Prior to this post, I had discussed my Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment. But today, my focus is on an interchange I had on Friday, 2 October 2015 and how every time there is a “shooting” somewhere in the United States, we are subjected to the remonstrations of the Left about the need to “control guns.”
“One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. 31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns. – John Oliver
Such was the quote posted to the Facebook wall of a friend of mine the day after the shooting that occurred at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on 1 Oct. 2015 at approximately 10:30 AM PDT.
This flippant statement by the 38-year-old who has yet to hold a legitimate job in the real world rings hollow with me for a number of reasons.
(For those unaware, John William Oliver is a British American comedian, political commentator, television host, and occasional actor. He is more known for his satirical podcasts and The Daily Show with John Stewart as its Senior British Correspondent.)
It is quite sad to see that Americans actually seek out how to think about the world around them from pretend comedians instead of real people with education in the fields being discussed. Those who know me, know why I can actually discuss these topics. Those of you who do not, take some time and learn about me.
If this discussion really was about the inanimate objects called guns, the 25,000+ laws we currently have on the books that regulate guns should be way more than enough to resolve this issue. Yet those laws have done nothing except limit and deny the accessibility to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, criminals – that is people who do not follow laws to begin with and actively seek ways to circumvent laws to fulfill their own whims and desires – obtain guns on a regular basis by any method they want.
Thus, let us begin by educating ourselves in a cogent and logic manner regarding guns. It behooves everyone to realize these facts about guns: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
Additionally, we all need to face this reality: There is no such firearm as an “assault weapon”. Understand that, as badly as the Leftists and others who want to control all aspects of each person’s life wish there was such a thing, there is not now, nor has there ever been an “assault weapon”. Everyone needs to take about five minutes to educate yourselves on the phrases you are using by understanding the content at http://www.assaultweapon.info.
This legal fiction of a term was created for the express purpose of striking fear in the hearts of those who hate to hear of violence of any sort. Hearing that a person “used an assault weapon” to kill other people is always going to be more frightening than hearing that a person used a “rifle” or a “shotgun” to kill someone else. If we are going to play the word game, we can also call shoes “assault weapons” when a person uses them as a weapon to assault another person. We can call iPhones or a Samsung Galaxy an “assault weapon” when it is used to strike a person.
The Narrative being fed the American public is a lie. Understand that reality. There is no classification of firearm as an “assault weapon.” There are firearms; those are handguns, shotguns, and rifles. That is all.
Controls and Limits
As with any debate, there will always be a desire to control or limit the access people have to certain inanimate objects under the supposition the inanimate object is the problem. I have yet to see a gun physically act out by loading itself, releasing its own safety and then activating its own trigger while pointing itself in the direction of a person.
Yet there is this boisterous noise from the Left demanding controls and limits of guns. Consider the following:
How “small” do you want to go? Right now in NJ we’re limited to 15 rounds for rifles and 6 rounds for shotguns. That had been as low as 10 and 4 respectively through Federal law enacted in 1994. … And guess what! Columbine happened in 1999 WHILE. THE. LAW. WAS. ACTIVE. So how’d that work out?
Mandating a reduction in the number of rounds that can be held in a mag doesn’t change the fact that a person seeking to kill others is still out on the loose with that device. At the same time, the person who has worked hard through all the rules and laws to own a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, is now limited in the firepower they have to defend themselves and their family. Yeah, that’s perfectly sensible.
Limiting the number of guns a person can purchase.
This is as sensible as limiting the number of cars or computers a person can own. Cars can kill people too when driven irresponsibly or not maintained appropriately. Computers can be equally harmful when in the hands of an individual who has knowledge to use the computer to hack servers for nefarious purposes.
Just because you, individually, do not have an interest in owning more than one car or computer device does not justify a demand on your part to limit the ability of ownership by someone else. Likewise, you do not have a perceived “right” to deny someone else the ability to own guns or maintain a collection of guns.
More thorough background checks.
You do realize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System which is managed by the FBI has been in existence for over a decade. You also know that every Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL) must use this system prior to completing a sale of a firearm, right? ( https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics ) Of course, I don’t think the deals that go down on Throop Street in New Brunswick, or the ones in Chicago, or the ones in Newark will take time to use NICS. And no amount of mandated “thoroughness” is going to change that.
Yet we continue to hear the claim that “bad people” get guns by buying them from alleged “good people” who buy them in bulk to sell them. There is one significant failure in that assumption. The FFL, or “good person”, must enter three distinct pieces of information for each firearm in the NICS: the information required on ATF Form 4473 which is all of the personal information of the buyer, the permit number, and the license number, both of which are issued by the local PD.
In fact, most guns found in various “inner cities” are simply hot or stolen from just outside the crime’s location. The sale was made just outside the city, then either stolen or made available via the 3rd party for a strict cash transaction. Certainly, “guns ALL come from someplace.” It’s just not from where you want them to in order to justify The Narrative.
Stiff fines for retailers that don’t conform to the background checks.
No amount of threats against a retailer is going to change the intent of the actor. If someone decides to off a bunch of people, it’s going to happen regardless of how many words are spewed on legal docs. If the person who is seeking to do harm to others cannot get a gun, they will find other means. It will not be the gun seeking to do that harm. It will continue to be the person.
Fines imposed on parents/households that do not secure their firearms properly.
More carbon on dead trees. Once more, if/when a person wants to get to something, they will.
And what happens to the person who – in all-law-abiding effort – locks down his/her gun in a gun safe and has the safe ripped out of the secure closet by a thief only to have the gun used without their permission to take out an unarmed security guard in a “gun-free zone.”
How about the father who loses three kids and his wife or the mother who loses her husband and kids because s/he has to unlock the gun while marauders are breaking in? Oh yeah, that’s okay because the gun was secured.
The Second Amendment was never meant for large suburban areas.
If you took the time to actually understand 2A, you would comprehend those rights were absolutely intended for cities, towns, and suburbs where the Colonists had been stripped of their rights of self-defense by the Crown for the same reason our rights are under attack now: C O N T R O L.
Sadly, it is clear many people have reduced themselves to the point of just mouthing the opinions instilled in them by people that are assumed to be right because they have instilled fear in them. Many people in this discussion have decided to forego doing any empirical research. Rather, they seek out emotional, non-sensical responses that equate with their equally emotional response to the situation.
It is always so fascinating to see how people will jump at the chance to control, limit, or outrightly deny access to inanimate objects, but will refuse to address the needs of the person who is psychiatrically unhinged. But of course that happens because it is far more difficult to work with a person to come to understand the standards that have established within Society and Culture. It is much more challenging to bring the person or people to the level of understanding at which they come to value humanity as what it is: the handwork of God.
When I posit these comments, there is the inevitable backlash of twists and manipulations of my words in a vain attempt to make it read/sound as if I am now somehow denying people a right to say something. For example:
So, according to you, Marc, I can’t voice my opposition to
gun nuts endorsing and supporting the mass slaughter of
Americans on pretty much a weekly basis because I don’t
know the terminology? A big F YOU to you.
Notice the shrill invective of emotion devoid of rational thought? Still it is essential to remain calm. Thus, I respond,
Do not put words in my mouth; that is actionable in both defamation and libel. I did not state you “can’t voice [your] opposition”. You are more than welcome to say whatever you want under 1A.
All I seek is honesty in the statements that are made. That includes the terminology that is being used in the discussion. The fact you are now trying to twist the words I have written to justify yourself shows you are not interested in either debate or discussion. You solely want to see The Narrative propagated. That, Sir, is the action of a narcissist.
More invective is spewed forth as follows:
You’re liar and a stooge and a jackass. And assault weapons
DO kill people, whether you choose to acknowledge that FACT
or not, just because I don’t use terminology YOU approve of.
My response is simple:
And now you are back to name-calling. Mature please. It would do wonders in your standing in the debate.
Once more I will state: there is no such firearm as an “assault weapon”. Understand that, as badly as the Leftists and others who want to control all aspects of each person’s life wish there was such a thing, there is not now, nor has there ever been an “assault weapon”. Everyone needs to take about five minutes to educate yourselves on the phrases you are using by understanding the content at http://www.assaultweapon.info
A Reasonable Proposal
But within this thread, there was a challenge to present my own proposal on how to address so-called “gun violence.”
My proposal to address this matter is two-fold.
1) Mandate that every American citizen born in this Country – not those who are naturalized – complete Army basic training starting at the age of 16 to 18.
Men train with men; women with women. Continue this expectation by having each person serve two tours of duty, one state-side, one international. Upon return from the second tour, the person will complete a psychological shakedown that evaluates them for both psychological issues and mental toughness. Those who have actually had training in the field know the value of and how to conduct such a test. Based upon those two elements, the person is provided re-entry to the Society with the understanding they may be called upon at any time to aid in the defense of the area or region in which they choose to live. At that time, a volunteer request may be made to shift to one of the other branches of the Armed Services.
Those individuals found with mental concerns would be directed to legitimate counseling and care. This effort is not the band-aid stuff claimed as acceptable today. It would be the highly-intensive management that actually supports the person to return to a normal life. Once completed, while the person may return to active civilian life, the option to own a firearm would be restricted to that of a naturalized citizen as described below.
2) Involve the person in a once yearly retraining in the use of the three types of firearms: handguns, shotguns, and rifles within their region. The person is welcome to train more often if they wish.
Upon successful completion of Part One, the person may buy one of each type of firearm, each year. Upon recertification in Step Two, the guns that have been purchased may be retained. If Step Two is failed at any time, the gun collection is to be turned over until Step Two is passed. When failed three times consecutively, all guns are forfeited. If the guns are owned by a family as part of a collection, the family maintains the guns understanding the individual may not be involved in their use at any time. (Yeah, it’s so scary that I’m actually willing to trust people to abide by this. But given the fact so many others will have their own firearms, it’s a healthy risk to take when the people are governed by mutual trust, not fear and hatred which we have now.)
Those who are naturalized citizens will also have their opportunity. It comes in the form of being sponsored by an American born citizen with a minimum of five years recertification. Both individuals must also remain in the same area of the country for a period of one decade. (It’s called stability. Try it sometime, it is a wonderful thing that builds the aforementioned trust.)
I’m sure this simple plan is terrifying to many of you reading it because you either abhor the military or don’t trust other people. Guess what? That’s where the real problem is. The misanthropes among you who selectively hate on other people who don’t agree with you are going to need to mature and learn what that means. The misogynists are going to need to finally realize your hatred is part of this problem. Those who love to practice misandry will have to recognize your culpability in this matter as well. Those leftists who hate conservatives because we do not accept your licentious behavior will need to recognize why. Conservatives need also be aware we cannot dismiss concepts that are new solely because of the newness. We need to recognize that which is not immoral or unethical may have merit and can be incorporated into a healthy society. Yet we are more than justified to disagree with and stand up to the actions of another that actively harms or degrades the already established Culture and Society that had been the foundation for our Country since the 1700’s.
* * *
The response by the same individual who screamed before?
You really think your Republican overlords would support this?
THEY are the ones doing everything they can to duck military service.
*sigh* Clarification is thus needed. So…
First off, I am hardly a “Republican” of today’s claim. For decades, I have been the most frightening type of individual to both Establishments. My life is governed by the standards of traditional, pro-life, fiscal and social conservatism.
Second, I don’t seek “support” of my ideas. That is too Establishment. Rather, I pursue and attain agreement first, followed by consensus and finally willful implementation.
Let’s be frank and realistic:
Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun. Yet he killed 168 innocent people including 19 children under the age of 6. He injured over 680 innocent people. Yet we can all still buy fertilizer, racing fuel, and rent box trucks.
Face reality: murderers – those seeking to harm many others – will murder with or without guns. Guns are not the “problem.”