ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Gun Control and Assault Weapons ban and Politicians . Two ridiculous notions. Politicians love the terms.

Updated on January 27, 2013

So in my house we have a ban on guns. Simple enough until Grandma gave him this.

The gun was given by Grandma who lost grandpa in 1971 as the Viet Cong approached. He did not have a weapon. She was taken captive.
The gun was given by Grandma who lost grandpa in 1971 as the Viet Cong approached. He did not have a weapon. She was taken captive. | Source

First: Gun Control.

What the heck does that mean? The term only has one logical use. Control the operation of a gun. People who speak of regulating firearms use the term “Gun Control”, that is so like politicians. The mere thought that a legislation could control a gun is just so silly.

Second: Assault Weapons ban.

What kind of stupid is that? It reminds me of Hitler banning books, as though that would stop people from thinking anti Nazi thoughts. What did we say in the 60’s? Ban the bra? Ban the nukes in the 70’s Ban cigarettes in the 80’s Ban the pollution in the 90’s, and Ban the Muslims in 2000’s and now Ban the Banks.

LOL Is ban deodorant still around?

My Father one time let loose 4 rounds under our cabin.

It was the middle of the night. My dad said only a smell caused concern and then hissing. Our cabin was on stilts in a drainage. The Shotgun was a piece of art. I was 3 and one bite from those rattlers would have killed me. There was a nest. We pulled out 8 Diamond back rattlers. We only ate 3. but I still have a beltbuckle.

Who wrote the song with lyrics “when will we ever learn”.

No banning and no controlling. It does not work.

Peace, love an dope do not make the world better if they are pretend. Hard strict regulation of humans is a failure in so many ways. Do not tell us citizens NO tell us how. Spend my tax dollars looking for answers and then provide them. Do not give me and mine a politician spewing concepts of control and banning.

I like the Susan B. Komann campaign to “ban” cancer. That is so silly it is sweet. I contribute. I like parents in a park that “control” their children, as if they could. One of my favorite classes to teach in snow ski racing was the “controlled crash”. One of my favorite things to watch disintegrate is Self Control, by weakness we are made strong.

This old fellow ain't bothering no one, but he sure hell does look like a politician.

No I did not have a gun. I would not have shot it as it posed no danger to family -0-- that is gun control.
No I did not have a gun. I would not have shot it as it posed no danger to family -0-- that is gun control. | Source

Here is my simple request.

Please do not go to a rally that Supports bans and control. Please do not support a rally that suggests that the 2nd amendment does not come with civil obedience and social responsibility. We are not free unless we demand freedom. We will not be well lead as a nation unless we demand intellectual leadership. I am a no man. Join with me, not in saying no to discussion but in saying no to politicians who do not give us the respect to tell us what they know, or resign over what they do not.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 4 years ago from Olympia, WA

      Promote a ban on politicians and I might sign up. :)

    • Curiad profile image

      Mark G Weller 4 years ago from Lake Charles, LA.

      Well said Eric, I could not agree more. I have said time and again, we can not legislate morality, behavior, thoughts, or safety. We can however use common sense and follow the basic morals as a society.

      Mark

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 4 years ago from St. Louis, MO until the end of June, 2017

      Good hub Eric. The words ban and control are linked closely when politicians use them. To ban something means to control something. If guns are banned, what is controlled...people. When smoking is banned, people are controlled. The thing banned isn't controlled, people are. I agree, gun control is a misnomer. People control is what they mean.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Mssrs. Chris, Mark and Bill, I am beside myself to have you men care what I write. To me, that is Copyright! (please wait while I pinch myself some more)

      Think of one of our old favorites and remember the phrase -- the three men I admired most. American Pie, Don sang to all of us.

      I cannot remember the first jingle that caught my ear to where I repeated it in my head all day, perhaps Yo ho ho, Green Giant.

      But I know this I do not want anymore bullshit congressional or senatorial slogans stuck there between my ears.

      Men -- We have a long time to go and a short time to get there -Thank you to all of you.

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      Let's quit calling these rifles the made-to-be-scary term "assault weapons" and start referring to them as what they really are, MSR's or Modern Sporting Rifles.

    • LouTucci profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      You guys are nuts. I have a right to carry a gun or have a gun, what ever you call it. The only problem is, what the hell do I need a gun for? Check out my hub - 2013, take a sad song and make it better!

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      No one is forcing you to own a gun Lou. If you want to be disarmed and helpless that is your choice. My choice is not to be a victim because some politician, who works for me by the way, says I should be.

      They are not royalty and I sure as hell ain't their subject. My rights do not come from them and they sure as hell cannot, and will not, take them away.

    • profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      Helpless? Against what? If you read my "2013, take a sad song and make it better...that explains it all...a gun...I don't live in Montana or where ever I have to hunt for my food! A gun. Gimme a break.

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. In 1776 if you didn't hunt and fish, you didn't eat.

      The 2nd amendment is so we can protect ourselves from harm and a tyrannical government should that become necessary. It was _never_about hunting.

    • profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      Last comment...that time period in history, it was necessary to carry a firearm. That was then, this is now. Good luck with your pick up truck, baseball hat and can of beer.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Hey lou, thanks for your engaging comments. It is my understanding that in and around 1779 you basically had to be rich to own a gun. Remember, it was Ford over a hundred years later that came up with the assembly line. At same time you basically had to be rich to read and write.

      So in fact the second amendment was partially enacted so the rich could protect the poor.

      However more likely the issue of protestants and papists in England was an even greater motivator.

      But put into the climate of the times it was even more for the protection of the individual against any government.

      Very good stuff to learn about. Thanks again.

    • profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      Eric, rich to own a gun? Ford's assembly line? Protestants and papists in England? You know, you guys are out of control. I have no idea what you're talking about. My thoughts are in my Hub I mentioned already. I'm done. Good luck from protecting your self from evil. When was the last time you went to church?

      Lou

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Superkev,

      I do not mind the term "assault weapon" The problem is the vast majority do not understand it. So a regulation advocate means all weapons that resemble an automatic light weight weapon. And of course a 2nd amendment advocate interprets that as a full "assault" on our rights.

      Back to the politicians -- it is not sexy to explain the difference and it is worthless to understand it, because people want sound bytes not knowledge.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Thanks Lou, all those things you do not know what I am talking about is the history and reasons for the 2nd amendment. The assembly line made guns available to the common man. That is critical. Without the production of the weapons, the availability goes way down and economics regulates weaponry.

      England's situation was huge at the time. They had a law that one group could have weapons and the other not -- duh, the haves massacred the have nots.

      Kind of important stuff for you to understand.

    • LouTucci profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      all I understand is that you people need to evolve. You need to move forward. We don't live in caves anymore. Last comment to all you guys that seem to cling to these things like "teddy bears' or a "security blanket"...make love, forget about war. I'm done with this.

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      Everyone, and I mean everyone owned a gun back then. When men showed up to join the Continental Army they came carrying their own rifles. The lack of knowledge about our true history is very disturbing.

      And Lou, you may live in some Utopian walled garden, I don't and neither do most of us. If you want people to evolve let's start with the Crips, Bloods and MS-13 gangbangers pulling home invasion robberies and shooting up neighborhoods.

      The world is not singing kumby-ya and filled with unicorns farting rainbow sherbet. It is a dangerous place sometimes and some of us choose to be prepared for it as is our God given right.

      Law abiding people being prepared is not the problem. You can certainly choose not to take any precautions if you like, what you can't do is take my rights from me because you choose the opposite and think everyone else should too.

    • profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      Do you like, hear things that go bump in the middle of the night? I'm done bro.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Superkev -- I think I said to the best of my knowledge. Do you know what the price of a rifle was back then. -- again it is my understanding it was equivalent to a minimum wages 6 months salary. Perhaps you could link me someplace to get rid of my disturbing ignorance.

    • LouTucci profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      guys, I don't understand why you are all wasting so much time talking about guns! It is designed to do ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY! KILL! Move on! Focus on how to pay your bills on time, work on your kids college fund, look into buying that new car you had your eye on, or that new big screen tv to watch the big game, or that dream vacation for you and your family................

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      If I should hear something go bump in the night, and it is someone coming to do me or mine harm, I am prepared to handle that eventuality Lou.

      Eric, firearms were something families had and kept. It was a matter of survival, like I said, back then if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat.

      The Continental Congress had almost no money with which to fund an army for most of the war.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Back to your source. I understand what you are saying I just want to analyze your assumption that they hunted with guns. I think that is a glamorization of the time. Hunting for food is more likely with traps and snares and trout lines. There were people who hunted for living and they traded. Abraham Lincoln nearly a half century later did not have gun in the house --- too expensive.

      And I am quite certain that you had two types in the continental army. Rich who could afford the time, and poor where even the promise of pay would work. And of course the minutemen who were generally landowners. I think you need to get a handle on the times.

    • Superkev profile image

      Superkev 4 years ago

      I am sure they used all forms of hunting and trapping.

      I think you need to understand that there were not enough Landed Gentry and Minutemen to make up an army and those rifles had to come from someplace. The Continental Congress did not have the funds to do it, especially at the start of the war.

      Regardless of all this history however. I, thankfully, retain the right to keep and bear arms. That is a right I will defend for all Americans.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Superkev, Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I feel better that folk like you have weapons. I feel safer. I feel that any erosion of our rights needs to be fought hard enough to assure proper outcome.

      That gun in the picture will remain in our home, along with some squirt guns. My young son will learn, understand and be responsible citizen and in my home that includes the responsibility that all US citizens must be trained in all self defense. Including defending our Constitution. I will research the availability of weapons during the respective time periods.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      LouTucci, I enjoy it but your position is beautiful in the abstract, and worthless in our society. Peace, Love and Dope are fantastic. But the right to live that life must be earned.

      Many guns are designed to do other things. This is disturbing that you do not understand but are adamant. In fact the design of a military automatic assault weapon is not to kill. Yes it can. Yes Rambo is awesome. But the assault weapons we speak about are designed to pin an enemy in place. It is different. A pistol is not an offensive weapon. It is designed for close up defense. (Hollywood and Ms. Feinstein would argue otherwise but they would be wrong)

      The whole point of my hub here is to emphasize that Slogans and catch phrases are ill placed. Since the first throwing of a rock, forever weapons have been refined. Do not think it so simple as "ban".

    • LouTucci profile image

      LouTucci 4 years ago

      Eric, good luck with your cause. I'm too busy enjoying life.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Good for you and your drive by lack of commitment to words you speak. Fail to see your claimed Italian roots. Mine on one side are said to be Medici. But I am neither Italian nor Irish, I am an American. So is my immigrant wife and our child.

      Go enjoy the life we provide for you by being involved citizens.

    • howtolearnmore profile image

      Andrii Dem. 4 years ago from Tartu

      It strikes me weird when I hear that people against whom the weapons might be used, are deciding whether or not some people are allowed to have AR-15's :)

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      That is why looking into the history of the 2nd is so important. That is exactly what had happened in England. The groups were divided along "religious" lines. One got into power and banned the other from having weapons, the result was slaughter. It is really clear why we have that amendment.

    • stars439 profile image

      stars439 4 years ago from Louisiana, The Magnolia and Pelican State.

      I was a deputy sheriff. A gun in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon. A gun in the right hands can mean self defense , and protection of a home, family, and valuables. What happened to the sweet little children because of a screwed up kid with firearms should not disarm sinceable citizens. Simply do something to protect children more in schools.

      Some people are capable of protecting their homes from thugs, and having a gun can provide protection in the right hands. You're hub makes good logic. Being totally disarmed can only do one thing, and that is to ensure the probability that you would be more than likely a defenseless victim if you, or you're family is put in a compromising position.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      It probably sounds strange to many, but we had firearm safety classes in school - middle around '68. Guns are a part of our society. The Ostrich syndrome is a bad way to go.

      I went to court the other day. To protect our precious legal system, we have security in place that matches the threat. And yet our precious children do not have that security. Nice values.

    Click to Rate This Article