By Joe Ess –
This past Memorial Day I was reading a piece from the indefatigable Charles P. Pierce at The Politics Blog at Esquire about our nation’s most recent gun massacre and these words rang as true as a Presbyterian Bell Choir:
“Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the good guys because of the guns he’s already arranged to sell to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre is the strange white man in the Congo who knows where he can get you some AK’s. He’s the shadowy fellow in the coffee shop in Kabul who knows where RPG’s can be had, cheap. He’s the well-dressed, silken-voiced operator, sipping his tea on a cool and breezy veranda outside of Bogota, who smiles at you and shows you on the map where you can pick up your order, because it is time once again for you to make war and him to make money. His look is the smooth and shiny black of the vulture’s feathers. He feasts on the carrion of nations.”
– Charles P. Pierce
LaPierre is the natural result of a very unnatural evolution of an entity that once was devoted to gun safety and sportsmanship and has now morphed into the marketing tool of gun makers. In other words, the modern NRA’s sole function is to market guns. Harken back to the days of yore when pharmaceutical companies couldn’t directly market their drugs to you on television – thus allowing you to sit on your couch and self-diagnose your medical problems – gun manufacturers are forbidden this tool. As they should be. Believe me, they would literally kill for the chance to sell you the latest in flesh ripping engineering on your electric teevee machine. I for one don’t want to see anyone marketing the killing prowess of an AR-15 in a slick, formulated, dramatic ad during the SuperBowl.
So, we get Wayne LaPierre. He and people like him exist for one reason and one reason only:
To frighten people into buying a product for protection against the people he’s already sold the very same product to in the first place.
This is the gun manufacturer’s only marketing tool. And it works.
I, on the other hand, I am with the 90% of Americans that believe that common sense gun regulations are not only needed, but needed post-haste.
Here’s what I would suggest to a congress that had the interests of the American people in mind instead of a congress merely on the lookout for an envelope with a check:
If you want to own a gun, fine. Own a gun.
If you want to own an assault rifle, fine. Own an assault rifle.
But with owning this hardware certain requirements should be mandated at the local, state and federal level.
First, if you’ve been convicted of a felonious violent crime. You’re out.
Secondly, if you have a history of mental illness, you will have some hoops to jump through.
If you have a conviction for domestic violence. No dice.
We would regulate the purchase and ownership of every gun just as we do every automobile.
You can own one, but you have to register it.
Every year.
You also have to license it and pay property tax on it.
Every year.
Every 5 years, you have to pass a test to continue to possess and operate this piece of machinery.
Safety and competence would be paramount.
And last but not least, if you want to open-carry your gun. Knock yourself out. Go right ahead.
Do all of these things. Own, operate, and open carry.
However, none of this happens without proof of at least liability insurance.
Period.
Again, 90% of Americans want these massacres to end.
We as a nation want something done.
Hell, 70% of NRA members want stronger regulations.
This just makes sense.
Wayne LaPierre doesn’t’ want these things to happen.
Why?
Wayne LaPierre gets paid to sell you guns. That’s his job.
He’s very good at it and, because he’s a sociopath, he has no trouble sleeping at night.
Charles Pierce is right. We are at war with ourselves. And Wayne LaPierre is the arms dealer.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe (1755–1824)
So peter, what are you saying here?
Tench Coxe believed that the Militia are the people themselves, not the standing army of the Government/State, and the people have a right to match the government sword for sword. He also makes clear his distrust of civil rulers and that Armies can be perverted towards the injury of their fellow citizens.
At face value, & temporarily disregarding criminals or the violently deranged, I share Mr. Coxe’s views, and wanted to refute this idea that the Militia are the Military. They are not.
More than likely the conception of The National Guard was probably an attempt at becoming this militia, but failed when it became intertwined with the United States Military, so that now a citizen-soldier in the Guard is indistinguishable from a soldier in the ‘active-duty’ military, and can be commissioned and controlled as such. So No, the National Guard is not the militia…the people themselves in their individual states, or collectively together comprise the ‘Militia’.
“Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American”
This line perhaps best elucidates the right for Americans to own and possess the same weapons of the soldiers themselves. Practically, I’m not sure how that’d work, but at some level, perhaps far more advanced than the one we are presently at, citizens should have more access, not less access to these “terrible implements”, according to Mr. Coxe, validating present NRA claims.
However the use of such weapons should be confined to repel an abuse of military forces (posse comitatus), and not for an insurrection against every day legislation, and certainly not for committing criminal acts. Herein lays the difficulty: the unpredictability of private human behavior & the protection against organized criminal behavior. In theory Mr. Coxe is spot on, but Mr. Coxe did not live to witness Public Enemies of the 1930s blasting Thompson’s into the banks and streets.
Actually I take that back…Mr. Coxe stated “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize”, which implies citizens using force against such tyranny. Who determines precisely what constitutes tyranny though? It’s obviously open to interpretation. I consider it tyranny for elected “leaders” to allow loud exhausts to terrorize communities, whereas obviously others do not. Can one man act alone to repel this tyranny?
Pretty melodramatic to consider loud exhaust “tyranny”. You may want to take a look around but not through your mothers window.
There you go again, I was almost out of my chair applauding you and you had to throw in the loud pipes. My opinion is this, according to the 2nd amendment, we the people have the right as you said to match the government sword for sword; whatever it takes to protect ourselves. Somebody asked earlier about nuclear weapons. I say that we have the right to own whatever it takes to protect ourselves but the price won’t let us. I would love to own a tank, just don’t have a million dollars.
Again, the interpretation of what constitutes “tyranny” is the Achilles Heel of the argument. One man’s love of loud pipes, is another man’s misery. Is this number to be fixed at a percentage of the population? It’s too difficult to galvanize specific numbers of unrest when unpopular legislation takes effect. 20%? 50%? 70 or more? The ratio of people who hate loud pipes is about 50% based on my surveys. What form of tyranny validates armed overthrow of the government versus due process
…and #maybe, the loud pipes will always be thrown in. 🙂 Until sensible enforcement of 321.436 of the Iowa Code commences, I’ll talk about it forever.
I think what needs to happen here is for technology to develop an ON/OFF baffle system that an operator can activate to quiet the pipes in town, and loudify them on the open road where they are needed most.
Trucks and cars with missing mufflers have no argument whatsoever, and should be arrested immediately.
@Anonymous: I don’t need to “take a look around”, I already have, and it is an irrefutable truth that loud mufflers dominate the landscape.
321.436 MUFFLERS, PREVENTION OF NOISE.
Every motor vehicle shall at all times be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cutout, bypass or similar device upon a motor vehicle on a highway.
Loud pipes would be a nuisance, tyranny is what the government takes ALL your rights away and you are nothing but a slave. You actually think that loud pipes are tyranny, you just wait a few months and your view point will change because you have absolutely NO idea what tyranny is yet.
Has anyone really used theyre heads when wanting a gun ban. The job loss would ruin our country. its not just guns that would be effected. Holsters ,ammo,grip companies, safes and cases, optic companies, gun part manufactures, and reloading components to name some. Millions of jobs.
I have a hypothetical to inject. Assume a slightly different world in which nuclear weapons were available for purchase.
Should anyone/everyone have the right to bear this armament? Concealed carry?
At what point, if any, is the tool something that shouldn’t be given to every operator?
Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger—a Republican.
“One of the greatest pieces of fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.
The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state.
The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
The term militia “has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services).”
Since you are concentrating on the term “Militia”, do not forget that in the quote above from Chief Justice Burger when he was referring to the 2nd Amendment, that in that amendment there are also the words “WELL REGULATED militia”.
Hmmm… I wonder what “well regulated” might mean?
Some kind of control perhaps?
Some method of governance that might prevent people from running amok with guns?
But at the time, of its writing, people weren’t “running amok” with guns. You can’t remove the 2nd Amendment so you are trying to subvert it.
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of any and all citizens to own any and all kinds of guns.
It demands, in the name of national security, that we regulate it.
Contrary to the propaganda perpetrated by the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is the most heavily modified, curbed, explained, complex and contradictory of all the first ten Amendments.
(con’t)
The real intent was not to guarantee all individuals a right to gun ownership, but to assure the states that the federal government would not disband their militias.
Thus it’s the only Amendment that comes with an a rationale:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”
By the way, I enjoy a civil discussion when two people have differing view points.
Thank you for that.
You take a verse from the bible, you can have a dozen different people read the same verse and each one will come away with something different. In my opinion your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is way off, it sounds like the lies the liberals have been telling for years and if you hear a lie long enough you begin to believe it.
A well regulated Militia (meaning all able-bodied men not in the Army of Navy) , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. No where is it mentioned that those men must be part of a State sponsored Army/Navy, only those who are able-bodied not already serving.
And yes the 2nd DOES NOT guarantee the right to bear arms, it keeps the Federal and State Governments from creating laws that prevent ownership.
Maybe said, …have been telling for years and if you hear a lie long enough you begin to believe it.
I agree with this but it’s from both directions. The liberals spin their side, the conservatives spin their side, all pushing the fear and worry.
It’s so bad that we go armed because we’ve lost the trust in our society and in our neighbors.
Let’s start over to inspect for the truth no matter which direction we are getting our news. Let’s meet in the middle and get some results.
Mediator-Good philosophy, but I don’t think it will ever happen. It is going to take a major change in how we view things before anyone can start to trust again. When you have a government that lies every single day to get what they want people soon learn not to trust anyone. I am getting a little old so I remember the 50’s and even the 60″s (when things started to change). I long for the days when you could trust, but people have no value’s anymore. We never leave a door unlocked anymore.
John Oliver said it best,
“One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and now we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one (mass) shootings since Columbine, and no change in our regulation of guns.”
If our law makers weren’t more worried about getting reelected then they are about doing their jobs this would be a better country. Term limits would be a start.
Why don’t you just go ahead and say it, get rid of the 2nd amendment and while were at it just get rid of all the others and than stupid constitution too.
Over react there much maybe?
You gun rights extremists refuse to contemplate a country where stronger gun laws can co-exist with rights to own guns. It has become a national embarrassment, and inexcusable, to say the least.
A gun nut is someone who reacts poorly to the idea of following the “well-regulated” portion of the Second Amendment.
It’s time for this to change.
It’s time for a rational national conversation void of the threats and vitriol coming from the gun nuts.
You can be a drunk or on prescription drugs and having a gun is OK. Smoke pot and we take away your gun rights forever. Ya, that makes a lot of sense.
You get the government you pay for.
Heh…….
https://www.facebook.com/TheMarmelPage/photos/a.217259448301136.70251.216484961711918/912761525417588/?type=1&theater
Superb column, Mr. Ess. I shall be saving this one, and linking it to my friends.
thank you.
Having tools of mass murder readily available to the immature, easily angered, uncontrolled, amoral, and mentally disturbed is a recipe for disaster. Despite what people say about using knives…it’s just not that easy to go out and start killing people en masse’. Guns make it much easier, by virtue of their technology: missiles travelling long distances, with minimal energy expended by shooter. Instilling fear, and sense of obligation to others is needed to end these shootings.
Point well taken and accepted. However both sides of this issue continue to be light years apart with no willingness to engage in meaningful compromise and dialogue. In the end, not guns or knives, but our own human failure to engage and embrace one another will kill, maim and extinguish us.
Thus illustrates the paradox of life: Nature appears savage and unforgiving, based on a cycle of hunger and immediate satisfaction of needs and desires, kill if you can, run and hide if you cannot. The only salvation is what sets us apart: Our ability to reason, innovate and transcend…to show restraint and self control. Vegetarianism and Veganism are steps in the right direction, towards transcendence of the brutality and carnal nature of our existence. Teach it to children soon.
The farmer’s dog got into a rabbit patch, grabbed a baby bunny and carried it off before my eyes. In a few moments the rabbit’s life was over. No remorse, no thought, just primal instinct. Laws expect and assume men to completely transcend these natural instincts and urges. It’s entirely unfair to deny what God designs us to do. And then to place “offenders” in a cage for their life? Makes no sense. God wants us to f***, eat, and kill. It’s why I won’t worship God. I’ll study instead
If you cannot tell the difference between a man and a dog, you shouldn’t be considered the former but you should be considered the latter.
I am sure that deep down you are a nice guy but I am getting so tired of hearing you blow your own horn, you go on and on and on like you just love to hear the sound of your own voice yet you don’t really say anything worthwhile. You call guns the tools of a mass murder yet you conveniently forget about the automobile. I guess since you are talking, it doesn’t matter what you are saying.
I’m sorry #maybe that you are simple of the mind and cannot grasp my greater messages. It’s a philosopher’s angst…a conundrum, and deep dissatisfaction, yet with a smidgeon of optimistic hope; agnostic to say the least. If you deny that guns are an easy offensive weapon I guess you’ve forgotten how easy it was for those pesky insurgents to wreak utter havoc on your mission of enlightenment and peace, and with complement, your team mowing down dozens, if not hundreds at a time.
@Philly-using your logic we should ban gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, knives, fireworks and anything else that “PEOPLE” us to kill other people. I forgot, hammers and baseball bats. They can all be used for mass murder. It is people that kill (mostly liberals and religious fanatics) not the tools they use.
“If you cannot tell the difference between a man and a dog, you shouldn’t be considered the former but you should be considered the latter.”
…says the hard penis and hungry stomach.
That I can ponder such thoughts at all concerning beasts and men, has assured my place in the clouds. You Mr. Anonymous, are defensive of examination…hostile to reason, guardian to the gate. Open it, let us through.
@Philly-What???? Are you off your meds again?? Your post makes no sense at all. I guess you have no argument to what I said as you don’t want to post a serious response.
LVS, I think Mr. Ess’s points are welcome: If humans want to possess tools of power and destruction, let them be known, and insured, so their carelessness may be covered. I would have no problem paying for a small monthly liability fee on my insurance for my guns. Heck, the NRA could expand their insurance market as it is. Teaching a sense of liability towards the public is a good thing. My father, the insurance man taught me that early age. I’m not calling for bans, just protection
You are what they call a Pharisee, you get off on your big words and long winded speeches drawing attention to yourself. I understand everything you are saying peter, I am just so tired of the way you are saying, almost like you are talking down to us. We are smarter than you think, we just are tired of stroking your feathers. Guns are as offensive a weapon as is a car or a knive or a hammer. It’s the operator you fool, not the tool.
#maybe, I agree it is the operator. I could have in my possession a Stinger Missile, A fully automatic M60, and the keys to a Tank, and the public would continue to be safe and sound…why? Because I am not a violent person, and I recognize the rights of all life forms to exist in peace. I prefer peace and order in society, based loosely on the order of the stars and physical laws of our planet. However, others are not as restrained and virtuous as I. In general, insurance is a start
Insurance is nothing but a feel good bandaide. Actually does nothing but caters to the sue happy generation. If a loved one of mine is killed unjustly then I want justice not money. Oh they never told me the coffee was hot and now I burnt myself, sue somebody. It’s called taking responsibility for your actions. I am so sorry I just killed your kid, here’s some money to make you feel better. Get a life.
If a parent knows they could be sued or jailed for their teenager killing or maiming the public, responsible parents would make damn sure their guns weren’t lying around unprotected. Requiring insurance is a healthy start towards instilling the mind frame that guns can be very destructive tools, and only the responsible should possess them. Cars require insurance, and have for some time, yet you don’t bitch and moan about it do you? No. It’s just the way it is.
With a high powered AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, a person could literally stand outside on a street and begin shooting into every home he sees…reaching blocks away with the right elevation. Those bullets will penetrate right through most conventional plaster and drywall homes. Without taking a step he could potentially murder dozens. If he were to drive his car into a home, he’d have probably one shot and it’d be over. Guns are projectile missiles that travel miles.
My AR15 has never fired any bullets at a house let alone a few houses, maybe mine is lazy I don’t know, he just sits there doing nothing. Same for my truck, it just sits there, as much as I would like it to drive through my neighbors house it won’t, it just sits there doing nothing.
People talk about “a fair fight”. What’s fair about some psycho with an AR-15 hiding up on a hill somewhere in a town or city, hailing bullets down on a crowded street festival or concert? What’s fair about some a-hole up on a roof shooting defenseless people down below? Nothing. It’s a coward’s game, and letting spineless cowards gain access to weapons of mass destruction is a fool’s game.
@Philly-and with a little fertilizer and some diesel fuel you can kill hundreds. Possibly you want to put insurance on that too? You can not hold other people responsible for the actions of another if they are over the age of 18 tears old. They are responsible for themselves. I see you are a proponent of the Nanny state. Key word there is “RESPONSIBLE”.
I’ve always said that you can claim ignorance only so long before it becomes stupidity, you just crossed over to stupidity. Calling a gun a weapon of mass destruction when guns don’t even come close to other methods. You know what, I am starting to think that you are acting like a fool on purpose. You have the right according to the 1st amendment to be a fool. I am just not going to listen to you anymore.
Hey Matt-I am sorry. I clicked on the wrong button. I didn’t mean to report the comment. Please disregard.
@Philly-Much better. You voiced your opinion. I disagree with you on it but that is O.K.
I think it’s safe to say Maybe is on the lunatic fringe to say the least.
Criminals want gun ban because it makes it easier for them. I do think there should be some training. Cops are not able to be there right away to protect you. Get raped and you would wish you had a gun. Our laws need to be stiffer for all gun crimes. There are people with licence for full autos and you dont hear of them being used in crime. Cell phone cant save you. Average call about 20 minutes for law to come. More people are killed by drunk drivers than guns.
I do agree about the training.
@Sig-The ones who want gun control are the ones who have something to fear. They are afraid of themselves. After all, most of the mass murders have been by liberal Democrats. We should ban all liberals.
When Mr.Ess is discussing the lunatic fringe, LVS, you tend to be included in that group whenever someone expresses an opinion you disagree with. Not all mass murderers are liberal democrats, you know that yet you still say it. Those who desire better, more effective gun control aren’t afraid of themselves, you know that yet you still say it. Cars, baseball bats, kerosene, etc., were designed for a purpose other than killing something. What other purpose is there for a gun?
@bodacious-You seem to think that I am the only one who feels that way. Either you can’t read or you are so busy trying to find a reason to attack me you disregard the rest of the post. How typical of a liberal. Anything you can’t defend you attack.
@LVS don’t be so paranoid. I am addressing all of you. And, I am defending what I said. Guns kill. That is what they were designed for and yet you seem to think otherwise. I have said before that I own guns and I am totally against any law that tries to remove guns from the hands of citizens who are responsible gun owners. I am, however, very much in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the lunatic fringe. And you fit right in there.
In 2 months I will ask you all again how you feel about guns and I’ll bet every answer will change.
Better ban cars because they kill to. To blame guns is bull it takes someone to pull trigger. I have conceal carried for over 20 years. I am also in firearm business. I have a ffl and sell only legal. In fact I require more than atf says. Gun dealers are watched close by atf. Austrailia ban guns and there are more gun crimes there than before ban. Criminals do as they want. Drugs are illegal and theres plenty of that. only bad things with guns make news what about the good things.
When the blame for the mass murders is placed where it belongs, we will see a psychologists hanging from trees.
No shame, no guilt, no fear, no morals, no values, no boundaries. What ever makes you feel good, just do it and don’t worry about the consequences. And above all, we must not “hurt” the kids feelings.
Before those values were promoted no one even thought abut buying guns for anything other than hunting.
Gun control, what a bunch of BS!
@maybe- I keep reading all of these comments on how you want your guns to protect yourself from the government so in your opinion where is the line? The army has tanks. Should anyone be able to buy a fully working militant tank? The army has nuclear weapons. Should any Tom, Dick, or Harry be able to keep “fat man” and “little boy” in their garage?
I know that many people don’t agree with me. I also know that it is hard to know exactly what our forefathers meant when they wrote the bill of rights. Many experts have said that the militia was supposed to be every man between 15 and 55. Going by that, then we should be able to have any weapon that the military owns, provided that we can afford to pay for it. Some people now days say the national guard is the militia but that wasn’t the way it was back then.
I know that a lot of people are upset because of all the shootings and I agree with them, but you cannot punish everybody because of the actions of a few. There are so many gun laws on the books right now that they don’t enforce and yet the bad guys still get guns. You can outlaw guns, take them away from EVERYBODY and the bad guys will still kill people. They ignore the fact that there are more people killed with knives and hammers and cars and concentrate on the guns only.
I have read numerous articles and heard speakers talk about how guns are not the problem, but the powers that be want them taken away because that is our only way to stand against tyranny, so they convinced the masses that guns are evil and need to be outlawed. I am able to compromise on certain things but when it comes to my freedom and my families freedom, I will not budge.
Seems to me that we are all so busy throwing stones at those who we disagree with instead of working together to turn those stones into a road going forward. We all have different opinions and one of the things that made this country great was the ability to compromise with each other instead of resorting to mud slinging. This goes to both sides as right and left both do it, but if we started being just Americans instead of right or left perhaps we could all come together and find solutions.
Good post Anon. You are right. Most who are against any gun laws or regulations will never work to stop the mass killings that are continuously in our news. That might mean they would be inconvenienced and that isn’t in their mindset. The tired, old defense of guns don’t kill people is wrong. People with guns kill people. The author’s proposed requirements are reasonable and wouldn’t take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. They would help keep guns out of the hands of idiots.
@bodacious-what are you going to do? Take away knives, hammers, bombs and baseball bats. Any one of those kill more people than guns when they are in the hands of a lunatic. You are preaching the same old liberal stuff.
I have no problems with working with anybody on the right or left but for me it comes down to 2 words, SHALL NOT. The early americans just finished a war with a tyrannical government so to make sure that doesn’t happen again they put those words in the Bill of Rights, SHALL NOT be infringed. I am not about to give up a couple significant little right just so someone else can feel better. The more you give up, the more they will take till you have none left.
I have a few guns, I carry and they sit in my closet. A couple times I’ve had to pull my weapon but I have never had to pull the trigger. Why is it that I have never had a problem with my weapons but because it scares someone else they don’t want me to have one. Sounds like they are the ones with the problem, not me. If they don’t like guns then stop thinking about them, mine are concealed so they don’t know that I have one. Would they rather have me or the gangbanger down the street carry?
I believe my original message has been lost in the shuffle of the exact problem I was addressing. My point was that both pro and anti gun law opinions have their valid points and the only way to move forward is to work with one another to find a compromise. Compromise, I know in our world today that it seems a long lost art form, but we are capable of great things as a species if we desire it enough. With so much emphasis on the right or left it seems the middle has become no mans lands.
Lookes like you can have a gun BUt you have to pay a tax on it every year – geeesh all the crooks will surely register their weapon and pay the annual tax- well so much for this chit fling theory.
Thanks for the comments didn’t have to waste time reading this idiots stupidity. O by the way we have a marine in jail in Mexico because of there extreme gun laws. It’s working real well there only corrupt cops and cartels can have guns while the population gets slaughtered… Stupid ass liberals….
Guns don’t people, pot kills people. Why won’t the sheeple listen?
This article by Joe Ess has so many holes in it that it will not hold water. Where has Joe Ess and Charles P. Pierce been the last 50 years. Can’t they see what’s going on in our Government. Maybe they are part of the flock called, Sheeple. Guns don’t kill people, they have to have an operator. While these mass shootings do bother me, will more gun regulations keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and scofflaws. NO!!!!
Ok this is 1 of the times that I don’t agree with you LVS. First of all the term assault weapon means select fire, Either semi auto or fully auto and they have been banned since 1932. Secondly the NRA is not about selling guns but all about the 2nd amendment. Third, the 2nd amendment is NOT, I repeat NOT about hunting or target shooting but ALL about protection against a tyrannical government. The ignorant people that want to ban guns don’t realize that they have been brainwashed by communism.
During WW1 and part of WW2 the most common firearm was a bolt action which is perfect for sniping or hunting is not very practical against an all out charge, that’s where the assault weapon comes in. If and when they start confiscating weapons and a swat team breaks into my house I would rather have an assault weapon or even the semi auto AR 15 I have now than a hunting rifle. I believe 100% in gun safety, but giving up some of my rights so others can feel safe, I will not do that.
@maybe-I believe I said that some people would disagree with me and obviously you do. If I was going to war, (which I certainly hope I am not) I would want an assault weapon. But I am not so I don’t. I know all about select fire and my feeling is you just do not need 30 round magazine in peace time or for target shooting. 10 rounds should be plenty. For close range give me my 12 ga. shotgun. I have three. Two pumps and a double barrel I also have a 357 sig Smith and Wesson. Should do the job.
You misunderstand what I am talking about. The 2nd amendment is all about defending oneself against a tyrannical government. Sure hunting and target shooting you don’t need a 30 round magazine but when the SHTF and you have out of control government troops coming after your ass, a 30 round magazine would be nice, and I am not willing to wait till that happens to see if they will let me have those mags, I will get as many as I can now just in case.
@maybe-I understand perfectly. If the need arises I will shoot one of those attacking me and take their gun. That is what the French Resistance did in WW2. I see where you are coming from and I really hope that our troops will not fire or march on their friends and relatives. Just like the police out east are refusing to enforce their goofy gun laws. I know enough military people to know that the liberals are not popular with them at all.
God, guns and guts are what made this county great! God would be pleased to see his healing herbs made illegal and would hate to see anybody non armed. It would be especially nice to see some of these guns accidentally go off and kill some peace loving hippies.
Joe Ess is so far to the left he might just fall off the planet. I can agree somewhat about assault weapons. I don’t see much need for them. However, a lot of people would disagree about that.
Sensible. Sounds good to me.