ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

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

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 7 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 7 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 7 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 7 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 7 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 7 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 7 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 7 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 7 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.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 7 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 7 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 7 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 15 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.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 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?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 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 15 months ago from Placentia California

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

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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 15 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: Education

    • junko profile image

      junko 15 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 15 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.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 15 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

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 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?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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 15 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 15 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 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 15 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.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 15 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.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 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?

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 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?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      You are talking about yourselves, it seems.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

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

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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 . . . .

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years ago from Pac NW

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

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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-...

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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 2 years 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...

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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?

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years ago from lake havasu city

      oh that's simply our government made us go broke

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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.

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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)?

    • ThinkN-Do profile image

      ThinkN-Do 2 years 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?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years ago from lake havasu city

      thank you for your time and great hub

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

      Your points are well taken

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago from Placentia California

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

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 2 years 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.

    • Matthew Harvey profile image

      Matthew Harvey 2 years 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 2 years 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 2 years 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 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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!

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 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!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      No comment, other than i'm really impressed!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 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.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 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 4 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.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 4 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.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 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.