was spent is reporting about the failure of our national security agencies to monitor these known Islamic radicals.

I have read some opinion pieces in the media saying how the Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing private ownership of semi-auto firearms when they were writing the Second Amendment. I would beg to differ!

America had just finished a war for independence with a foreign government. Americans living on the western frontiers of the country had to deal with Indian raids, no established law enforcement, and other localized threats. With this knowledge still fresh in the Founding Fathers’ minds, the Second Amendment was written specifically to assure the citizens of the newly established United States that they would have the ability to resist tyranny from either foreign or domestic threats, and provide for their own personal protection using armed force. At the time, Americans had access to the same types of firearms available to any military anywhere in the world.

I think the intent of the Second Amendment was to assure the citizenry the ability to meet force with equal or nearly equal force.

Some of the opinion pieces have finally started to recognize that the person misusing the firearm is responsible for the crime, not the firearm itself. They still want to ban AR-15 style guns, but they are beginning to see where the problem really lies.

Any law restricting a person’s ability to own or purchase a firearm must be balanced with a system allowing that person to seek restoration of their rights when a mistake has been made. Rep. Don Young was on the “no fly” list for a time, yet I doubt he would be considered a terrorist. People with mental health issues need an improved system to provide help.

Significant upgrades need to be made to criminal and mental health records reported to the national firearms background check data base. National security agencies need to quit being “politically correct” in their monitoring of known or suspected terrorists. Strict enforcement of existing firearms laws needs to happen automatically, not just when the government feels like doing so.

The recent terrorist bombing in Istanbul was reported as a terrorist attack, yet the perpetrators were using fully-automatic firearms prior to detonating their bombs. Timothy McVey used fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill over 150 people in Oklahoma. If you use a bomb, does that make the criminal act one of terrorism yet if you use a firearm that mandates increased gun restrictions?

That makes no sense!

I generally have no interest in the many military look-alike firearms on the market today. I do own a couple of these style firearms because I enjoy shooting them, competing with them, and hunting with them. Yes, the AR-15 style firearm or MSR (modern sporting rifle) is a useful hunting firearm for predators, hogs, deer or whatever. Are there better firearms styles suited to these hunting pursuits? Not necessarily. It all depends on what you like!

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This column is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman or its parent company, Wick Communications. You can leave Delo a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.