More Notes from an Unrepentant Lefty: Why is it that neither I nor President Obama Want to Take your Gun

In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut, December 14, 2012, I guess that I have a few thoughts to share.

I can remember speaking with my grandfather years ago; he is still living at 99. What does that portend in regards to my longevity? He was raised in Louisiana and East Texas and told us these accounts in his teens that he remembered vividly of Bonnie and Clyde at large in the area during the early 1930’s. Paying attention to my fascination with his brush with history, he tended to embellish the stories each time just a bit more. If we continued, he probably would have told me that he was actually a member of the “Barrow Gang” at some point.

When I reflect on his words in the light of this recent tragedy, as he is not so coherent today, I come to a conclusion or two which I hope to go into as part of this article. Even in the depths of the Depression Era South, everybody knew that there was a clear line drawn between the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. In a region of the country and at a time where most everybody was armed, there was far less danger than can be found in our most bucolic suburbs today.

As a young man, I paid a visit to London, England during the late 1970’s with great anticipation and full of curiosity and questions. When I was at a bank exchanging dollars for pound (sterling), I started a conversation with a ‘bobbie’ (police officer). I was curious as to why he was armed only with a baton rather than the standard firearm worn by his American counterpart. He told me that in their society to assault a law enforcement officer was ‘below the belt’ and that even the criminal element played within certain rules of behavior. I guess the best word that I can find to describe this is ‘civility’. There were some things that people just did not do and an entire society and culture were based on this commonly held understanding. However, 1978 was long ago, and things could have changed. But that moment was profound and explained the real difference between homicide rates in the U.S and those of Britain and to a large extent Western Europe.

After conferring with the politically left and right regarding this issue, I like to think that I have evolved in my viewpoint on this matter.

Where the Conservatives are Correct

The point many of them make is true that even though this particular instance of mass murder with firearms is most heinous, relative to the instances of gun violence across the nation in general, it is statistically insignificant.

Even though Hawaii has the least amount of gun ownership and Wyoming has the most, I do not see Wyoming as a hotbed of firearm related crimes and violence. I lived in Southeastern Montana for 2 to 3 years and the hunting culture was the overriding theme. These guys promised to take me snipe hunting with them, someday. Guns were everywhere but so were respect and responsible behavior. The vast majority of the people that own firearms are responsible law abiding members of society. It is not fair to penalize these people for the abuse of less than a few.

We live in a violent society and there is a legitimate need for people to arm themselves against intruders in their homes, for example. The ‘make my day’ laws and ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ practices do have their place.

Banning ownership of firearms is a mere band-aid to a far deeper problem. We are going to find ways to continue to kill one another, regardless. Civility is what keeps us from killing one another, not restricting the implement as to how that is accomplished. Perhaps we need to look at ourselves rather than the implement.

For all of us the 2nd Amendment is part of the foundation that our country was built upon and for many tampering with it is akin to touching God’s eyeball. We all have to work together to avoid the draconian.

Where Progressives Prevail

First of all the comments I have been hearing from conservative pundits on television are ridiculous. If the teachers and administrators were all armed they could have killed the assailant during the Connecticut tragedy. The idea that we provide six shooters for six year olds is not very appealing. Living in a Dodge City, Tombstone or Virginia City environment is indication of a society devolving. That is NOT an acceptable solution.

While, statistically, events like the Connecticut tragedy are exceedingly rare, there is nothing in place to prevent its like from occurring every other weekend. Those that cherish their gun possession rights need to recognize that the status quo is not good enough.

Increasing criminal penalties for such crimes have little or no deterrent effect on the criminally insane as they are just as likely to take their own lives in commission of these crimes.

I am not going to buy as some on the right have suggested that violence depicted in the media “Hollywood” bears some responsibility. The First Amendment is sacrosanct for me, anyway.

More discussion from the right reveals an idea that possession of firearms is based on need to oppose an oppressive government. That is so 18th century. It sounds today much more like an anticipated insurrection against legitimate elected government by those in the minority that do not agree with the majority, and there is a word for that ‘treason’.

So Where is the Compromise?

President Obama, contrary to the rants from the right, has carefully stepped around the issue over his first term in office. This is much akin to avoiding a landmine within the political landscape.

The left has to concede to the fact, that we cannot and should not take guns away from the general public based on these outrages. But, the right has to recognize that things cannot continue the way they have been. We just cannot accept that these occurrences are like a bolt of lightening, helpless as to when and where it is going to strike. These outrages have been going on over the last 20 years and many are saying that enough is enough.

This means that all weapons have to be registered and thereby the purchaser subject to background checks. Will it solve the problem in total, I doubt it. But we need to do any and everything necessary to make certain that those escapees from the asylum find it more difficult to obtain a firearm.

Criminal penalties are put in place for any firearm sales that are conducted between parties outside the registration process. The same for someone who sells a firearm to anyone who fails a background check for any reason.

The other side of the equation is determination of mental illness of an individual to the point that he or she may pose a danger to society. We have to do a better job of this and be so careful in the process of turning an observation to a point of law used to legally restrict the right of an individual that would be available to anyone else. Who makes the determination and how is it to be recorded so that it appears reliably under a background check when a mentally disturbed person tries to purchase a firearm? We may have to start evaluating children in grade school, monitoring behavior and social cohesion to identify problem adults early. But that has a slippery slope of its own.

In conclusion, because we are not the people that we once were, we are forced to now to question the relevance of what was always considered inviolate, the 2nd Amendment.

More by this Author


Comments 94 comments

Californialaw profile image

Californialaw 3 years ago from San Diego, CA

Thank you for not giving a generalized blanket statement that guns need to be outlawed. I agree that a thorough background check and possibly a mental evaluation should be a prerequisite to gun ownership.

I wish too that we lived in a safer and more gentle society, but unfortunately we do not.


Jillian Barclay profile image

Jillian Barclay 3 years ago from California, USA

Aloha! I don't think too many of us lefties advocate for no guns. People just assume that we do. I own a gun, and you, as a veteran, have learned how to use guns, so I am with you!

This is just another common sense article in a series of many that you have written, Credence2. You have my vote for up and awesome- I am also linking this to the article I just wrote...hope that is okay?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

CaliforniaLaw, thanks for reading and recognizing my attempt at balance in regards to this issue.

We want to avoid overreaction from either side, but it is clear that something now has to be done to address the carnage and prevent it from happening again.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks, Jillian for reading. We are trying to show everybody that contrary to popular opinion our position on the issues are most reasonable.

I am humbled by your wanting to link this article to one you have just written, nothing wrong with doubling down on the truth

P.S I will check out your article.

Happy Holidays and Best regards...


Jillian Barclay profile image

Jillian Barclay 3 years ago from California, USA

Dear Credence2,

No reason to be humbled. This common sense, logical and well-written article needs to be read!

Have a totally unrelated question- I love Kona coffee! It is one of my fondest memories of Hawaii-my son asked me who he could buy from in Hawaii. I have seen many websites, but want the coffee directly from Hawaii. Any suggestions? Told him I have a friend in Hawaii that could maybe steer him in the right direction...

I hope you have a joyful Christmas and a wonderful New Year, my friend!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Jillian, I am delighted and you have come to the right place, let me do a few inquiries and get back with you through secured communication. Give me a day or two

All the best, Credence2


Jillian Barclay profile image

Jillian Barclay 3 years ago from California, USA

Thank you!


islandantoinette profile image

islandantoinette 3 years ago from The Big Island of Hawai'i

Another very well thought out and well balanced article done by Credence2.

Personally I don't believe in guns period, after living in societies where there are no guns and no need for them. People will and do find a way to kill each other without guns. However guns = money and make that BIG MONEY and GREED in America as sadly with so many other "things". I know how to shoot, learned at a private all girls summer camp that Judy Garlands "other" daughter Lorna Luft and sister of Liza Minnelli attended with me. They got us all to sign that paper to join the NRA for life. We were too young to know what we were doing or the full ramifications of it. Now I do know, have formed opinions about gun violence and I choose NOT to have a gun. Not that I am a "hothead" but too many people and things in this society in America can push your buttons no matter what they be and I'd kill some people for sure!!! Yep sure would! And I am an RN with extensive education in mental health. But the truth IS the truth. Some people do not deserve to live! Ever looked the eyes of the man who sexually molested your child? I have; there IS evil in this world and sadly the courts do not always dish out what is the deserved outcome. Then there is the other side where too many cops shoot and kill first. Oh you don't hear about all of them on the nightly news do you! If you think only 34 people a day die in America from guns you are gullible. So you can not say only these people "should" have guns and those people should not; as there are people of all races, creeds, colours, states, locations and beliefs that should NOT have guns and sadly there is no sure way to ensure that these people do not have them except for NO ONE TO! Since life can not go back sadly for the good of mankind, due to gun=money=lobbyists=greed=more money=power; it may just "go back" to the wild wild west days where everyone had a gun and shot anyone they wanted to "faster than the next man" could shoot and kill him. It certainly seems like the NRA folks want that. I see a woman with a gun on her hip in jeans not looking very ladylike, then there are the pink guns, and I see two 16 yr. olds who were able to buy legal guns from a gun shop who killed their friend with one. Then I see two hi-way patrol police in Texas doing body cavity searches ON THE HIGHWAY of two women using the same glove for throwing a suspected marijuana cigarette out the window. If these women had not agreed to the search they so easily could have been shot. I think I have experienced it from all sides and thus have decided I am AGAINST ALL GUNS.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Jillian, couldn't find that secure communications link, so here is one big island producer of Kona Coffee.

http://www.greenwellfarms.com/

I can always grab a bag or two and ship over if the authenticity of the point of origin is an issue.

Let me know if I can assist in any other way.....

Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

islandantoinette, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. We have a dangerous gun culture and are de-evolving from what should be our goal of becoming a more civil and gentile society. With everybody 'packing' or feel the need to pack to protect themselves from the 'packers', where does it end. We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.....


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I'll support any regulation that will actually prevent these shootings, but I have yet to see one. For instance, registration will not prevent a madman from going on a rampage, so why do it?

Americans are necessarily suspicious of those who want guns registered because those who want them banned also want them registered so they know who has them when the time comes.

Come up with a regulation that will actually work, and I'll help you get it passed, but I will oppose any new regulation that does nothing but violate our rights as a free people.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

It is gutsy of you to drop by, Will

Are you advocating the status quo for right now? The problem is that what was once considered isolated, freak lightning strikes are now occuring far too often and people are concerned.

It is not against the law to be mentally disturbed, these are the culprit for these heinous crimes, but how do we stop them?

How do the idea of bearing arms going to protect you against a government and state militias that can and do outgun any group of individuals?

I have made it clear that taking guns is not the solution, but neither is the status quo.

When you and I debated by relevance of Voter ID, you said that these people that claimed that they were disadvantaged because their did not have an identification should already have one or get one because it would have been a prerequisite to acquiring the goods and services needed to live life.

So, it is as one poster had mentioned on a previous hub, you can't buy more than a box of a common cold remedy without out recording it for law enforcementin fear that the active ingredient will be used in the manufacture of drugs. Such may well be the case with firearms, we all hope that they step lightly. But we will see.....


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Again, what about a regulation that will actually work? Any ideas?

If not, why create one that will do nothing to stop these killings? For what reason?

BTW, we used to have laws that took known dangerous people off the streets. We need to reinstate those laws.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Any barrier no matter how slight the effect is better than nothing.

There are many civil liberty issues associated with who can be identified as 'dangerous people'. Who gets to decide and what parameters are to be used? The need for background checks when buying which i support can if past information on individual was recorded keep even a handful of dangerous people from acquiring a weapon.

Crazy folks are always among us, but why the spike and the more than frequent expression of madness in mass homicide?

The weapons with large capacity ammo magazine, need to be scrutinize more. I cannot stop the nuts but his ability to kill so many without the need to reload or go to an alternate weapon, makes it less likely that he would be stopped.

The moves in Washington are going to be small and incremental, but better screening of potential assailants and of the weapons most commonly used in these sorts of crimes is a start. That is a far cry from taking everyone's gun away, but for now addresses the public demand for action on this matter.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Timothy McVeigh killed 19 pre-school children with simple fertilizer and a few gallons of diesel fuel. The worst mass school killing ever was done using dynamite. A very effective bomb can be made out of ingredients bought at a supermarket. A madman will always find a way.

Again, if a new regulation would not stop a mass murderer, why burden law abiding citizens with another gun law on top of the 20,000 already on the books? Why add a feel good knee-jerk that will not work?

After all, if laws actually prevented crime, we would already be crime free, wouldn't we?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

In the article, I did state that there is generally a lack civility in our society. so, we are determined to kill one another, all we can do is not make it easy.

Relative to using a semi-auto and killing, McVeigh had to spend time with his plot, making what he did all the more likely to be detected by law enforcement during his planning stages.

You can correct me on this, but since the McVeigh affair, I am sure that purchasers of large quantities of certain products are scrutinized as to who is buying them and for what purpose.

How outrageous is it, after all from what I understand there is waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a weapon, that was placed there for a reason?

Removing the impulse slows things down and could save lives, the steps McVeigh took to commit his crimes were elaborate, takes time and were subject to detection, particularly today.

For most of the public, 20,000 laws are not adequate when something like what happened in Connecticut last month is even possible.

Crime cannot be prevented in an imperfect world, but we must continue to try. How about Scotland or Finland for example, relative to us they are virtually crime free, how do they do it?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Again, if you come up with a regulation that will actually stop mass killings, I will support it, but I will not support a 'feel good but do nothing' regulation.

We use massive amounts of ammonium nitrate fertilizers in the US, and there's simply no way to control it. Someone bent on evil can easily amass a large bomb, and undetected. Plus, there are dozens of other easily available explosive ingredients, and they are hardly a secret.

The key to prevention is the killer, not what he uses. Almost all of these killers advertise their madness and often, their intent, but while we don't mind violating the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners, we are for some reason, reluctant to evaluate and institutionalize known crazies, like the Tucson and Virginia Tech killers!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

How do you make people be subject to evaluation, could you have sound the clarion call to either the killer in Tucson or Virginia tech? How do you know in advance, emotional impairment or mental disturbance has reached a level where society can justify restrictions and institutions as a remedy. That route is just full of thickets and land mines as addressing the firearm issue. This being almost impossible to administer and consistently apply. But to the degree that it is possible we should be doing that as well.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"How do you make people be subject to evaluation, could you have sound the clarion call to either the killer in Tucson or Virginia tech?"

The same way we used to do it...get several witnesses and go to court to get an order to have someone who is obviously disturbed evaluated, and if deemed dangerous to himself or others, committed to an institution.

Those who knew the Tucson and Virginia Tech killers were afraid of them! They knew they were dangerous. The real madness of society today is a fear of violating the rights of crazy people.

But, as you say, that would be too difficult, so let's go after law abiding gun owners instead. Yeah, that'll work!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

"The same way we used to do it...get several witnesses and go to court to get an order to have someone who is obviously disturbed evaluated, and if deemed dangerous to himself or others, committed to an institution"

So that is the way they used to do it?

I remember Reagan in a cost cutting measure denying funding to the institutions that held these people and they were released into the streets. You have to get people to confess about someone and that their malady has the possibility to expression in violence. In this tax cutting enviroment promulgated by conservatives who is willing to pay again for institutionalization?

Unfortunately, everybody from all sides is going to have to have some skin in the game.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I remember Reagan in a cost cutting measure denying funding to the institutions that held these people and they were released into the streets."

No, the releasing of patients was the result of the deinstitutionalization movement, so Reagan cut funds that were simply no longer needed:

In the United States, class action lawsuits and the scrutiny of institutions through disability activism and antipsychiatry helped expose poor conditions and treatment. Sociologists and others argued that such institutions maintained or created dependency, passivity, exclusion, and disability, which caused people to remain institutionalised. Rosenhan's experiment in 1973 "accelerated the movement to reform mental institutions and to deinstitutionalize as many mental patients as possible."

Kornblum, William (2011). Mitchell, Erin; Jucha, Robert; Chell, John. eds. Sociology in a Changing World (9th ed.). Cengage learning. p. 195. ISBN 978-1-111-30157-6.

Many families found it convenient (like the Kennedy's) to institutionalize family members who were mentally deficient, even if they were harmless. That was wrong, but as always, refoems go too far and the dangerous inmates were also released, and now, they cannot be committed until they hurt someone!

Who's crazier? The maniacs or the system?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Yes, I am aware the case of the Joe, Sr having his daughter committed more to avoid embarrassment to the Kennedy clan than for her mental deficiency. That is what I meant when we have to be careful that SS tactics and what I would consider an overbearing government, have people committed in a cavelier fashion, maybe because they are eccentric, odd or merely express vocal opposition to the establishment making those that are in power uncomfortable by 'rocking the boat'

We need to reintroduce some of this concept your speaking of, but very carefully. We need to use medical science and objectivity to make these determinations about people.

As always, we have to do the due dilegence to strike to proper balance and that is work in itself.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oh, we were terribly unfair in the past to those who were no danger to anyone, and I don't mean to return to that. But in typical knee-jerk, we went way too far and now it's almost impossible to keep dangerously ill people off the streets.

And, since we can't even get them legally declared a danger, they don't show up in a background check should they try to buy a gun!!

That, my friend, is (if you'll pardon the expression) a crazy law!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

As long as there is an orderly process for declaring people a danger to society binding by law, I can deal with it. Even though I lean left in my orientation, I have no qualms with the concept of the need to better screen and identify such persons as long as safeguards are in place to make sure that as you say 'we don't return to it'


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

There are reasonable approaches to this sort of thing, but no matter what we do, a determined killer will find a way. They just arrested a teen who was planning to kill with homemade explosives. The only way they found out was the discovery of his journal by a teacher...maybe he wanted to be caught.

BTW, the perfect argument against gun registration is the recent exposure by a newspaper of thousands of lawful gun permit holders by a newspaper. Many were police officers and prison guards. Now their lives are in danger. The media's haughty argument was that when they drew a permit, they became part of the public record. That's exactly what would happen if all guns were registered, and it's superb argument against it.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will, there may be many reasonable approaches but it is going to be tough getting there with fierce opposition on either side of this. And you are right, it is true that determined killers will always find a way, but anyone less than adamant can be disuaded and discouraged as part of the process of legally acquiring a weapon, making it more inconvenient to plan and execute. The (waiting period) is one such provision. The situation is such that if we had the equivalent of the Titanic sinking every other weekend people would panic and want to ban ocean liners and probably the ocean as well. The danger is that these shootings are reaching this level. Such, is human nature. As politically charged as 2nd Amendment issues are, everybody is going to walk lightly and carefully. But the public will demand something be done, even if appears a mere bandaid or knee jerk.

I don't know how you can have background checks without some form of registration, if they make you wait to buy, isn't that a form of registration? There has to be a balance between making guns as easy to come by as a set of carving knives and taking everybody's weapons. The public mood is going to move a bit toward the latter alternative.

The point that I want to make is that although I am as blue a liberal as you could find, we are not always unreasonable and I am willing to look objectively at the other side. I better understand where the conservatives are coming from on this issue from our discussion. I would like to engage in other areas of differences between left and right and see how 'different' we really are.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I don't know how you can have background checks without some form of registration, if they make you wait to buy, isn't that a form of registration? "

The current system requires that dealers submit your ID to the FBI instant system for a background check. The FBI must then expunge all records of that check by law, because we are presumed innocent and it is not government's business who has guns.

The dealer by law has to keep those records so that in the event of a crime, the FBI can then trace the gun back to the buyer. It works very well.

The problem here is that while conservatives think the killers are crazy, the anti-gun left think all gun owners are crazy. It's a long standing smear of gun owners, and we are finally beginning to fight back.

The main problem is that all these shooters are known to be dangerous but their medical privacy is deemed more important than the safety of the rest of us! Their mental heath professionals should be required to inform the system that they are not eligible to buy firearms. Instead, the law requires that their privacy be protected.


Michele Travis profile image

Michele Travis 3 years ago from U.S.A. Ohio

You have written another very good hub. it does not matter if the government decides to outlaw guns or not. There are so many out there right now, that outlawing them will not make a difference. Getting them illegally is easy, they can come from Mexico. There are so many that come from Mexico.

Criminals already have guns, why take them away from people who need to protect themselves.

Very good hub.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will, the dealer has those records and are required to maintain them upon a request by law enforcement (the government). It is not like buying a gun and having no one know about it.

Who is to know that a mentally distrubed person is dangerous? Who has the authority to intercede?

You have taken quite a beating on the canadian lady's hub. We are going to have a solution, as the status quo ain't gonna make it. Biden has been tasked and he is not forming this committee to return to the president empty handed.

What about the kid in California that injured someone in another school assault with a shotgun that occured today. The kid is 16, like I said about the Titanic.......

Everybody, the gun owner and the perps are going to have to give a little to get to some sort of solution because as I said before this is not going away....


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Michele, so kind of you to do me the honor of dropping by and sharing words of wisdom. The solution to gun violence lies beyond banning weapons but must reach into the souls of each of us as Americans as why we are so fearful of our neighbor that we feel the need to turn a civilized society into an armed camp?

Much of the problem lately has come from the mentally disturbed and immature minors. The traditional remedies available for criminal behavior does not apply here. Instead of punishment, we have to be proactive toward these newest killers as they are likely to kill themselves after the assualt as their life means as little to them, the loss of which cannot be used as a deterrent by society.

Thanks for dropping by...


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"We are going to have a solution, as the status quo ain't gonna make it. Biden has been tasked and he is not forming this committee to return to the president empty handed."

There will be no solution.

Biden and Obama are standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, and going the motions of conferring with all parties, in an attempt to deceive Americans into believing they are seeking a viable solution when their true agenda is pure gun control.

There are over 300,000,000 firearms in the US, and the only thing that will prevent another madman from committing another copycat shooting (that's what they are) will a total ban on all firearms.

Most killings (and many are children) are done with handguns, not assault weapons, so why not go after handguns if they are serious?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will, you and I both know how touchy this issue is and that confiscation of firearms is not in the cards because the rightwing lobbies and the NRA would stand four square against it.

You have a definite rightwing bias. Obama did nothing over his first term regarding gun control, but there is going to be a solution to the excessive slaughter that we have been witnessing over the past few years.

Is it because Obama and Biden are progressives that you think the worse of their efforts? They are not going to institutionalize every mentally ill person as some on the right seem to see as a solution.

There is a big difference between a hand gun for protection and an M-60 machine gun.

And no, you are not in the position to defeat an oppresssive government as a rightwing justification for 2nd Amendment provisions supporting the right for citizens to bear arms. What are all you people really trying to defend against? You can all be wiped out silently from the sky with the drone technology, what chance have you 'Doomsday Preppers" against such things?

The ability to massacre verses the ability to defend ones person and property requires differing levels of force that is what is to be determined by the Biden group. You know that going after handguns is DOA in this political climate and so does the administration, so why try to consider it as a viable argument.

There are gun related deaths everyday, but how many whole scale massacres, like Sandy Hook and Columbine, for that the general public regardless of the thoughts of the rightwing, will demand an answer


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Obama did nothing over his first term regarding gun control, but there is going to be a solution to the excessive slaughter that we have been witnessing over the past few years."

Excessive slaughter? Is there an acceptable level of slaughter?

Again, there will be no 'solution'. Someone who is determined to slaughter will find a way.

Timothy McVeigh used common fertilizer, and the 19 hijackers on 9-11 used $2 box cutters, so we can accurately say that statistically, the majority of mass killing victims since 1990 were the victims of box cutters and fertilizer. Shall we ban both?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Again, this is a people problem which is going to force change where it was not conceivable before. Did we have these kinds of problems, say a generation ago, 30-40 years? So what has changed, the firearm related deaths/homicides have always been there, but the massacres are relatively new in comparison. The problem is that there are too many people, far too often that are finding a way to slaughter with devastating results and the public's outcry cannot be unexpected as a result.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I am old enough to see the drastic change in moral standards and the loss of respect for life itself. What are we to expect from those who grew up hearing the absurd reasoning of abortionists that a fetus is not really a living human being, just so they can kill it? What are we to expect from a generation hardened by a constant barrage of blood, death, and gore from video games and movies? What are we to expect from a generation that has rejected God and His Commandments?

The access to guns was far easier back then. You could just walk in to any corner hardware store and buy a gun, or even order one out of a magazine. But there were very few incidents.

The problem is the new lack of moral standards and a new lack of respect for life.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

We on the left have a different take, it is impossible to force a woman to bear a fetus to term if she does not want it, as it is part of her own body. Any interference is considered an imposition her individual perogative as a individual. That is certainly one of the explantions as to why the GOP and the conservative philosophy has done relatively poorly among the female electorate. No one is going to give the state that authority, least not from the left.

Yes, the genie is out of the bottle and we can never return to the naivety of the Ozzie and Harriet years, which many say were the good ol' days, but again that depends upon who it is that lived through them.

As much as the Right is concerned about the 2nd amendment, the left is concerned about the sanctity of the 1st. The government interfering in the right of free speech and expression regardless as to how unpleasant,immoral or whatever is clearly on slippery slope to tyranny.

Even though you may be right about the moral decay, what is to be done about it? The first amendment gives people the right to worship as they please, to the extent and in the way that they please, can't change that. The so called Christian example if it were practiced with consistensy and less hypocrisy avoiding the proselytising and indoctrination, might inspire people to action through a positive example, but that is for another hub.

The fact that we have a relatively new lack of moral standard and a lack of respect for life could well be a big part of what is forcing the draconian response to this gun control matter, so here we are.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"The fact that we have a relatively new lack of moral standard and a lack of respect for life could well be a big part of what is forcing the draconian response to this gun control matter, so here we are."

I agree, but I suspect that we view the 'draconian response' quite differently!


xstatic profile image

xstatic 3 years ago from Eugene, Oregon

I don't want to take their guns, but I don't want them armed as well as a military platoon either. Armor piercing ammo, 30 rounds or more in a magazine, military style rifles? Dumb. The best home protection, if you feel the need is a shotgun.

A lot of these gun defenders have maybe watched awful movies like Red Dawn too many times.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Xstatic, I think that this taking everybody's gun stuff is just a tactic of the right to intimidate the Obama administration.

I think that all we are seeking are common sense precautions to impede a repeat of last December's massacre. We have been putting it off, and we really cannot afford to do nothing, anymore.

I saw Red Dawn years ago, it was a political statement and not a very probable occurence in real life.

Thanks for dropping by!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I don't want to take their guns, but I don't want them armed as well as a military platoon either."

The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was a well armed citizenry that could be called up by their state should the federal government ever resort to tyranny.

That means that weapons suitable for a militia should be and are protected by the Second Amendment. See the United States vs Miller.

BTW, I saw part of Red Dawn and turned it off because it was absurd.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will, I will need to check out US vs Miller as you refer to it often...

I will let you know


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Very well-balanced at rational look at where we are as a society, where we came from, and where the two political parties need to meet to craft constructive legislation that protects our rights and minimizes the loss of innocent lives. I so appreciate that when I read your hubs, I am never subject to a rant. Many thanks. Sharing.

The images you mentioned from the Paper Chase were and are delightful, and on my very best days, teaching comes close to that experience, but even on my average days, it is good and necessary work...although never quite a exciting as the film or TV series. :)


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Regulations and laws won't do any good against random acts of violence, and guns are not the only mass killing device.

Currently there are over 2 million people in prison and jails across the country, so the law is not a deterrent. I would imagine that most of the guns used in intentional crimes were gotten illegally.

You can't compare a low density population like England with that of the US.

Alcohol and Tobacco are killers, yet the government has been unable to stop people from misusing them.

Obama hasn't been right on anything yet, why should his gun control have any goal, other than the thin edge of the blade to take guns away completely. Saying that the government doesn't want to take away weapons from the citizens, is like saying I am from the government, and I am here to help.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks, Theresa, I like to think that the article was written to get people to objectively think about the issue instead of just running into their perspective corners at its very mention…


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for reading and commenting IB

You said: Regulations and laws won't do any good against random acts of violence, and guns are not the only mass killing device.

While guns are not the mass killing device they are among the most efficient for that reason is why they are ‘Guns’. But sitting around doing nothing, waiting for the next outrage to take place is irresponsible in the light of so many of the Newtown type massacres over the last few months.

You said: Currently there are over 2 million people in prison and jails across the country, so the law is not a deterrent. I would imagine that most of the guns used in intentional crimes were gotten illegally.

Most of the ‘problem shootings’ are not from the classic criminals but from mentally disturbed people who place no more value on their lives than that of their victims. Conventional deterrents of crime and punishment are not going to work here.

You said: You can't compare a low density population like England with that of the US.

Well, IB, why can’t I? The population density of England is far greater than that of the U.S. What is your point? What do you see as the relationship between population density and violent tendencies, if there are any? What does the concept have to do with the differences between the two societies? Explain, please

You said: Alcohol and Tobacco are killers, yet the government has been unable to stop people from misusing them.

The society is full of intractable problems, but that does not mean that something cannot be done to minimize the deleterious effect. Cigarettes cannot be sold to minors, they are not allowed to advertise over broadcast mediums, and they are require to specifically label their products with warnings. So, the fact that NOTHING can be done is a red herring

You said: Obama hasn't been right on anything yet, why should his gun control have any goal, other than the thin edge of the blade to take guns away completely. Saying that the government doesn't want to take away weapons from the citizens, is like saying I am from the government, and I am here to help.

Mr. Obama has treated this issue with kid gloves over the duration of his presidency. The slippery slope idea about his secret plan to relieve all American citizens of their firearms and rights associated with ownership is just more right wing hysteria, unsubstantiated by the facts on the ground. I am more than satisfied with the progress Washington is making on addressing this issue. The status quo simply ain't gonna cut it!


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Credence

"You said: Regulations and laws won't do any good against random acts of violence, and guns are not the only mass killing device.

While guns are not the mass killing device they are among the most efficient for that reason is why they are ‘Guns’. But sitting around doing nothing, waiting for the next outrage to take place is irresponsible in the light of so many of the Newtown type massacres over the last few months.

ib----------------

What is it that you are going to do about random acts of violence?

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

You said: Currently there are over 2 million people in prison and jails across the country, so the law is not a deterrent. I would imagine that most of the guns used in intentional crimes were gotten illegally.

Most of the ‘problem shootings’ are not from the classic criminals but from mentally disturbed people who place no more value on their lives than that of their victims. Conventional deterrents of crime and punishment are not going to work here.

ib----------

I disagree, do some googling on Gangs, or read my hub

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

You said: You can't compare a low density population like England with that of the US.

Well, IB, why can’t I? The population density of England is far greater than that of the U.S. What is your point? What do you see as the relationship between population density and violent tendencies, if there are any? What does the concept have to do with the differences between the two societies? Explain, please

ib---------------

Can you compare Wyoming or New Mexico with NY and NJ?

England was brought up during the sword, the US was brought up with the gun. That is how they beat the British, and how they made the country from Ocean to Ocean.

First of all we don't have to support royalty and a government, although with the money we spend on the US Government we probably wouldn't notice the difference.

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

You said: Alcohol and Tobacco are killers, yet the government has been unable to stop people from misusing them.

The society is full of intractable problems, but that does not mean that something cannot be done to minimize the deleterious effect. Cigarettes cannot be sold to minors, they are not allowed to advertise over broadcast mediums, and they are require to specifically label their products with warnings. So, the fact that NOTHING can be done is a red herring

ib---------

Nothing significant has been done, that is obvious. So guns can't be sold to minors, and we will put warning labels on them.

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

You said: Obama hasn't been right on anything yet, why should his gun control have any goal, other than the thin edge of the blade to take guns away completely. Saying that the government doesn't want to take away weapons from the citizens, is like saying I am from the government, and I am here to help.

Mr. Obama has treated this issue with kid gloves over the duration of his presidency. The slippery slope idea about his secret plan to relieve all American citizens of their firearms and rights associated with ownership is just more right wing hysteria, unsubstantiated by the facts on the ground. I am more than satisfied with the progress Washington is making on addressing this issue. The status quo simply ain't gonna cut it!"

ib------------------

If you stop your labeling and just look at the issue, you would see that there is enough laws and regulations on guns. Why should anyone care if you are satisfied with "progress" Washington is making.

What progress is that, Guns are not the problem. And the government would be able to do anything more than what they have down for abortion, alcohol, and tobacco.

I have a hub on president Obama's accomplishments, maybe you could add to them.

You need to do some research on gangs, there are over 33,000 multinational gangs in the US, and they have over 1.2 million members, and they deal in multibillion illegal products and services. They use their weapons to protect their business from other gangs and the government. These businesses include selling drugs to children, child prostitution, human trafficking, and gun running to cite just a few of them.

So how does gun control and President Obama's plan stop or reduce any of these problems?

The Mexican Cartel out mans and out guns the US Border Patrol, and they do big business in the US. Mexico has a very strict gun law, and yet the Mexican Cartel is still well armed and not afraid to use their weapons. This is evidenced by a lot of dead Mexican politicians.

The facts are there, and you seem to be short on your facts.

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

BTW in California there are over 20,000 known gun owners that have been legally deemed to be mentally deficient to own a gun, yet there is no budget for the government to follow up on these people in less than three years.

Also remember that thanks to the Internet anyone can become a unibomber.

MY point is that we should enforce the laws that we already have before we go off on a tangent.

Maybe you could explain to me the expected goals of Washington on the gun issue?

Thanks


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

You said: What is it that you are going to do about random acts of violence?

My reply: From the founding of the republic, a violent American culture is part of our inheritance, that does not mean that we throw up our hands and fail to at least attempt to control what we can.

You said: I disagree, do some googling on Gangs, or read my hub

I say: I did read your article and provided my comments.

You said: Can you compare Wyoming or New Mexico with NY and NJ?

England was brought up during the sword, the US was brought up with the gun. That is how they beat the British, and how they made the country from Ocean to Ocean.

First of all we don't have to support royalty and a government, although with the money we spend on the US Government we probably wouldn't notice the difference.

I say, Well, IB, that does not answer the question I posed to you, if you don't know, why not just admit it? You know, I don't think that most of those on the right really have one that they would admit to anyway.

You said: If you stop your labeling and just look at the issue, you would see that there is enough laws and regulations on guns. Why should anyone care if you are satisfied with "progress" Washington is making. What progress is that, Guns are not the problem. And the government would be able to do anything more than what they have down for abortion, alcohol, and tobacco.

I say, Ib, How am I labeling? I looked at the issue and there is room for improvement in legislation and enforcement. As to why should anyone care that I am satisfied with progress in Washington, why should anyone care that YOU are not satisfied? As for doing more for in regards to abortion, alcohol, and tobacco, is your alternative doing nothing at all?

You said: So how does gun control and President Obama's plan stop or reduce any of these problems?

I am aware of the problems with gangs, but whatever can be done to ameliorate the problem, even if it only affects the Waldos for the moment is fine with me. Getting after one aspect of the problem does not mean that gang problem is to be ignored in its stead. I do not deny the facts just the conclusions that you derive from them......

You said: Maybe you could explain to me the expected goals of Washington on the gun issue?

My reply:I spoke to this question in my article, do I need to be more specific?


Gcrhoads64 profile image

Gcrhoads64 3 years ago from North Dakota

Thank you for a thoughtful hub about the gun control issue that is not steeped in rhetoric or finger-pointing. +++


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Gable, thanks for taking the time to read and provide an encouraging and helpful comment


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Once again Credence, I just stopped by to say that I appreciate your logical, rational approach to the issue of gun control (you are a lefty, but you are not a crazy emotional extremist...ah...what a refreshing and welcome change) and I appreciate your seemingly inexhaustible patience in explaining your positions. Kudos to you! :)


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I am curious about one thing...how exactly, would registering guns stop crimes? After all, only honest people would comply, and they are not the problem in the first place. Criminals would not register their guns any more than they would register their burglary tools!

And if a mad man decided to shoot up a mall, would he decide not to because his gun is registered? Why would that stop him?

Gun registration serves only one purpose...it lets government know who has guns, what sort of guns, and how many. It has always been a prelude to confiscation.


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Will - Absolutely, no system is foolproof and will address every problem, but registering new weapon purchases, coupled with improved background checks could go long way to eliminating the opportunities that mentally unstable individuals (for whatever reason) have to obtain weapons and rain havoc down upon innocent and unsuspecting men, women, and children.

No intelligent person expects that criminals will register, but a partial solution is still better than no solution at all. I also think it is counter-productive and impossible to force current gun owners to declare what they own. They wouldn't and for the most part they aren't the problem anyway.

Just in case it matters to anyone, my father ran the pistol and rifle ranges and trained recruits for fifteen years in the Air force and I own a nine millimeter for personal protection. My brother and three grown sons own a variety of rifles and guns for target shooting and for hunting. Obviously, we are not an "anti-gun" family, but we believe some corrective actions should and can be taken, without endangering our right to own and operate weapons.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"...registering new weapon purchases, coupled with improved background checks could go long way to eliminating the opportunities that mentally unstable individuals (for whatever reason) have to obtain weapons..."

Unless a mentally ill person is committed to an institution by a court order, they will never show up in a background check. Almost all the recent shooters were known to be dangerous by those who knew them, but the law prevents their institutionalizing until they commit a crime, and then it's far too late.

And you still haven't explained how registering guns will prevent crimes.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Greetings, Professor,

It just turns out that both sides have valid concerns and justifiable perspectives to consider.

Thanks for recognizing my desire to be as impartial in the presentation of this material as possible

Best Regards, Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will you said

Unless a mentally ill person is committed to an institution by a court order, they will never show up in a background check. Almost all the recent shooters were known to be dangerous by those who knew them, but the law prevents their institutionalizing until they commit a crime, and then it's far too late.

Like I said before, it is a touchy issue to get someone committed without proof beyond mere heresay and suspicion.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Like I said before, it is a touchy issue to get someone committed without proof beyond mere heresay and suspicion."

It's almost impossible due to laws so rigid that the only time someone can be institutionalized is after they commit a violent crime, even with expert testimony!

That's the law that Congress should be looking into, but they just ignore it!


Freeway Flyer profile image

Freeway Flyer 3 years ago

As a general rule these days, I try to stay away from political arguments. So I just want to say that I appreciate your attempt to present a balanced argument. It's always refreshing.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

BTW, Barack Obama has said several times that he does not believe that people should be able to own a gun. If he could wave a wand and disarm all Americans without hurting himself politically, he do it in a minute.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

That's the law that Congress should be looking into, but they just ignore it!

That right by me as long as civil liberties are carefully observed in the process.

Well if Obama has said it he has not done a great deal about the issue and has avoided it like a hot potato, until the shootings last Summer, when it became impossible to ignore. I don't think that he would tocuh the issue any more than necessary.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Freeway flyer, thanks for taking the time to read and give me your most valued opinion as to the nature of my article,

Best regards


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey

All but one of the "mass" shootings in the past 30+ years have been in "Gun Free Zones"...There were 6 other theaters closer than the one that was the cite of the horrible shooting...there were larger theaters closer...this was the only one with a posted, and known "Gun Free Zone" policy...

"Relative to using a semi-auto and killing, McVeigh had to spend time with his plot, making what he did all the more likely to be detected by law enforcement during his planning stages." (your own words)

Do you know how long the Sandy Hook shooter planned...how in depth the plan was. Apparently, by the police reports, a long time.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Yes, I have heard that recently on NPR that the plot regarding the Conn shooter was intricate, but did it need to be so?

It would have been a lot less fanfare for him to go into the school guns blazing without all the logistics-planning: the chemicals, the rentals, acquiring materials and so on. How much simpler to go into the Colorado theatre and start shooting, once you have the weapon, no one gets an inkling or clue of whats to come until there is a substantial body count....


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 3 years ago from South Jersey

My point is...he picked the theater, not for proximity or size, but because it was a "gun free" zone...


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

He knew what your point was...he's diverting away from it.

These guys never choose a police station, or a shooting range. They choose places that are 'gun-free', target rich and utterly defenseless. The game with these copycat killers is to kill as many as possible before the cops show up. That's the whole point.

The left's impotent response is to punish law-abiding citizens with more rules, regulations, and restrictions on rights that will have zero effect on these killers, or even aid them, with such stupidity as 'gun free zones'.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

My point is...he picked the theater, not for proximity or size, but because it was a "gun free" zone...

But, what does 'gun free' zone really mean? Do you imply that it would embolden the assailant to attack being confident that none of the victims would be armed? I don't know, but I do not know of many people that take firearms to movie theatres, gun free zone or not. And even if one or two people in a different circumstance had hand guns, the shooter was obviously armed in a way to overwhelm them.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Non deceit intended ,Will, all you have to do is follow the bouncing ball.

And what is the right's solution: arm sixth graders and arrest and declare mentally incompentent any one of their neighbors because they appear eccentric. The second point was your solution, wasn't it?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

What we knew all along, and what the politicians are now admitting, is that their 'common sense' solutions will likely have little effect (if anything at all) on such crimes.

So why impose new restrictions on the law abiding? To what purpose? Must we always be hysterical?

The answer is to reexamine the laws concerning the institutionalization of people known to be dangerous, like the last half dozen shooters. As it stands, we cannot, until AFTER they have committed a crime.

That must change.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Ok, I can go along with the reexamination. Was there any solid evidence that could be used to have identified these people prior to their committing their crimes? Much like trying to identify a needle in a haystack. Maybe you can elaborate on just what procedures you would have used to identify Lanza or any of the shooters as 'dangerous'? You can use prior criminal records, etc, but these people come out of the blue, there is a difference between being 'dangerous' and being odd or eccentric. I know what side I am going to err on if I had to. Who is going to drag those accused of being dangerous in for the mental evaluation by a certified physician as the only justifiable platform that can be used to support the restriction. Who is going to do all of this? What about the danger of overreach, picking on people who are not popular, could very well be the slippery slope to overreaching government power? I know that you guys are uncomfortable with that, that is one of the many reasons you are insistant about hanging on to your weapons in the first place.

1. Who brings these people to the attention of the authorities as dangerous?

2. What reports from observers constitute sufficient justification to hold the person and subject them to mental evaluation by the authorities?

3. Who is going to really know the inner workings of such people outside immediate family?

My point being that making it less likely that these people who are basically impossible to preidentify and are more than likely to engage in this behavior without detection should be neutralized as to the power of the weapons available in a way that affects law abiding gun owners as minimally as possible. Otherwise, with the tools we have we cannot stop the madman short of introducing the linchpins of a police state, and the technology associated with the film "Minority Report" is not on the horizon anytime soon....

Besides a general approach, how would you go about it?


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I wish that were true of so many liberals. Here are some interesting quotes:

Dianne Feinstein - “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Chuck Shumer - "We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"

Richard Daley - "If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns."

I know she's not a politician, but here's my favorite:

Rose O'Donnell - "Sorry, it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Those examples you cite are not representative of my position. Conservatives need to remember that like the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment is not absolute. There still is this gunslinging attutude that the Right clings to that defies commonsense. Believe me I see even more hateful stuff from the right, so whats new? Thanks for taking the time to read this article and comment.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"There still is this gunslinging attutude that the Right clings to that defies commonsense."

What does that mean? Since when is keeping and bearing 'gunslinging'?


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

It may not be your opinion, but it is the opinion of some of the liberals in power.

Liberals need to remember that our founding fathers did in fact believe that these rights could/would eventually be usurped by tyrannical government. When our government starts claiming that our rights are part of a "living, breathing document" that needs to evolve, conservatives fear a loss of liberty. Frankly, I seriously doubt our leaders could ever compete with the genius behind our constitution, the founding fathers. Who do you want to stack up against Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, or Madison?

As for hatred, I'll call that OPINION. I have found that there is a lot of hatred on both sides of the political aisle. Do you remember the hatred so many liberals directed at George W. Bush? In my opinion, that was/is every bit equal to what we are seeing with the POTUS.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will, "keeping and bearing" everywhere? Do you want a society where where you have to strap on your "piece' whenever you go to corner super market? Arming teachers in public schools? Is there not any place in for the rightwinger where carrying firearms is not appropriate? Seeing it as unconstitutional to do basic screening as to who can access weapons? I speak of those rightwingers that see the 2nd amendment as not subjct to any kind of interpretation as to what that means today rather than the 18th century. I speak of extremists of which, hopefully, you are not one.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

EA

"It may not be your opinion, but it is the opinion of some of the liberals in power."

Progressives and liberals are not necessarily all the same or in lockstep, I find that much more true with the political right.

We speak of moderation more than outright control over what people chose to do. Men in powdered wigs and knee britches also wrote the Constitution with provisions for amendments wisely recognizing that the status quo of their immediate surroundings would more likely than not be subject to change. Basing interpretation of the Constitution (courts) on the intent of the founders does not mean that we do not deal with reality beyond an 18th century mindset.

Seems to me that conservatives are more afraid of simply being outvoted by progressives in fair and square electoral contests wanting the excuse of using force to impose the will of their ever smaller numbers and support on everybody else. A "tyrannical government" is any government that the conservatives do not control. The very antithesis of democracy. So is it an attempt to thwart the will of the majority or defeating tyranny, you tell me?

Yes, the founding fathers deserve a great deal of credit, but they were not omnipotent beings that could peer into the future that even the most far sighted of them could not perceive . My absolute rights end where your nose begins, and the 1st amendment does not mean that one can yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The founding fathers were not omnipotent, yet they were far, far more capable than the legislative leadership we have today. Outdated as it may seem to some, the ideas are the same; we don't need a government to tell us how to live our lives. We have guaranteed freedoms for a reason, so progressives can't take them away from us. "Moderating" freedom may be something progressives enjoy doing, but yes, conservatives do not agree with that mentality.

How are conservatives afraid of being outvoted? I seriously doubt you have the votes to amend the second amendment to the constitution. Instead, liberals and progressives often try to amend the second amendment through judicial means when they realize that their legislative efforts have stalled. If you don't have the votes, how on earth are we forcing our will upon you? You simply don't have the votes.

Conservatives didn't have the vote on the Affordable Health Care Act, and liberals/progressives DID force their will upon us. Why is it different? It's different, because you changed the existing laws. We simply want the existing laws to stay the same; we want no changes to the second amendment. That's why we are not forcing anything upon you. You are the ones who want to force change. We're just trying to maintain the status quo with regard to the second amendment.

A tyrannical government is any government that erodes freedoms in favor of greater government oversight and regulation. I guess that does mean that liberals/progressives run the risk of being called a tyrannical government.

By the way, plenty of liberals and progressives called George W. Bush a tyrant too, so this whole argument goes both ways.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

I apologize for not getting back sooner with you on this.

Conservatives do moderate freedom too, for their own causes and when it suits them. Roe vs Wade is the law of the land, why does the conservative insist on testing its boundaries?

If you recall, I did say that no one wants to change the second amendment. It is not true about progressives using judicial means to change the amendment. But, does this mean that a 15 year old boy can walk into a gun shop and buy a AK-47? No ones rights are absolute. Why restrict weapons generally available for sale to semi-auto? Who has the authority to restrict ownership of full automatic weapons? Are not the conservatives up in arms about that? So where are your 'absolute' rights?

Does the right to bear arms include sales to minors? So there are restrictions that have to be responsibly instituted.

The GOP has been stonewalling every attempt of this president to get the people's business underway. This attitude shows their 'bipartisan' spirit and they could be counted upon to do something similar to what you accuse the Democrats of doing if they had the numbers and support. Thank God that they do not, I hope to thin that herd further in 2014.

Oh, no, you conservatives are more than willing to change the law to restrict participation in the ballot and in favor of any other Victorian type measure you want to pass in the face of an alternate reality.

If we get many more shootings like that that occured in Colo and Connecticut, there will be more pressure to act and less to overlook and wait for the next tragedy.

If progressives can be referred to as tyrannical, conservatives and their hatred of government, anarchist. I don't think that you and I disagree about the need for Goverment regulation and oversight (or do we?), just how much is appropriate.

"By the way, plenty of liberals and progressives called George W. Bush a tyrant too, so this whole argument goes both ways."

This is true...


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

There is a lot of truth to what you are saying. Neither I nor you disagree about the need for government oversight. We disagree about the level of that oversight.

I support the gun laws, as they stand. Further regulations will ultimately lead to an erosion of rights.

As for the people's business, we disagree about that. I believe that President Obama has pushed his agenda, one that doesn't necessarily represent what the people want. Obamacare is a prime example. There was absolutely no attempt to accommodate the GOP, because the POTUS didn't need its support. That's politics, and both sides are guilty of that kind of bias. The problem is that the majority of Americans don't support Obamacare either. Thus, I don't consider it the people's business. I know you could argue that Obama's re-election shows a support of his policies, but that seems like a stretch to me.

Most republicans do not want to restrict legal citizens from voting once. The problem is that many illegal citizens and dead people are voting. Further, some people vote more than once. There is a problem with that, and few democrats seem to want to stop that from happening. I makes one wonder why.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Gun rights are restricted to law abiding, mentally fit adults, as they should be. But that does not and never will prevent criminals and madmen from obtaining and using firearms, which is why we have a natural right to keep and bear arms.

Criminals and madmen don't go to police stations or shooting ranges to carry out their crimes. They go to the 'gun-free' places you mentioned, where they know they are unlikely to encounter an armed citizen.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

EA, you said:

"As for the people's business, we disagree about that. I believe that President Obama has pushed his agenda, one that doesn't necessarily represent what the people want. Obamacare is a prime example. There was absolutely no attempt to accommodate the GOP, because the POTUS didn't need its support'.

As I remember it, the GOP stonewalled and refused to work with Obama on anything going back to the very day of his inauguration. Yes, that's politics, and both sides are guilty of that kind of bias. According to this article from the a National Journal, the opposition that conservatives say exist toward Obamacare could well be a red herring.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-conne...

You said:

"I know you could argue that Obama's re-election shows a support of his policies, but that seems like a stretch to me."

On the contrary, I don't think that it is a 'stretch' at all

Most republicans do not want to restrict legal citizens from voting once. The problem is that many illegal citizens and dead people are voting. Further, some people vote more than once. There is a problem with that, and few democrats seem to want to stop that from happening. I makes one wonder why.

It has been said from countless reputable sources that illegal voting when looked at objectively is virtually a non-existent problem. Why do the GOP continue to harp on it? Funny that they did not mention any concern about absentee ballots, which for obvious reasons are far more prone to fraud. We, on the left, say that the sudden GOP zeal for voter integrity is a disguised form of voter suppression adversely affecting prime Democratic constituencies, as the GOP has given up on the concept ofwinning elections based on the virtue of their ideas. I have provided a view from the left of this matter in this hub. If you really want to know the why and wherefore outside of the GOP talking points......

http://hubpages.com/politics/One-Progressives-View...

Thanks, Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Its quite odd, Will, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that restricts gun ownership to 'law abiding', mentally fit adults. So who was it that made this determination that we impose on the absolute 1791 interpretation of 2nd amendment?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

They're called 'reasonable' restrictions, just like not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

But I think you knew that.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

But of course you know, what is considered 'reasonable' to you may well not be for the rest of us.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Reasonable' is decided by the Supreme Court, and that's why it decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, that the 2nd also applies to all the states, and that outright bans or unreasonable restrictions are not 'reasonable'.

Obama and the left lost all three decisions, because they were 'unreasonable'.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

"Obama and the left lost all three decisions, because they wer unreasonable'

That may be true for now. I will go along with the court's interpretation of what is reasonable. But if they interpret areas regarding the topic differently in the future, not in your desired direction, will you be as accomodating?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

It was close. Liberals aren't much on freedom, or the Bill of Rights so four of the judges voted against the Second Amendment.

They may one day pack the Court with liberal tyrants and reverse the Heller decision, but then they would face millions of angry patriots who are not about to give up their right to keep and bear arms.

As Jefferson once said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Absentee ballots were in fact a point of concern during the election. Fox news and the Romney team reported on how much more likely voter fraud was when people used absentee ballots. Here's one of many articles supporting my case:

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/elections/2012/11/0...

Illegal aliens and dead people vote all the time! I can send numerous articles that support this reality. You should see how many illegal aliens vote in Arizona, and they often vote more than once. Here are some supporting sources:

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/59946-supreme-cour...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Stil...

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/video/illegal-alie...

I have spoken to many, many republicans about Obamacare. I know of none that support it. As for your article, it's interesting, but I don't buy it. The vast majority of republicans and conservatives loath Obamacare.

It was forced down our throats. That's politics. Still, forcing things seems to be the only way the POTUS is able to accomplish much. He's considered, by several polls, to be the most polarizing president within our lifetimes. That's not leadership.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Will,

So when 'reasonable' does not suit YOU, you're ready for treason? Is that what you rightwing types mean by 'second amendment remedies'? I think that the left, as determined by demographics, defeat the will of the righties by sheer numbers, you guys will resort to insurrection. We are waiting for it, but the conclusion may not be to your liking. The rightwing types has as much appreciation for the democratic process as a bear has for a toilet.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

EA,

I hear you regarding the Romney team concern, but it is merely a blip on the radar screen compared to the many states' legislatures that seem to have their focus regarding voter integrity on walk in voters as opposed to absentee ballots.

In all fairness, you have to view the link to MY article I provided where a Penn state official said he could not prove that there was problem with voter fraud that was of any consequence, outside of the fact that there was no proof that it was not happening.

"And how insulting and patronizing is it that the Democrats imply their constituents are too stupid and incompetent to get proper identification to vote in national elections, but they are fit to select their representatives in Washington D.C.?"

How condescending from the right? There was this big hurry to implement these policies a handful of months before the Nov 2012, never heard of any of this angst in years previous, and I say that it is more than just a coincidence. In all fairness, my link provides the argument from the other side, that there are many voters without these documents who were able to vote before. The case for voter fraud needs to be proven much more convincingly before draconian approaches are resorted to....

Most of the problem has been designated to administrative snafu Who is going to risk a felony charge just to cast a ballot? That makes no sense.

Gee, EA, about the article, I can make the same case about your articles and sources. If there is nothing that can be seen as a credible presentation of the other side's point of view, what is the point? The amount of people in your circle is hardly an accurate subset of what is happening. The vast majority of democrats and progressives support the President's program, so it stays for now


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

What, if anything, is wrong with requiring some form of identification to verify that the person voting is actually whom they claim to be? How is that denying voting rights? With all due respect, Arizona didn't wait until the last minute to try to fix the voter fraud issue. I doubt all other states did either. "In 2004 Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which requires voters to present identification at the polling place in order to receive a ballot."

http://phoenix.about.com/od/citiestownsgovernment/...

Yep. It stays for now. That wasn't my point though. My point, regarding Obamacare, was that is was a totally partisan vote, and few, few conservatives or republicans supported it then or now. Forcing legislation alienates the opposing side, regardless of which side does it. The POTUS didn't need our support, so he ramrodded it through Congress. That's pretty much the only way he gets anything accomplished. When he has to show diplomacy, he fails. Now, I know what you are going to say. It's the republicans' fault. These kinds of politics have been played since the beginning of time. Nothing is new here, except for a leaderless president who can't work with Congress, so he goes to the public all the time. Again, even his own side has expressed frustration over this.

In this particular case, I object to your source, because I don't believe you'll be able to locate many additional sources that will concur with it. You and I both know that the vast majority of sources totally disagree with that source. Republicans generally loath Obamacare.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

EA, we will agree to disagree on this topic but you advocate for your side very well. I cannot speak for Arizona, but for many of the states, on the contrary, I think that this has been a fever pitch to get these laws in place prior to last November's election. Pennsylvania is but one example. I am suspect because it is only the GOP that is draconian about this, if it is as they say, everyone, regardless of political inclination should be on board for so sensible a concept, right?

What if I don't have an ID? Texas will accept gun registration as ID, but not student ID. For many poor and elderly who do not have the documentation, it has to be acquired with more than a little time and cost. Are the states that are fussing about all this willing to pay for the ID's? The right to vote is not like driving a car, you know. The Attorney General mentioned, it could be similar to a form of poll tax. More minority groups, young and elderly are 'off the grid', they are an Democratic constituency, so what is more natural for the Right than to attempt to win elections by suppressing its adversaries.

"My point, regarding Obamacare, was that is was a totally partisan vote, and few, few conservatives or republicans supported it then or now".

That is true, EA, but elections have consequences. This health care problem has been festering for years, the GOP decided prior to Obama's inauguration that it would not cooperate at any level and plan specifically to limit Obama to one term. But that did not get them anywhere. Obama attempted to be diplomatic with 'these people' over the last 4 years but they insist to resist just for its own sake. Well, we on the left say now, the gloves are off. I goad Obama to proceed because he has been obstructed at every turn by the Republicans on every issue. If they will not come to the table of cooperation and negotiation, then they will have to be run down.

"Forcing legislation alienates the opposing side, regardless of which side does it."

That is true, but gridlock and inaction are worse and no part of promise of this administration upon assumption of power.

I think that the right is afraid of public opinion that is why they want to keep all the dirty laundry hidden. The aristocrats know they are unpopular, so it is to their advantage to keep a low profile. But, we are going to 'out' them all the same.


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Credence - Just had to check back in. Great conversation about important issues. Hope all is well. Sharing. Theresa


Education Answer 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Credence2,

While I disagree with a lot of what you have said, I respect your views and your professionalism in the debate. I've enjoyed our debate.

Best wishes.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Prof. Theresa, Glad that you could drop by. Find me at what I do best 'stirring the pot'. I have to visit your humble abode and see what you have been up to lately.

I like to dwell on the controverial things.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

You know, EA, it would make an interesting hub to write about how two people can be looking at the same object while I see blue, you see red. Is the environment the only determinant as to why an indivual gravitates toward conservatism or liberalism?

These are the questions that I hope to resolve in coming articles. some of them may be provocative, but that is how you get opposites out to express their opinions. I am looking forward to more stimulating discourse between myself, you and others.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working