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

OK, Let's Talk Guns

Updated on April 7, 2012

US Constitution

Time for Change
Time for Change | Source


I know, when ever you talk about guns in the US the first thing you are told is “but it’s in the Constitution”. I don’t care: change or amend the Constitution.

So the arguments put forward for not changing the gun laws are:

1. You could be in your place of work and some disgruntled customer comes in to shoot up your boss and some of the workers. You need the weapon to defend yourself.

2. A child could be in High School when another student, stressed out with exams comes in shooting. You need a gun to defend yourself.

3. You could be at home and armed burglars target your house. You need a gun to protect yourself.

These may be true but in none of these cases do I see the need for an assault rifle.

In the 1st and 2nd cases there have already been several such instances, yet even with the law being as it is I did not see these instances from being stopped. They just seem to be hypothetical situations that do not stand up in facts.

As for the 3rd situation, even I could perhaps agree with the need for home protection but that means the gun is in the house. I do not see the need for a weapon for use in home protection being carried on the street. If no one was allowed to carry weapons, it would be harder and more risky for burglars to go to a house armed.

No Guns


Changing World

Times have changed and we are not in the days of the Wild West anymore, you will no longer be challenged to draw at sundown for spilling a drink. Even in those days though, people did not walk into schools with guns blazing.

Not just times but attitudes have also changed. Today the attitudes of people, especially the young, are not compatible to the bearing of arms.

The majority of Americans realize this but the politicians find the “Gun Lobby” too strong. Why is this?

Yes, there are Americans that live in parts of the”wilderness” and rely on hunting and their rights to licenses can be looked at on an individual basis but in the cities?

Weekend hunters who live in the cities should be provided with armories at the outskirts of town where they can sign out their individual weapons, signing them back in before returning to the city.

Businesses can be treated the same as homes, weapons allowed on the property only.


Non Violence
Non Violence | Source

Who's Left

Now we come to the real problem. Many of the rich and powerful appear to get high on “power” and to them the feel of a gun is a feeling of power. They will go for target practice and relish in the power they feel from the recoil. They can hardly wait and wish that they could get the opportunity to fire at a real person; they can anticipate the rush that they would get.

For all their longing to pull the trigger in earnest, these are people that you will NOT see in Iraq or Afghanistan. There the targets can shoot back.

Many of the politicians themselves fit into this last group and the others welcome the benefits afforded them from turning a blind eye. Anyway, why should they care, if things get worse they will just get the tax payers to pay security for them and their families.

Wake Up

Last week one state brought into law, that a hunter could use a silencer. Silencers were not intended for that purpose but can be of a great advantage to someone intent on misdoings and now they may legally be allowed to carry one along with their weapon.

The laws are getting laxer.

It is time that the American people woke up to what their country is becoming. They should lobby their representatives and tell them that enough is enough and strict gun laws should be enacted and enforced.

With stricter gun laws perhaps the Trayvon/Zimmerman case would not be taking place. Perhaps the Hope Columbine Memorial Library would not have to have been built and perhaps the citizens of America could once again feel safe on their own streets.

When you send a young man off to war and put a gun in his hand, he is expected to use it. Society is wrong to bring that man home, allow him to have a gun in his hand yet expect him not to use it. These are violent times, internationally. Try not to let the violence spread to your own streets.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      just another human 5 years ago

      Just in time for the July 27th gun control bill! Anything fishy here, people?

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      Rafken, this is an eye opening article, you certainly tell it like it is. I have found it true that so many of the gun nuts look for an opportunity to use their weapons without having to be accountable, but as you say are too cowardly to go shoot where others are in a position to shoot back...

      Thanks Cred2

    • pagesvoice profile image

      Dennis L. Page 5 years ago from New York/Pennsylvania border

      I certainly understand the points you make in this article that I voted up and interesting. However, in the U.S. we have reached a point where there are 90 guns per every 100 people. I think it is almost impossible to reel this one back in. There are responsible gun owners and then there are the crazies. Back in the day, when I wore a uniform, I would clean my service revolver in front of my 3 children and would lock my handcuffs behind the trigger, virtually making my service revolver impossible to fire. My kids curiosity was quenched and as adults, none of them own a weapon. Additionally, living in a small community, just 3 short years ago (April 2009) we had a man walk into our American Civic Association (a training ground for immigrants and those learning English and American culture) and systematically shot and killed 13 innocent victims and then himself. Why? Because he had lost his job and he felt people made fun of his accent. Sound familiar from recent history? My question is how many victims would be dead if he had walked in with a knife or machete?

    • profile image

      Sophia Angelique 5 years ago

      At the core abuse of guns lies a need for self affirmation (power over overs, revenge against others). We currently live in a culture where respect for others in the community is based on how much power, money, and status they have. The kids who kill other kids are influenced to do this because they see other kids doing it, and it gives vent to the tremendous anger they have towards others. I think a lot of people have this anger; some control it better than others, but it's there. Current mores in society have a lot to do with people feeling this way.

    • profile image

      Longhunter 5 years ago

      First, I respect your position, Rafkin. Not everybody feels the same about guns. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me.

      However, you seem to be experiencing the knee jerk reaction a lot of people feel when something like Columbine or the Trayvon Martin murder occurs.

      I have a handgun carry permit. Each person that gets one has their own reason for doing so. It may be the woman who's found the courage to leave an abusive relationship but the man has sworn to kill her. She may have gotten an Order of Protection but those are nothing more than a piece of paper telling the police who her killer may have been. Would you deny her the means to protect herself and maybe her children?

      Maybe there's a guy who doesn't live in the best part of town and he's been robbed in his own driveway once before. He's vowed never to be the victim again. Would you deny him the right to self protection?

      The final point I'll leave you with is this. I can take my gun and set it on a table. It can not and will not do anything unless a person picks it up and uses it. Guns are nothing more than a tool. Take away that tool and a person bent on doing harm will simply find a different tool.

    • Curiad profile image

      Mark G Weller 5 years ago from Lake Charles, LA.

      I have to agree with Davesworld and readytoescape on this one. The facts go against almost every statement made in this hub. If you look at the states that allow weapons to be carried by law abiding citizens and or states that allow CCW permits to law abiding citizens, the crime rates are lowewr not higher.And as stated already, laws outlawing guns will do nothing to prevent outlaws having them.The only looser in that scenario is the law abiding citizen.

    • f_hruz profile image

      f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

      yes, I agree ... relish, mustard, pickles and tomatoes ... :)

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 5 years ago from Placentia California

      Rafken: I agree with you totally. How about making it illegal to buy firearms at a gun show from the back of a car or truck in the parking lot? I'm not afraid of a burglar. I'm 73 years old and have never had anything robbed from my house. Chances are if I did, I wouldn't be home at the time anyway.

      But I am afraid of some crazy person taking out a lot of people because of being unbalanced. They are the ones that should not have acceess to firearms, but unless there are some kind of laws put in place for everybody, this will never happen.

      There is a price one pays for freedom. Sometimes freedom is just knowing that your are not going to be taken out by some crazy person, and gun control is the price gun lovers are going to have to pay to protect the greater good and peace for this country.

      Great hub, voted up and SHARING.

    • BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image

      Jack Hazen 5 years ago from Blitzburgh area

      CASE1WORKER, actually my teenage daughter who is a senior in high school doesn't really carry a gun in her school bag. She hides it some place else.

      She came back a little while ago from blasting some cans and bottles in the woods with her little pistol. Her older brother who was with her and doing the same with his big revolver took a pic with his Iphone of the girl with the gun and one of her obliterated targets. She just posted the pic on her Facebook page and said, "Don't mess with me boys."

      That's what I'm talking about.

      I'm going to include the pic in my next hub.

    • Wayne Brown profile image

      Wayne Brown 5 years ago from Texas

      Your argument begins to sound foolish when you make the point that making the carry of guns illegal would make it harder for burglars and theives to get into your house armed. Since when do people who break the law pay attention to what is legal? Take everyone's gun away and the criminals will be the only ones with a gun making it far more predictable what they will encounter when they get into a given house. Guns are not the problem...nuts are. People do bad things to people and if they do not have a gun, they will find other means to carry out their action legal or illegal. People do bad things with cars so does that because the basis for getting rid of the automobile as a form of transportation. I have no particular interest in owning an assault rifle either but, at the same, time if the argument against assault rifles allows the government to take my pistol and shotgun, then I have a problem with that. If you really want to see a guns blackmarket in this country, find a way to make gun ownership will happen. WB

    • rafken profile image

      rafken 5 years ago from The worlds my oyster

      readytoescape- I fully take your points, especially the one of assuming responsibility. A hunter accidently firing a round in an airport check in!

      What checks are there on the responsibility of those buying weapons? Obviously not enough. If they could get, at least that part of the act together there wouldn't be a need for people to ask for the stopping of sales.

    • readytoescape profile image

      readytoescape 5 years ago from Central Florida

      In opening a conversation you paint some very broad strokes without what appears to be knowledge or facts, (but I do appreciate being included in the rich and powerful category for once)

      That is the real danger this country faces, the squeaky wheel doesn’t always need to be greased. You know, sometimes too much grease prevents the brakes from working.

      The view offered here is merely a repeat of many espousing the liberal view of total governmental control over its citizenry and the same old spin for the advancement of the liberal progressive agenda.

      For example you write, “These may be true but in none of these cases do I see the need for an assault rifle.”

      Were you aware that even though a firearm may resemble a military “assault rifle” (the liberal catch phrase used to imply a fully automatic weapon, or Spin) in appearance that is as close to an assault weapon as it gets? That’s it, physical appearance. It is illegal to sell, purchase or possess any firearm that can operate in full automatic mode. Full automatic mode is when one pull of the trigger can fire multiple rounds until the trigger is released, as a military or paramilitary assault rifle is designed to.

      All of the so called “automatic” weapons sold and legally possessed in the United States actually must be semi-automatic. That means with one pull of the trigger, one round is fired. The only “automatic” portion of these weapons is the chambering (loading) mechanism. There are no “assault” weapons sold or possessed legally in the US. We already have the law so a new or revised one is not necessary.

      You then write “If no one was allowed to carry weapons, it would be harder and more risky for burglars to go to a house armed”.

      This supposition just defies any type of logic. I don’t believe I have ever heard of a strong-armed assailant ever attacking an armed law abiding citizen, taking their weapon and then using that stolen weapon in a home invasion. Rarely, if ever, does someone bringing a knife to a gunfight win the argument. I know because I have now won this particular debate twice. Each time without having to discharge my concealed weapon or harm anyone, brandishing it with a posture of assertiveness was enough. However one more step, aggressive move or increase in the threat level and neither assailant would have been able to tell the story of running away.

      I also cannot fathom how you can concoct the fear or risk an armed criminal would feel, when attacking a home in which they knew, by your proposed legislation, no weapons could be brought to bear against them during such an assault.

      The simple fact of the matter is Guns get in the hands of criminals by committing an act of criminal behavior. No amount of legislation is going to prevent criminals from being criminals. Your proposition and that of the liberal progressive agenda, only denies law abiding citizens their liberties and freedoms. However most of us understand that any acknowledgement of the above statement sinks the Gun Control agenda ship.

      What the citizens of this country need to wake up to is their own moral and social responsibilities. Owning and/or carrying a firearm, like the rest of our dwindling rights and liberties, should not be denied any law abiding citizen or inhibited by any legislative act, however by exercising those rights, one also assumes a mantle of responsibility.

      Liberal Progressive efforts to change the world would go much farther and serve the higher purpose they envision by targeting the awareness of individual responsibility, rather than limiting the rights of all because of the actions of a few. And further by focusing on installing comprehension of the conventions of citizenship rather than creating dependency and vindications.

      Sorry guess this should have been a hub, however then the conversation could not begin. Also please excuse the use of the word "You" these comments are not intened as a personal attack.

    • CASE1WORKER profile image

      CASE1WORKER 5 years ago from UNITED KINGDOM

      Looking at this from a anti gun perspective I can just see high schools turning into massacre sites if young people start returning fire. It seems ludicrous to even think of a young person carrying a gun in their school bag. Yes there are some occassions when people's property is entered and things stolen. I can be sure that if I woke up in the middle of the night, I would not pull the trigger or if I did I would hit the wrong target

    • BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image

      Jack Hazen 5 years ago from Blitzburgh area

      What Davesworld said.

      Criminals with guns aren't interested much in a fair fight showdown at high noon. What they are interested in is having the upper hand. To wit, they got the gun and you don't.

    • Davesworld profile image

      Davesworld 5 years ago from Cottage Grove, MN 55016

      You forget, criminals have no problems obtaining guns. All the most strict gun laws do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens - they do not decrease the criminal use of the weapons.

    • diogenes profile image

      diogenes 5 years ago from UK and Mexico

      I have always been against guns. But lately, I just don't care about humans any more. I would never shoot anyone and I could be the next victim; call me callous, unfeeling, stupid or whatever, but I just don't care and I envisage a planet without man, with relish