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

What my thoughts are on Gun Control

Updated on June 18, 2013

This appears to be the hot topic of the day, doesn't it? More gun control; less gun control; criminals have guns so we must protect ourselves; we must prepare for an invasion; we must prepare to stand up and protect ourselves when the Government tries to take our guns, our freedom, our lives. Where does it stop? Where does reality lie? Hell, I don't know.

What I do know is this: the Second Amendment states "the right to keep and bear arms". But how is it meant? What was the primary meaning behind this amendment? The entire line of the Second Amendment, as adopted on September 21, 1789, is 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."

This was ratified by a three quarters vote on December 15, 1791 along with nine other amendments as the Bill of Rights. Only three quarters? So, even then there was some dissension in the ranks, wasn't there? But it is only recently that this portion of the Bill of Rights has become such a divisive force in America. Is it a statement for the "well regulated militia"; or a purpose for the people to "keep and bear arms"? Is it both? Is it neither?

Personally, I think the primary reason was so the fledgling United States would be assured of never falling in to the state that Britain had become, and still stands today: common people may not own firearms for fear of revolutionary acts against the government. Therefore, we the People would maintain our freedom through having firearms to protect ourselves against invaders from without. But what about those within our boundaries? Should we be able to defend against them?

Over the years, this simple concept of bearing arms for use in a militia has been re-defined to mean EVERYBODY has the right to own a gun. Or many guns. Of every type. The only ones off limits seem to be fully automatic weapons of war used by our military and possibly by some special police forces. We the people are not allowed to own this type of weapon. And I'm good with that.

It is not the law abiding, common sense American I worry about. It is the extremists; the mentally ill; the criminals. These are the people committing these heinous crimes against our communities, and we should do all we can to protect against it. That means we need to do more to identify those in need of our help; not less. Government, if you want to really help those who have mental issues, hold the doctors, hold the insurance companies, hold the families accountable for these people. Supply more money to the study, treatment, and assistance of these people and their families; not less. We cannot ignore an entire section of humanity just because they "cost more" to maintain. Perhaps we need better counseling in the schools early on to identify those possible persons who might become this type of killer. Perhaps we need to educate family members in how better to assist them.

This also means we need to either eliminate those from society that are bent on its destruction, or house them in an secure environment for the remainder of their lives. Has the time come to reinstate the old adage "an eye for an eye"? If a person takes a life, or destroys a life in a horrible manner, do we need to just eliminate them? In short order? No lengthy appeal system that drags on for years and years. If you did it, goodbye. Say hello to St. Peter as you approach the Pearly Gates, and don't blame me if you are refused entry. Has science reached a point where it is able to, without a doubt, verify with physical evidence that a person committed a crime? If so, why should we provide a place for them to live out their days without any responsibility at all? Society paying for guards, food, housing, college educations, and such for someone who has no use of nor will ever become useful in society? Are we throwing good money after bad?

I know, I know. You are probably thinking "What does this have to do with gun control?" Just this: if we keep the criminals where they should be (behind bars) we might have fewer crimes to protect against. If we get the mentally unstable better help, we might have fewer crimes against our population. Can we eliminate all such activity? Probably not; but we can cease putting our heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that there are more and more violent criminals in our midst; and more and more unstable personalities who are able to have easy access to weapons of destruction. That is a fact we cannot ignore any longer.

But to place restrictions on our Right To Keep And Bear Arms is an infringement on us as Americans!!! No, not really. We have restrictions all over the country aimed at protecting us from ourselves. Drinking age limits; driving age limits; smoking age limits; speed limits; parking restrictions; look around: they are everywhere. What is the big deal with restricting guns from people who want to do us harm? While I agree that the current legislation is not the be all, end all answer, I do feel it is a step in the right direction. I mean, who really needs a gun that will fire 30, 40, 50 rounds at a time? Is it for home protection? Really? Are you planning to shoot that much at an intruder? Well, make sure I'm out of the line of fire before you squeeze that trigger, Bubba! You'll destroy everything else in the process, and possibly other innocent people at the same time you shoot at that intruder. One well placed shotgun blast with 00 buckshot should do nicely, and won't have the collateral effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

To those of you who decry the background check at gun shows, I have to ask why? Is it a problem to call on a phone to ask and find out if the person standing before you is a criminal? Or is it the person standing before the dealer that is selling the weapon that is upset? Do you have something to hide? Are you the criminal? Or are you stockpiling guns for that day when we go to war inside our boundaries against the Government; or are you hiding them from the Government for another reason? If we are to have faith in one another, and live together as a nation, we first need to trust one another enough to stop hiding in the shadows. Step into the light and make yourself known. For anyone to be against this simple legislation is to be against the majority of Americans. It means, to me, that you have something to hide. What, I wonder?

Ultimately, this is not over, nor will be for a long time. But any responsible American should realize the time for action is at hand. And not just for gun control. We have given over many responsibilities to those who have no reason to have them. We are not responsible for ourselves in so many ways. Yet when something occurs that incurs our wrath, we simply scream, holler, raise our fists and shake them. We grasp our sabers in their sheaths and rattle them, but what do we really do? When was the last time America had a President they were proud of? I mean, the majority of the country? How about our other government leaders? Are we satisfied with what they are doing for us? Or are we tired of it all, and just rolling over and playing dead? Do these minority groups (and yes, the NRA is a minority group no matter what they say. If they have 2,000,000 members, how many Americans are not members?) have the right to tell us what we are going to do? Or playing on and to our leaders, forcing them to take their side in discussions while we more normal, middle of the road, not really vocal people stand back and allow it to happen?

The bottom line is this: are we as Americans tired of seeing children killed in schools, movie theaters, malls and such? Were these tragedies preventable? Should something, somewhere, sometime before they occurred been done to minimize, or even eliminate, the possibility of them happening? And if so, how much blame should we take on because we either did not care enough at the time, or did not think it would happen, or did not want to stand up enough to be heard as a nation? People, we are at a crossroads in the history of our country! Will we stand and fight against all of the horrible things that are occurring, such as these insane acts of violence; or will we stand on the sidelines, weeping as it happens again. And again. And again. And again. How many times has this occurred in the short time since Sandy Hook? Two? Three? Four? How many more have died? How many will it take until we say ENOUGH!

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, or common sense guns. But I have a problem with guns in the hands of children; of criminals; of mentally unstable persons. I have a problem with families of criminals and mentally unstable persons who enable them to get guns and perform acts of violence upon the body of civilization. I have a problem with those who attempt to bully us into giving up that right to be free. Our country is not just about the freedom to keep and bear arms; it is about freedom for all without the threat of tyranny, without fear of our neighbors, without fear of having our child shot attending a shopping mall or theater or school or driving down the road.

A bully isn't just on the playground. Or the bus. Or in the neighborhood. A bully is anyone bent on depressing you to a point where you feel powerless to act. The NRA is such a bully. The gun toting extremists who say we have the right to have any gun we want is such a bully. The bully is only powerful until you stand up and say stop. I say stop, now. Are you with me?


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      As a former Marine, I listen to your words carefully, Sir. I will respect your words and thoughts because you placed yourself in harm's way on behalf of the rest of the nation and I thank you for that.

      Persons such as yourself, I have no issue with owning weapons at all. Persons who understand, respect, and care for these items are the ones I do not worry about in the least. But those who have demons in their soul who have the same weapons are my fear. And they are a growing mass we need to take heed of and do something about.

      I am glad you and I can agree to disagree on our stances yet respect one another's views. If the rest of the country could do that, our problem would be solved, don't you think? What you said about my stance - rational - says it all. We must be rational and act with cautious intent, rather than performing a knee jerk action that causes more harm than good.

      Thank you for your comment, and by the way, I have enjoyed each of your hubs thus far. Write some more!!!

      Once more, I salute you Sir. Have a great weekend.

    • m peavy profile image

      Matthew Peavy 4 years ago from Riverview

      Mr Archer, I really loved your article, as you probably know, I completely stand against it, but never the less, I like to here the stance of someone rational even if they don't agree with me. Over all, I have my views, which you may believe are a bit extreme, but as for your views, I respect them.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Thank you for your comment. While common sense can fix a lot of what we are experiencing, sadly that may be the commodity most lacking in this country.

    • LongTimeMother profile image

      LongTimeMother 4 years ago from Australia

      I am a gun owner in Australia and your hub makes perfectly good sense to me. In fact, I voiced many of the same points in a couple of hubs I wrote a while ago when we heard news the US was thinking of following Australia's tightened gun laws.

      While I have no direct interest in US laws, I hoped my experience and comments about the Australian system might help people just like yourself to demonstrate to others that gun control does not mean every gun owner loses the right to shoot.

      Good hub. Voted up. :)

    • IS1820 profile image

      Ian Susman 4 years ago

      Mr Archer

      It is as I wrote in my Hub - Guns, Bullets and What happens in Between - Education and responsibility. First a parent should know there child, second - they should make sure guns are locked up, with the ammo elsewhere (anyone who ever had any military training and took his weapon home knows this) and third - education for all. There will always be psychos - but it is the parents duty to keep tabs on their children. Such incidents as you describrd can be avoided.

      But there will be wackos out there and weapons should be kept locked up and safe. A lot of the mass killings/murders are by young people who get hold of a family owned weapon.

      ib's Hub on Gang control is also an excellent approach to controlling violent crime and getting guns off the streets.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

      Mr Archer

      I took a different tact here, and I wrote a hub on gangs.

      They also endanger the children with illegal drugs, child prostitution, and human trafficking in addition to killing with weapons.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      People, what are we going to do? A 15 year old boy from New Mexico decided to end his family's lives because he was "frustrated with his mother". Frustrated. He enjoyed playing games such as Modern Warfare and Grand Theft Auto. He killed his mother in her sleep. He then killed his 9 year old brother, who was asleep in bed with his mother. He then walked into his 5 year old and 2 year old sister's room, and killed them. He then took a picture of his head mother and sent it to his 12 year old girlfriend. Sick doesn't begin to describe this person. This is the news tag I read this on. Read for yourself at the state of our children in America today.

      http://news.yahoo.com/teen-planned-attack-walmart-...

      Oh, and it was an AR-15 Assault Weapon listed as the machine of death here. His father had taught him how to shoot, and the family had legal weapons in their home. I am beginning to wonder if any of us are safe anymore. Was this monster taught how to shoot by a loving father who couldn't see what his son really was? Were the games really the root of his maniacal tendancies? What is wrong with the youth of America? And by youth, I mean those up to the mid twenties in age. Or is it confined to them? Does it run deeper in our society? America, we need to find out the answer!!!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Thank you, Mr Archer!

      See anything in there that is not factual and true?

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Will, thank you for your "right" nice comment! Have a great day!

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I see the left has been busy poisoning the well here by warning that 'they' are coming. Hide the children!

      When viewed calmly and rationally, using facts and figures instead of hysteria, we find that the political left is using a tragedy to further a political agenda...disarming Americans.

      (BTW, when a Canadian refers to 'we' when talking about Americans and American business, she is obviously being disingenuous. It's like having a nosy neighbor telling you how to run your house.)

      1) They are called 'assault rifles' because that sounds bad. They are not assault rifles by definition. Assault rifles are military issue and are nor available to civilians.

      2) Blunt instruments are used in more murders that rifles. So are fists and feet! So are knives, by almost five times! Less than one percent of gun crimes involve a rifle. Despite all the rhetoric, there is no rifle crisis.

      3) The first so-called 'assault rifle' ban utterly failed. In fact, the CDC set out to find a gun law that actually did cut down on gun crime, and after an extensive study, finally admitted that none of them work.

      So let's all just calm down and use some common sense rather than hysterics. Why ban something when we already know it will do no good whatsoever? Just so we can say something inane, like: "We tried!"?

      There is simply no rational justification in banning something that is very seldom used to harm someone. And yes, the AR-15 platform is very popular with competitive and sport shooters, because it is a fine rifle.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Washington is no going to fix the issue; it is up to us to force a change. We need more of our money raised in taxes spent on hometown issues, not something going on across the globe. Charity begins at home, nad it is about time that happened. Thanks, aviannovice.

    • aviannovice profile image

      Deb Hirt 4 years ago from Stillwater, OK

      Precisely, Chris. This is one of the reasons why I have been writing storires on so many serial killers. There needs to be better control, more help for our mentally ill. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some people need to be restrained. It will take all of us to band together to be heard. There has been a medical crisis for too many years, and overworked social workers who can never handle their caseloads.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Missouri is about the same, except I think the cost is higher. But I agree; I have no problem with this.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      That could work, but here there are so many who move to another location, or they might commit a crime in the interim period that it might become illegal for them to own a firearm. I do not want those deemed as detrimental to society owning such a weapon. As I have stated, we need to focus on society's individuals, and those who are criminals need to lose their privacy until they prove they can stay clean.That means they have a mandatory location to be; their friends and family they are in contact with are known; and random checks on their homes for illegal items become mandatory. Sorry you choose to be a girlfriend to a criminal; sorry your are married to one; sorry you have one for your best friend. Verify they are clean periodically. I understand this seems extreme, but what else can we do? Regarding those with mental issues: same thing. Keep tabs on them and check on them every now and again.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      I agree. These weapons are out there already and there is not too much we can do about them. But those on sale going forward we can do something about. As far as the illegal weapons go, make it a mandatory ten year stint upstate if you are found to have one. If that weapon is used in crime, any crime, it is automatic life in prison without parole.If we are tougher on the career criminals, wehave a chance. If not, we're pi55in's in the wind.

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      In my state to get a Concealed Carry Permit we are required to take 8 hours of classroom instruction, submit to a background check, file a fingerprint card, demonstrate firearm proficiency at a gun range, and pay $50 bucks. This permit must be renewed every 5 years. I have no problem at all with doing this.

    • QualityContent profile image

      QualityContent 4 years ago

      In Canada we need to take a Firearms Safety Course. Why not do this in the USA? There would be no registration of arms. The background checks could be done at the time of the course. Anyone who wants a firearm takes the course. If you fail, no firearm. All you do is present your certificate every time you want to buy a firearm. No one knows you have a firearm just that you have taken a course and are certified to own one.

    • ImKarn23 profile image

      Karen Silverman 4 years ago

      Will do, Mr. Archer...

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      I said earlier, even though I own one, I'm not a big fan of Assault style weapons. I am a pistol shooter and darn good at it if I do say so myself.

      But suppose that tomorrow we pass legislation that no more Assault stye rifles will be manufactured or sold. What about the millions of these type weapons that are already out there? Will the government propose a buy-back program to buy these from the owners? Heck if they make the price high enough I will sell them mine because I rarely use it anyhow.

      The same with high capacity magazines, they are already out there.

      All of the proposed legislation is "Feel Good" stuff that will do little or nothing to solve the problem. Many Politicians will put their names on the paper firmly believing they helped solve a major crisis for the country. They of course are living in a dream world.

      If all gun sales were banned tomorrow, there would still be plenty of guns available on the street, from private parties, and foreign countries. It would be no different than declaring drugs illegal, they are still readily available.

      My point is that no amount of new legislation will solve this problem with the huge numbers of unregistered guns that are in existence in this country today.

      Our own government allowed a huge number of assault rifles to walk in the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico with their failed "Fast and Furious" project. It appears that this has died a natural death and nobody is going to be held accountable for this action. With this fact in mind does anyone truly believe the government can effectively do anything about gun control? Their track record on the war on drugs and illegal immigration would indicate the reverse is true.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      And a two cents worth that is very valuable! You speak for those who are responsible gun owners, who have common sense, and who are able to look past the NRA rhetoric of not having such common sense restrictions in place for the protection of the public: for the greater good. Whatever happened to that phrase, anyway? The Greater Good.

      I understand the thrill of shooting a gun, but not to the extent of allowing just anybody to own one. There are those in the country who just shouldn't have access to a weapon like this. Whether it is because they are a criminal, or are too young,or are mentally unable to understand the implications. As you said, we need to look at the bigger picture.

      Great comment, and I thank you for sharing it.Take care in Oklahoma!

    • sgbrown profile image

      Sheila Brown 4 years ago from Southern Oklahoma

      My husband and I are gun owners and both of us have a conceal and carry liscense. I keep a 380 in my purse, and a 9mm beside my bed. He carries a 9mm in his truck and has a 357 on his side of the bed. We have a shot gun that stays just inside the closet, unloaded, but ammo close by. Can I protect myself and my family? Yes! Why would I need anything more?

      Some people want to shoot these assault type guns for fun. I have shot one before and can see how some people would enjoy it. However, should just anyone be allowed to do so? No! Some people enjoy blowing things up too. Should just anyone be allowed to own pipe bombs? No! There are some things in this world that are too dangerous for just anyone to own. I believe there needs to be tighter regulations on assault weapons. There needs to be a thorough back ground check on anyone who tries to buy a gun of anykind, no matter how long it takes.

      There is no way to really "fix" this problem. There will always be someone, some where that is mentally unstable and will get their hands on a weapon that will take out a large number of people at one time. I believe that restricting the ownership of assault weapons will at least help limit the frequency of this happening. We need to stop being selfish, because we have fun shooting this type of weapon, and look at the bigger picture.

      Well, there you have it, my two cents!

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Thank you, Karen. I have a number of hubs and have been on Hubpages for approaching a year, but this one has the most views the quickest of all of them - and it still falls far short of yours!

      I am glad you see exactly what I see - WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN AMERICA!!! A major problem. The left says one thing; the right another, and we in the middle have no real voice to speak of. If we aren't left OR right, we're ignored. Yet we make up the majority of the country! When will we band together and force Washington to accept what we have to say? We are fed up with their buddy - buddy system there, while remaing so far apart from from each other so as to not get any telling legislature throught that will really help the country. Evidence the Fiscal Cliff issue.

      The time has come for change. America IS destroying itself from within, by the lawyers and politicians and government and criminals - to me, they are one and the same. I loved your comment "and the beat goes on." How very true.

      Take a peek at my hub on spending billions to get elected President. Let me know what you think.

      I am honored you stopped by to read and comment on my hub. I greatly appreciate it. Take care ,my new friend from the North.

    • ImKarn23 profile image

      Karen Silverman 4 years ago

      Well, hello Mr. Archer - well-thought out article written with common sense and passion - and excellent combination..

      i too believe in an eye for an eye (even though that flies in the face of those who feel i am a tree-hugging liberal...)..

      the usa has more people in jail already than anywhere else in the world - we have nowhere else to put them - and - clearly - it's not working..

      WHY? Cause we keep letting them out - much harder-core and with much less to lose - and the beat goes on..

      Also - i do NOT understand why we are bickering over DEFINITIONS 22 vs ar 15, assault rifle vs - hunting rifle..etc..

      Let's try to keep it simple - ANYTHING that can has the capability to kill humans at the rate of 27 dead in 30 seconds - GOES!

      You're 100% correct - it's an assault rifle because that's what it was BORN to do - and common civilians need them why?

      voting up and sharing forward..

      Please notice IS1820's telling statement: 'Dangerous neighborhood - but NOT INTERNALLY..'

      america seems intent on destroying itself from the inside out...

      it makes me very sad..

    • IS1820 profile image

      Ian Susman 4 years ago

      Yes as I said - dangerous neighbourhood , but not internally

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      Your right, you do live in a dangerous place with the current world situation.

    • IS1820 profile image

      Ian Susman 4 years ago

      Hi Poolman, I live in what many think is a very dangerous area , but besides the "neighbourhood" being dangerous we actually live in a safe place. It is not the US but across the Atlantic and the Mediterranean - Israel

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      IS1820 - I agree with you on the Assault rifles, even though I have one. I don't know where you live, but here close to the Mexican border it is very necessary to have a gun to protect yourself and you family. The drug cartels roam freely on both sides of the border. The incidents of home invasions are on the increase, and hardly a week goes by here without at least one home invasion.

      I personally know how to use a gun very well, and practice at least once a week. You are correct that there are any number of people who should not own a gun without some training and education about gun safety and how "and when" to use a gun.

      You either lead a very sheltered life or live next door to a police station if you find it absurd that anyone needs a gun to protect themselves. I seriously doubt we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, but these days who knows what will happen.

    • IS1820 profile image

      Ian Susman 4 years ago

      Very well written Hub that certainly addresses the Gun Control issue and the simple fact that a gun in the wrong hands can be devestating, the need for education and of course the simple fact that no one needs any assault rifles. The absurd notion that citizens need guns to protect themselves against governments going wild, when they see totalitarian regimes, is utterly nonsense. If the US goes nuts, no citizen with any gun will stop this. Laws, freedom and Democracy stop regimes going beserk. This statement of the need to protect oneself is also taken too far and is a great slogan but not much more. A lot of people with guns will not know how or even will use them correctly if attacked which could even make it more dangerous than without one. This again boils down to gun control and education to ensure that whoever has a gun is educated and responsible.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      When the tornado hit here in Joplin May 22, 2011, that group threatened to be here for the President's appearance during the time Joplin was digging out. They also threatened to appear during the Graduation of 2012, on the one year anniversary of the tornado. Both times, thses same motorcycle groups appeared waving the flag and put a quick stop to any misbehavior. We were so thankful as a town to them.

      And you are so very right in saying that civil rights are easily abused by those who choose to do so. When did decency to our fellow man go out of style? My H.O.W. hub about living the Golden Rule addresses that to a degree. We need to be more aware as a civilization, and hold those accountable who are the transgressors. Forget all that about Political Correctness; if we treat each other with care, we might see a change. If not, then we are damned to continue down this path of self destruction America has set its foot upon.

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      It goes even deeper than we are looking. When we allow groups such as that crazy supposedly Baptist group to cause trouble at the funerals of our fallen heroes because it is their right to do so, something is wrong. Yet law enforcement can do nothing until they have broken the law. Thank goodness several Motorcycle Clubs have stepped up to the plate and are providing protection from this group for those grieving parents, widows, and children of these victims of war.

      As written, civil rights can be easily abused. Whatever happened to common decency? If this group continues to protest at these funerals, there will eventually be another shooting, and of course guns will be blamed. It will not even be considered that the disgraceful behavior of this group of nuts just might have prompted the shooting?

      If it were one of my sons who had been killed in action and this group showed up to protest at the funeral, I can almost guarantee you there would be another shooting. Yep, thinking like this makes me one of those gun loving nuts everyone loves to talk about.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Poolman: AMEN!!! WE MUST look at the mental health aspect of this. We cannot afford to continue to sit on our hands and do nothing; expecting that the criminals will go to the store to buy their guns. It isn't going to happen that way. We have to address the issue head on, and that includes (among other things) the mental health aspect.

      Beth, welcome young lady! I am glad my thoughts have struck a chord with you. You are exactly right: what WERE we doing forty years ago? Oh, being more repsonible parents; not allowing our children to play these anti-social war games and use electronics for all of their interaction; and basically acting as though our children and the future mattered. But we also had fewer lawyers; politicians were more likely to be more attuned to the public than the special interest groups, and we had, as you so very well stated, a social consience. We cared. Man do we need that again!

      Thank you both for your comments. And for the read. Let's help to spread the word that we need something different in America today than what we have. We must become that nation we once were.

    • bethperry profile image

      Beth Perry 4 years ago from Tennesee

      Mr Archer, excellent commentary! You've brought up subjects that NEED to be addressed and have shed the light of common sense on them. I support the 2nd Amendment but I think too many NRA'ers look at the totalitarian regimes in other countries play out and assume the same thing is about to happen here. But when we look back say 40 years ago, in an America where we could go to a theater or our kids attend school without fear of being cut down in their seats, we need to ask ourselves "what were we doing then that we're not doing now?". We were still the USA, we still had the 2nd Amendment, but many things have changed, most notably (I feel) on the social conscience level. People generally behaved better to others and for most of us, common decency and respect for others was a thing taught to us from the cradle. And this is what we need to return to.

      Thanks for posting your timely and sensible hub. Voting up.

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      For the most part, fear and panic are being used by this administration to change things they have wanted to change for a long time. All of these recent tragedies played well for them accomplishing their goal. We all know that no amount of new gun control laws will do much good. Just like prohibition, the war on drugs, and illegal immigration laws that didn't and won't work. The guns have already been manufactured, are in possession, and new laws would not be effective for at least 100 years or more. There will always be illegal guns available on the street or from private parties. There will be no record of the sale or transfer of these guns, they will just be worth more money.

      Many politicians will gain favor from this latest war on guns, but nothing they do will prove to be effective. Perhaps they should take a look at mental health issues in conjunction with this effort?

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Thank you very much, Sir. The Springfield 1911 in a .45 cal is about the only pistol I can shoot with any accuracy; it is a smooth shooting gun for being such a large bore.

      The issue with assault rifles is the perception of its being a military weapon, whether or not it really is one. It is a single shot per trigger firearm, and the large capacity (I think the largest I have personally seen was a 30 round) makes it easy to shoot many shots quickly. But a semi automatic pistol, holding from 10 to 15 rounds in a magazine and being so very easy to pull one out and replace it in split seconds lends itself to the same rate of fire: that being upwards of 30 rounds per minute or better. As you stated, this is the real issue at the heart of the problem: easily concealed, easily obtained, easy to change out magazines and continue with the high rate of fire with close range accuracy.

      I appreciate the read and your taking the time to comment. I also thank you for stating this was a well written hub. I do not expect everyone to agree, just to say "We cannot stop here. More remains to be done, and not just with gun control." Thank you again, and have a great day.

    • profile image

      Old Poolman 4 years ago

      The biggest misunderstanding I see is how many believe that an Assault Rifle is a full automatic machine gun. When, as you pointed out, it is a Semi-Automatic requiring pulling the trigger for every round that is fired. I did add one of these to my collection, but like you I prefer a shotgun for home protection, backed up with my Springfield 1911 9mm. I rarely even use the AR-15, but wanted one in my collection just because.

      I find the controversy over high capacity magazines to be looking in the wrong direction. With my 1911 I can do a magazine change in less than 2 seconds because I shoot in competition and practice. Someone yesterday talked about people having the ability to fire 50 to 100 rounds without a magazine change. I shoot with a lot of different people and have never seen anyone with a magazine that would hold 100 rounds.

      I understand why so many are upset about all the tragic killings that have taken place over the past year, but the real problem is with people. Rarely does a gun that is not in the hands of a person shoot and kill anyone.

      This is a very well written hub and I agree with most of what you said.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      It is so sad people are so ignorant of things they become enamored of and do things like this. they go off half cocked (no pun intended) and buy something they have no idea about. Glad you stayed safe!

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 4 years ago from Southern Georgia

      I also forgot to mention the gun the guy bought was a piece of junk he paid $1200 for. Only after it was fired a dozen or so times would I shoot the thing. I wasn't impressed at all by its workmanship nor it's accuracy other than at very close range, not to mention its worth while shooting at a moving target.

      SSSSS

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Randy, thank you for stopping by and taking the time to both read and comment. I love the statement "I watch Fox News for my information." How true, and how innocent we are to buy into everything we are told like sheep.

      Nobody needs thirty rounds to take down a deer. Throwing that much lead around just proves how poor a shot you are, and thinking you need that many shows how much you think of yourself. Thanks again SSSSS!

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 4 years ago from Southern Georgia

      Mr. Archer, I agree with yoy on almost all points. Only a fool would think they could use the puny firearms they can obtain to protect themselves from our advanced military forces--not that I worry about this happening at all in the first place. Our military is not controlled by tyrants and despots--no matter your opinion of them when they are in office--and I cannot conceive of today's military personnel killing their own friends and family merely on some political candidates orders. Not in a a wholesale manner, at any rate.

      A couple of days ago a friend asked if he could bring a guy out who had just purchased an AR 15 copy and wanted to test fire it and the 3 30 round clips which came with it. This dude scared me when he began loading it up as he was careless about pointing the weapon at himself and my friend in the process and when it jammed almost immediately.

      I moved around behind the truck and suggested he keep the weapon pointed at the ground wile loading it or not firing at the target. The reason he said he bought the weapon was "because the left-wing liberal socialists were going to get all of the guns banned and he wanted to be able to defend himself from the ATF when they came to take his."

      No really, his exact words. I asked him if he had heard any actual proposed legislation to be seriously considered he gave this answer. "I watch Fox News for my information. I feel like they tell me what I need to know about it."

      Besides this he couldn't shoot worth a damn and would be much better off with a shotgun and buckshot. I told him the same thing. He was not convinced, lol!

      And like you I have many hunting rifles and shotguns I've gathered in my long span of hunting. Large clips are not needed nor necessary, either in hunting or for protection purposes.

      SSSSS

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      I know there have been cases that have resulted in sentences overturned, but I was under the impression that was in the past. If someone cannot be proven to have committed the crime, I understand. But in cases where there are multiple eyewitnesses, or where the victim survived and identifyed the person responsible, I feel they warrant the death penalty immediately.

      I appreciate your thoughts and comments, and the honesty to say you disagree with some of my thoughts. I also appreciate your sharing my hub; it is always gratifying when that occurs. Thank you.

    • B. Leekley profile image

      Brian Leekley 4 years ago from Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

      Up, Useful, and Interesting. I agree with some of your opinions and disagree with others and am unsure about others; for purposes of discussion, I am sharing this hub with my followers.

      On the question of whether guilt can be determined so definitely that those found guilty of murder should be executed soon after being sentenced, no, it can't be. To the contrary, there have been many cases in our time of innocent persons being found guilty of murder. See details at

      deathpenaltyinfo DOT org

      and at

      amnestyusa DOT org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Thank you young lady! Me too!

    • shiningirisheyes profile image

      Shining Irish Eyes 4 years ago from Upstate, New York

      They are all busy over on the "other" hub right now. But believe me....they are coming.

      I am happy to follow you.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Chris, you are obviously in the "well informed, well intentioned" portion of the country. But to define the AR-15 as nothing more than a .22 is not accurate. First, the AR-15 is a .223 caliber, also known as the 5.56 mm, weapon which was designed off of the AR-10 7.62 mm weapon. It was designed by ArmaLite, as you stated, but for military use; not civilian use. It was designated as a "selective fire rifle" for the U.S. Armed Forces. With an effective range of up to 600 meters, and a muzzle velocity of over 3,000 fps, it more than triples the effective range and killing power of the .22 Long Rifle. The issue at hand is that we need to qualify persons before they can purchase a gun, and that certain guns should not be available to certain people.

      Regarding the verbage "assault rifle", how else would you term it? It is not a hunting rifle, per se; regardless of what some people call it. It can be termed a "home defense" weapon, but really, how many have truly been used in a true home defense situation? Would not a shotgun loaded with five, 00 buckshot shells (entirely legal to have 5 shells in a shotgun) do more to halt an intruder? Would one shot, properly placed, do a better job then a slew of bullets ranging about the house? Personally, I feel better having that in my home that an assault weapon. With a shotgun, I need to be within range, perhaps fifteen to twenty yards or so, which is approximately the range most people are effective with a pistol. Not many home invasions are accomplished with an assault weapon, I would think. Too bulky. Most take place with a knife of pistol, and a shotgun staring back down the hallway at an intruder is sure to put wings on their feet, especially if accompanied by six feet of fire flowing from the shotgun after a blast.

      I do agree that the appearance of something being done is at the center of this issue. But I am fine with what is set forth; limiting the magazines to 10 shots; eliminating the assault weapons; and forcing a call to the authorities to see if the person standing before the gun bar is legal to own a weapon. Regarding the 10 shots: if you haven't hit the intruder by then, and they haven't left then you have a serious problem another 20 shots won't mend.

      I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and the intellegent manner you did so. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but I think that, at heart, we both want the same thing: a safer America. Take care, Sir.

    • Mr Archer profile image
      Author

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Becky and Bill, you are two of my favorites here on the site! Thank you for your kind words and support. I too am a gun owner. I too am not against gun ownership. But it needs to be well informed, responsible gun ownership. Those who shout at us for our beliefs are exactly what I portray them to be: bullies. I know they are coming, that they will shout at me for my thoughts. To which I will respond: this is America, right? I have the right to free speech, right? I have a right to be free from your gun violence. If you want to do something, do something about that! The old "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" tact. Thanks guys! I appreciate the support.

    • CMerritt profile image

      Chris Merritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

      billy, I sse it differently. It seems those of us who merely believe that gun control is NOT a fix, in situations like Sandy Hook, are the one's who are being attacked and shouted down. Hey, I know we have extremists on both sides that does not do any good for the cause.

      I also think the term "assault rifle" is term that is being used to demonize guns, such as the AR-15....which btw, does NOT stand for Assaut Rifle....it stands for ArmaLite, which is the company that first built it. The AR-15 is nothing more than 22 rifle, with a design that closely mimic's (in appearance only) the Military M16, which IS an assault rifle. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic, that means it fires ONE bullet each time the trigger is pulled. There are several hand guns that do the same, but are NOT targets of this latest attack by this administration.

      As a law abiding citizen, I want the right to buy the best gun I can to protect my family in a stituation that God forbid ever happens. I think allowing my right to only have 10 bullets is nothing more to give the appearance that "something" is being done. I think it only puts a law abiding citizen in a potentially compromizing position.

      So, the AR-15 is NO more of an assault rifle than many pellet guns or soft-air bb guns...by definition.

      Am I too assume that "I am not much of a man" because I desire to have the capability to protect my family against a horrific situtaion should ever occur?

      I understand, those who are not mentally stable or those who have committed felonies should not be able to obtain such weapons.....but those of us who ARE law abiding and take the time to train to use such weapons and are responsible, who respect it...should have that right....

      Those are just my thoughts on gun control....as I appreciate YOUR thought Mr. Archer.

      Chris M

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 4 years ago from Olympia, WA

      Of course I'm with you. I think you know that.

      Listen, for the record, I am not against gun ownership. I just need someone to explain to me why it is necessary for a law-abiding citizen to own an assault rifle? Once that is satisfactorily explained to me then I will shut up. Ooops, I'm not done yet....why is it necessary for those in favor of no gun control to ridicule me for my beliefs? Why do I, and others like me, get shouted down because we happen to believe that any man who needs an assault rifle is not much of a man?

      Beckie is right....get ready....the haters and bullies will be here soon.

      Well done Mike!

    • shiningirisheyes profile image

      Shining Irish Eyes 4 years ago from Upstate, New York

      I thoroughly commend you for putting this hub up for all to see. Now- you want to see bully tactics? Just wait to see the endless bullying you will receive for posting a well-scripted, well-defined and fair article. Because you do not agree 100% in others opinions, you are in for one hell of a time.

      I am a gun owner and completely agree with this article. Excellent.

      I am voting up and sharing