|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The same party that says we should support the troops and law enforcement argues that we need to own semi-automatic weapons because we can't trust the troops and law enforcement.
Can't trust or can't depend on instant response, recognizing that ultimately we are responsible for our own safety? Or both?
This concept would require an elevated level of thinking. I think people who can understand such things would understand what the founding fathers were speaking about.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
That dog don't hunt. No one is saying what you say they're saying. In fact, it's the opposite. Cop bashers from the political left are the ones calling for gun control, this despite the fact that they all have armed body guards and some, like Chuck Schumer, have CPL permits for themselves. They want gun control for everyone else, not themselves. Their children are protected at their tax paid for private schools with exceptional security. Aren't taxpayer, non-politician, every day citizen's children just as important?
No one on the right is saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from government overreach? Yeah, right.
I went and read your article on gun control issues. I found your point about security valid. Knowing there is armed security may be a deterrent. Didn't help much in Vegas as I'm sure there was security at the concert, but if students know there is an armed security guard at a school, it may be a deterrent. That could be something implemented without infringing on 2nd amendment rights.
Now if Congress could find a way for schools to be able to pay for it.
We need action, and I'm amenable to trying different solutions. The current inaction isn't working.
PS-thank you for taking the time to read the article I wrote. It shows you are serious about the issue and not just venting. I appreciate that.
Hearing reports that there was armed security on site at Parkland. Might have to look beyond that option.
Yes, Scot Peterson was an officer liason to the school. He was armed but did not enter the building. Video footage shows him outside the building while the shooter was murdering people inside. I agree with one of your earlier posts. You said "the current inaction isn't working." That's right, that officer failed to act even though he had a gun. He resigned from his position. His boss, Sheriff Israel said, "He should've went in. He should've engaged the shooter. He should have killed the killer." Blaming Cruz's gun for the killing is like blaming officer Peterson's gun for not stopping Cruz. The point is it isn't the gun, it's what the person holding it does. Cruz acted, tragically, Peterson didn't. Peterson's gun didn't resign, Peterson did.
Let me know what those guys think of of 100-round magazines and 600-900 rounds per minute firing weapons. I'll wait.
What semi-automatic rifle ("assault" rifle in today's scare terminology) has a firing rate of even half that? Is this just a gross exaggeration or are you trying to say machine guns are commonly used to commit murder and we should conduct a house to house search to confiscate the handful that collectors own?
Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles, 1,000-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,500 RPM for machine guns.
None of which has a single thing to do with any laws concerning semi-automatic rifles, which are what is falsely being called an "assault rifle" by those attempting (successfully, because of the ignorance of the general public) to spread fear. Nor does it answer the question of which semi-automatic rifle can fire at even half those rates.
All automatic weapons in the US are highly regulated (not to mention very expensive) and there are only a handful in private hands anywhere in the country. None, that I have been able to ascertain, have been used in any murder, let alone a mass murder, in decades (pretty much since the days of the mafia and their "tommy guns").
What, then, was the purpose of asking what anyone thinks of them? Are you trying to buy one and want opinions on what is best or trying to (falsely) convince readers that they are readily available and being used in mass murders today?
The Vegas shooter turned his semi into a full automatic and look at the damage done. You know what Congress did after that? Nothing. Four months, no action on bump stocks.
My point that you missed, which always seems to occur when you chime in on my posts, is that to bring up quotes from 200 years ago to apply to technologically advanced weaponry of today, might not be the most relevant application.
I could probably put out quotes from all those guys saying how slavery is awesome, but they wouldn't necessarily be applicable as times have changed.
Yet another tall tale - he added a bump stock, which does NOT make a "full automatic" out of anything. They are slower and they tend to stop firing. But if you don't like bump stocks (I don't) how do you propose to keep them out of the hands of the insane when one can be easily made in your kitchen?
I didn't bring any quotes from 200 years ago, merely corrected your egregious reference to technology that has zero to do with anything and can only be intended to scare people into believing something that isn't true at all. If you don't like being called on false information or insinuations then don't make them.
Dan, you're just arguing to argue now. It's semantics. No, the bump stock does not alter the weapon to a fully automatic. Yes, the bump stock allows the weapon to simulate automatic firing.
No, you didn't bring up the quotes, but you continue to miss the point that times have changed and perhaps the laws need to change with them, such as what the country did in terms of slavery.
If technology doesn't need restrictions, why don't we allow access to full automatic weapons? To nukes? I mean, if it's not the gun, how can it be the nuke?
Hi Valeant, The "law" has changed. Most civilians can't own fully automatic weapons. Our courts have already ruled that there can be regulation of the 2nd.
All that is needed for further change is to convince a majority of legislators to make the change. I think that might be the point you have a problem with - there aren't enough legislators that agree with you - rather then the concept of the Right to bear arms.
Or are you talking about a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?
Removal of semi-automatic high capacity weaponry from the regular citizenry. I get that it might take time, but my point is that the military and law enforcement are the only ones that should have those kinds of weapons.
My further point in that those who claim to support both those entities are also the ones who say they can't trust them and need these kinds of weapons.
I don't think the 2nd Amendment needs to go, but it's needs limitations.
And there is your answer, and why I have objections to the terminology you used. Rambling on about automatic, military grade weapons is not relevant in a discussion about semi automatic civilian guns with but a tenth of the capabilities or power of the machine guns you went on about. It's like calling a chevy a lamborghini and complaining it's only semantics when someone points that they are not similar at all.
But let me ask a question rather that make a complaint. Assume that the shooter in Florida had a 100 count magazine and used them all to shoot the 31 kids. An incredibly bad shot in a crowded hallway 50' long, but assume he did.
Now assume that he had 10, 10 count magazines instead. It takes less than 2 seconds to swap magazines, so he only had 400 seconds instead of the 420 he actually used to shoot those kids. Do you really think it would have made any difference? We know he moved around quite a bit; that would be the perfect time to reload - do you really think he would have injured or murdered any fewer children because he switched magazines during his movement phases?
It's not the Lamborghini that's killing school children, it's the Chevy. So I think it's more than relevant to bring to this discussion. Legal conversions are turning your Chevys into Lamborghinis in some of these shootings. And why cling to them if they only have one-tenth of the capabilities? They won't be of much use if that's all the worth they'll be.
And you're the one who brought the term "assault" rifle to this discussion. I used your term to go over cyclical rates, which I stand behind.
"It's not the Lamborghini that's killing school children, it's the Chevy."
?? Yes, it's the chevy doing the damage, so it's relevant to talk of lamborghinis as if they are doing it? I'm missing something here. On the other hand, if your original point is asking about high rates of fire (far higher than any bump stock can accommodate) then I could understand it more, but I took it as a swipe at semi-auto's, not chevy's with a lamborghini engine (but lacking the aerodynamics, the tires, the suspension, etc.).
But darn it, I edited the comment you replied to with a question. Re-read it and can we talk about that?
"Simulate" being the key word here. If it truly did make an automatic out of a semi-automatic, as you claimed, the military would most definitely be interested as it has to be considerably cheaper. They aren't. Ergo the change is a simulation only, not an actual change, and does not work as well.
You always say 'as you claim.' I posted a video so you could watch how it is done since you're such a huge skeptic and I anticipated your inability to believe that it could be done.
Yes - when we first heard of them in these forums I looked into them. They do indeed increase the rate of fire. When and while they work.
But what your little video doesn't show is that they very often quit firing. That virtually all accuracy is lost as using one requires both hands; one pulling and one pushing in the opposite direction (that lovely little sight in the video is absolutely worthless after the first shot). That compared to a true assault rifle of similar size they are still quite slow - probably faster than a 50 cal, for instance, but not equal to an AK47 and nowhere close to an uzi (or any of the firing rates you mentioned earlier).
These things do matter, you know, and when you present only half the story you do a disservice. Sometimes more than others; have you considered that a 3-D printer, commonly available on Amazon, can whip one out in jig time on your living room coffee table? Do you really think a law banning them will have any effect at all on the madman determined to kill, that has spent a year or more planning his deed?
While I could support, or at least not fight, a ban on bump stocks it would mostly be for political reasons - to placate those that hate or fear guns. It won't do any good and outside of politics is a waste of resources.
Times have changed but people do not. Just as you could quote people from two hundred years ago who favored slavery I could give you quotes from the same period of abolitionists who opposed it. That's why the North was free and the South permitted slavery. Wilderness's points are valid.
If all semi auto guns were banned and afterwards people began being assaulted by single shot- shot guns, the call for a ban on all single shot weapons would be called for. Gun control is ultimately gun confiscation, something that cannot be logistically accomplished in this country.
You may have heard the NRA has banned the use of the term "assault rifle".
In its place, they insist on using the phrase "nerf gun".
I suppose, during their time, those opposed would bring up the argument of how much more deadly a gun could be over a bow and arrow. So, I'd think their argument would be the same.
The type of weapon is irrelevant. It's the person using it. It's the reason they use it. A gun is an inanimate object and only does what a person controlling it does. Times change, but people don't change. Should we ban private cars that go over 200 miles an hour because Karl Benz hadn't imagined it possible? Should be ban fighter aircraft because the Wright Brothers couldn't comprehend such a thing? All inanimate objects only do what people make them do. The inanimate object is not the problem, but the people who use them are the problem.
Good examples. Let me turn that around. Should we allow 18-year-olds on psychotropic drugs access to fighter jets? Some inanimate objects we already ban from the citizenry - automatic weapons for example - for good reason. They could create such destruction as not to be trusted in their hands. I think we're there with semi-automatic high capacity weapons. Why couldn't (and shouldn't) government also include these?
Would you be happy with semi-autos if magazines were limited to, say, 10 rounds? Or does the doubling/tripling of fire rate over a lever action make it unacceptable regardless of magazine size?
"Should we allow 18-year-olds on psychotropic drugs access to fighter jets?" You need to learn about the military. Bad example. An 18 year old on psychotropic drugs wouldn't be permitted anywhere near a fighter jet.
If current laws are followed, an 18 year old with a record of mental illness shouldn't be able to get a gun.
So, should my friend who has a collection of combat knives have them kept from him? More people are stabbed to death in the United States than are killed with a gun.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/28/fbi-3 … ns-deaths/
So, do we ban combat knives? What does a person need with a combat knife? What do they need with a 19 inch sheath knife? In Pennsylvania, a young guy stabbed over 10 people with a kitchen knife. Should be ban kitchen knives?
Again, an inanimate object is only dangerous if the person using it is dangerous. This is a fact.
"More people are stabbed to death in the United States than are killed with a gun."
Careful there...that statement is flatly untrue. Perhaps you meant to say "more people are stabbed to death in the United States than are killed with [ii]all long guns combined"? That is the first statement of your link, and is quite true. FBI data shows 8454 people killed with guns in 2013, but only 1490 with knives. On the other hand it also shows 593 killed with long guns (all shotguns plus all rifles).
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 9-2013.xls
Are you really sure that an 18-year old with a history of mental illness won't be able to get a gun? Does that history need to be disclosed under current law or is it a HIPAA violation?
And why wouldn't we allow an 18 year old on psychotropic drugs anywhere near a fighter jet? Too young? Too inexperienced? Too medicated? Those same reasons should apply to a gun.
When Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine they were minors illegally in possession of weapons. The law was already in place, they simply broke the law. I see what you're saying. We raised the drinking age to 21 and even made adjustments to teens and how many passengers they may have in a car to curb road deaths. I do agree that only responsible people should own guns, but until that can be achieved we have to protect our kids. all other arguments should be secondary to that. We're just spinning our wheels with all the debating.
You seem to think that a law is going to fix everything, if that were true the world would be perfect. I'll tell you part of the reason people are holding onto this, it is a slippery slope. Now if you want to change the background check to include a flag for mental illness or FBI report, I'm all for that. If someone has a history of mental illness, or a is part of an investigation lets not give them a gun. However, splitting hairs over what guns someone can own, that's ridiculous.
If it's so ridiculous, why do we already do it? You can't own full automatic already. Isn't that a type of gun. I'm only calling for a further expansion of what we already do - limiting the amount of access to weapons that a.) citizens don't need b.) cause massive carnage
It’s an interesting perspective that the party that hates Donald Trump wants to hand him their weapons. To those people I say: no one is stopping you. Turn in all your weapons, stand by your belief.
One way to see it, for sure.
If Trump convinces the military to act against the citizenry, those weapons won't mean a thing. So why not remove the access from those that are already using them to kill the citizenry?
How long did it take Russia, with it's modern military, to conquer Afghanistan, with its third world capabilities?
How was the Afghanistan military force? Did they spend $716 billion on it too?
You missed the point. With all it's military might Russia could not subdue Afghanistan, armed with very little in the way of modern military weapons. Neither could we. Or you might compare the military might of the new United States in April 1775 to that of the British Empire. Or the power set against North Korea (surviving) and North Vietnam (surviving).
Unless a government is willing to glass over a country, they can never "win" against a determined, armed population. They don't need to have equivalent weapons; just a modicum of abilities and a willingness to die. Even Saddam couldn't subdue his own people in spite of gassing millions of them.
LOL No one wants to turn in their guns to anyone. Just want everyone else to do so!
Again, no one is stopping anyone from giving up their guns. You don’t have to have a law, just take your guns to the police station. If you aren’t willing to give them up before it’s a law I guess you don’t believe in it as much as you thought. You think this should be a law, I think if half the country gives them up voluntarily, well at least that’s half. Go for it.
It's not those that are willing to give them up that are shooting the children. That's not really solving the issue of those wanting to commit a mass shooting have access to such destructive weaponry.
Exactly. You just made the argument for the other side. Anyone willing to give up their weapons isn’t part of the problem and anyone not willing to give up their weapons also isn’t going to admit to having them. You just disarmed the innocent. By admitting that one fact you negated your argument. We need better background checks but since only 3% of all violent crime is committed by a legal gun owner, it’s not going to change much.
The innocent that are being killed are already disarmed, so by adding limitations for those trying to commit mass shootings, perhaps we prevent more casualties.
No one is saying that you can't own a weapon to have when you need to defend yourself. But how many of those teachers that you all want to arm would be carrying semi-automatic high capacity weapons and not simple handguns?
"...so by adding limitations for those trying to commit mass shootings, perhaps we prevent more casualties."
Or perhaps, if we don't pay attention to history, we drive the killers to worse weapons and have even more to bury. It is a very real "perhaps" and exactly what Australia saw happen when they put excessive limitations on their killers.
"But how many of those teachers that you all want to arm would be carrying semi-automatic high capacity weapons and not simple handguns?"
Keeping in mind that it requires exactly one bullet to stop a murderer, does it make any difference?
You don’t get it, illegally obtained weapons will still be automatic. You aren’t changing anything.
Most of these mass shootings are being committed with legally obtained guns that can do massive carnage. By putting another barrier in front of would-be mass shooters, perhaps lives get saved. The alternative of doing nothing isn't working and it's time for some action.
I see no "interesting dichotomy." Many people keep a fire extinguisher in their homes, despite having a local fire department.
Those people don't think the fire department is coming to set their homes on fire.
That wasn't the point I was making. I'm on the political right and I do believe in the POTENTIAL for government overreach, but I know we're not at that point right now. Right leaning people do site the 2nd amendment in regard to bearing arms to protect ones self from a hostile government. That's true. The Continental Congress was establishing a set of rules by which the public would be protected from it's greatest enemy, which at the time was tyrannical government. A centralized government body would be hesitant to attack or try to disarm communities with militias. That's why the provision for subsidizing militias is in the Constitution. So yes, right leaning people mention the real potential of hostile government actions (recall Waco and Ruby Ridge for example), but we aren't talking about that- that's a separate issue. The enemy we are talking about is the school shooter. He/They have to be stopped. Valeant's post was implying an inconsistency in political philosophy. I was addressing that. To your point about the Vegas shooter, he was perched in a sniper position. It's not apples to apples. Besides, we're talking about protecting our schools, not concerts which I doubt could ever be made completely safe. But how many shootings happen at pro or college ball games, venues with huge masses of people? Not many, and I believe it's because of an increased security presence. We can't judge the rule by the exception.
Finally, schools shouldn't have to pay for it. The Democrats are launching a 300 million dollar investigation and President Trump called for a 30 million dollar parade. There are lots of places to find the money to support a special task force to address this problem. Also, there are retired police and military personnel that would do it for nothing. There are solutions to this problem if people will stop marching, stop blaming, and start taking the fight to the shooters. Step 1. Secure our schools and protect our kids. Get that done then lets talk about step 2, whatever it may be.
I also know a lot of people with kitchens in their homes, even though there are plenty of restaurants in their area. Many people have quite a lot of equipment around, which they use for performing tasks themselves, even though they could easily find someone to perform these tasks for them. I know people who own lawnmowers, sewing machines, chainsaws, crepe pans, and waffle irons. One of my neighbors has a mini-bobcat. As far as I know, he does not fear that a gang of renegade excavators are on the way to his home to dig up his septic field.
by Mike Russo6 months ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The...
by Marcy Goodfleisch7 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by My Esoteric6 years ago
Could Thomas Jefferson win today's Republican 2012 Presidential Nomination?I will ask this question with a past famous President or personage. I thought it might be interesting to see who knows their history or...
by crankalicious6 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by egiv7 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by TheSituation8 years ago
I just finished writing a hub on this topic and I am wondering if people out there think that we will be able to come to a consensus on a common sense approach to immigration or is this topic just too emotional for...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.