ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

Updated on February 21, 2015
Source

After the Constitution was ratified, there was a group of Anti-federalist that were concerned that the federal government would have too much power over the states and individuals. They were instrumental in framing the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The second amendment was drafted because people were still concerned about the following:

  • Deterring a tyrannical government;
  • Repelling invasion;
  • Suppressing insurrection;
  • Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • Participating in law enforcement;
  • Enabling the people to organize a militia system

The Second Amendment

Therefore, the second amendment reads as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now let's parse key parts of the sentence.

The dictionary defintion of A Well Regualated Militia

  • A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
  • A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
  • All able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
  • A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Firing a Flintlock

Firing a Flinlock
Firing a Flinlock | Source

Flintlock Pistol

Source

Keep and Bear Arms

Based on the reasons that I have listed above, you can see why the people of 1791 would want to have the right to keep and bear arms. But here is what the feature of those arms would be.

State of the art guns in 1791

  • be made by a gunsmith.
  • have rudimentary rifling.
  • be single-shot weapons.
  • be loaded through the muzzle.
  • fire by means of a flintlock.


Defintion of a Gun

  • A weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive a piece of ordnance.
  • Any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun or revolver.
  • A long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.
  • Any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.


What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

You notice in the above definition of a gun, the word weapon is used. But what is a weapon of mass destruction? I know just from my own knowledge, it can range anywhere from a nuclear tipped guided missile to a machine gun. I believe that auto fire assult rifles and handguns with high capacity clips are also weapons of mass destruction.

This is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't think this is what the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind back in 1791. Tell me why any civilian would have a need for this type of armament? I have friends that are members of gun clubs and I understand they see this as a type of sport, but in the wrong hands this can very easily become an extreme weapon of mass destruction. That's why I believe the 2nd amendment needs to be modified and brought up to modern times. i'm not saying that civilians don't have the right to have guns. But there is no need to bear arms with weapons of mass destruction.

If this government wanted to take you out, there would be no way to defend yourself against the military might of this country. Yes, you have the right to protect yourself against the bad guys. (That's gun club talk.). But there is a price that we pay for that, every time innocent people are killed by crazies. We people pay a price so the gun enthusiast can keep and play with their high capacity, assault weapons..

The NRA Influence

I grew up with guns and have a healthy respect for them.. My dad was an avid hunter. I learned how to hunt with shotguns and rifles. I can understand the thrill that can come from firing high powered weapons. I'm sure there is even more of a thrill and satisfaction that comes from firing high-capacity automatic weapons.

But the NRA has one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. and they will do everything in their power to protect gun rights. Why, because it's big business and they have bought congress. Just read this article as to why congress and politicians have been told to hush about the Massacre in Aurora Colorado. (After linking to this article, don't forget to come back here to finish reading this hub.)

In 1994 there was a ban placed on assault weapons, but because of "sunset laws", it expired in 2004, it was never renewed. Question: If something was ruled as being bad in 1994, why isn't it bad today. Why would they allow a law to expire?

Conclusion

After doing research on this article. I've come to the conclusion the 2nd amendment needs to be changed. Here it is again for reference:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm no lawyer or supreme court justice, but just plain common sense tells me, we don't need a well regulated militia and we don't need to keep and bear arms that are high-powered, automatic, high-capacity assult weapons.

I know there will be gun advocates out there that will take offense to this article, but I'm just calling it as I see it after doing the research.

After reading this hub, do you feel the 2nd amendment is appropriate for modern times?

See results

Should the law banning assault weapons for civillians be reinstated?

See results

Epilogue

I published this article in July of 2012, but since then there have been many more mass killings including the unthinkable tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. This made me think that our country is divided into two mentalities of trust.

There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. And if the probability of some invasion of their well being is to take place they will protect themselves, even if it against our own government. Then there are those that trust the establishment to protect them.

The price we pay for having these guns available to the public is that some unstable people also have that same access. If that access is removed, it will lessen the probability of those that are unstable to getting that access.

We are currently in a vicious cycle. When there is a a mass killing, more people buy these weapons which also makes them available to the unstable people. The gun enthusiast like to use the slippery slope argument. If you ban these weapons, then you have to ban knives,forks cars, trains planes and anything else that can be used as a weapon, but that is a very weak argument. It is part of the "what if game" that takes the control out of the person playing the game. The way they get control back is by having these weapons. The whole idea about protecting ourselves from tyranny is a "what if game" on a slippery slope. It is completely based on fear. Another argument is that there are already so many guns owned by the public, it's too late to do anything about it. That also is a weak argument propagated by the NRA. It's never too late to do something that will curtail the use of these weapons.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      I totally agree with you, Peoplepower73. Unfortunately the NRA influence and the ingrained pro-gun bias in the Congress will preclude any action.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      Actually HS you should do more research. The NRA, and the majority of gun owners, do support gun regulations. They simply do not support the generalized regulations that the left usually proposes simply to create a "point the finger" arguing position.

      The problem becomes that everyone wants to look strictly at gun related deaths. These numbers are skewed because they not only count homicide rates, but suicide, accidental shootings, self-defense and manslaughter.

      Further, to truly ascertain if strict gun control laws help in the least, one has to analyze ALL violent crime. Not just that which involve guns.

      Percentages do not tell a full story. They can be adjusted by sample size to appear to support whatever side someone is advocating. That leaves us with not much factual information to really use to support either side's claims.

      For instance, three people kill someone outside a club, not enough evidence can be found to prosecute anyone. In the US, it is counted as 3 people committing homicide. In England, it is not counted at all. There are no reliable studies nor facts available.

      The Second Amendment clearly supports the individual's right to bear arms. That is why the word "individual" is included. It is not about currently serving in a militia. It is about being able to form a militia if one is necessary to overcome a tyrannical government. You cannot know if ever we may face such a threat. The reason that individuals need to be armed, and not only those who serve in a militia, is that most often, militias are used by the government to enforce their will upon the people. This is, of course, interpreting the 2nd amendment as it is written in its entirety. Who fought the American Revolution? It was not "previously and well formed militias". It was the average citizen, who THEN formed militias. If these citizens did not own their own firearms, we would not even exist as a country.

      That said, most do support specific gun controls. Even the NRA and gun owners. What they oppose are the sweeping generalized strict regulations that are introduced by the liberal left.

      All that said, I find it horribly distasteful for these families' tragedy to be so quickly used as a platform for gun control by the Democrats. Further, the gunman in Colorado broke so many laws to do all the things he did, no gun control law would have stopped him.

    • Martinblade1 profile image

      Martinblade1 4 years ago from Earth

      In the words of Bill Nye, Consider the Following.

      Fully automatic firearms are not available to the general public, they require that the individual go through a holder of a Class 3 Federal Firearms License, that they pass a more extensive background check than the one for just buying a gun, and the payment of a $200 tax (at the time, that was almost double the cost of the gun). All of that is under EXISTING law. The exact details can be found here, http://iawca.org/automatic-weapons-faq.

      The two hubs that I have written do more than an adequate job of showing both the legitimate uses of a "assault rifle," why a ban wouldn't have prevented the aurora shooting, and why the thinking criminal is only mildly inconvenienced by gun control laws. I suggest you read them.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      SassySue1963: You are back! Why am I not surprised, you would make a lengthy comment on this. Writing these controversial hubs is almost like fishing. You know you are gong to hook some people. I read your comments. I still don't like the second amendment. I think it is out of date and subject to much interpretation, based on who is reading it and what they want to get out of it. It's poorly written and is for a much earlier time in this country. But as always, I appreciate your comments and always learn something from them. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Martinblade1; I read your link, that's all and good for Idaho and others states that participate. But how about those that don't?. It covers how to buy guns legally, but what if they are bought illegally, what are the enforcments? I know at many gun shows people sell guns out of the back of their vehicles, without any registration. Also your policies don't cover foreign weapons.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      HSchneider: I agree, it's all about big money and re-elections. Thanks for dropping by.

    • Patty Kenyon profile image

      Patty Kenyon 4 years ago from Ledyard, Connecticut

      Awesome Hub!!!! I believe there is need for more gun control, in cities within 45 mins of my house usually have 5 or more random shootings a day, and some days a lot more...too many causalities that didn't need to be!!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Patty Kenyon: Thanks for the comments. I'm sorry to hear about the shootings. I understand they arrested another guy in Maryland that was a contractor for Pitney Bowes. He said he was going to shoot everybody in the company. When the police went to his house, they found a huge arsenal of weapons...something has to be done. Thanks for stopping by.

    • Martinblade1 profile image

      Martinblade1 4 years ago from Earth

      People, the other 10 states do not allow their population to own fully automatic guns. Also, the punishment for an illegally owned fully automatic firearm is a minimum 10 year prison sentence, up to a $250,000 fine, and is considered a federal felony which bars the individual from every legally owning a firearm again. The country of origin for the firearm also doesn't matter either, it is treated the same under our law as a gun manufactured here in the US.

      Also under federal law any legal gun sale must go through a FFL licensed individual and a form 4473 (firearms transaction record) must be filled out. Now, gifting a gun to someone is a different matter, but the person receiving the gun must be able to pass the same background check. If they can't it's known as a straw sale and is illegal.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Martinblade1: I appreciate your comments. It's not about legality. It'a about enforcement. I would venture to say that most of the mass shootings were done with weapons that were not legally registered. It's also about a ban on assault weapons with high capacity magazines. I understand that people think they are neat and like to fire them because of the amazing firepower that they have, but in the wrong hands, you can see what happens. Those are weapons of war, they were not intended to be used to fascinate gun enthusiast. Thanks for your comments

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I've included the latest information on the Sikh Shooting in Wisconsin. It's important to note the gunmen owned the weapon legally.

    • michiganman567 profile image

      michiganman567 4 years ago from Michigan

      Are we back to the idea that high powered weapons are only for the criminals of society? Once the government disarms then maybe they can ask the rest of society to disarm. Until then, we can not have a deal.

      The right to bear arms is not a right to go hunting. It is not a right to go to the shooting range. It is not even the right to protect your property from criminals. The right to bear arms was instituted to protect your liberty from a tyrannical AMERICAN government. Not a foreign government. We are not going to have that capacity to protect our liberty with hunting rifles and Muskets. Just like the police say that they need high powered rifles to protect themselves from criminals. We also need the capacity to protect ourselves from people that want to do us harm. If you do not trust yourself not to shoot up a movie theater/temple, then that is your call. I trust myself never to become a mass murderer.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      michiganman567: If you read my hub, the 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights. It was ratified in 1791 because there was an anti-federalist movement that was afraid the constitution did not have enough teeth in it to protect the federal government from infringing on the rights of the people and the states. Who are these people who want to do us harm and when are they going to do it? As we arm ourselves for those who want to do us harm, innocent people are being gunned down by crazies using weapons of mass destruction. Don't you think we have already done enough harm? Good to hear from you again

    • profile image

      An AYM 4 years ago

      A well-posed article. I'm coming from a pretty biased position though. I personally think the gun obsession is a vie to feel in control in a world we feel less in control of.

      Such a silly thing, "It's my right to own a concealable tool that I can use to kill anyone whenever I feel like it!"

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      An AYM: I think the country is divided into those that feel secure without owning weapons to protect themselves from the boogie man. And those that feel more secure if they do have weapons to protect themselves from the boogie man. I just can't wrap my head around all the talk of protecting ourselves from tyranntical forces. To me, it's a big What If game to scrare the hell out of people. In the mean time, we have crazies that are using it for mass destruction of innocent people. It's almost as if they are saying: I don't care if innocent people are killed, at least I have my protection. Thanks for your comments.

    • Shadesbreath profile image

      Shadesbreath 4 years ago from California

      I disagree with you, but I do think this is a nicely presented hub that expresses your opinion on the issue well and in a non-hysterical tone. A rare accomplishment in these frenzied and hyper-emotional times. I applaud your effort and respect your opinion.

      And I know I'll catch some heat from this, but I think the guns in that video are EXACTLY what the framers had in mind. Not specifically, not in some anticipation of design, but in principle. (Feel free to shred this response. We've had a fine debate on the forums, so I won't clutter up your comments section defending my position given that, in the end, it's just another opinion in a sea of noise.)

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Shadesbreath: Thank you for the compliment. I did try to keep it from getting emotional. As I said in the hub, I grew up with guns and have a healthy respect for them. The second amendment starts with the phrase:" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Unless that guy in the video is considered as a well regulated militia, then I think the framers had something else in mind. A militia implies that people are standing by with weapons to be brought together as a military force with a leader. This is not what we have today. It's every man for himself, trying to protect his property and rights against the boogie man. The national guard is a well regulated militia. Thanks for reading my hub. I do respect your opinion.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      @people With all due respect, if you think that our leaders in our Government are so above those anywhere else and government tyranny cannot happen here, I don't know what to tell you,.

      I don't think anyone is saying that the Government is beating down our doors and such at this moment in time, however, you can look anywhere in the world to understand that the first power of such a government is their armed and well formed military. Who is the Commander in Chief of our military? If the wrong minded person were to become President, and wanted complete control, where do you think he is going to turn? If the founding fathers had only meant for a well formed militia to be armed, then they would not have included the the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You seem under the impression that our forefathers had no foresight or understanding of simple language. There is a vast difference between "the right to form a militia" and "the right of the people to bear arms".

    • flacoinohio profile image

      flacoinohio 4 years ago from Ohio

      In looking at all of the hot spots in the world, it is easy to see why guns should be banned. The US provided many countries with these weapons, in some cases, we provided weapons, took them away, and then reissued them to the same people we took them from. Of course we did not give them back until we had properly trained these people on how to properly use them. I think allowing US citizens the right to bear arms is simply a deterrent to prevent an assault on US soil, who is going to attack a country that allows civilians to have military grade weapons? In my neck of the woods, 95,000 guns have been sold in the last three years. I think a foreign or domestic threat would be hard pressed to subdue a well armed community.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      SassySue1963: Good to hear from you again; flacoinohio, welcome. What I get from your comments is that you don't trust our government at either the state or federal levels to protect us. And there is even the possibility that they will turn against us. Therefore we must be armed to protect ourselves from these eventualities that will occur. In the mean time while we are protecting ourselves with weapons of mass destruction, crazy people are taking out innocent people by using those same weapons, whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter.

      To me, there is a much bigger and more imminent threat from terrorist blowing up the airplane you are flying in. Every time a terrorists attacks us whether successful or not, we lose a little bit more of our freedom: shoe bomber, crotch bomber, liquid bomber, toner cartridge bomber, car bomber. This has a force multiplier effect because all it takes is one person and it sends the whole country into a tizzy. And I don't care how well you are armed, there is nothing you can do about it. I like to think our government can protect us and will not turn against us, at least in the next few life times.

      There is also more of a threat from banks taking your money and using it for their investment to create a transfer of wealth to the top. This is happening world wide with the central banks. And it's insidious because they do it with you and me thinking it's O.K. But that's in another hub I wrote.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      @people Of course it matters whether it is legally or illegally. Do you think that any gun control, which would be a law, is going to keep guns from the hands of those who operate outside the law? Of course it isn't. Is it going to keep guns out of the hands of those "crazies" as you call them if they want them? Absolutely not. The crazies and the criminals will find their guns and get them regardless of law. So really, what we're talking about here, is enacting gun control legislation because of the actions of crazies and criminals, that will only affect law abiding citizens who've done nothing wrong.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      SassySue1963 : Tell me why does any civilian need high capacity automatic weapons of mass destruction? They were banned for several years. But it was a sunset law, which means after so many years, the ban is lifted. Why would such a law be written? If congress thought assault weapons were bad then, why are they not bad now? I'm not saying ban all guns, only weapons of mass destruction. That's the price we have to pay to keep these weapons out of the hands of crazies.

    • Niteriter profile image

      Niteriter 4 years ago from Canada

      The right to bear arms is a US issue and therefore has no direct bearing on me. It makes me sad, however, to see a nation steeped in such a deadly mindset. To arm oneself with a weapon designed to kill is to say that taking the life of a fellow human is an act one is willing to make. It must be uncomfortable living in a country where one's neighbour is thought to be such a menace.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Niteriter: What is sad, is that the National Rifle Association is not willing to ban weapons of mass destruction. Thanks for your comments. I can appreciate your point of view.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      @people The problem is not the banning of "weapons of mass destruction" it is in the definition of such weapons. That is what is separating the two sides. One wants to include any repeater at all, including hand guns. The other claims that is taking it too far. So perhaps, that is a place to begin. By defining such an ambiguous term.

    • Niteriter profile image

      Niteriter 4 years ago from Canada

      I was careless in my phrasing in my comment; I'm sorry if I came across as being harsh or judgmental. (It reads differently from what I intended now that it is published!)

      This is an excellent Hub. I think a few quiet, reasonable voices like yours could do a lot to bring the situation into balance. Your points are gently but effectively presented.

    • flacoinohio profile image

      flacoinohio 4 years ago from Ohio

      I think that most gun owners purchased their weapons for hunting or protection. The intent is to not kill any one that may cross our paths, but to protect our property and families. Other buy weapons for hunting and survival while others simply collect weapons as a hobby. Yes there are those that collect guns and ammunition in preparation for the apocalypse but most gun owners have a gun simply as a deterrent. Not every gun owner that owns a gun has the intent to use deadly force especially on a neighbor, but if that neighbor is a threat to the lives of my family, I may choose to use deadly force as a last resort. I know how to use my weapons and I can stop a person intent on harming someone with out killing them.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      SassySue1963: Have you ever seen what a high-capacity auto-fire assault weapon can do? It can literally create mass destruction.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Niteriter: Thank you so much. Again, I appreciate your comments, coming from another country.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I've come to the conclusion that both sides are playing a "What if Game." One side is saying what if I have to protect myself from life threating event. The other side is saying what if crazy people get weapons of mass destruction and use them on innocent people. I believe there are more events where crazy people have taken out innocent people than where people have had to use guns to protect themselves from life threating events.

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 4 years ago from Deep South, USA

      The U.S. has the highest rate of gun-related injuries and deaths (including homicides, suicides and accidents) than any other developed country. As long as most of the wimps in Congress let the NRA pressure them into inaction against gun control, that won't change. Does that make you feel safer???

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 4 years ago from Deep South, USA

      By the way, Peoplepower, I forgot to congratulate you for an excellent, reasoned hub on a touchy subject.

      Jaye

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      JayeWisdom: It certainly doesn't make me feel safer. Thanks for the comments. I'll research that rate of gun related injuries and deaths and if I can get the statistics on it, I'll include it in my hub page. Thanks again for the comments.

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      "If this government wanted to take you out, there would be no way to defend yourself against the military might of this country." - I and the Taliban disagree. Haha!! Who's leaving Afghanistan with the tail between their legs, broke, broken and with a low morale?

      "Yes, you have the right to protect yourself against the bad guys. (That's gun club talk.)."- This is not just gun talk and now, I would like to make the argument against regulations in the selling of weapons to civilians. By the way, I am not member of any gun club, I do not own a firearms license or any fire-arms. I am not even American. At this point, You might just think I am simply nuts but bear with me please.

      American History was my major at one point in my past university life. From what I have learned, I do think the Second Amendment was put there as a means for checks and balances. The States did not trust the federal government (as they still do not trust it today) and that is why owning firearms and being able to form militias was something quite important: "when all else fails. the gun owned by the individual is to be used to protect against tyranny of the state".

      I would like to quote Congressman Ron Paul here and say that "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." So, You see this is not gun-club talk - I am a socialist activist and Congressman Ron Paul is a Libertarian. I am free of lobbyists behind me and the same may be said about Mr. Ron Paul.

      I wrote more on this about a year ago, if You are interested: https://hubpages.com/politics/A-Serious-Change-of-...

      "it's big business and they have bought congress"- You are fully right here, in my opinion.

      "there is a price that we pay for that, every time innocent people are killed by crazies" - This is where the problem lies though: mentally unstable people creating mayhem. So, one question could be, why are so many people snapping? Society is sick, what are we doing about it?

      Another question can be, how come mentally unstable people can have firearms? And/or how and why do they have them?

      Another argument/example can be given with the Timothy McVeigh story: was it not a fertilizer bomb, or something along those lines? Someone who is not mentally stable can simply take some bottles, cloth and alcohol and make some Molotov cocktails - are we going to make bottles, cloth and alcohol illegal?

      This is a tough discussion because it raises many people emotion levels but to be honest when has prohibition ever worked? It did not work with alcohol in the early nineteen-twenties, it is not working now with the War on Drugs and so, I do not think it would work with firearms either.

      What I do think would work is investment in health-care (to deal with the mentally unstable) and education (so people can be more responsible and disciplined).

      Thank You for the conversation.

      All the best!

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      As a member of the Occupy Movement, I am thankful for those who understand the importance of militias and the reason behind them. Take a look at this video if You have a chance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vplwUROCAFY&lis...

      Cheers!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I remember when Reagan cut back on entitlement programs and shutdown many mental institutions. There were crazies running all over on the streets where I live in Southern California. I went jogging one day and I had a person an unstable person following me. I had to hide in some bushes to get away from them. When you talk about investing in health care for mentally unstable, where do you think the money is going to come from?

      As far as militias go, that's what the National Guard is. The problem is thay are all deployed in Iraq and Afghanastan.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I'lll take a look at it when I get a chance. Thanks for stopping by.

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      "When you talk about investing in health care for mentally unstable, where do you think the money is going to come from?" - From the hundreds of billions given yearly to the Military Industrial Complex. Seems more reasonable to invest in healing people than in killing people.

      Thank You for the conversation.

      Cheers!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      That sounds like a great idea, but in actuallity, there are great forces at work that won't let that happen, at least not in the near future. It was a pleasure discussing these issues with you.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      After reading this article, the author is correct; we need to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, bring it up to date. Citizens who are psychologically balanced and do not have any criminal record should be allowed to own full military style weaponry and small shoulder fired rocket launchers at a minimum. How else are we to protect ourselves from tyranny or terrorism in this day and age? I believe the events taking place the past few decades are proof "they" cannot protect us.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: And how do you find out who is psychologically balanced and unbalanced? Thanks for dropping by.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      Well PP73, this is part of the challenge we are faced with in society. How do we know? Are we to allow doctors, teachers, religious leaders to make character assassinations of people and hold them as reliable? You know, those people who seem to make the news quite often with regard to molestation charges. Or how about a reference from a LE officer, maybe one who deals drugs, or sells weapons illegally? Maybe we should have politicians be the reference, they don't lie or cheat on their taxes or do anything else corrupt, right? Just who can you rely on?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: You've covered all the ground. Alll we have left is our own morality.

    • profile image

      Combat Veteran US Army 4 years ago

      It's interesting that the idiot in Aurora, CO. chose the only movie theatre out of 9 theatres there to attack that had a sign in front saying "no concealed carry". The other 8 theatres had concealed carry/the law of the state of Colorado. He knew that by attacking that specific theatre, he would be the only person there that was armed. It's obvious why this wasn't reported on by the gun-hating media. Machine guns are legal in 30 states (If they were manufactured/imported before May 1986/250,000 legally owned by law abiding Americans). The assault weapons ban did not pertain to these firearms/only to popular semi-auto firearms.

    • profile image

      Thornyone 4 years ago

      Previously stated the movie theatre attack in Aurora,CO was the only theatre in that area that had a sign stating "no concealed carry" and this fact was not mentioned by the gun-hating media. I know this website is liberal and won't post my comment/liberals choke on the truth.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Combat Veteran US Army: Thank you for your information. I don't hate guns as I stated in my article. I grew up with guns. But I do hate the fact that high capacity automatic weapons are not banned for public use. Thanks for dropping by. Your comments were very informative.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Thornyone: Well you got that wrong. I approved your comments. I think it's necessary to understand both sides of the issues if we are going to solve anything. I don't choke on the truth. I cherish the real truth. The problem is there is so much propaganda that is presented as the truth when it really isn't. Thanks for your comments and for dropping by.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      pp73: the general public are not able to go out and buy Automatic weapons; I know, it's technicality time - they are semi-automatic. Most anti-gun people who refer to Assault Weapons are referring to weapons that have the appearance of a military style weapon, even though they are in Fact not truly military fully auto weapons. Why do people bicker over the little details like that, because that's what lawyers do. The little details cold be the difference between guilty and not-guilty; legal or illegal. When people begin to see the truth, and actually address the cause behind mass murders, they will realize that the ownership of weapons isn't the problem. Unfortunately, the majority do not seem to want to acknowledge the truth, the truth reveals flaws in society that are too powerful to reign in. Therefore, we must find other means to address these issues; Gun Control, Patriot Act and most recently, the NDAA. I think we can be assured there will be more on the way eventually, it all depends on who wins the election and is in charge of Congress, new wars that begin and the economic recovery or not.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: They can buy them at gun shows in parking lots from the back of vehicles. Without any paperwork or registration. I know that's tough to enforce. Most of the mass shootings have been done with high capacity magazine assault weapons. Thanks for your comments.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      They can buy what at gun show parking lots, FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons? You can probably buy them from the BATFE too (or could till recently). There will always be criminal activity, like it or not. The Majority are law abiding to the greater extent, and there is Zero reason to penalize them just because some feel 17, 15, 12 rounds are way worse than 10, 8 or 5. If someone really wants to massacre people, they will find a way to do it. I highly doubt there are very many if any that go out and kill a bunch of people on a whim; furthermore, I doubt they say: hmmm I can only get a 10 round magazine, that's not enough, I am not going through with this massacre. This is why the law expired; it was Ridiculous in the first place.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: I appreciate where you are coming from. I take it you didn't watch the video in my hub. Here is the link.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

      They say in war, many people getting killed is just statistics. One person getting killed is a tragedy. That's how these mass killings are viewed. It's not a bunch of people. It's just a few, but that is enough to make it a national tragedy. Thanks for your comments.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      What is the point of a video that shows someone shooting a weapon that you cannot walk into a gun store and purchase the same day or even within a week or two? FULL AUTO requires extensive paperwork, application approval takes up to 6 months, $200 tax and is not legal in all states or municipalities. When we create laws that restrict law abiding citizens we open society up to criminal rule. I guess that explains who is already in charge . . . .

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      How about semi-auto and filing the trigger mechanism to make it fully auto? This can be done. I was trying to make a point with the video. However the shootings in Tucson and Aurora were all done with high capacity sem-automatic weapons. When we create laws that restrict crazies, we protect society from criminal massacres. Who is in charge is the NRA because it is big business with big money political interest.

    • LauraGT profile image

      LauraGT 4 years ago from MA

      Thanks for this nicely written analysis of the second amendment. There has been a lot of scholarly work done with regard to the second amendment and, from what I've read, it seems like part of the issue is simply with the evolution of the English language - that the second clause is dependent on the first. Gun rights advocates just drop out the first clause and focus on the second. We have a standing military - we don't need random people with semi-automatic weapons.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      LauraGT : I agree with you. The second amendment was written for another time. We don't need a well regulated militia formed by civilians. It seems like those who think we do, act as if they can't trust our government or law enforcement to protect us. Thanks for dropping by. I appreciate your comments.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      pp73 said "When we create laws that restrict crazies, we protect society from criminal massacres." You are not talking about creating a law to restrict crazies; you are talking about laws to restrict law abiding sane citizens. Crazies cannot be corralled, because too often you don't know who they are, until they go off the deep end.

      As for there being no need for the right to bear arms, apparently you would prefer a police state, or military state? Maybe you'd like the USA to be like may of the countries we are fighting in? Where jeeps filled with armed soldiers patrol the streets? You say we have a military and police to protect us, how do they protect us against the crazies? The ideas many are looking for with regard to regulation will have very little if any effect on the crazies. You say we have police and military; well, why aren't they getting the crazies before they get you?

      Don't trust our government or police? Can't say I know too many people who trust them 100% or even 90%. Too many cases of police, military, teachers, ministers, government employees being arrested for one violation of the law or another. And don't forget, there are more out there that we have not yet uncovered.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: Let me make this really simple. Assault weapons are designed for combat to kill people in war. They have no reason to be in the hands of civilians. If they were banned, it would make it much harder for mentally ill people to obtain. We have already had a ban. Did we become a country that you described?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      Clear is a good thing, and the weapons that the anti-gun crowd want to ban are technically not Assault Weapons, they are not the same weapons the military uses, except in the case of handguns; then that could be true if they were buying a 9mm Beretta (the current issue).

      Here's a question for you; why is it okay for our Government with our Tax $$'s to arm militants in foreign countries with rocket launchers and full auto weapons; but we cannot allow our own citizens to buy the weapons that are legal to be sold here that are none of the above?

      PS - are you aware that the majority of the popular weapons used to hunt began life as a military weapon, just like the current AR's that scare the beegeezuz out of the unknowing.

      We are on the path to that country, take a hard look at the transformation over the past 50 years. If you cannot see it, then clean the windows. Police truly used to be like the guy in the Andy Griffith show, they are not any longer . . . .

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Take your pick! This is just one website out of god knows how many: http://www.gunsinternational.com/Assault-Rifles.cf...

    • Louisa Rogers profile image

      Louisa Rogers 4 years ago from Eureka, California and Guanajuato, Mexico

      Hi Peoplepower, I was amazed (appalled, actually) after I voted to see that 48% of the HUB voters thought the 2nd amendment should stay exactly as it is worded. Living in a subculture of my own making, I forget how conservative this country is. This was an excellent overview of a very complex subject.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Thank you Louisa. I'm glad you liked it. Half of this country thinks because they are armed, they can protect themselves from any kind of threat. But most of thinking is brought about by the NRA, one of the biggest lobby groups in Washington D.C. Thanks for dropping by .

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      Dropping by to say Happy Holidays and add a new comment as well: Regarding the so-called Assault Weapons (even though they really are not, they are semi-autos). So we had a ban, and the ban expired; have we experienced a huge increase in murders by firearms and assault STYLE weapons . . . No. Crime overall has been dropping and so have firearms related deaths. How could that be possible based on all the misinformation being fed by the anti-2nd crowd? One of the places with a high murder rate on a regular basis, is Chicago, home to some of the most stringent gun laws and the only state without a carry conceal law.

      PS - The NRA or GOA has nothing to do with the thinking about guns be able to protect you; it's been a fact of life since the day this country was born.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: I have a friend who belongs to a NRA sponsored gun club and he sets up the events. They are always about people going about their business and then all of sudden bad guys pop up and they are judged on how fast an how well they can take out the bad guys. As far as whatever you want to call them semi-auto or whatever. It is the high capacity magazines that create mass destruction. As far as gun related crimes dropping, take a look at this. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27...

      Happy holidays to you as well and thanks for dropping by.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      I read the article, pretty sad piece of writing. Like most, it attempts to paint some image of the USA as if we are the top murder rate country in the world. We are not, but we do have a lot more population than many who have hire rates. So, even with our incredibly huge % of guns, our per person murder rate is nowhere near the top of the charts. Our murder by firearm rate has been dropping since 1993, so once again, where's the problem except for in the minds of the anti-gun crowd?

      Here's the mentality of some of that crowd; part of their commentary is the one liner below:

      "If we confiscate the weapons. . ."

      Comments similar to that, are what worries many gun owners, of all ages and walks of life. Comments such as that are why the Second Amendment was written.

      This article is such a distorted propaganda piece it's sickening. The USA is less than 5% of the world population, so what, what does that have to do with anything? There are only two countries with a higher %; India & China, which account for 36%+. Adding the USA, we have over 40% of the world population in 3 countries. 18 countries hold over 65% of the world population, but there are 242 countries listed. The USA is the 3rd largest by landmass only surpassed by Russia and Canada, which between the two, they only have 2.5% of the world population but 7.5% of the landmass. Very low population per square mile. So I am reading a chart from a U.K. source and it lists a higher murder rate (than the USA) per 100,000 people in 28 countries! Among them, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Argentina, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Bahamas, etc.. Brazil has 8 guns per 100 people, the USA 88.8; but Brazil has a higher murder rate 18.1 per 100,000 by guns. Mexico has 15 guns per 100 people, their murder rate is 9.97 per 100,000, in the USA it is 2.97 per 100,000. In addition, the firearm crime rate in the USA has dropped from 5.9 per 1000 in 1993, to 1.4 per 1000 in 2009; per the USA Bureau of Justice. As I like to point out when I research facts, one can paint a picture of their choosing, by selecting the facts they choose to share. I like to share the truth, a visual comparative truth that does not intend to induce Fear, but Honest Truth that blasts the lies to pieces.

      Guns are not an issue in the USA. The real issue is our society, the ills that plague it and the inability to put Fear into the criminal element; that might make a lot of them think twice before doing something stupid. The overwhelming majority of gun owners both legal and illegal, do not intend to harm anyone intentionally with a firearm. That is the Real Truth that the Anti-Gun faction does not want you the average person to understand.

      Have a Wonderful Holiday everyone and remember: the Freedom(s) you have today, are preserved by men & women who are armed with firearms and have been since the day this country was born.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: I sense your passion. It's hard for people to relate to a ton of numbers especially statistics. So why don't you write a hub about this and use a lot of graphs. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. But you never replied to my statement about gun clubs training to take out the bad guys. You also have a great Holiday!

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      Okay then pp73: Gun Club TRAINING, this is what they are for; TRAINING. Training is KEY to responsible use, if and when the time arises to use Force for Self Defense. If we were truly concerned about the lives of people, we would have intros on video games with weapons about killing people and the penalty for doing so. We would have intros on driving games about driving under the influence. Instead we have intros about the penalty for bootlegging (movie) DVD's (I don't know about games, I don't play them). We should have intro's about killing people and the penalties in the beginning of movie's. Or driving under the influence, doing or selling illegal drugs, firearms etc.. Why don't we? Big money involved in all those illegal activities is a starter. In addition, our justice system does not serve any justice upon those that actually penalizes those who break those laws. Free Room & Board, better living conditions than many Free Citizens who work; what sort of penalty is that?

      Sorry, got off the subject; a gun club is a place where people who enjoy the use of Firearms, where they learn to use them responsibly, share ideas and compete to be the best; like they do in any sporting activity in this and other nation around the world.

      Speaking of sporting activities: How many innocent people are killed at Soccer matches across the oceans each year? Here's just ONE example:

      Feb 2012

      "Egypt's top prosecutor on Thursday charged 75 people in connection with a deadly soccer riot last month in the Mediterranean city of Port Said in which authorities said fans were thrown to their death off the stadium walls and others killed by explosives as they tried to flee.

      "Scores of fans face murder charges and nine police officers were accused of complicity in murder, in the Feb. 1 riot that left at least 74 people dead. It was the world's worst soccer-related disaster in 15 years."

      "It said the killing of the protesters was planned in advance and that the culprits prepared for the massacre with knives, rocks and explosives."

      What was the point: PEOPLE & SOCIETY are the REAL PROBLEM

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: I think I have served as an outlet for your frustrations. I hope you feel better now! Thanks for SHARING.

    • ImKarn23 profile image

      Karen Silverman 4 years ago

      You are a brave man and you have my respect and admiration! I could not agree more - this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind - as you so eloquently pointed out simply with the 'makeup of a gun' that they were referring to! Folks who think that automatic weapons are a-ok - have an agenda - or a power issue! I lost all respect for moses when he said how many guns he had - an arsenal - and how his house was like a fortress - and yet - he'd never had a single 'incident' in his whole life...(now - those that support gun control will say 'welllll, that's because he was well armed - i say bullshit! - its because he was moses and had an army of bodyguards and lived in beverley hills...come ON boys!

      pantpant..k - i'm done! lol..Great job! (hmmm...why aren't i surprised that sassysue is arguing FOR guncontrol...no surprise...she doesn't 'visit' me anymore..sigh..lol)..

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ImKarn23: I loved your comments. They made me laugh, but there also is a seriousness about them. I think you are right about the power issue. When I was a kid and used to go hunting with my dad, I felt like my shotgun was an extension of my power. It's an interesting feeling. I'm not surprised by sassysue either. Thanks for dropping by.

    • profile image

      Roderick Kabel 4 years ago

      As of yesterday, our country has come under attack again by one of our own and more children died. My heart hurts. A friend of mine said it best... I wiah mental health care was as easy to get as guns.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Roderick Kabe: Very well said. I still see no need for the public to have access to combat weapons that were designed for mass destruction. I understand the feeling one gets from firing high capacity assault weapons, but we are at the point that we are now paying the price for that feeling. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Since the Newtown, Sandy Hook tragedy, I have added an epilogue to this hub that I would like to share with everyone.

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 4 years ago from Deep South, USA

      I consider the deaths of these innocent children and adults killed by registered guns owned by the mother of the shooter (and, therefore, accessible to a mentally disturbed person) horrifying. These horrific massacres continue happening in the United States because guns manufactured for the purpose of killing people are so readily available here. The powerful NRA lobby may find it more difficult to "buy" the outcome of legislation on this matter since this latest tragedy because there is a growing tide of public opinion that gun control is needed.

    • junko profile image

      junko 4 years ago

      "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and State's Rights lead to the Civil War. The NRA supports the concept of States Rights to protect themselves against the Federal Government. There are laws that the people needs to be protected from in terms of State's Right that the Federal Government MUST address or this house will surely fall.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      JayeWisdom : I hope you are right about the NRA. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      junko : We shall wait and see how this all unfolds. Thanks for the comments.

    • Mikeg422 profile image

      Michael Gill 4 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

      I'm sorry Peoplepower73, but I totally disagree with what you said regarding the type of armament the American people should be allowed to have. You said you didn't think this is what the forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment, it is exactly what they had in mind. Our forefathers were rebels, therefore they installed laws that would always make rebellion possible, in order for rebellion to be possible the population must be similarly armed as their government. Granted at that time they could not have possibly anticipated the deadly effectiveness of present day weapons, but the jist remains the same.

      Another point anyone involved in the great "gun debate" fails to recognize is the level of national security afforded to us by our civilian gun owners. Any country thinking of an attack on US soil would be faced with a logistic nightmare, if they could fight there way past our armed forces, they would be met with constant casualties, and resistance every step they took into our country. Guns help protect more than our persons, they protect our sovereignty, and our borders from foreign invasion. (probably why no ground force has ever attempted it.)

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Mikeg422: Here is the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is one sentence and meant to be read in its totality. The key phrase here is "A well regulated militia." They wanted a trained militia like the minutemen that could be called upon to defend the newly formed states citizens' from any infringement because they had just come out of the Revolutionary War. Private stand alone citizens trying to protect themselves does not a militia make. The irony of all of this is we do have militias like the freeman that live in the forest and our against the establishment and Timothy McVey that took out the federal building in Oklahoma. But the 2nd amendment didn't intend for citizens to arm themselves without the militia. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. This was before there was even a Department of Defense or a national guard. This has all been misinterpreted to mean anybody has the right to bear arms under any circumstances and if that right has been infringed, then it is in violation of the constitution. That is not what the people in the 13 colonies meant. That's why the states have rule of the 2nd amendment over the federal government. This was meant for another time in another place, not for our modern world of today. This has been used by the NRA and the right wing propaganda machine to scare the hell out of people and create mistrust of our government and its institutions to protect them. Why because they can sell more guns. It's big business and the NRA is one of the most powerful and well funded lobby groups in Washington.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      It is a very sad that people always jump to reactionary behaviors when a tragedy takes place. Maybe if they actually focused on the Real Problem, the tragedies would not be happening. Here we go again, blaming guns for the action(s) of a few out of tens of millions who own guns; rather than placing the blame on the people who carried out those actions.

      2nd Amendment, clearly states: "the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed" The Supreme Court and Legal Scholars agree that they were saying the people have the right to protect themselves. They also decided that the people have the right to own weapons that are similar to those that the military uses, but that the government has a right to limit and regulate weapons that are not those that would be used by a militia. That is how they were able to regulate sawed off shotguns and other short barreled rifles, etc..

      Happy Holidays Everyone and Peace Be with Those Souls who were taken by a psychologically lost soul.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: I find it very interesting, just like the country is divided by two political ideologies, it is also divided by two ideologies about how to keep the country safe from mentally unstable people. One side says more guns, the other side less guns. In either case, you have a safe and sound holiday as well.

    • profile image

      golthing 4 years ago

      Peoplepower73 is both Stupid and Evil, and I will explain why. I hate to be inflammatory, but we need to call out these people who are trying to destroy our liberties and freedoms and fundamentally will be ultimately responsible for the demise of America.

      Peoplepower73 is stupid, because he attacks inanimate objects rather than attacking the fundamental problem to begin with. In all cases of gun massacre, there is a lunatic involved. In most of those cases, there are SSRI's involved, in other words, psychotropic drugs.

      I have yet to hear a gun opponent such as Psychopower73 ever concern themselves with the frightening legal drugs these lunatics use. Why? Because they are either stupid or disingenuous. I don't know which.

      To say that the gun was the problem at the recent school shooting is plain stupid as well. There were numerous, obvious problems in this instance. The mother was obviously disturbed. She did not understand how to deal with her crazy son. Society should have stepped in to help this troubled individual, as the mother wasn't cutting it. The violent video games were equally enabling to the crime as was the gun. Where is your opposition to violent video games and a violent Hollywood? Maybe that's in another blog, then I apologize.

      Taking away all guns would make it more of a challenge for murderers, true, but most would rise to the occasion. The largest school massacre in America was in the 20's and was done with an explosive device.

      You've apparently missed the story the day following the school massacre out of china where a man STABBED 22 schoolchildren with a KNIFE.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/15/chin...

      Will you now call for the prohibition of KNIVES? Based on the above story, I believe that a knife is now a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

      Another reason why Psychopower73 is stupid is that if he is truly concerned with stemming the unnecessary loss of life, he would care less about gun murders, as loss of life due to guns is one of the smallest statistics in America. He would realize that the reason that he is passionate about gun murder is purely emotional and not logical.

      Sir, start your vigil with drunk driving, smoking, or something else that is statistically significant. You're wasting your time with gun control, just as the loony environmentalists who spend their time attacking America when they should be over in China, India, and the rest of the third world which are truly destroying the environment.

      I'm beginning to think the 73 in your alias refers to your IQ, sir.

      Psychopower73 is also Evil. This is because he wants to tell me how to live my life and tell me what I can and can't have. Who are you to tell me that I can or can't have something that I want. Don't tell me I don't need it. That's not your call. That's not society's call. We are to be free in this country. Much blood was spilled over that concept, and America got it right. We should be free to do whatever we please, as long as it does not infringe on another citizen's rights. Yet you want to take that away. If you had your way, we'd probably all live in padded rooms and never go outside. We might not even be allowed to use a fork.

      An immeasurably low percentage of "assault weapons" will ever be used irresponsibly. There are millions of "assault weapons" in America, yet only one here or there ever commits a crime. Perhaps only a few dozen a year are ever involved in a murder out of the millions that exist and that is enough for you to ban them all. In other words, all "assault weapon" owners are basically all treated as guilty, and you want to punish them for having done nothing.

      You, sir, are nothing more than a modern prohibitionist. Gun control is America's new Prohibition. Those who can't see it are fools.

      If you take guns away from honest, law-abiding citizens, you are in for big trouble.

      I am ashamed to call you a fellow American, Psychopower73. You are an enemy of Liberty.

      Here's what some people with an IQ higher than 73 had to say:

      ”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

      ~George Washington

      ”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

      ~Alexander Hamilton

      ”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

      ~Richard Henry Lee

      ”A free people ought to be armed.”

      ~George Washington

      ”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

      ~James Madison

      ”No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”

      ~James Burgh

      ”And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”

      ~Thomas Jefferson

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      golthing: Do you feel better now that you called me all these names? Your quoting of all of those famous people is from another time and another place. They were living in a time that is different than what we are living today. Just like the 2nd Amendment is not valid today neither are those quotes. As far as the rest of your comments go, I don't know where to begin. But calling each other names is certainly not going to buy anybody anything.

      I do know this. This country is divided not only in politics but also in the gun culture. There is a gun culture that does not trust our government and law enforcement to protect them against any incursion. They have been brainwashed by the right wing propaganda machine to fear their own government even to the point of tyranny. And as a result of that they think they can protect themselves from whatever danger by arming themselves.

      As far as anything being a weapon, the primary purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile that is designed to kill or inflict harm against another. Granted if in the wrong hands it becomes evil and so does a car. But a cars primary purpose is not designed to kill or harm others. Therefore banning everything as a weapon is a weak argument that would never take place.

      I did not miss the story about the Chinese stabbing. If you would have watched it, you would have known that all those children lived to tell the story for another day. if the attacker had used an assault weapon, it would have been an entirely different story. As as calling me evil and destroying your liberty,, I could say the same thing about my liberty to be safe is being taken away by people who are afraid of an eventual attack by their government. If this government wanted to attack you, a pea shooter like an assault weapon sure as hell isn't going to save you from the might of our military...get real and stop calling me a psycho. I think those who live in fear of an attack, might need to see a shrink. As it turn out, I want the same things you do, to be safe. It's just a different way of achieving that goal.

    • Patriot Quest profile image

      Wayne Joel Bushong 4 years ago from America

      You mentioned the might of our government to take us out? Didn't Russia with all their high tech military arsenal get beaten back by a bunch of Afghans on horseback living in caves???? Largest mass killings in America were performed with other means, 1927 a school was dynamited by a disgruntled school board member, 911 was performed with planes and box cutters, OKC bombing was committed with fertilizer...............guns are my freedom. You compared guns back in the day but failed to mention that we had the same firepower as England........why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the same firepower as the military today..........to keep them at bay?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Their is a difference between Russia and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union started out as a communist country with a dictator. Afghans beat the Soviets, not with assault rifles, but arms like stinger missiles and RPGs supplied by the United States via Israel. Watch the movie, Charlie Wilson's War.

      Today, Afghans use those same weapons and IEDs against us. They used those weapons to take out Soviet Hines helicopters, even at that, it took ten years. Yeah fat good your military style weapon is going to do with dynamite, fertilizer bombs, and shooting it on board an airplane. The same fire power of the military includes the military might of the country.

      Where do you draw the line, stinger missiles, RPGs, tanks and so on? I suppose you think Obama is a Communist dictator, not to worry in four years, he will be out of there and then you can relax if you get your way. But then again, probably by then, we will be taken over by his tyranny, so arm up! Thanks for the comments.

    • Mikeg422 profile image

      Michael Gill 4 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

      peoplepower73 A while back you told me about the 2nd Amendment, and your definition of it; however after much research I must again disagree with your answer. "A well regulated militia" the definition of these terms in the 1800's is far different from how this verbage is percieved today. Militia: any citizen who arms themselves for the purpose of protecting themselves and their sovereignty. When they used the term well regulated they were saying that any so-armed citizen should be well supplied and trained, it does not however refer to any group organised or unorganised. Back then we did not have a standing army and it was felt the best national defense was an armed citizenry, and yes I have heard the argument that now we do have an army and this is no longer necessary, but you have to remember the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not establish a person's God given rights, they only acknowledge them. The current establishment can try to ban what they want that doesn't change the fact that it is our right to own firearms. You think guns are dangerous? How dangerous do you think a government is that is going against the will of 86% of it's citizens and defying our very own Constitution, it may sound cold but I would rather the occasional whacko on a killing spree than hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from the next civil war or revolution. That is the part liberal minded people overlook, honest law abiding patriots who believe in this country and what it is founded on are not going to just give in to the overcontrolling federal government, why do you think you see so many states considering seccession now?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I am beginning to realize, the 2nd amendment was written for the people at that time that understood what it meant. It is just like interpreting scripture today that was written 2,000 years ago. It is subject to interpretation and because of the internet anyone can find any interpretation they want. Even the Supreme court has their interpretation. I believe, it was written for today's circumstances it would be written differently. How can a militia be one person acting alone.? That's just common sense. As far as the rest of your comment, it sounds to me like you are a conspiracy theorist that plays the what if game about tyranny.

      Nobody is taking your right away to own guns. It's specifically high capacity weapons that can shoot rapid fire in so many seconds. The NRA and gun people that love their AR15's are playing semantics when comes to defining a military assault weapon. I have more fear of the nut case guests who appear on Pierce Morgan's show advocating keeping assault weapons than I do of tyranny. How is our government going against 86% of its citizens and defying our constitution?

      As far as states considering succession, how does that work? Does each state have its own money? How about interstate commerce and transportation? Would they have to get permission when they want to cross borders? Would they have their own military and then want to go to war with the United States? This is 2013, not 1791 or 1865!!! Thanks for your comments.

    • Patriot Quest profile image

      Wayne Joel Bushong 4 years ago from America

      Anyone ever wonder why crooks don't rob police departments? Or run in the police station killing everyone on site? I would believe cops are more hated than any other group to crooks and those with criminal history...........maybe just maybe because they all have guns? Therefore when the day comes that our government comes after us, we will have guns to defend our homes and our lives........ Afghans on horseback and living in caves fought back the Russians so I'm sure we have the same opportunity! Last, this country is so very divided there is a remote possibillity the liberals will attack the conservatives............maybe that is the real reason you left leaning want our guns removed????

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Patriot Quest: I'm getting tired of saying this. (1) Afghans on horseback and living in caves did not fight the Russians, it was the Soviet Union. (2) it was the Mujaheddin, a well trained military force. (3) They were armed with the latest weapons supplied to us via Israel. (watch Charlie Wilson's War). (4) It was a scheme created by JImmy Carter and Israel. (4) It took 10 years to defeat the Soviets. (5)They did it by mainly shooting down their Hines helicopters using stinger missiles. (6) Those same weapons and forces that we supplied are now being used against us, including IED's.

      If you believe liberals want to attack conservatives, why would they want to remove assault weapons? We don't want your guns removed, just stop making military style weapons for civilians. You people are going to worry yourself to death by playing what if games about tyranny. This is not 1791. It's 2013 for God's Sake! Get a pair!

    • profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago

      PP73, it's nice to know that you and others like BO & Joe feel your opinions regarding firearm type, magazine size and the 2nd Amendment interpretation are important. So too do all of us who like things the way they currently are, except for the lunatics that go around killing people en masse. I think most gun owners would like to see them become extinct. Other than that, things are just great the way they are. No new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is needed, nor is a reduction of magazine size or a ban of the AR-15 rifle, or any other weapon some deem too dangerous.

      PS - why do you keep saying: it wasn't Russia it was the Soviet Union; I think we know what the person means as do you. It's about that Big Country in Europe.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do:Because there is a difference between the geography of the the Soviet Union and the Russia of today. The Soviet Union encompassed many countries that today are not part of Russia Today. They are their own separate countries. When they were part of the Soviet Union, they were also part of the armed forces of the Soviet Union that fought against the Afghans. I just want to keep history straight. Well you can like things they way they currently are, I don't You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I think the paranoia of tyranny in this country is sick. And it can be attributed to right wing talk show hosts and their guests. So you keep all your AR15 pea shooters to fight against your imaginary boogie men.

    • profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago

      I like this line : "So you keep all your AR15 pea shooters" I think you summed that up quite well. Pea Shooters are dangerous to society.

      I don't own an AR-15, but if I want to, I should have the choice to; especially since it's only a Pea Shooter anyway. Although I will say this; you could put your eye out with a Pea shooter ; )

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      The reason I said pea shooters is fat good it is going to do you against a drone attack. Do you think if this country was going to take you over, they would do it mano a mano?

    • ImKarn23 profile image

      Karen Silverman 4 years ago

      Please come visit when you have a moment, sir..I have written 5 hubs on this issue in the last 2 weeks and most have over 200 comments..

      i would truly love for your voice of reason to weigh in - i believe we need to stand together because the bullies will never stand down - it's always the sane ones that throw up their hands and say' oh, well...i'm too busy for this crap..'

      ya know..

    • HLPhoenix profile image

      HLPhoenix 4 years ago

      Excellent Hub... I'm glad it was written before the latest gun insanity... it makes it so much more potent. Bravo.

      It is amazing how many people feel 'threatened' by the Government... not that the government is perfect by far... but unless you are planning to attack the country/government, or are a Terrorist, I don't think you have anything to fear.

      The Purpose of Government IS to protect us... this Guns issue is one of the places I feel they have failed, up to now.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      HLPhoenix: Thanks for your comments. Every once in a while someone with common sense comes through. You are one of those people. Thanks for stopping by.

    • LiamBean profile image

      LiamBean 4 years ago from Los Angeles, Calilfornia

      PP73. I really like the way you dove right into the subject with the first paragraph. I always put some sort or preamble or summary at the beginning and very time I do that I wonder if it's worth the time and verbiage.

      Very well written and you make your case in a progression of very logical steps and concepts.

      Kudos.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      LiamBean: Thanks for the comments. It will be interesting to see how the whole gun control issue unfolds. The NRA, via the Tiahart Amendment has hobbled the FBI and ATF from doing effective law enforcement.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      I wonder, how many criminals purchase firearms legally or from someone who had originally? Regardless, information I read at various websites states that the Fraternal Order of Police as well as the BATFE do not want the Tiahrt Amendment revoked, it is there to protect cases and those involved with those cases. Yes, there may be issues with certain aspects of it, however it is not hobbling Law Enforcement. Our delivery of (or not) justice has more to do with criminals running rampant. In addition there have been amendments made to the Tiahrt that have opened up areas previously closed to access. Facts are facts and Tiahrt only restricts those with no need (media & public) from information access.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: Here is my source: http://protectpolice.org/facts What is yours?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      ProtectPolice.org, an organization that has no relationship to the police, but is a group of 300 mayors who want information they are not entitled to. My facts, from a statement from the Fraternal Order of Police and you could also check out this document put together for Congress in 2009 by the Congressional Research Service.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do; ProtectPolice.org does have a relationship to the police. This is a list from that website:

      Police Organizations That Have Called For Repealing the Tiahrt Amendments

      As of January 1, 2009

      National Law Enforcement Associations:

      International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

      Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA)

      Police Executive Research Foundation (PERF)

      International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO)

      Police Foundation

      Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (HAPCOA)

      National Latino Peace Officers Association (NLPOA)

      National Black Police Association (NBPA)

      National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)

      National Sheriff’s Association

      School Safety Advocacy Council

      State Law Enforcement Associations:

      California Association of Chiefs of Police

      Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police

      Connecticut Association of Chiefs of Police

      Delaware Police Chiefs Council

      Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police

      Illinois Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police

      Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police

      Maine Association of Chiefs of Police

      Maryland Municipal Law Enforcement Executives Association

      Massachusetts Association of Chiefs of Police

      Massachusetts Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge

      Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police

      Minnesota Association of Chiefs of Police

      Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

      New England Association of Chiefs of Police

      New Jersey County Prosecutors Association

      New Mexico Association of Chiefs of Police

      New York Association of Chiefs of Police

      Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police

      Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association

      Texas Association of Chiefs of Police

      Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police

      Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (Washington State)

      Local Law Enforcement:

      More than 200 Individual Police Chiefs and Sheriffs on behalf of their jurisdictions.

      I believe the people on that list are entitled to that information. If you read what is on that website, they are the facts about the Tiahart Amendment. Your link was very confusing because it follows the history of the amendment and all its variations and incarnations. Sometimes it says ATF is entitled to the information and sometimes it say it isn't. it definitely says the gun manufactures cannot be sued.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      And why should gun manufacturers be sued? Do they make people shoot people? Do they put the ammo in the firearm? I suppose you think it was okay for McDonald's to be sued for the Hot Coffee incident?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do : I was just stating what I read. It's not so much about why they should be sued. What is curious here is that someone thought it was important enough to include that gun manufacturers can't be sued. Should any manufactures have a law written into an amendment that says they can't be sued? That's a rhetorical question!

      I don't know the specifics of the McDonald's incident, but off the top of my head, I say no.

    • LiamBean profile image

      LiamBean 4 years ago from Los Angeles, Calilfornia

      ThinkN-do: Why shouldn't gun manufacturers be sued? If a gun blows up in your face due to shoddy manufacturing are you just going to sit there and tell the emergency room staff; "Well, that's just the way it goes?" If gun manufacturers are putting firearms out there in a way that skirts the laws they should certainly be sued. Or are you saying that one of the foundations of this country should be thrown out, but only if you make firearms?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      LiamBean: Thank you, good thought. You talk about preferential treatment!! Thanks for revisiting.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 4 years ago from Pac NW

      The blocking of lawsuits pertains to those attempting to sue manufacturers for injuries sustained by someone who is shot by a weapon in the hands of another, not those due to manufacturing defects. If a weapon were to be proven defective, I imagine you would be able to make a claim and you would be taken care of. The last thing the firearm industry wants is a bad image if they make a poor product, they also do not want to be taken to the cleaners by frivolous lawsuits; that is what the law blocks.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: Thank you and thanks for the information.

    • RoryColgan profile image

      RoryColgan 4 years ago from Louisville, Kentucky

      Hey all, check out my article called A Metaphysical View on the Right to Bear Arms

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      Walt Kienia: I agree with you. Laws are subject to interpretation, especially those laws written for another time and another place and that are as vague as the 2nd amendment. In the final analysis, it will be the supreme court that passes judgement, even they have changed their mind once on the 2nd amendment.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      RoryColgan: I did check it out. The metaphysical part was a little too deep for my pea sized brain. However, the part about coat of arms and admiralty law was very interesting. I do believe that would be a hard angle to sell to most people. It would destroy the spell they are in and they don't want that. Thanks for dropping by and giving me the reference.

    • RoryColgan profile image

      RoryColgan 4 years ago from Louisville, Kentucky

      Is freedom no longer free? Have we removed ourselves from the equation, and believe ourselves to operate outside of the Universal forces that have watched over the winds, earth, water, and fire? There is always death in this place. Shall we write a law that cells of our bodies can no longer split? Freedom is free. With freedom comes responsibility. Lets start be removing laws that impinge upon that freedom. Anyone got an example of one of those laws that you would want removed or amended? Tom Dashel, said today on NPR, that he hopes we legislate an amendment stating that money and free speech are separate, not one and the same.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      RoryColgan: That would be very cool if the supreme court voted on it. I agree with Tom Dashel. Thanks for dropping by.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Two Democrats were just recalled in Colorado for voting for gun control legislation that was passed their after Newtown. The legislation banned high-capacity magazines, such as those used in Aurora, and required universal background checks; two very innocuous, but very effective gun control laws, especially the second one as criminals self-report that they get the vast majority of their weapons from legal means, just not retail stores.

      For Coloradans, this will be a good test to show the NRA crying wolf again and using WW II type propaganda techniques when, lo and behold, the only people who find it much more difficult to obtain guns are the criminals instead of keeping it easy as the NRA prefers.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric:Fifteen rounds should be enough for any gun. However, now it becomes unlimited. Just follow the money. The NRA is being paid off by gun manufactures. Now they can sell more guns and ammunition. Here is a link to my hub on the stake holders involved in this game. Thanks for your comments.

      https://hubpages.com/politics/The-2nd-Amendment-Ve...

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      It was not the 15 round ban or the background checks. It was the ban on "any weapon that could be converted to 15 rounds or more" and that the citizens would be charged for the background checks. Among other things, it was vague and completely unenforceable. If this law was such a great deterrent to crime, then why did 54 of the 62 Sheriffs in Colorado file a lawsuit to stop it? That isn't the NRA, that is law enforcement. I figure they should know what would deter gun violence and what simply infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens.

      "The first was a provision that any magazine that can be readily converted to a high capacity magazine is banned from sale, which would have banned every magazine with a removable baseplate. On April 4th, Governor Hickenlooper had this to say about that aspect of the new law:

      Well there are certain magazines that are actually uh designed and have uh uh specific holes and attachments to be to be extended and those specific magazines uh where theres uh certain level of design specifically just for extension rather than just cleaning. Uh but that's not very many of them.

      Compelling, no?"

      source www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/colorado-lawsuit-forces-changes-to-gun-control-laws/

      In the grander scheme of things, elected officials everywhere had better be paying attention. Ignore the will of the people, and you'll be out of a job. Kudos to the citizens of Colorado for reminding them all who they ultimately answer to.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      So @Sassy, I suppose you opposed putting the over-the-counter drugs used to make Meth behind the counter was a bad idea as well, its the same principal. Why are the base plates removable in the first place if not to make them convertible?

      Paying for background checks? I suppose you object for paying for the bullets to fire or the oil to maintain, or the license to own or any other cost of ownership as well. Maybe guns should be given away free because having to spend money on them violates the 2nd Amendment as well doesn't in the NRA's view of the natural right of man to possess and bear arms? It violates it in that there are some people who can't afford to spend the $1000 on an AR-15 and the Internet kit to make it fully automatic.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      LOL@ MyEsoteric

      Don't legal gun owners already pay for all those things without complaint? I like how you completely ignore that LAW ENFORCEMENT filed the lawsuit in this instance, along with the CITIZENS of Colorado. Also completely ignoring that the Governor could not even define what weapons the very law he signed applied to at all.

      It is clear that you know nothing at all about the very thing you are trying to ban. Removable baseplates are not there for conversion to higher capacity magazines. They are removable for cleaning & repair, the 2 most notable. In essence, it banned ALL such weapons. Even though, in order to convert it, one has to purchase the hardware necessary to convert them and permanently alter them.

      Like it or not, we are still a democracy. The citizens of Colorado made it known they were not in favor of the law as it was presented. Just as with the Obamacare debacle, the Democrats in control figured they could override the will of the people for their own agenda. Guess it backfired.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      @Sassy, you are right, I don't know about today's weapons, I was just taking a cheap shot as the thought did cross my mind there must be other reasons. The "magazines" I worked with fit in my M-16 and the base plate didn't come off of those. And for the M-1s before that, I only had clips.

      I don't own guns only because I don't care to, they don't interest me, not because I think I shouldn't be able to. I do think universal background checks, as do 70% of gun-toten Louisianans apparently because that is effective in reducing criminal access to guns given over 70%, I think it is, of all guns criminals obtain are from legal, non-retail sources; only a small percentage come from other criminal activity. For example, virtually all of the guns in Washington D.C in the hands of gangs come from legal straw purchases in Virginia of massive quantities of guns from retailers and gun shows.

      That is why keeping a database that ties a gun to a person is so important. It isn't so the gov't to come to confiscate it, that is simple paranoia and conspiracy theory thinking. This has been done on a local level in places for decades and no mass confiscation has happened yet. But it would put a kibosh on straw purchases, unless you think it is ok for that to happen ... buy guns with the intent to sell to criminals.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      I'm actually not against background checks at all but that in and of itself prevents the straw purchases. There is no reason for a national database. Period. There is only one reason for a database to be kept at the national level and that is to confiscate them and have a knowledge of exactly where they are and what weapons each citizen has in their possession. There are databases to an extent but they are not accessible UNLESS checking the serial number of a gun that is either 1. found at the scene of a crime or 2. a person is suspected of a crime and you are checking if they have a weapon suspected to be the murder weapon. With NSA already illegally storing our emails and phone calls for possible future use, I have no reason to trust the Government to adhere to such rules. That's not paranoia. They've already proven they can't be trusted.

      The lawsuit forced the legislature to define their terms regarding the removable baseplates as well as the "continual possession" clause which would have prevented anyone from leaving their gun to be repaired, serviced or cleaned at a gun dealer. Not to mention making other legal activities, illegal.

      The reason they were forced out was for what they were attempting to do against the will of the people who elected them. Ultimately, that is who they all answer to, something they, and others like them, have forgotten. It's a nice wake up call for all of them.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I don't have much problem with the lawsuits, that is what the process is there for ... to put clarity to ill-defined law.

      As to the recall, I think that is short-sighted of their constituents, but, that is their prerogative and I respect the two for standing up for they believe is morally right regardless of the political fallout; few politicians will do that.

      Tell me though, how will background checks stop straw purchases? Generally, the people doing the purchases can pass a retail background check and with no mechanism for tracking ownership, can't they just sell their guns anyway they see fit, ignoring the background check requirement on their end? If a gun is used in a crime, how is it traced back to the original purchaser in states that don't require the maintenance of the those kinds of records or don't want to cooperate with the Federal gov't? And why is it so necessary to make crime fighting so difficult; all it does is help the criminal; they must Love the NRA.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      Sassy and My Esoteric: It looks like we have a forum going! Here is my take on this whole gun situation. There are two things. (1) Any fast firing, large capacity magazine gun in my estimation can be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction. If a shooter has a weapon that can indiscriminately kill and maim masses of people and things, it is a WMD in my estimation and does not have to be in a civilian's inventory of firearms.(2) I'm not so much worried about criminals and what they do, but the mentally ill who have access to these WMDs. They are the ones who have indiscriminately killed the masses. If they took the WMDs off the market, it would make it less likely for the mentally ill to get those WMDs. HIPPA laws will not allow disclosing medical information on anybody. So just for the people who want to play with their WMDs, we pay the price for the mentally ill to also obtain them. Just wait until the next mass shooting with WMDs. Sassy, I'm glad to see we brought you out of the woodwork.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      It's no more difficult than needing a warrant to search your house or do you think we should get rid of that requirement as well?

      Universal background checks, as I understand them, would mean that even private sales are subject to them as well. How would that not stop the straw sales?

      As I said, while I am not certain of every locale within the country, on a local level I am relatively certain there is a database of guns sold, with serial numbers, if not on a state level in most states. It is the reason they have serial numbers. For tracking purposes if used in a crime. I have no problem with that on a local level or even on a state level. These are the people who need access when investigating a crime. The FBI also has access to these databases in cases that fall into their jurisdiction. The difference between this being either state or local level versus on a National level is that the requirements for gaining access are followed. Do you really believe that if the Federal Government had access to such a database they would bother with anything so trivial when they didn't have anyone to answer to? No, they've proven they will not.

      It may seem shortsighted to you, because you agree with the stance of those politicians. Here we have a basic disagreement on the job of politicians however. If my duly elected REPRESENTATIVE (i.e. they have that name for a reason. It's because that is the job they are elected to do. Represent the people who elected them) wishes to propose something that the majority who voted him into office are against, does not go to the people with his argument and then listen to their opinions in the matter, then he deserves to lose his job because he has not fulfilled his obligation.

      We are speaking of state officials here that decided to pursue, right or wrong, the agenda of the Democrats at the Federal level regardless of the opinions of the people they were supposed to represent. They failed the public trust and the very nature of their elected office.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      The universal background check only works if the sellers of the weapons obey the law. There are a lot of honest citizens out there on your side of the aisle who will disagree with this law and break it with no more guilt that breaking the speeding limit. But, that isn't the problem, it is those dishonest people who don't have a record who are the go between between the legal and criminal worlds.

      Databases I know about; I spent the last 10 years of my AF career running a big one. So here is a long story made short and in it, I am comparing the AF with the Navy; which is like the situation we have with a central database and a fractured set of local ones.

      The AF has five principal support-type database, one each for maintaining information on 1) finances, 2) base-level maintenance, 3) depot-level maintenance, and 5) personnel. In addition, you had a multitude of operational-type dbs which held things like flying hours, and such. These databases did not talk to each other except in ad hoc ways. Around 1998, the Dept of Defense, for some reason, decided to get interested in how much it cost to operate defense at a weapon system-level basis. Guess who couldn't answer the question? Nobody. Guess what I got to do for the Air Force (I was a Cost Analyst) for the next 10 years.

      My job was to take a previous system which did part of the job called Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) and turn it into the Air Force Total Operating Cost Management Information System (AFTOC) (if you Google AFTOC-Belford, you will get a few hits on my former life). The challenge was to build a MIS which sucked information out of each of the 6+ major AF systems, massage it, and make it available such that when someone asked what it cost to operate an F-16 at Hill AFB in 2002; I could tell them (actually they could look for themselves) down to a nats eyebrow. By the time I retired in 2008, I had integrated 5 of 6 these systems together and was still fighting the bureaucracy (local gov'ts) to get access to the data I needed integrate all 6 together; my successor was finally successful last year.

      AFTOC is equivalent to a national database which everybody, from Air Staff down to somebody in maintenance at Hill AFB has access to the data.

      In the Navy, that is still impossible. The Navy is the world favored by your side @Sassy, a plethora of databases controlled by their own little fiefdoms; more than 65 of them, if I remember correctly, some would be at state level, but many at local level. Consequently, the Navy VAMOSC system, they still call it that, simply cannot produce equivalent information as the AF AFTOC MIS. A project which may take an AF analyst a week to accomplish may take their Navy counterpart two months to do.

      Sorry for the long-winded story, but that is exactly the situation you have with an integrated national weapons database, something the federal gov't and all state/local gov'ts can easily use, the AF model, vs a distributed Navy model with the important information parsed out and held tightly by 50,000 different communities thereby slowing down effective use of the data to a snails pace for everybody.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      @MyEsoteric

      Your comparison is a multitasking database to a basic one and one that must compare a lot more data than a database of guns, serial numbers, owners & transactions. I work in databases, I understand them. The complexity between the system you are describing and the local databases are universes apart. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. There is absolutely no need for a National database IMO and even if there were a need, the Government has already proven itself too untrustworthy to be in charge of such a thing.

      I disagree. Just because they don't like the law, does not mean the average law abiding citizen would not follow the law. You are not going to stop all straw sales because, simply, they are the criminal element. Period. Criminals do not follow law no matter what law you make, so if it is the criminal element you are concerned about, there is no need for gun control at all. Gun control laws after all, only control those who will follow the law.

      @peoplepower Personally, I think anyone purchasing a gun should sign a waiver so that the mental health information can be legally obtained. There is no reason that the dealer/seller even needs to know what reason the purchaser is denied. It could simply have a code and a phone number the purchaser calls to see if it is just some paperwork missing or something else.

      To go even a step further (and most likely not too popular among many) those who live in a household with someone that has known mental health issues is then responsible for keeping that gun out of their hands. Should they fail to do so, then they are responsible as if they had committed the act themselves. I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, something our current leaders seem to feel we are incapable of exercising.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      I don't know what you are smoking, but it is very rare that any local, state or federal politician represent the people anymore. They represent big moneyed interest, because they fund their campaigns. But that's another whole ball of wax and I don't want to get into it with you.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      No comment, other than i'm really impressed!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      Sassy: You wrote:

      "Criminals do not follow law no matter what law you make, so if it is the criminal element you are concerned about, there is no need for gun control at all. Gun control laws after all, only control those who will follow the law."

      It's not about following the law, it's about breaking the law. If criminals do break the law, they should be prosecuted. If you have no laws, how are you going to prosecute someone for injustice?

      In your last paragraph, how are you going to enforce and keep guns out of the hands of someone in a household? By using the government or private enterprise for surveillance? Talk about being incapable of personal responsibility!

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 3 years ago

      What do you mean how do you do it? I never said it was the Government's responsibility so why would they be watching? I said "IF" those guns wind up in the hands of said individual, then you're held accountable. Let's see...hmmm...how do you do it...I don't know...there's these things called locks & keys....and you don't have to tell people where the keys are....hey! You could even not have the gun or guns in sight. They could be hidden. Ammunition kept separately...gee, I don't know. Perhaps some of the same ways you are to keep guns away from children in your household.

      As for those who are elected to represent us, I merely said it was a wake up call for all of them and a reminder of who they ultimately answer to in the end. In cases such as what you are saying, perhaps we can have a few more recall elections. People need to stop being sheep and remember who these elected officials are supposed to be representing.

    • profile image

      fencesaregreat 3 years ago

      You are playing the what if game by saying what if we could take guns away,you think it would reduce killings, your families safety is your responsibility, if you can do it with a musket or by waiting 10 minutes after calling 911 go ahead, personally I prefer my ar15 with as large a magazine as possible so I don't have to fumble in the dark to reload, even the police will tell you they are lucky to get 2 hits in 10 shots, they often miss all shots, now if you have 4 people trying to shoot you, how many bullets do you want to have in your riffle to protect your family? And as far as slipery slopes, it's a cliff, most honest antigun people will tell you, they want ALL guns gone! Also if it wasn't for the NRA our gun rights would be long gone, I fully support the NRA and donate to them what I can like millions of Americans do!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Clearly one cannot argue with @Fences since his post indicates a case of paranoia and not reality.

      As to elected officials ... those on the Right are clearly NOT following the wishes of their constituencies since somewhere between 80 and 90% want universal background checks. But the fear of the NRA gunning down their political chances they vote against the people they represent and continue to let guns flow into the hands of criminals.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      fencesaregreat : Thanks for your comments. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it. I checked out your profile and see that you are brand new to hub pages...welcome. I'm honored that you chose to comment on my hub as one of your first activities.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 3 years ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: The NRA and gun manufactures love people like @fences. I saw an article about the 10 things gun manufactures don't want you to know. One of them that stuck in my mind is that they make more money from selling ammunition than guns. It's just like computer printers and ink. The printer is a very low cost but the ink will cost you a bundle and it needs to be re-supplied. I'm going to search for the article. Thanks for your comment.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      Ive written a hub about attacking the second amendment and talk about gun control will not change anything but give the government more power look at the pages of history and you'll what gun control truly does. All the shooting you all are talking about are very tragic but your leaving out a big key point. A great reason why most of them happen is because there in gun free zones. The reason why they go to gun free zones Because they won't be challenged and shot back at. That's why a lot of shootings happen because of gun free zones. I say forget about the gun control but what i will say that im all for is if your buying a gun you have to be educated about the gun and test fire and qualify for the gun before you can own it. The problem we have is we sell to people that are uneducated about the weapon. And a 10 round Magazine will do as much damage as a 30 round Magazine.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      Matthew Harvey: I don't think gun free zones has anything to do with it. Almost all of these shootings have been done in what are called soft targets: inside schools, churches, and theaters. The problem is, there are many loop holes that all allow anybody possession of firearms that are used for mass killings. Thanks for your comments.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      But school, churches and theaters are all gun free zones and the people who had possession of the fire arm was done legally and they were done with a hand gun not a rifle or a shotgun a hand gun is what did it all. There are not as many loop holes as you think there are. And the gun is not really the problem. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      The problem, as it relates to guns, is the easy access to them by those who shouldn't have them. As a result, they are just laying around for a depressed person to pick up to kill themselves with, or an angry depressed person to grab their parents guns to go commit mass murder, or in some states where it is really easy to get a gun (LA, AZ, AK, etc) a pissed-off spouse runs down to the local gun store, grab a gun and goes on a killing spree.

      The issue the gun control crowd keep railing at is "it is simply too easy for the wrong people to end up with a gun in their hands". It is NOT the fact responsible people can get guns (save for the 1% who really do to foolishly ban guns), instead it is that irresponsible people have no problem in most states to acquire deadly weapons.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      How do you know the possession of those firearms was done legally? What difference does it make if it was a handgun. There are rapid fire high capacity hand guns. I own two Winchester Model 12, 12 Ga, full choke shotguns. Also a Winchester .270 caliber rifle with a Weaver K.25 scope. I used to be a hunter. The loop holes include guns sold in gun show parking lots, Guns bought online, and guns bought by a straw man to be given to someone else. Also during a background check if a the FBI doesn't get back within 24 hrs, the transaction is approved by default. This is because the ATF and the FBI are understaffed because of Tiahart amendment cutting funding and sequestration.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: Thank you for your very succinct comments here and on the forum.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      A lot of guns show now a days still make you fill out a 4473 and to buy a gun online still has to go to a dealer so you can fill out a 4473 back round check. I will not lie some people do make straw purchase which is all illegal to do. But the problem is not the gun it's the gun free zones. Roseburg Ore. Umpqua Community College 9 dead 9 injured. gun free zone. Santa Monica College 5 dead gun free zone. Aurora, Colo. movie theater 12 dead 58 injured gun free zone. Oakland Oikos University 7 killed 3 injured gun free zone. all of this proves that gun free zones do not work one bit at all. But we don't do anything to get rid of them we just blame the gun not how the person thinks. People that want to kill as many people are possible will go to a gun free zone because the law bidding citizens will follow the law and not carry there fire arm with them. Which leaves it to where any killer can kill and not be challenged that's why 90% of the mass shootings are in gun free zones. we can tighten a law all we want no matter what they want a gun they'll find a why and get it. We've made some many laws on drugs but yet they'll still get it.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      Matthew Harvey: Umpqua: Was not a gun free zone. Read this: .http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/01/370825...

      "People that want to kill as many people are possible will go to a gun free zone because the law bidding citizens will follow the law and not carry there fire arm with them. " These "people" are mentally deranged people. There in lies the dilemma. We don't know who these people are until after they have committed the crime. Do we arm kids, teachers, and church goers in gun free zones with weapons? If we do, then that allows the mentally ill the right to carry as well because of the 2nd amendment. The problem is that the 2nd amendment allows easy access to guns by anybody.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      Y es I say let the teachers carry fire arms they do in Israel and they haven't had a mass shooting since. That or an armed guard and some churches let you carry your gun in service I carry my 1911 every time we go into church. I don't think attacking the 2nd Amendment will help anything. But I will say personly because i've dealt with some dumb people at the range. Before you buy any gun you must know about it and how to qualify for it. By that time the shop owner will be able to say yes ill sell you the fire arm or no. Because there are some people i believe that shouldn't own a fire arm. not because of their mentality because of their immaturity. But should still be able to defend themselves. That's why i say make them learn about the fire arm and qualify for it.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      Your points are well taken

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      thank you for your time and great hub

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      @Mathew said "But I will say personly because i've dealt with some dumb people at the range. Before you buy any gun you must know about it and how to qualify for it. By that time the shop owner will be able to say yes ill sell you the fire arm or no. Because there are some people i believe that shouldn't own a fire arm. not because of their mentality because of their immaturity."

      And My Esoteric's point is that that is what 99% of gun-control advocates are trying to do; it is only the 1% who "attack the 2nd Amendment" and actually want to "ban" guns. But it is that 1% who gun-rights advocates think comprise the whole universe of those who want sensible gun regulations; the other 99% aren't allowed to matter because that point of view undercuts the NRA's leaderships whole argument.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      I like the phrase "sensible gun regulations." But I'm afraid the gun people will still think that means gun control and taking away their guns.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      You are welcome. Thanks for dropping by and your comments.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      Soft Zones? There is certainly a soft zone, but it has nothing to do with where the shootings have been taking place.

      How will any new laws prevent gun sales/exchanges from going on in parking lots anywhere?

      Currently we have Laws against MURDER and they're not working.

      Why is it so difficult for some people to see reality?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Phrases like "... Laws against Murder and they're 'not working' " have always made me wonder if the author is one the All or Nothing crowd. To extend this phrase to the gun control argument, since gun control cannot prevent 100% of all misuse of guns, then it follows that there should be no controls whatsoever; what's the point. Also, what is the logical question this phrase begs? "If laws against murder isn't 100% effective, then should we repeal all laws against murder (or any other crime, for that matter)?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: You bring up a very good point. What constitutes the illegal trade of guns? What documents are required for the legal trade of guns?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: That's a very good point. With the gun argument, it's 100% or why even try!

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      Like I said, why is so difficult for so many to see the reality of it all? The comments made in response to my post verify the difficulty. We have laws against everything that is needed to prevent the murders that are taking place. Why do they continue? Because the laws made are not enforceable and then all too often they go lenient in enforcement or do not have the manpower to enforce them. So, what is the point of laws you do not have the capacity to enforce? Fact is, we do not need anymore laws to control the law abiding and most of the laws written only control those who allow themselves to be controlled. In essence you create more criminal element when you force laws upon people that they know are of no use in circumventing those who break the current laws.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do : Laws are not for those who allow themselves to be controlled. Laws are to ensure the safety and well being of the populous. If you pulled up to intersection and tried to go through a red light, there is the possibility, you would not only be endangering your life but also others. If you did go through that light and a cop arrested you, you would be subject to the laws of the criminal justice system.

      Rights on the other hand are different. If you never exercised a right, you don't lose the right to exercise it when you feel it is necessary.

      You are saying if we can't enforce laws, what is the sense of having them. Just think how the country would be without laws. It would be pure chaos and a very dangerous place to live. It is human nature to be selfish, corrupt, and immoral. Laws protect us from those tendencies.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      So ThinkN-Do's bottom line appears to be that America, in fact the world, should be lawless so that we can return to Hobbes/Locke's Darwinist "state of nature". Does that about sum it up?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      Why don't you understand? Their are laws, they are NOT working. So, how will more laws do any good? I never once said there should be no laws. Actually "My Esoteric" my bottom line is this: People need to Think before they Do. All too often that is not what happens; instead we react and that is what is taking place with respect to crime in the USA and in this case firearms. Alas, there is no point in wasting time trying to explain to those who do not care to see; so with that, have a Happy Thanksgiving.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: How about fixing laws that don't work? Is that out of the question? The only thing that prevents fixing laws, is that congress has been bought off by big moneyed interests and corporations that don't want those laws fixed, especially the NRA, they are beholden to the gun manufactures.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      It's not that the laws don't work, they are not enforced, there is not enough manpower and money to do the job(s) they need to, to make the laws work. Same reasons there are countless "rape kits" sitting in police evidence rooms or wherever they sit, that have never been tested. Part of the issue with our society, there are too many laws, that are not being or capable of being enforced properly . . so just make more of them, right? One messed up society . . . . lost in a lost world.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: You are missing one of the other factors. There is not enough funding to support the enforcement of the laws we do have. The compromise for shutting the government down was sequestration which removed a lot of funding that was targeted to enforce those laws. Please read my hub on why the ATF can't do it's job. https://hubpages.com/politics/How-to-Stop-the-ATF-...

      Thanks for your comments.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      I have mentioned multiple times that there is not ENOUGH money. I didn't miss anything . . . . .

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      O.K. But the real question is why isn't there enough money?

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      oh that's simply our government made us go broke

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      ThinkN-Do: First you said "Currently we have Laws against MURDER and they're not working."

      You said next: " Why don't you understand? Their are laws, they are NOT working. So, how will more laws do any good? ..." and the rest us a non sequitur.

      Then you shift tactics by saying "It's not that the laws don't work, they are not enforced, [which implies Laws Do Work] there is not enough manpower and money to do the job(s) they need to, to make the laws work. ..." ... which is an entirely different issue, isn't it.

      So now that we know "Laws Do Work", should we discuss why laws aren't enforced as PeoplePower suggests?

      You then change directions slightly by saying "Same reasons there are countless "rape kits" sitting in police evidence rooms or wherever they sit, that have never been tested." which is somehow is responsible for "... there are too many laws," How does the first statement lead logically to the second?

      The you go on to say "... that are not being or capable of being enforced properly . . so just make more of them, right? . . . " Really? How did the 7.5 million Americans (more than any other country in the world in terms of numbers and percentage) who populate our jails and prisons get there? It seems there had to be a little bit of enforcement going on, wouldn't you think?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      How's the gun control in France working . . . .I know low blow . . . peace be with all who are suffering as a result of the tragic events.

      Does it matter if it's coordinated terrorists or lone wolf suicidal maniacs that shoot up a school or office? No, death is death. Reason's don't matter, and laws will not prevent them from happening. As I stated earlier, laws only work on those who allow themselves to be controlled. However, when you step too far with laws, there are going to be ramifications. But that's another story for another debate.

      What I and many others want to know is this: What law(s) are you going to enact that will make criminals submit to a background check?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      As I said to another making the same poor analogy. First, most of the death and damage was from bombs, not guns. Second, you are trying to compare the actions of soldiers with the actions of civilians; not the same.

      To have a very small chance of stopping what happened in Paris, you need to have all citizens, all the time during their daily activities, who have gone through grueling annual military training and are armed with M-16s, with attached M-203 grenade launchers attached, as well as all of the appropriate ammunition in sufficient quantities wrapped around their body. But given the way it came down, even that probably wouldn't be enough. I guess this is what you want for Americans.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      They're not soldiers they are whacked out individuals (similar to a gang in some respects), and very similar to those who carry out massacres here with regard to their psychological disturbances; just different reason(s). By the way, I haven't read anywhere that there were more killed by explosions than gunfire, and if there were, does it make a difference?

      This is not want I want for citizens of the USA, that's why I do not believe in gun restrictions like they have in places like France, England . . . . as for your idea of requirements to possibly circumvent a disaster as these; not really . . . but you're entitled to your opinion and we are all entitled to our 2nd Amendment right(s) which currently are being infringed upon.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do: Terrorists is another name for what used to be called guerrilla warfare. Today, they call it asymmetrical warfare. They are soldiers that just don't wear uniforms. The core of ISIS are disenfranchised Sunni's Muslims. Their leader, Anwar al Baghdadi, wants to take the mid-east back to the time of the Ottoman Empire. He sees himself as a Caliph who wants to rule a Caliphate.

      Those were surprise attacks in Paris. I don't care how armed as a civilian your are, you can not defend yourself from well trained and highly armed terrorist that operate by surprise. It does make a difference when explosive vests are used and people are willing to give up their lives to take out many people with a push of a button. How do you defend yourself from that?

      How are your 2nd amendment rights being infringed upon? Did someone take away your guns?

      Currently, there is a three way civil war going on the mid-east, among the Sunni, Shia and Kurds. It is a very complex situation. You should read my hub on this: https://hubpages.com/politics/What-is-the-Differen...

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: It is so hard for civilian gun people to understand, they cannot defend themselves against well thought out, highly coordinated, surprise terrorists attacks. Even if civilians are armed to the teeth and wanted to retaliate, it would be ineffective. The only retaliation has to be done by our military.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      If a criminal has a record, they will not be approved. The other part of this is to have laws that close the loop holes for guns bought on line and in gun show parking lots, and as straw man, when a gun is bought by someone and given to someone else.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      To buy a gun online you have to send it to a Dealer with an FFL (federal firearms license) and fill out a 4473. And now a days a good portion of gun shows have you fill out a 4473 to have you buy the firearm. But as we see in France ( which my prayers are out there to them) what ever law you want the bad people will still get there guns.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Is that true, the 4473, in all states like AZ, ME, LA, TX, AK, UT, to name a few? It is not a federal law, which is the problem.

      Some states have great laws, like MA where your 2A rights are not infringed, and some states have terrible or almost non-existent laws, like LA; and in aggregate states like LA, where 2A rights are not infringed either, have a higher rate of funerals than do states like MA .. that is the difference sensible gun laws make

      ThinkN-Do's inability to distinguish between a highly trained terrorist and an untrained civilian is a frightening thing. Do you think those skin-head, terrorists in-waiting like the KKK, the Crips, the Army of God, the Sovereign Nation, etc are your average citizen? No, they are trained militants who can mount an attack like ISIS just did in Paris? And you want, or want to make it easy for these people to have guns, sheeesh.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      Yes all gun dealers in the US make you fill out the 4473 and if you buy the firearm online it does have to be shipped to a dealer and if you have a conceal carry permit you still have to fill out the 4473 but you don't have to wait you can get your firearm that day. Because you had to go in for finger prints and a picture to get your permit.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Then we have your position:

      -The NRA, in a policy statement on its Web site, notes that most firearms sales online go through a federally licensed firearms dealer in the home state of the buyer. “The reality is that the Internet does not provide any legal opportunity to simply buy a firearm as if it were a pair of jeans,” the statement says.

      Then there is reality (from same article):

      - But most firearms sales facilitated at [online] classified sites including Armslist.org do not go through dealers because they are person-to-person transactions, Hatalsky said, meaning the buyers do not undergo background checks.

      The NRA says in its statement that banning these sales is effectively prohibiting advertisements, “which is a direct attack on both the First and Second Amendments.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-...

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      Ive personal used Armslist.com they've had me ship it to a dealer they never shipped it to my house.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      Matthew Harvey and My Esoteric: Here is a website with a wealth of information on federal law and background checks.

      http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-background-...

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      Matthew Harvey; they don't want to admit the truth. They think some law will stop illegal activity. Reality is difficult for some to see, even though it is real. Can people sell firearms without a background check, yes, but not if they are Federally licensed; unless they choose to violate Federal law. All this firearm talk is making want to go to the range. Today is cleaning day though, have to clean up the apartment for the coming holidays; hope everyone has a Wonderful and Thankful Thanksgiving.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      Anyone interested in knowing the Federal laws only needs to go to one place: atf.org

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      Good for you. Now if everybody would do that it would help close that loop hole.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      ThinkN-Do, it may be a surprise to those on your side that the word "stop" as in your incorrect statement "...they think some law will 'stop' illegal activity...." and the word "reduce" as in the correct statement "... they think some law will 'reduce' illegal activity."

      To make it clear to you in the starkest possible way, "I, and those on my side, DO NOT think some law with STOP illegal activity".

      What we do think is that "I, and those on my side, DO think some law with REDUCE illegal activity"

      Until you and yours can discern the difference between those two words, communication is impossible. Let me know when you figure out what the difference is.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      @ My Esoteric: well I'll be . . . and guess what . . . laws don't prevent illegal activity; that's why it's known as Illegal . . . .

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 19 months ago from Placentia California

      ThinkN-Do : In your mind, what are the purpose of laws?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      The debate/discussion as I understand it, is about what can be done to stop/reduce the psychologically disturbed from committing murders with firearms. I'll come back in another 6 months or so and see if there has been any earth shattering discoveries made, later.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And once again, the answer to your question "what can be done to stop/reduce the psychologically disturbed from committing murders with firearms." is simple and stated many times; reduce their opportunity to obtain a firearm ... but you don't want that so my conclusion is that you actually WANT these people to have guns.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      In conclusion, I fear you haven't heard one word I mentioned, oh well, such is life.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I have most of them all, but fear they don't make much sense.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 19 months ago from lake havasu city

      Then tell me how are we going to separate these people with any mental disorder. There is no true screening to tell who is truly mental and who isn't because most of the time when this happens its to late because there are no signs of when people are going to snap and how do we truly know these people where mental cause the TV said so.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 19 months ago from Pac NW

      @ Matthew Harvey - no one has solutions to the "real" issues, that's is why they keep throwing out the same dialogue. It seems their only hope is to outlast those opposed to their control methods. Then having fooled millions of citizens with false, embellished, distorted information, they will be able to impose their ideals upon those who have given up. We can not allow that to happen.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You are talking about yourselves, it seems.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, this is a well written piece and does touch on all aspects of the 2nd Amendment, unlike many who discuss this without knowledge.

      My question to you is simple, what would you replace the 2nd Amendment with? and how will it stop mass shoots like Connecticut and recently in Orlando?

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, perhaps another way to look at this is the following. We have many people dying from auto accidents. Some are from huge trucks on the road. Some like terrorists in France recently mowing down people on the street.

      Would you propose to eliminate or regulate large SUVs and trucks because they could be used as "weapon of mass destruction"?

      What is the difference between gun control and cars and trucks control?

      Ultimately, isn't the people who drives and shoots that are the problem and not the guns or the trucks?

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 10 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      Yes, the difference is guns are a constitutional right, trucks, knives, cars, boats, airplanes aren't and all cause more innocent deaths than guns legally owned by citizens ever have, probably more than all gun deaths.

      So where is the Democrat outrage over automobile manufacturers, knife manufacturers, Boeing or Airbus? Deceitful hypocrites are all those who use tragedies of innocents killed by guns to want to keep law abiding citizens from owning them which actually is a constitutional right.

      You say banning trucks or airplanes is ludicrous? How much more ludicrous is taking away a constitutional right? Change the constitution if you want to do that, most will say that is ludicrous or it would have already been done.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: I wouldn't replace the 2nd amendment. When gun people hear the words "Gun Control" they immediately think the government is coming to confiscate their guns. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress would have to approve such a program anyway and they are definitely not going to do that. We have to have reasonable gun control. We cannot confiscate assault style military weapons, but we can stop any further sale of them.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: Yes, the shooters are the problem. No I don't propose any of the things you mentioned as WMDs nor would I have control of knifes and forks or anything else that could be used as a weapon. The terrorists are very smart people. They use force multipliers as weapons, like trucks and suicide bombers. They don't even have to be successful and they cause us to lose more of our freedoms. Just go to an airport and try get on a plane without going through security. I remember when their was no security. The common link between terrorism and mass shootings is the easy access to assault weapons in this country for both terrorists, mass shooters, and shootings of black people as well as police officers.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Don't Taze Me Bro. When gun people hear "Gun Control", they immediately think the government is coming to confiscate their gun and/or repeal or change the 2nd amendment. When in fact, they want to stop the further sale of assault style weapons and stronger security and background checks and to reduce the easy access of guns by both mass shooters and now terrorists. There is not enough control when can buy a gun in a parking lot of a gun show or buy them online for other people.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Mike, I think there are always going to be some gun violence whether you enforce or enact more gun control laws. There will always be criminals who have illegal guns. People with mental disease but have access to legal guns. Terrorists will use whatever is accessible, if not guns, bombs made from fertilizers...

      I wrote a piece on the 2nd Amendment recently - https://hubpages.com/politics/The-2nd-Amendment-Ex...

      You probably already knows this but it needs to be reminded and taught.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: But that is no reason to not try. That is defeatism, "why try, it's not going to work anyway." Every little bit will help. If we can keep people from getting shot, isn't that worth it? Maybe a trend can be started. If we never start, we will never know. There is a price to pay and a trade-off for every decision that is made. But at least we need to make a decision. The status quo does not work and the more guns that are available, the worse it is.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      I wish you have the same concern about reducing gang violence in inner cities as trying to limit guns in the general population. Chicago for example have one of the toughest gun laws, yet the shootings are up 60% just this year. How do you solve that?

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 10 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      PP, if you were as good at addressing the problem as you are at changing the subject of my point when addressing my comment, maybe you'd understand just how disingenuous it is for the gun control people to use the tragedies of innocents killed by nut cases to further gun control which was my point, a point you seem to run from. You know that if gun control advocates could repeal the 2nd amendment they would in a heartbeat. They all would admit to that behind closed doors among themselves, the only reason they don;t go there is because they know it is a non starter.

      So to put the onus on gun people that "they immediately think the government is coming to confiscate their gun and/or repeal or change the 2nd amendment" is ridiculous because of the deceitful tactics the gun control people use like Obama using every tragedy that comes down the pike to blame it on Americans for their failure to act on whatever he thinks should be done in gun control.

      Liberals are not trustable, they are born liars, the ends justifies the means, truth is relative, you name it, they use every deceitful tactic in the book, I know they would repeal the 2nd amendment in a heartbeat if they thought they could.

      And...

      Hillary is on record saying confiscating all guns like Austalia did is a good idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JctBYrIaKvY

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 10 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And what makes you think, Jackclee that PeoplePower doesn't care as much? What in his commentary even suggests that?

      The fact is, sensible gun regulations WILL reduce some of the killings in Chicago. How? By helping reduce the flow of guns from Indiana next door? Indiana doesn't have background checks, does it. It also doesn't have laws against sham gun purchases. It is Washington D.C.'s Virginia where gunrunning is big business.

      The reason PeoplePower supports sensible gun safety regulations is because he cares about everyone of those 32,000 people killed each year from being shot by a gun.

      Had none of the people who held the gun and used it to bad purposes (including suicides) had access to guns, then virtually everyone, but not 100%) of those 32,000 would be alive today.

      NOTICE that I said "had access" and not had their guns taken away. "Access" is what gun safety regulations is all about ... keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them while, at the same time, letting those who will not harm anyone, or themselves, have all the guns they want.

    • junko profile image

      junko 10 months ago

      My Esoteric what you said makes sense but, there are some people that think that their guns will stop the federal government from taking their guns. They can't eat or drink their guns. If the federal government wanted to take the guns from the people a Military Blockade wound do the trick. In about 30 no more than 60 days 2nd amendment people that love their amendment and their weapons will give their guns to the government for water food medicine and the internet. In the inner city sometimes their are gun for Cash attempts to get the gun from the poor.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: Education

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Dont Taze Me Bro : I copied your reply and I'm going to address each of your points. Yours are in quotes.

      "PP, if you were as good at addressing the problem as you are at changing the subject of my point when addressing my comment, maybe you'd understand just how disingenuous it is for the gun control people to use the tragedies of innocents killed by nut cases to further gun control which was my point, a point you seem to run from. You know that if gun control advocates could repeal the 2nd amendment they would in a heartbeat. They all would admit to that behind closed doors among themselves, the only reason they don;t go there is because they know it is a non starter."

      First off why is it a non-starter? I believe it is a non-starter because the NRA and gun manufacturers have a strangle hold on congress. They fund their re-elections. It's all about big money.

      "So to put the onus on gun people that "they immediately think the government is coming to confiscate their gun and/or repeal or change the 2nd amendment" is ridiculous because of the deceitful tactics the gun control people use like Obama using every tragedy that comes down the pike to blame it on Americans for their failure to act on whatever he thinks should be done in gun control."

      My comments are based on the many forums I have been in about this subject and that is the reply that I get from gun advocates. He is not blaming it on "Americans." He is blaming it on the do nothing republican congress. They have been bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers. I have never heard him saying Americans are at fault. You must get that non-sense from Fox News.

      "Liberals are not trustable, they are born liars, the ends justifies the means, truth is relative, you name it, they use every deceitful tactic in the book, I know they would repeal the 2nd amendment in a heartbeat if they thought they could."

      O.K. now I know you have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda. So liberals as soon as they are born, they lie? The 2nd amendment is a right. Whether you exercise it or not, it is always there for you to use. I believe it is out of date and needs to be amended for modern times.

      And...

      "Hillary is on record saying confiscating all guns like Austalia did is a good idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JctBYrIaKvY"

      Hillary did not say "Confiscate" You might have heard that. She said "buy back program might be a good idea." She didn't even say she would implement it." Thanks for proving my point with a video that you miss-interpreted.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: Thank you. I couldn't have said it better. Good to hear from you again.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      PP, who is responsible for education of our youths? For the past 5o years, our school system has gone downhill and the Teacher's union along with Democratic control of local cities, have prevented any reform in our school system. Is it any surprise that we have the most illiterate populace among the industrial nations? Why are these people voted in year after year when they have not produce results. In the private sector, they would be fired. Just pointing out the obvious...

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      junko: In theory, that sounds great. But starving the people in order to get their guns...I don't think so. Your point is well taken. They have been arming up since Obama took office, thinking he was going to commit tyranny. We can thank right wing propaganda for that one. When in fact, what easy access to guns has done is make it easier for the terrorist and those that want to even the score with law enforcement to get guns. They are shooting more police officers every day. Thank you NRA and gun manufacturers, keep up the good work. It's now like Gun Fight at the O.K. Corral.. The gun people never thought that those who have been wronged by law enforcement would turn on them. Black Lives do Matter.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack; It's not just the education of our youths. It is the education of gang members, so that they feel like they can belong to something worthwhile. There is not much difference between a gang and club when it comes to fraternity. Take a look at this clip from Trevor Noah's Show with Lebron James.

      http://on.cc.com/2blb05K via @ComedyCentral

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 10 months ago from Yorktown NY

      PP, that's a great video message. I applaud him and more should get involved. Where are JayZ and Kanye West? and other celebrities...

      Did you know about Dr. Carson's Education Scholarship fund -

      http://carsonscholars.org

      To me, it comes down to having the proper role models for these kids, a father, an uncle or a celebrity giving them the right message and showing them the path to success and prosperity. When you have failures like Chicago, who is to blame?

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 10 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      PP your answers are so predictable from how I characterize liberals I need not address them. You think you have answered me but your answers are nothing but liberal propaganda, you never even provide an answer to my whole point, that liberals are disingenuous using tragedies to promote gun control when they don't apply the same reasoning to trucks, airplanes, things that aren't even a right, which glaring reveals their deceptive practices to further an agenda of slowly, little by little taking away a constitutional right.

      Whether you pay for the property or take it away it is still intended confiscation, just you can't confiscate what is a constitutional right so what has to give you a way to give upo your constitutional right by paying for it.

      You can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 10 months ago from Placentia California

      Dont Taze Me Bro: You are not asking a question. You are making a point. Please phrase it in the form of a question and I will be glad to answer it.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Two of three gun deaths are actually self-inflicted suicides, and gun control Democrats openly support the right to suicide.

      Less than a 500 people a year die of gun accidents and of those, less than 50 are children. Still too many, but an astoundingly low number out of 320,000,000 people.

      Of the remaining 11,000 or so gun homicides, almost 80% are committed by minority drug gangs killing one another.

      The fact is, if you are not suicidal, are not a criminal, are not a brave police officer, and don't traffic in illicit drugs, your chance of being shot in America is near zero.

      The fact is that if Democrats had demanded cracking down hard on minority drug gangs and if Democrats had demanded the prevention of suicide instead of promoting 'assisted' suicide, there would be far, far fewer deaths.

      Of course eliminating all those gun deaths would also mean they would lose the gun issue and have no more excuse for trying to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights. Do you suppose that might have been a factor?

      There is no gun crisis in America. There is a suicide crisis and there's a minority drug gang crisis, but there is no gun crisis.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will, in your answer in another forum you said you do agree there are certain classes of people that should not have the right to possess guns, e.g. criminals, mentally ill, etc.

      I asked the question there and ask it again here "How do you proposed to prevent these classes from [easily, legally] obtaining weapons?"

      I find it a shame that 1) you don't consider suicide by guns as something worthwhile enough to prevent by making it harder to get a gun quickly and 2) you don't consider people who try to commit suicide as mentally ill.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Take your straw man questions back to the other Hub. I have no intention of addressing them here or allowing you to hijack this Hub.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 months ago from Placentia California

      WillStar: Statistically, air travel is the the safest type of travel. However when a fully loaded airliner crashes and everybody is killed. Do we just say well that is they way it is look at all those who were not killed by air travel? Air travel is made safe by constant improvements to the industry and to the aircraft. It is the same thing with gun deaths. You say there is not a gun crisis in America, tell that to the parents and families that were killed at Sandy Hook. There needs to be an improvement to the use of guns in this country.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: It's an exercise in futility with gun people. It's interesting, while Obama was president, there was a lot of talk about we need guns to protect us from tyranny. Now that Trump is president, you don't hear that anymore and gun sales have gone way down.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      As both a gun owner and a pilot, I find it interesting in a Hub that implies guns are 'weapons of mass destruction' you would bring up airliners. Perhaps you forgot that the deadliest day in civilian aviation history and also the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil was carried out using four airliners as weapons of mass destruction. Almost 3,000 people lost their lives on 9-11 and not a shot was fired.

      The usual emotional appeal (the grieving Sandy Hook parents) in lieu of a solid argument in a gun rights debate is noted. Many times that many children are killed each year in traffic accidents. Should we lower the speed limit to 10 miles per hour and make cars out of rubber? Freedom has its risks.

      And no, there is no gun crisis in America. There's a suicide crisis and there's a minority drug gang crisis, but there's no attempt to remedy those because there would then be no gun issue.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 months ago from Placentia California

      WillStar: My son is a 747 pilot for Atlas Air Cargo and flies all over the world. I know what he has gone through and what the airline industry has gone through to ensure not only their safety as well as everyone else's safety. Your example of using airplanes as WMDs is a false equivalence. That is not the prime purpose of a airliner. You could say the same thing about trucks as well. Terrorists now use them to mow down crowds of people. That is not their prime purpose. A guns' prime purpose is to launch a projectile to hit a target it's plain and simple. I think your logic is wrong. It's not that people want gun issues and if there were none, they would feel some type of deficit. Suicides, drug gangs, and mentally ill exist because the money to remedy those crisis has been removed from the budgets starting with Reagan and every other Republican that has come along. Trump just signed a bill to allow mentally ill to buy guns. There is where your remedy has gone, not that we want the gun issues to never go away.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You're making my argument for me, Mike Russo. Anything can be used as a weapon, and guns are not nearly as efficient as a Mack truck in mowing lots of people down. Should we ban crowds?

      Your entire argument is flawed simply because it is not happening, There is no gun crisis in America. There is a suicide crisis and a gang crisis.

      There is also an Islamic terrorist crisis and it's worldwide, but they use guns only in places where no one else is likely to be armed! Otherwise, they use bombs and trucks.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will, I didn't really expect you to be able to answer my question, mainly because you either must agree that background checks (which is part of the answer) or rescind your statement that the mentally ill, criminals, etc shouldn't have guns.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      If background checks work, why are there still gun crimes? Could it be that criminals don't buy guns legally and therefore don't have to pass a check?

      Have background checks actually reduced gun crime rates? If not, why have them at all? And if it's illegal for a felon to attempt to purchase a gun, why are there almost no prosecutions of those who do try to buy?

      If someone wants to get a firearm badly enough, they'll get one, and to hell with the law.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will, I ask you, as a response, is if laws against theft worked, why is there still stealing? Since you are suggesting, because they don't work 100% of the time, that gun laws should be done away with, then one has to surmise that you also think that All laws be done away with because none of them work 100% of the time.

      Do I have your logic right?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 2 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Do I have your logic right?"

      Of course not because that was not my point. Laws define what is and is not acceptable and create penalties for those who defy the law. However, there are always those who defy the law and must be punished.

      The background check however, is a waste of time since it does not accomplish its stated purpose and that is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed.

      Criminals don't buy their guns from FFL dealers and they don't buy them from guns shows because those too are FFL dealers and background checks. They buy most of their guns from street dealers and some use friends or family members as straw buyers.

      It also fails to keep the mentally unstable from buying guns because of HIPAA laws and our foolish policy of not institutionalizing anyone until they actually commit a crime.

      Those who try to buy from dealers and fail the background check are almost never prosecuted even though it's a crime to attempt it knowing that you are ineligible.

      The background check will never be abandoned however because it's a prelude to universal background checks which is a prelude to universal registration (how else will government know if I give a gun to my brother?) and that in turn, is a prelude to confiscation.

      The left is determined to disarm America (and it is the left, always) one way or the other.

    Click to Rate This Article