Why is America So in Love with Guns?

The second amendment to the US Constitution guarantees it's citizens the right to bear arms for self defense and to protect their property. This amendment was originally taken from the English Bill of Rights written in 1689. Our Bill of Rights was passed in 1791. In the past 220 years America has changed dramatically.

When the Bill of Rights was passed there was no such thing as a police force of any kind. There were no city or village police departments, There were no sheriff's departments or state police agencies. And there was no Federal police force. There were volunteer militias and of course the Continental Army which defeated the forces of King George. The colonies, before and after the Revolutionary War, were a lawless band of states.The right to bear arms was important to the citizens of early America to protect their families and property, as they basically lived in a wilderness. Now each village, town, city, county and state has it's own police force to protect the lives and property of all of the citizens within their jurisdictions.

America has supposedly grown up and progressed, while some of her citizens have not. In the past month there have been a number of gun related mass murders, caused by mentally unstable individuals possessing an arsenal of ammunition and assault weapons. Most Americans are upset with our political leaders of both parties because they are controlled by the NRA ( National Rifle Association) or they are terrified of going against them. Whenever someone calls for more gun control to stop the senseless gun violence, NRA supporters always bring up the Second Amendment argument and whine that their basic rights are being taken away. It is perfectly understandable that some people who enjoy hunting or target shooting would need to possess a rifle or shotgun, but why would anyone need to possess not one but many assault weapons which are designed to kill as many people as possible? And why would they need and endless supply of ammunition?

In the aftermath of these recent shootings many Republicans blamed the poor economy, where a great many people are unemployed and are upset and depressed with their situation.They said more gun control is not the answer. More jobs are the answer. This is ridiculous. Even though our economy is struggling, most countries of the world are in way worse shape. Look at Spain, which has a 25% unemployment rate or Portugal or Greece. How many mass killings have you seen there? None. The reason being that guns are not as available as candy,like here. Europeans hunt and they have hunting rifles in which to do so. They are not demanding AK47's to hunt wild boar or pheasants. Why do they not need an arsenal of weapons? Maybe Americans need a gun to assert their masculinity? Maybe they don't feel like men unless they possess the ability to kill or at least scare others, Even in England, where gun rights began, there are no mass murders occurring routinely and no one is demanding the right to possess assault weapons.

With the recent completion of the 2012 Republican National Convention and the introduction of the 2012 GOP Republican Platform, gun rights supporters and the NRA are drawing laughs and ridicule from the rest of the world. The civilized part. Europeans cannot understand that with so much gun violence in this country why the Republicans want to grant the right to own a unlimited supply of ammunition and repeal any laws restricting the possession of assault weapons. At the same time the Republicans want more guns, an action that would cause even more deaths and injuries, they are pushing to repeal reproductive rights. Why do they feel it is so important to protect the unborn, and not to protect the born?

One argument the NRA and gun activists push is the mistaken belief that the Second Amendment grants the right to possess arms in order to repel foreign invasions and oppressive governments. This false belief is very terrifying. The Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to trust and depend upon the new Federal form of government for their protection and the protection of the country. They provided an army to protect the country. They also provided for the direct election of congress and the president. If a president or congress was unpopular or oppressive, the citizens could vote them out of office. The Founding Fathers did not intend that a bunch of extremist, paranoid rednecks take up arms against the government. There are many people, whose mental capacities have been warped by right wing extremists like Limbaugh, Bachman and The Tea Party and have adopted a belief that the only way to change the government is through violence and not the ballot box. So much hatred has been generated by Conservative Republican extremists directed towards Obama, that I fear some of these people could actually decide to take matters into their own hands.

In regard to needing arms to protect the country from foreign invasion, I think this is the saddest argument of all. Right now the United States has the most powerful military in the world. No country would dare attempt to invade this country, with our arsenal of nuclear missiles. Even if some country was insane enough or suicidal enough, what good would a bunch of drunken NRA members and survivalists be in defending our country?

It's time this country stops fearing the NRA and our politicians stop selling out to them and legislate effective gun laws. In order to assuage the gun rights proponents perhaps the government could offer them sexual identity therapy!



Three Years later!

It's now been three years since I wrote this Hub and absolutely nothing has changed, except for one thing. Mass shootings have increased to a point where they occur almost daily in 2015! There has been 355 mass shootings in America during 2015 and today is the 338th day of the year! I have basically given up on commenting about this problem because I feel it is useless. Our Republican members of Congress, after each of our mass shootings can only offer prayers along with their refusal to do something about the problem. Prayers don't work and haven't worked. God did not create this problem American humans created this problem and we should not expect Him to solve the problem if we are willing to do nothing!

We are constantly warned about foreign terrorists, but sit back idly while our own home grown white Christians kill our citizens. We always say they were people with mental problems, a way to place the blame on something else. If the latest shooting was carried out by someone other than a white Christian American, our right wing nut jobs will surely condemn a whole race or religion, instead of looking at the plethora of guns available to carry our mass shootings. We are so very lucky that what happened in Paris hasn't happened here - yet! It's just a matter of time. The big difference will be that in Europe guns are difficult to obtain, but here they are a common part of the so called culture and are available to anyone who has the will to kill.

I know I am wasting my time and breath as our cowardly members of Congress , all bought and paid for by the NRA, will continue to do nothing. Their answers to the problem is more guns and more money for the NRA and more deaths. Will it stop when our cowardly elected representatives suffer the fate of having their family members murdered or if NRA members are killed? I doubt it. The lure of more money is bigger than the lives of themselves and their family members. I'm afraid that it is too late for what is left of our once civilized society. There are now too many guns available to those who should not have them. I am afraid that in another few years I will be writing again, God willing, as the situation has become even worse.

More by this Author


Comments 20 comments

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

From my studies of United States history, it seems that there has always been a distrust between the states and the federal government. That is why there are states rights, militias and why the second amendment is so important for many.

In case the federal government becomes despotic, the right to bear arms gives citizens a way to fight oppression. It is part of a system of checks and balances, in a way.

That is just my opinion on why the Second Amendment has always been so important in the minds of many Americans.

Good article. This is certainly a delicate subject as it brings in a lot of emotion for many people.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI

This hub paints the clearest picture I've read yet about the guns, violence and the first amendment. Fantastic!

Steveso

Your statement "No country would dare attempt to invade this country, with our arsenal of nuclear missiles. Even if some country was insane enough or suicidal enough, what good would a bunch of drunken NRA members and survivalists be in defending our country?"

Just cracks me up hahaha! Funny but true!

Mr happy

I think that probably most of the emphasis on states rights and distrust of the federal government, especially in the southern states, is because of the aftermath of the civil war.

The federal goverment became the boogey man for the southern states, actually at that time they weren't part of the United States because they had left the Union and created their own country, The Confererate States of America.

After the United States of America defeated the Confederate States of America, they were placed under martial law for years. That's one of reasons many of their descendants since then and even today have animosity for the federal government and an obsession with the 2nd amendment and want to take over the federal government or effectively abolish it.


gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Great hub. This gun obsession stems from our colonial and pioneer heritage. We Americans believe that we have the right to arms in order to protect ourselves and others from harm. We also want to be in charge of our lives and protection instead of the militia, we want to do it ourselves. Also, it is an extension of the male sexual psychology i.e. feeling dominant and oh, so in control and macho.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

"drunken NRA members"

Steve is a bigot no different from the members down at the local Klan meeting. The only difference is the object of their hatred.


steveso profile image

steveso 4 years ago from Brockport, NY Author

So Jack you admit you belong to the Klan. It looks like I have struck a nerve.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

This, Dear Readers, is the best that Steve can do, eh.


steveso profile image

steveso 4 years ago from Brockport, NY Author

Well Jack. That is not up to you or me to decide.


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

I see no point on insulting one another on this issue. There are actual points we can talk about ...

With that in mind, I must say Mr. Jack Burton that I read your satirical article on guns yesterday. I did not comment (something strange for me because I usually comment on almost every article I read) but I obviously got to know that You like your guns and more likely than not, You are an NRA member. I can understand why You got upset at the "drunken NRA" comment. I also understand the other opinion though : guns are dangerous and can cause serious mayhem.

Now, if anyone wants to discuss my earlier point, that people in the United States like their guns because they distrust the federal government, I am totally up for that. Even more so, I would like to quote Mr. Ron Paul here and say: "It is practical rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms ... By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now"; "when all else fails, the gun owned by the individual is to be used to protect against tyranny of the state." (Congressman Ron Paul)

This I believe is a point that can be discussed by anyone irrespective of their political affiliation.

Cheers!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

The founding fathers were very learned men, and understood quite well that power corrupts. This is indisputable -- sort of like the concept of gravity.

If all the power is in the hands of the government there is little the citizens can do to defend themselves against a government that goes corrupt. History is filled with examples that the FF knew about. The 2nd Amendment is a prophylactic that prevents this.

Would you want to live in a society where the only two organizations that had access to force were the government and the criminals?

BTW... I am not an NRA member. But I can smell bigotry from a long distance.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

steve sez: Now each village, town, city, county and state has it's own police force to protect the lives and property of all of the citizens within their jurisdictions.

Jack replies: The Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases that the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen, and the citizen has no right to expect or demand such protection. What criminal is going to be so inept that they commit their crime under the watch of a policeman? The idea that he's going to wait until the policeman is a few blocks down the street is perhaps beyond some who expect to be safe in the loving arms of the boys in blue.

Steve sez: In the past month there have been a number of gun related mass murders, caused by mentally unstable individuals

JAck replies: Yeah, odd how in a nation of about 300,000,000 people we'd have a handful that go off the rails and hurt others. We need to demand perfection in our society or else...

Steve sez: Most Americans are upset with our political leaders of both parties because they are controlled by the NRA ( National Rifle Association) or they are terrified of going against them.

Jack replies: Most Americans agree with the NRA that no more gun control laws are needed. And Steve has a problem with the concept of Americans banding together to petition the government as called for in the Constitution. Those who have problems with the 2nd Amendment almost always have major problems with other parts of the document also.

Steve sez: Whenever someone calls for more gun control to stop the senseless gun violence, NRA supporters always bring up the Second Amendment argument and whine that their basic rights are being taken away.

Jack replies: Imagine that... citizens calling for the government to actually follow what the Constitution says.

Steve sez: It is perfectly understandable that some people who enjoy hunting or target shooting would need to possess a rifle or shotgun, but why would anyone need to possess not one but many assault weapons which are designed to kill as many people as possible?

Jack replies:

1) The Constitution is not about hunting or target shooting.

2) Read my hub on "Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)" and educate yourself.

3) Why do you believe the local police have a need to "kill as many people as possible" since most of them carry an AR-15 or variant?

Steve sez: And why would they need and endless supply of ammunition?

Jack replies: I wasn't aware it was the Bill of What Steve Thinks People Need. I always heard is was the Bill of Rights.

Besides, Dear Readers, let me let you in on something that Steve is not aware of. The shooter in Colorado bought about 6,000 rounds of ammo. He only used less than 200 rounds. So what difference does it make if he bought 200 rounds, 2,000 rounds or 200,000 rounds?

And BTW... for many shooters 6,000 rounds is nothing. You can go thru that many rounds out at the range in a couple of practice sessions.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

The rest of the rant is just too painful to even attempt to correct with all the factual and historical errors in it.

The best that Steve knows how to do is to insult those who have a different opinion. Gun owners must be drunken rednecks, who want to shoot and kill the government.

And then people claim we need a "dialogue" about guns. Honestly, does any Dear Reader think that Steve wants to dialogue, or just insult?


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

You made a very good point in my opinion, Mr. Jack Burton: "that power corrupts". And I do believe the Second Amendment is there as a method of check and balances, in case that Power does indeed corrupt.

Yet, I cannot say or I do not think it would be correct to say that Power always corrupts, or that everyone is corrupted by Power. Again, I would have to give Mr. Ron Paul as an example. He has been a congressman for decades and he does not take money from lobbyists and special interest groups. Lobbyists no longer even bother trying to approach Mr. Ron Paul because they know they cannot bribe him with money and favors. I do think he is an incorruptible Spirit. Thus, perhaps we should try searching for leaders and representatives in government who are not easily swayed with cash incentives. I am not sure if we should always rely on our guns to keep corruption out - look at the last few years with all the banking scandals, bail-outs and such: corruption is flourishing and guns are not really stopping this trend. There is indeed a problem here.

"The shooter in Colorado bought about 6,000 rounds of ammo" - I think the issue here is not that someone bought 6,000 rounds but that a mentally unstable man bought 6,000 rounds of ammo. To make it more fun, I suppose we can just hand-out M-16 and Ak-47s to all the mental institute patients and see what happens ... a little responsibility on who we sell guns to, would be nice in my opinion. As one who lives in Toronto, Canada I can say that we have way too many American guns on our streets - any way we can minimize that flow of weapons?

I appreciate the conversation.

All the best!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

As to "power corrupts" there are two things to keep in mind...

1) The saying was generally not directed at individuals, although it can be applied and seen at work at an individual level. This is one of the reasons why the British people lead the way for the rest of the world in diffusing the power of the government over several directions, and with multiple people in most of the directions. The U.S. took it a step further in some areas, but the Brits deserve the props for taking those important prior actions.

2) Governments are in it for the long term. What may not be corrupt today may very well be 100 years from now. Putting prophylactics in the way now may save our great-grandchildren from considerable problems.

As to who buys firearms, there are multiple federal and state laws that prevent those who are adjudicated from legally purchasing firearms or ammo. "Minority Report" was a fictional movie -- we really don't have the power to reach into someone's mind and tell who is going to commit a future crime.

As to the concept of "allowing" people to purchase such a dangerous object, you can see my thoughts at my hub, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?"

And concerning guns and Canada... you're focused in on the wrong thing. My guns have never hurt anyone. If my guns were sitting in my house in Canada they still would not have hurt anyone. You don't have a problem with "guns." You have a problem with criminals. If they were not smuggling guns do you really think they would be otherwise living a law abiding life with a wife and three kids in Sunday school?

Or would they be off doing some other crime that you would still be complaining about wanting to stop?


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

I have never seen Minority Report but I agree with You that we cannot tell who will commit a crime at a later time, unless the person says so.

The question remains: is there no better way to keep guns and ammunition out of the hands of mentally unstable people - as in prohibiting the purchase of weapons for them?

And yes, we have a problem with guns here and You are right in the sense that even if guns were not available, one can always put together a Molotov cocktail and cause all sort of disturbances, to say the least. The other side of the argument though, is that there is greater risk from an M-107 than there is from a baseball bat, a knife or a Molotov cocktail. I would still take an M-107 though - haha!! (http://mrhappy.hubpages.com/hub/A-Serious-Change-o...

So, I suppose now we are just talking about the level of danger posed by allowing certain weapons to be purchased by more or less anyone who has some cash and can walk into a Wall-mart, irrespective if they are conscious or not of the danger they pose with their new toys. Are we responsible from this perspective?

"Governments are in it for the long term. What may not be corrupt today may very well be 100 years from now." - I am not exactly sure what You meant by this statement. I think many people fail to recognize that the government is Us, the people. We are the government thus, it is funny for me to see people fearing the government. As if the government is this separate entity coming from the sky every once in a while to screw us (excuse the term, I thought it fit). We are the government and if we take charge of our government and become responsible citizens involved in the doings of our government then, we would not have to fear it, or think that it will turn corrupt.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Happ sez: The question remains: is there no better way to keep guns and ammunition out of the hands of mentally unstable people - as in prohibiting the purchase of weapons for them?

Jack replies: Again, it is illegal for those adjudicated with mental illness to buy weapons or ammo. Perhaps we can make it doubly-illegal?

We are a nation of laws.... not what we fffffeeeellll about things. We don't legally do things to other people or take away their basic rights based upon what we feel towards them.

A better question that might be asked is just what legally prescribed psychotropic drugs these people were on when they committed their deeds.

The other option is to ban weapons sales to those whom you "think" might do harm with them. And I have heard from far too many liberals and leftists who automatically think that means "conservatives" and republicans.

BTW... there are about 380,000,000 guns in America, best guess. There are about a dozen at the most large scale shootings done each year by someone who is mentally unstable. That means we've kept 379,999,988 guns out of unstable hands. I'd say that is a pretty good job. Demanding perfection is not based in reality.

Happy sez: The other side of the argument though, is that there is greater risk from an M-107 than there is from a baseball bat, a knife or a Molotov cocktail.

Jack replies: the three most horrifying mass murders in America were done with a box cutters, common farm fertilizer and a gallon of gasoline.

Happy sez: So, I suppose now we are just talking about the level of danger posed by allowing certain weapons to be purchased by more or less anyone who has some cash and can walk into a Wall-mart,

Jack replies: 20,000 gun laws in America. Which one those do you suppose lets "more or less anyone" to buy weapons? Or do you suppose that perhaps there are many more stringent laws in effect about buying firearms and you shouldn't exaggerate for effect because it weakens your argument.

Happy sez: irrespective if they are conscious or not of the danger they pose with their new toys. Are we responsible from this perspective?

Jack replies: Again, the people made that choice clearly discernible when they overturned Prohibition knowing that hundreds of thousands of innocents would be harmed by those that misuse demon rum.

Happy sez: "Governments are in it for the long term. What may not be corrupt today may very well be 100 years from now." - I am not exactly sure what You meant by this statement.

Jack replies: What institution is not corrupt today may very well be corrupt tomorrow. A minor example, the United Church of Christ was made up of churches that were once the mainstay of traditional Evangelical Christian teachings a hundred years ago. Today, they are proudly virtually apostate and one would be hard pressed to find a traditional thought in the church. One can argue from different perspectives whether or not that is good or bad, but no one can deny that the church has moved far from it's moorings.

Happy sez: I think many people fail to recognize that the government is Us, the people. We are the government thus, it is funny for me to see people fearing the government.

Jack replies: Yes, we are the government. That used to be much more true than today, when the entrenched bureaucrats and unelected agencies gain more and more power over the people and process.

I don't know if they teach "defensive driving" in Canada. Virtually every person who has been trained to drive a car here learns that style. It teaches that we are to watch over the other driver because we just never know. We do not "fear" the other driver and we do not fear our government... we are just cautious about their actions and realize that the ultimate responsibility for our safety lies in our hands... not those of the other person. THAT has always been the American way.

**********************************

The standard Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, defines defensive driving as "driving to save lives, time, and money, in spite of the conditions around you and the actions of others." This definition is taken from the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course. It is a form of training for motor vehicle drivers that goes beyond mastery of the rules of the road and the basic mechanics of driving. ITS AIM IS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF DRIVING BY ANTICIPATING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS, DESPITE ADVERSE CONDITIONS OR THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS. This can be achieved through adherence to a variety of general rules, as well as the practice of specific driving techniques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_driving#His...


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

BTW, Happy...

You might enjoy this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgSe5LdUfc&feature...


Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Haha!! "Every time I kick-in a door or smash a window, I face the possibility of being shot and killed".

That was a funny video indeed. Yet, we cannot ignore the business part of making, guns, selling guns, making wars with the use of armament ... here is a video, just like yours about two and a half minutes long which warns about the problems of letting the armament industry do as it pleases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY - The cool part about it, in my opinion is that the speech is given by an ex United States General (and President).

Now, I wish to return and focus on a comment You made which honestly nearly left me speechless. You wrote that there are "20,000 gun laws in America".

I had to quickly do a bit of research - I thought this to be something ridiculous. Why have so many gun laws and yet so much irresponsible people are able to get guns? Makes no sense what's so ever ... And You further wrote that: "Again, it is illegal for those adjudicated with mental illness to buy weapons or ammo." - Then how come that man bought 6,000 rounds of ammo? Never mind about all his guns, body armor, smoke bombs, etc. Obviously the laws, however many they are, are not working. Might just well abolish them - what is the point in having ineffective laws?

I did do a little research regarding the 20,000 gun laws and I could not find anything that would suggest that number is indeed correct. What I did find was actually a research paper which stated that there are roughly "300 different state laws as of 1999" (http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gun... It seems that the 20,000 number is a myth which got passed-on through generations, without many people checking its validity. But it doesn't even matter how many gun laws there are if mentally unstable people still have access to guns and can go on rampages on any given day. A few laws which work would be better, in my opinion then three hundred which do not work.

"Yes, we are the government. That used to be much more true than today, when the entrenched bureaucrats and unelected agencies gain more and more power over the people and process" - To return back to the argument that we need guns because power corrupts, this statement of yours is critical! Indeed we let crooks high-jack our governments then, we need guns to get rid of them. How about we make lobbying illegal and punishable by death, so politicians can not be bribed/bought-out and in that way corruption diminishes as well?

I think we should be fighting corruption, instead of each one of us holding a nuclear weapon under our bed because that is where we are heading I guess.

Again, just some thoughts ... thank You for the discussion.

I do not want to seem like I have all the answers, or any answers - I just wish to learn what others think and try to find a common ground to our social issues.

All the best!


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

1) You simply cannot compare the needs/desires of a nation with the purchase of a firearm by an individual. That’s like saying that the agri-business farm corporation with 1,000, 000 acres under cultivation is no different from the backyard farmer with a 100 square feet of tomatoes and peppers.

2) Eisenhower was wrong when he said that America had no “armament” manufacturers prior to the war. There was Colt, Remington, and several others that could turn out thousands of guns each day. John Moses Browning from Utah was the leading firearm designer in the world in the late 1800s through WW I and many of his designs are just as popular world wide now as then.

Hap sez: Now, I wish to return and focus on a comment You made which honestly nearly left me speechless. You wrote that there are "20,000 gun laws in America".

Jack replies: Let’s define laws. There are federal, state and local legislative laws. Here in Indiana alone we have 119 cities and 447 towns.

There are federal and state case laws that come from judicial rulings and are as required to follow as legislative laws.

There are rulings, procedures and requirements from federal, state and local agencies that have the force and nature of laws.

There are laws that deal with the importation of firearms, manufacturing of firearms, distribution of firearms, selling of firearms and buying of firearms. There are laws dealing with the carrying of firearms, storage of firearms, modifications to firearms and shooting firearms.

Added together, no one really knows the number of firearm laws and regulations, but 20,000 is not out of the reach of reasonableness.

Up until14 months ago I could guarantee you that virtually all of the 119 cities and 447 towns in Indiana had at least several firearm laws on the books concerning what types of guns were allowed in town, where and when they could be carried, and when they could be used. Indiana passed a law to preempt the field of firearm law and therefore all the local laws were wiped off the books. There was such a wailing and gnashing of teeth from the towns that you could not imagine. Some of them are even attempting to defy state law now.

There were, with a good, reasonable estimate, at least 1,000 local town and city laws that went by the wayside only last year over the state preemption. And that was just in one of 50 states.

BTW... there are about 90 counties in Indiana also, and each of them had multiple laws on the books concerning firearms. Virtually all of them went bye bye also.

You’ll find the same hodge podge of laws in any state that doesn’t preempt the issue, which is the majority of them.

Yes, there easily can be that many laws that affect firearms by the time you add them all up. What is perfectly legal in Springfield, Indiana may or may not be legal in Springfield, Illinois, or Springfield, Mass, or Springfield, Missouri.

Happy sez: Why have so many gun laws and yet so much irresponsible people are able to get guns? Makes no sense what's so ever ...

Jack replies: Have you considered that criminals who are going to shoot and kill people are not really going to be too worried about breaking a law concerning having a gun?

Happy sez: And You further wrote that: "Again, it is illegal for those adjudicated with mental illness to buy weapons or ammo." - Then how come that man bought 6,000 rounds of ammo? Never mind about all his guns, body armor, smoke bombs, etc.

Jack sez: Easy… you missed the important word adjudicated. Here in America we don’t take rights away from people “just because.”

Happy sez: Obviously the laws, however many they are, are not working. Might just well abolish them - what is the point in having ineffective laws?

Jack replies: Keep thinking and learning, Hap… we are going to turn you into a libertarian before the year is over.

Happy sez: But it doesn't even matter how many gun laws there are if mentally unstable people still have access to guns and can go on rampages on any given day. A few laws which work would be better, in my opinion then three hundred which do not work.

Jack replies: I’ll be glad to entertain laws that don’t

1) Infringe on the rights of citizens

2) Actually work instead of just making people ffffeeeellll ggggoooodddd that they have “done something.”

Happy sez: How about we make lobbying illegal and punishable by death,

Jack replies: Lobbying the government is protected in the Constitution as the right of citizens. Whether one person does it, or five people band together and hire a person to do it for them it is still a protected right.

The people have more than one avenue to have a voice in the government.

Happy sez: so politicians can not be bribed/bought-out and in that way corruption diminishes as well?

Jack replies: It’s up to the people to vote those out of office, and the legal system to convict those politicians that break the laws. In Chicago, the number of councilmen who are currently in jail outnumbers those on the council.

Happy sez: I think we should be fighting corruption, instead of each one of us holding a nuclear weapon under our bed because that is where we are heading I guess.

Jack replies: Nothing says we cannot do both at the same time. Right now you have the ability to fight corruption… and no other option if it fails. We Americans have the same identical option you have… and one more tucked away if necessary. Who has the better of it?

Happy sez: Again, just some thoughts ... thank You for the discussion.

Jack replies: You’re a much better behaved Canuck than most that try to discuss this issue. For that I thank you.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Hap... here 's an example where a town completely forgot that they had gun laws on the books...

http://tinyurl.com/brvhu6v

How can we count them when the towns don't even remember them?


steveso profile image

steveso 4 years ago from Brockport, NY Author

Jack, from reading your Hubs on this subject I see that you are an avid gun supporter and you have your opinions, many of which I disagree with. But that is your opinion. I will never agree with you and you will never agree with me. I know that you took this Hub as a personal attack on me, thus causing your personal attacks on me. I grew up in a rural conservative town where I knew many members of the NRA. I remember them gathering together and drinking heavily. From their conversations I learned that they hated Blacks, gays, Asians, foreigners and Democrats. That scared me. I guess I made the mistake of generalizing NRA members from what I have experienced. I apologize if I included you in that generalization andI hope you are a responsible gun owner, which I think you are. At least in stating my opinions I have givern you the opportunity to state your opinions. Let's just agree to disagree, without attacking each other.

    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