Saturday, Sep. 5, 2015    Login | Register           

Firearms discussion in 3 parts: Straight talk

Part I: Getting Firearms “Off the Streets”

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” He might just have rightly said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to be confusing.”

The discussion of any matter of public policy is not aided by using language in a confusing manner, and yet people rather routinely do this very thing. One of the most confusing statements one hears regarding firearms policy is this: “We need to get guns off the streets.”

I have heard this statement many times for many years, and I still have absolutely no idea what that means. One might as well say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.” There are (to my knowledge) no purple zebras, and there are no zebras of any color in the trees, so it simply would not make any sense to say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.”

Now, I have been driving an automobile for about four decades, and I have seen many things in the streets: I have seen children’s toys left in the street. I have seen children themselves playing in the street. On windy days I have seen trash cans rolling around in the street. I have seen dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, squirrels, and other animals in the streets.

But I have not once seen a firearm in the street. Firearms are not in our streets, and so it simply does not make sense to say we need to get them “off” the streets, since they are not on them in the first place.

So, when people say that we need to get firearms “off the streets,” what do they really mean? Well, they could mean a number of things — some of which I would agree with, some of which I would disagree with, and some of which I would be willing to consider.

I would agree with the expression if it meant this: “We need to do what we reasonably and constitutionally can to restrict the possession of firearms by those who will employ them violently.”

Yet, our current policies already address this; felons and those who have been adjudged mentally defective (and several other categories) are prohibited by law from possessing firearms, and I largely concur with such laws.

I would disagree with the expression if it meant: “We should prohibit absolutely all private ownership of firearms.”

Unfortunately, this is, in fact, what some people do mean by the expression; they simply have not the honesty and/or intellectual clarity to say so. Any policy that prohibited the private ownership of weapons absolutely would be unconstitutional and unwise.

As a third possibility, the expression could mean: “I would like to see the number of privately owned firearms in the United States reduced from 300 million to 250 million.” I would be willing to consider such a statement; and if a convincing case were made for it, I would be willing to agree to the policy.

But there can be little progress on the public-policy front if people insist on employing language that is non-sensical (language that simply does not make any sense if taken in a straightforward manner).

If people desire to eradicate entirely the right of citizens to own firearms, they should say so. If they wish (for whatever reasons) to reduce the total number of privately owned firearms, they should say so. And if they wish to try to prevent the private ownership of weapons by criminals or the mentally deranged, they should say that, too.

All three make sense; all three are clear; and all three could be discussed intelligently. Let’s start with honest language and then have an honest debate.

Part II: Firearms Buy-back Proposal

The debate over firearms includes a lot of confusing language and expressions. This is reflective of other forms of confusion in the debate, such as the common — but illogical — notion that reducing the number of firearms would have the effect of reducing their criminal use. Such an effect would not necessarily happen.

For the record, there are currently an estimated 250 to 300 million firearms in the country; nearly one for each of the 310 million people who live in the United States.

In 1978, I purchased a firearm, and it was the only firearm I owned for a number of years. I acquired some others, and at some point I probably owned 10 firearms. I committed no crime with one firearm, no crime with 10 firearms, and would not have committed a crime with 100 firearms.

On the other hand, if a violent or unstable individual had even a single firearm, he might likely commit a crime with it. So, the number of firearms privately owned in the United States does not, by itself, have anything to do with whether firearms are used to commit crime.

The moral character and psychological health of those who possess them has everything to do with whether they are inclined to commit crime.

Any policy designed to prevent evil or deranged people from possessing firearms is a well-intended policy — but any policy whose only effect would be to prevent harmless people from possessing them is unconstitutional, unproductive, and possibly even dangerous (since those individuals could no longer resist criminal acts with them).

I suspect that many people who are confused about increasing or decreasing the number of privately owned firearms are also confused about the language they use. They are probably the same people who talk about getting firearms “off the streets.”

While I believe it injures the discussion of public policy to be confusing, I do not object to cooperating in some ways with confused people, and so I would not object to the following proposal, as a concession to those who believe reducing the number of privately owned firearms would make us safer:

I would not object to a government-run, but privately funded, firearms buy-back program. If Mayor Bloomberg, Mrs. Brady, and others of their persuasion would sleep better at night if we reduced the total number of privately owned firearms in our nation, I would not object at all if they funded a government-run buy-back program.

If all the money they currently spend lobbying Congress were instead spent on a buy-back program, the number of privately owned weapons would be reduced, perhaps somewhat substantially. (Mayor Bloomberg could probably contribute $20-$30 million dollars to the project himself.)

As a taxpayer, I would not want a nickel of public monies to be expended on such a project, because I do not believe the number of privately owned weapons has anything at all to do with crime rates; but I would not object to other citizens, of their own volition, contributing voluntarily to such a program, nor would I object to the program enjoying the same tax advantages as charitable organizations enjoy.

If Mayor Bloomberg donated $20 million dollars to such a program, he should get the same tax deduction as he would if he gave the same amount to a church or to a synagogue.

Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that this proposal is not commonly discussed. On an issue where there appears to be little common ground, I believe substantial common ground could be found here. I doubt even the NRA would find the proposal objectionable; and I see no reason why Mayor Bloomberg (et al.) would object to such a project.

Wouldn’t those who say they believe that reducing the number of firearms would make us safer approve a program that would reduce the number? Indeed, wouldn’t such individuals prove the sincerity of their belief by contributing to it?

The only conceivable objection I could see to the proposal is that some people ordinarily prefer to achieve their ends with someone else’s money, but if the program were voluntary, I do not understand how or why they would object to it.

A voluntary, privately operated buy-back program is, it seems to me, a perfectly acceptable form of reducing the number of firearms.

Part III: “We Will Preserve Your 2nd Amendment Right to Hunt?”

One commonly recurring statement from gun-control forces, including in Congress and the White House, is the supposedly reassuring comment: “We will preserve your Second Amendment right to hunt.”

I will be generous here and assume that those who make such statements are prevaricating; it would be entirely too painful to believe that elected officials (or those who desire to become so) could be quite that ignorant.

The Second Amendment, after all, says nothing about hunting or about any other sporting uses for weapons. I would like to think that a junior high school student could easily write a paper on the matter and correctly conclude — on both textual and historical grounds — that the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting.

First, there is the textual issue: What does the amendment actually say? Does it say anything at all about hunting (or sporting uses for weapons)? Here is the text, in its entirety:

“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.”

Constitutional scholars remind us that the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”) is essential to the force of the amendment, and that the justification or preambulatory clause or clauses (“well regulated militia ... security of a free state”) need not be regarded as comprehensive.

That is, the non-infringed-upon firearms might be used for purposes in addition to the two that are expressly mentioned. Perhaps such firearms could be used for home or personal defense (the Supreme Court has said so in Heller), and perhaps they could also be used for hunting (no American court or legislature has ever criminalized hunting per se).

Having said this, the justification or preambulatory clause also cannot be dismissed; at a minimum, non-infringement of the right to keep and bear arms expressly addresses a militia and the security of free states. That is, the Second Amendment says nothing expressly about killing game animals, and everything expressly about killing humans.

On the basis of the text alone, it is entirely gratuitous to suggest that the Second Amendment says anything at all about hunting; and those who say they will preserve our “Second Amendment right to hunt” may as well say they will preserve our “Second Amendment right to throw Frisbees.”

Frisbee-throwing may or may not be helpful to our society, and it may or may not be a matter that needs to be addressed via legislation; but the Second Amendment does not address Frisbee-throwing, and it does not address hunting. It also says nothing about trapping game animals. “Traps” are not mentioned; “arms” are.

On two historical grounds, a clever junior high school student would also conclude that the Second Amendment does not address hunting. The one is fairly obvious: The various colonies had just completed a successful military campaign against their own former monarch, George III of Great Britain. The colonies sent militias to General Washington to employ as he saw fit in that military endeavor.

The framers of the Constitution may have had middle-aged memories, but surely they could not possibly have forgotten that just several years earlier the term “militia” was employed to describe those who killed British soldiers, not game animals (British or native). Game animals were no threat to “the security of a free state,” but humans wearing red coats were.

The Second Amendment (like it or not) protects the right of the several colonies (now states) to employ firearms to preserve their liberty and security against human tyranny or human aggression.

The clever junior high school student might also address a second, less obvious historical matter: We today, in our largely urban and agri-business setting, might be pardoned for assuming that hunting was a common way of providing nourishment in the 18th century, and that (therefore) the Second Amendment preserved the right to provide nourishment via hunting.

But the clever junior high school student would remind us that hunting was not the primary or ordinary manner of providing for nourishment at that time. The colonies were not hunter-gatherer, nomadic cultures (though many of the Native American cultures were); the colonies were agrarian cultures. They planted crops and raised livestock; some also trapped, and some hunted.

Raising livestock is far more predictable than trapping, and trapping is far more predictable than hunting (the trap does not need to be awake and in the woods at night, dusk, or dawn; it works around-the-clock).

While some colonialists may have augmented their diet with game, none would have depended entirely on it, and few would have done more than the occasional supplement. Fishing nets, cultivated vegetables and grains, traps, chicken yards, and fenced-in grazing land were the ordinary methods of providing sustenance during the colonial era.

When people therefore pledge to “preserve” our Second Amendment “right to hunt,” our proper response is that we do not need nor have any right to hunt according to the Second Amendment; the Second Amendment preserves the right to kill aggressive or tyrannous humans.

If people desire truthfully to relate the Second Amendment to hunting, they should pledge to “invent a Second Amendment right to hunt” rather than to preserve one.

[Dr. T. David Gordon is a professor of religion at Grove City (Penn.) College and a contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values (www.visionandvalues.org).] © 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Comments

JeffC's picture

I'm sorry. I hate to even comment but this guy is an idiot.

PTC Observer's picture

can say whatever you like here, it's a free country. Reference the Bill of Rights, which clearly are not "granted" rights by our government.

Mike King's picture

Calling this guy an idiot for expressing an opinion on a subject your dad wouldn't dare broach is indeed a stretch.
But opinions are like a......s, we all have them.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]I'm sorry. I hate to even comment but this guy is an idiot.[/quote]

Just for grins and giggles, can you elaborate?

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/nyt-watch-jimmy-carter-editorializes-on-... Watch: Jimmy Carter editorializes on assault weapons
</a>

<cite>Former President Carter did not have his facts straight in today’s editorial just as he didn’t possess competent leadership during his presidency. The assault weapons ban is simply an attack on the 2nd Amendment in an effort to slowly chop it away. It is only when we realize this that we learn from the plight of gun owners in Canada and the United Kingdom.</cite>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S. Lindsey's picture

Wow... using well reasoned arguments from a Educated well spoken DOCTOR means he is an idiot.

Why? Because he threatens your EMOTIONAL unreasonable non-argument of why Gun control will work,although it never has anywhere, except in Germany and it didn't work out to well for the people or the Jewish Community.

So his reasoned response to the Gun Control lobby means he is an idiot..?

OK, well we know Opinions are like Buttholes... everyone has'em and like your two responses they are usually full of crap.

Instead of calling him a idiot Jeff and your acolyte DM why don't you argue his points tell us why he is an idiot...or have you become more sniffle like and just attack the writer simply because you disagree?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

meanoldconservatives's picture

I guess acolyte is one possible description. I would offer up sycophant myself. DM did the same thing a few years back about a Thomas Sowell blog. Our also intellectually superior old friend Main Stream reacted hysterically to Sowell by calling him an idiot. DM quoted Main Stream's statement "Sowell is an idiot" and proudly exclaimed "Yup". No further explanation offered, just enthusiastically grabbed hold of a fellow liberal's coattails. Now she is chapping her lips on JeffC's butt.....

Ah yes, perhaps Main Scream Julie is limiting herself to her group of non-believers or some suchthing--and to think, she almost got to the church on time once to sit down with Mike King and I for a brewski!

meanoldconservatives's picture

Consider yourself fortunate. You might have found yourself baying at the moon one night with her and the other non-believers.....

Nah, don't think a session with her would have affected us at all. I'm just a hard target and Mike has long suffered from occasional frothings, normally precipitated by something Mayor Haddix says or does. A permanent cure for his affliction will be available in November!

S. Lindsey's picture

... I find it the height of hypocrisy for DM to call Dr. T. David Gordon an idiot for expressing his opinion all the while decrying anyone that doesn't agree with her as either a boob or a racist. Then she actually has the stones to come back and say.. [quote=DM] I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own.[/quote]

What astounds me is that she doesn't even realize that she does this ALL THE TIME. I guess being a Progressive means you don't have to make sense or have standards just so long as the "intention" is well placed.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

meanoldconservatives's picture

You know what they all say....."You hate most in others what you see in yourself".

And, you know what DM says....."I was a Democrat before Jeff Carter was born".

LOL, which she says a lot too.....

S. Lindsey's picture

.. in (sic) debates by a couple of posters the other day.. I guess the only explanation I have is I can't stand her ideology, I can't stand her Big Government solutions, I can't stand the Progressive Policies and the Socialism they try to emulate.

I have fought against her Progressive form of American Socialism for years that Social Democracy she thinks that we can do better then any other Country which have tried it only to fail time and time again...

I guess the fact that she either doesn't even recognize it for what it is or she knows very well what it is and endorses it is why I feel compelled to "debate" her ideology.

With this last election America has become a Social Democracy. We have lost the Republic. The next step of course is Socialism which Cass Sunstien wrote in his book 'Nudge'. He perfectly outlined the path using first the Cloward and Piven Strategy to over load the system, create crises and then use the overwhelming power of Government to "Nudge" us on the "Shining Path" of a Social Democracy. Once we have accepted the Government controls then we can be "shoved" into Socialism... His words not mine.

BTW- Who is Cass Sunstien? [quote=Salon.com]"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s <strong>closest confidants.</strong> Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s <strong>head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.”</strong> In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists."[/quote] Yes this is from Salon.com NOT a Rightwing Nut site.

This is who we have in Government... Nudging us along and the Sheeple that voted this last election just goes right along... Doesn't matter the cliff is right there in front of them.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

kcchiefandy's picture

...that DM's views, given her age, gender, and race, have been shaped over the years by the tumultuous social changes that have - particularly - affected her demographic(s) for the better? Civil rights and gender equality alone have seen great advances in equality during her developing and adult years. I believe this is the driving force for most of her posts/comments and, and many older folks are, she is stuck in her ways and doesn't want to change...even when confronted with facts and/or the obvious.

S. Lindsey's picture

I do believe her life experiences has molded her views.. doesn't make them right for the rest of us however. I completely understand we are all molded by our life experiences, however, that being said we can change.

I grew up a hardcore liberal. My Father was on the Governor's Staff of George Wallace and Lurleen Wallace. I grew up under the old time Democrat Society. I prowled the Halls of the Governors Mansion as a Child.. I also ran one of the campaigns for Don Siegelman a prominent Democrat from Alabama until he went to Prison that is... I used to get Christmas cards from him and his family for years.

I was totally immersed in Democrat/Liberal politics. So I know a bit about the Southern Democrats and who they were. BTW-they never switched to Republicans so the old time Racist Democrats stayed Racist Democrats..but that's for another time.

What happened.. I grew up. I changed. We can all change our views. Yes DM due to her age and life experiences have made up her core beliefs doesn't mean she has to takes those same beliefs to the grave however.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

kcchiefandy's picture

...but I just don't see that happening; the blinders are on too tightly.

S. Lindsey's picture

DM has the excuse of age, demographics and life experiences most of us did not have. For that she get's a pass 99% of the time.
Don't get me wrong I will still engage her but I realize I will never make her understand what she stands for is wrong for America.

Much like Gort, Lion, Jeff and a few others either they have never studied the effects of Socialism and why it is not right for us...OR... they know exactly what they are endorsing and want it. Either way those like me will always stand up and say no.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

1. Equal opportunity for all American citizens regardless of race, sex, religion, or political affiliation
2. Equal access for all American citizens to education; jobs;
3. Equal access to voting rights in every state of the United States
4. History of the United States taught honestly, including the contributions of all Americans, regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex.
5. An honest representation by our leadership when elected to halls of government.
6. A 'take-back' of our government from corrupt corporate leaders and elected officials by the legal electorate.

[quote]Don't get me wrong I will still engage her but I realize I will never make her understand what she stands for is wrong for America.[/quote]

Please elighten me, and explain to me what about the above (that I stand for) is wrong for America

I know that there are those who are not from my demographic or who have not had my experiences who have enjoyed an uncontested feeling of superiority and power in this country. I really thought with the integration of our communities, armed forces, business world, etc., that these supposed feelings of entitlement by sex and color had been on the road to correction.

[quote]Either way those like me will always stand up and say no.[/quote]

You, Talmadge, Wallace, Thurmund, and others tried. I'm looking forward to your answer.

Before you start - and put words in my mouth and others of my demographic- <strong>because I want to provide 'care' for others in the richest country in the world; because I support well-run medicare, medicaid, health care, etc. - I AM NOT A SOCIALIST</strong>. Many citizens in this country had/have relatives who survived socialism, communism, dictatorships, etc. If our country ever is victim to these 'isma and 'ships, it will be because we as free American citizens do not listen to and respect one another - and refuse to <strong>work diligently together</strong> to protect our republic and our democratic way of life.

Cyclist's picture

[quote=Davids mom]
Equal access for all American citizens to education; jobs;
[/quote]

Egad we agree on something tonight. It should be citizens and not illegals!!!!!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

S. Lindsey's picture

She makes no distinction between the two...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

OH BE QUIET SL!!

S. Lindsey's picture

...never not ever shall I be silent until my dying breath does take me from this mortal realm.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

And Charlton Heston?

S. Lindsey's picture

...and Malcolm X??????

WTH are you talking about?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

I hear that you are out of high school and possibly college. You don't see the relation of your <strong>'you wish'</strong> contribution and Charlton Heston? Oh well, you are not going to participate in a discussion or answer my question. Have fun - my vanilla answer stands. I'm through with participating with you. It was revealing. Thanks.

S. Lindsey's picture

...but like a Potato chip just can't help yourself from trying to take a bite can you?

Sorry your inference fell a little short of the remark...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

[quote=Skeezer]<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeezer">Skeezer</a> says: Oh well, you are not going to participate in a discussion or answer my question. Have fun - my vanilla answer stands. I'm through with participating with you.[/quote]

That's what losers do when they have lost the argument. Claim victory then quit.

It's a typical tactic of the left. You made a statement regarding freedom of speech that had absolutely nothing to do with Charlton Heston's famous "cold, dead hands" statement. The local race-monger tried unsuccessfully to correlate the two and when you didn't bite, she tried to make it sound like you were the one that is clueless. She then attempted (unsuccessfully) to cover up her own stupidity by trying to make you look like you didn't know what you were talking about and then refuse to debate the issue further. It's a typical left-wing, Alinsky tactic that just fell flat.

Cyclist's picture

I'm shocked!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The farmer by Dodge trucks. I miss that voice, that simple eloquence....go SF!!!

It was the LEGALS WHO elected Obama - and not illegal citizens who some use only for cheap labor in this country. They are a large part of our electorate - and not because of an illegal status, but because their forefathers were part of our 'country' before many areas became 'states', and their legal status implemented generations ago. But I'm glad we agree on 'something'. At least there might be a modicum of 'listening' going on here. GREAT SUPER BOWL HALF SHOW!! GO BYONCE!!

Cyclist's picture

sing. Oh, and she can shake that....... :-)

I got to be careful. The boss might be on to me.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

LOL!! IMO - the best commercial - AND GOD MADE A FARMER!!

TOUCHDOWN!! I bet the coaches parents are happy!!!

I was disappointed by the lack of diversity in the half-time show.

I must have missed something. They all looked like Americans to me! Especially poignant was the children's choir from Newtown accompanying Ms.Jennifer Hudson. She also lost family to gun violence. What a tremendous show of American unity from the football field, the commercials, the half time show and the stands. The world was watching - especially our American troops overseas - who represent the diversity of our country.

S. Lindsey's picture

Give me a few days and I will put together IN YOUR OWN WORDS opinions that you have expressed besides the vanilla ones you espoused above...

Oh and btw--nice shot lumping me in well known racist... shall I now compare you to Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Whatever you need. Life goes on.

S. Lindsey's picture

*

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Tried to explain; but failed because he fortunately has not been confronted with 'guns in the street'

[Quote]I have heard this statement many times for many years, and I still have absolutely no idea what that means. One might as well say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees.” There are (to my knowledge) no purple zebras, and there are no zebras of any color in the trees, so it simply would not make any sense to say, “We need to get purple zebras out of the trees[/quote]

I think your following statements show you do know what it means

[Quote]But I have not once seen a firearm in the street. Firearms are not in our streets, and so it simply does not make sense to say we need to get them “off” the streets, since they are not on them in the first place.[/quote]

Ahh - the proof of idiocy. Thanks for the essay.

S. Lindsey's picture

...for a "Teacher" sometimes you are rather dense either that are you are purposefully being obtuse using ad hominem attacks to try to belittle the writter and keep people from listening to his actual arguments..

His argument is words have meaning (you should know this already) thus his reference to the analogy of Purple Zebras... "Guns in the Streets" was his way of metaphorically giving an example of how lax we are using the English language to describe how we are euphemistically describing what is actually the issue..

Guns don't use Criminals..Criminals use guns. No amount of pantie twisting in DC is going to change that.... "Getting guns off the Street" is just a "morpheus" way of looking at a problem offering no solutions but giving the sheep something to munch on and make them happy...

Keep munching DM and Jeff it is after all one of the things Progressives do best.

This is another phase for you two that comes to mind...

<strong> It is better to be silent and be thought a fool.... then to speak and remove all doubt...</strong> Thanks to you two we have no doubts.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Criminals, mental health. Most people agree that looking at these two issues will help in keeping Americans from becoming victims of gun violence. Not dealing with these issues and yelling out Second Amendment rights is political posturing at it's worse. No one is confiscating guns in this country. No homeowner needs a weapon designed to kill a military squad in a few seconds in his/her home. IMO. The112th Congress under the control of the 'do nothing's of this country will go down as the most destructive example of 'leadership' that the US has had in a long time. Almost all Americans agree it is important to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who need help with a mental disease. I was a Democrat before Jeff Carter was born. I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own. In discussion on this blog, it is easy to fall into that style of communicating. Living with'guns in the street' is why I carried for years in LA. The guns were not in the hands of law abiding hunters or collectors, but in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. I hope that laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are enforced when enacted. I hope that weapons capable of killing 20+ humans within 30 + seconds are issued for military purposes only. The English language has many 'idioms'. Purple zebras/guns in the streets - idiocy when referring to a very serious problem in our country. I congratulate those who are serious about finding a solution to an obvious problem.

Definition of idiom:
an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.

Definition of ironic: containing or exemplifying irony

Definition of irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of the literal meaning

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]Criminals, mental health. Most people agree that looking at these two issues will help in keeping Americans from becoming victims of gun violence. Not dealing with these issues and yelling out Second Amendment rights is political posturing at it's worse.[/quote]

I totally agree. So how come our current leaders didn't do something about mental illness in this new gun ban attempt?

[quote] I hope that weapons capable of killing 20+ humans within 30 + seconds are issued for military purposes only.[/quote]

Funny isn't it that in Switzerland 75 - 80% of all homes have these types of weapons in them and that is the country with the lowest crime rate? Even beyond that these guns account for less than 3.5% of all gun crimes yet this is what this administration wants to attack?

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

The inoperative word here IMO is 'leader'. I wish that someone had an answer to your question that would lead us to a reduction of gun violence in our country. I do feel however that in many areas, comparing our country to Switzerland is 'almost' like comparing apples to oranges . We have some unique issues regarding the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership and 'power'. (That is a whole 'nuther' discussion.)

G35 Dude's picture

I agree that there are differences between the US and Switzerland but all I'm saying is that the problem is not the weapon. Or Switzerland would have more problems than we do.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Agreed.

[Quote]I totally agree. So how come our current leaders didn't do something about mental illness in this new gun ban attempt?[/quote]

While listening to the Senate hearing, I heard reps from both 'sides' of the issue indicate 'mental illness' as an area to look at. It is true that it is easier to get a gun than to get treatment for mental illness for a loved one.

G35 Dude's picture

[quote]While listening to the Senate hearing, I heard reps from both 'sides' of the issue indicate 'mental illness' as an area to look at. It is true that it is easier to get a gun than to get treatment for mental illness for a loved one.[/quote]

Rhetoric is not action.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Agreed. I think this is the main reason for so little respect for the 112-113th Congress and our political parties. One party feels secure and empowered; the other party is changing 'rhetoric' looking forward to the next election - and not the welfare of the American people - IMO

S. Lindsey's picture

[quote=Davids mom]I resented then and resent now persons who must belittle another's opinion in order to express their own. [/quote]

[quote=DM]The idiot[/quote]

[quote=DM]Ahh - the proof of idiocy. Thanks for the essay.[/quote]

The fact that you can say what you said and then come back and say you resent people belittling another's opinion all the while calling the person offering an opinion an Idiot and can do it all on the same posting only proves that you are indeed madame the Queen of Hypocrisy.

The fact that you can write BOTH of these sentences and not realize that you are in fact doing the very same thing you say you resent is amazing.

My God DM at least be consistent.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

I also said;
[quote] In discussion on this blog, it is easy to fall into that style of communicating[/quote]

Unlike some, I admit that I too show a tendency to reacting ignorantly to some comments.. Most read an entire sharing - instead of picking and choosing to emphasize their own perfection. I can't argue with your self perception- you are 100% correct! SL, believe it or not, most don't care what either of us 'think'.

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Government

The qualifying period for municipals elections is complete. With that, the November election will see contested races in Peachtree City, Tyrone, Senoia, Fayetteville and Sharpsburg.

Sponsored Content

Opinion

In her book, “Kitchen Table Wisdom,” Dr. Rachel Remen tells the true account of a father and son who used to go mountain climbing together. Once they began their ascent, all conversation ceased.

Sports

Starr's Mill 31, Fayette County 14 Whitewater 14, Banneker 0 Sandy Creek 49, Hampton 6 East Coweta 24, Harrison 10 Northgate 56, Troup 6

Lifestyle