The Biggest Threat to the 2nd Amendment...

[MPJMP]

Found this editorial that was published today on-line.

Gun Problem is a First Amendment Issue

Have to say, I think he's dead on.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by MPJMP

Have to say, I think he's dead on.

I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns. How has limiting guns and trying to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong people" worked for Chicago, Oakland, LA, SF, Washington DC, Baltimore, and all the other places that refuse to deal harshly with crime? Let's deal with the 90% out of wedlock birthrates in those places which ultimately leads to gangs and crime instead of worrying about guns and new gun laws.

[JohnS]

HT your last sentence is so spot on.

[DivePanama]

Good post HT.

The whole article clearly was slanted to infer that the guns are the problem, not the the criminal element. I especially found this line humorous;

The shootings were, the way the facts now appear, legally justifiable. But that doesn't mean the deaths were not tragic. It is tragic each time a gun is pulled and a deadly chain of events set into motion.

So I guess the gun set the "deadly chain of events in motion", not the criminal's actions whether they be assault, robbery, rape, attempted murder, etc...

Sadly there are those gun owners that fall this verbal clap.

Regards,

[Steelplate45]

I agree with HT.

The problem in the this country is 'Fathering' or lack thereof.

[Choctaw]

I smell an election year troll...

Good post HT!

[SuHu]

Sorry, he missed it so bad he's orbiting Saturn. Not interested in sitting down with some lib to hear him pontificate about how we need to all get along and accept reasonable restrictions and more government requirements, when the truth is staring them in the face, and has been for the past 225 years.

[ope135]

No, it's a responsibility issue. We don't need to all get along. We all need to leave each other alone. Failing that, responsible and sane individuals must resort to whatever means our Creator endowed us with to defend ourselves. The Founders recognized this and memorialized it in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[NonHyphenAmerican]

My wife and I were just talking about this issue today.

The Constitutional Freedom of Speech is under fire when you cannot make true accurate statements without a Govt. Official punishing you for doing so.
Specifically, Wikipedia ordered and required to remove their entry regarding the definition of "Forward" and it's use by the Obama/Biden Campaign. Or, peruse this: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...rebels-126061/

The Constitutional Freedom to Peaceably Assemble is now under fire by Executive order when you are prohibited to protest in proximity of the President and are then subject to arrest and prosecution. The Exeutive Order: http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/


The Constitional Freedom of Religion is under fire when a Religious entity is required by law to provide items free of charge to employees that they consider to be wrong by Government fiat and are subject to millions of dollars in fines if they don't comply. Peruse: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pr...20120120a.html

The Constitutional Freedom that prohibits Seizure of Life or Property without "Due Process of Law" is under fire when an Executive Branch fiat deprives American Citizens of the property and even their lives without even being charged or brought to trial. Specifically, GM and Chrysler stockholders and bondholders were deprived of their property without due process when they became "Government Motors" and "Fix It Again Taxpayers" Motors. Or, peruse: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-ga...b_1370819.html

And....Our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is under fire when you have an insidious campaign by the Executive Branch and its supporters such as Soro's to deprive American Citizens of the ability to purchase, own, and use firearms and ammunition.
http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/obamas-gungate-attempting-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-obama-and-holder-agent-provocateurs-operation-fast-and-furious-videos/

So, I don't think we have a gun problem.

I think we have a problem with an Executive Branch of Our American Government that is engaging in a battle to destroy the Constitution of The United States of America.

[jeffbird]

Worry about all of the Bill of Rights.

They are all under assault, and have been from both political parties.

[MPJMP]

Originally Posted by HT77

I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns.

I agree with your points, but I came away from that article with an entirely different take on what the author was trying to say.

The problem isn't guns, it's the "idiots" who chose to use them irresponsibly-- mostly, criminals who could care less about responsible ownership or safety, They are the ones who provide political ammo for the liberal left who wish to erode our 2A rights.

I read the article as trying to focus the debate not on the tools themselves, but back on the people who use them for evil (which is exactly what your post was about, if I read it correctly).

[ArnieS]

The biggest threat to gun ownership is bloated government and the statists running it.

[WobbleZone]

The columnist who wrote this is with the Birmingham News, and clear, rational thought is not his strong suit. In a way, this column was a welcome change from his standard piece of " I am deploring _____________________
(crime, black on black violence, truancy, hunger, mumps, rickets, athletes' foot - just fill in the blanks with the topic of the day) today and it is somehow all our fault and we must come together to correct it, preferably by confessing our common guilt and taxing more and throwing copious amounts of money at it to give me a warm fuzzy feeling."

This guy once wrote a piece in which he criticized a local law enforcement officer for writing a investigation report in which phrases which were not complete sentences were used. When I wrote to him that I had counted no less than three phrases in his article that were not sentences but which were punctuated as such, he replied with some lame excuse that such practice was OK according to the N.Y. Times style manual. Apparently he didn't deign the LEO worthy of such consideration as he claimed for himself.

[MPJMP]

Originally Posted by jeffbird

The finishing blow to "due process" is that if someone is charged with a crime, most judges are a second prosecutor, and the jury wants to make their community "safer" to they do whatever the prosecutor and police say. Guilty until proven otherwise is the reality, and very hard to do.

You make a lot of good points, but the above is not accurate in my experience. Judges are often former defense attorneys whose political support base comes primarily from the criminal defense bar. Hardly "second prosecutors."

And while most people like to talk tough about crime and what should be done about it, put those same folks on a jury where suddenly they have the power to change lives forever with their verdict and they become extremely cautious in their use of the "guilty" word.

[Chas3]

Right on NonHyphenated...well thought-out and eloquently presented!
chas3

[jeffbird]

Guess it depends on the venue.

Here in Texas, almost all criminal judges were prosecutors and once on the bench see it as their job to be "tough on crime."

That makes a better campaign slogan, than protect the rights of all citizens.

Anyway, I edited my post down not to sidetrack the discussion too much.

[HT77]

Originally Posted by MPJMP

I agree with your points, but I came away from that article with an entirely different take on what the author was trying to say.

The problem isn't guns, it's the "idiots" who chose to use them irresponsibly-- mostly, criminals who could care less about responsible ownership or safety, They are the ones who provide political ammo for the liberal left who wish to erode our 2A rights.

I read the article as trying to focus the debate not on the tools themselves, but back on the people who use them for evil (which is exactly what your post was about, if I read it correctly).

Every time I read the article I see the same thing. I see carefully crafted words arguing for more gun control. All of his points are related to controlling guns, not criminals. Here is his summary at the end of the article:

We do have a gun problem. But it's not a Second Amendment issue. It's a First Amendment issue.

We need to learn again to talk about guns in realistic, honest ways, without all the knee-jerk political baggage. We need to talk safety, and consequences. We need to discuss ways of limiting gun supplies to criminals without threatening the rights of responsible owners.

Liberals like him are not really serious about dealing with crime and criminals. They would never engage in a real conversation about the factors that actually cause crime. They think they can somehow keep guns out of the hands of criminals and everything will be fine. How is that any different than the strict gun control we see in most of our major cities that has done nothing to reduce crime or gun violence? If I told him the number one controlling factor for someone going to prison is lack of a father at home, therefore to reduce crime we need to deal with that, he would completely dismiss it. Bottom line is his article is either completely disingenuous or childishly delusional.

[spinks]

As much as Archibald is a bit of a d-bag I do like the idea of making the gun issue a 1A issue.

The NRA, or maybe the new ACA, should air ads with the 4 basic safety rules in large city markets. Markets where the libs live. This would be a kind of "killing them with kindness" approach.

[Hunter Customs]

Originally Posted by HT77

I don't think he's dead on at all. He just wants to talk about ways to limit guns. Where he is completely wrong is he wants to talk about guns instead of talking about seriously dealing with social problems and criminals. Let's deal with the real issues and make people personally responsible for their criminal activity instead of trying to blame guns. How has limiting guns and trying to keep them out of the hands of the "wrong people" worked for Chicago, Oakland, LA, SF, Washington DC, Baltimore, and all the other places that refuse to deal harshly with crime? Let's deal with the 90% out of wedlock birthrates in those places which ultimately leads to gangs and crime instead of worrying about guns and new gun laws.

HT77,
Excellent post, very well said and I agree 100%.

If you don't mind I would like to add Kansas City and St.Louis to the cities you have listed.

The other day the KC mayor was flapping his lips about the reason they have so many killings in KC is not a people problem, it's a gun problem.

In the part of Missouri that I live in I would say most everyone owns or has access to a gun and the people are not being killed by them.
I guess we have better educated guns in our part of the state.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

[LeatherFace]

Originally Posted by ope135

No, it's a responsibility issue.

Don't forget common sense and maturity.

[MPJMP]

Originally Posted by HT77

Every time I read the article I see the same thing. I see carefully crafted words arguing for more gun control. All of his points are related to controlling guns, not criminals.

Perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, recognizing that the problem originates with irresponsible individuals who have no desire to behave responsibly is where I think the article is "dead on."

That, and the idea that people need to talk and identify the real issues, one of which, I agree, is a breakdown of the traditional social and family structure in the inner cities which has created a sub-culture of irresponsibility where there is no concept of future consequence, only the here and now. How can you expect someone to see the benefit of staying in school, working hard, respecting others and obeying the law when they have no concept of where they will be this time next year or ten years from now? Thinking ahead to where they will be tonight is as far as many seem able to go.

[enjr44]

Originally Posted by Hunter Customs

HT77,
Excellent post, very well said and I agree 100%.
The other day the KC mayor was flapping his lips about the reason they have so many killings in KC is not a people problem, it's a gun problem.

In the part of Missouri that I live in I would say most everyone owns or has access to a gun and the people are not being killed by them.
I guess we have better educated guns in our part of the state.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

Love the, ". . . better educated guns . . ."

[USMM guy]

As well as the biggest threat to the rest of the freedoms that we hold dear are one and the same.
Anytime you have an increasingly ignorant population that retains voting powers yet is reliant on an increasingly subsidized existance. They become very easily manipulated to the point where they become tools of the powers that be just by sheer numbers.

The Roman leaders figured this out in the late years of their empire. It worked for them in the short term. "Bread and Circuses"
But ultimately it lead to their downfall.

Anybody out there ever watch an episode of Jersey shore?

[sonicrete]

Do a little searching to find some nice new "laws" signed into effect concerning the UN. This was like over the weekend.

Something about sharing the revenue from oil wells out 200 miles with the world. No aggression. Only launch sattelittes with UN approval. Of course weapons. These sleasy b@stards are selling the USA down the river just sneaking stuff in when no one is looking. The press,cough,cough,is in on this.

[Kodadek]

Originally Posted by MPJMP

Perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, recognizing that the problem originates with irresponsible individuals who have no desire to behave responsibly is where I think the article is "dead on."

That, and the idea that people need to talk and identify the real issues, one of which, I agree, is a breakdown of the traditional social and family structure in the inner cities which has created a sub-culture of irresponsibility where there is no concept of future consequence, only the here and now. How can you expect someone to see the benefit of staying in school, working hard, respecting others and obeying the law when they have no concept of where they will be this time next year or ten years from now? Thinking ahead to where they will be tonight is as far as many seem able to go.

No, the problem stems from knee-jerk sissies that dislike conflict, dislike guns, and really think that you can somehow "keep" weapons out of the hands of criminals. Even England, with all its laws believes there are some 2-3 million illegal arms within their nation, mind you that's the conservative estimate. These people really think they can bury human will, vice, and desire under a mountain of rules. regulations and laws.

The guy that wrote that article doesn't want to talk about it. Hell, his mind is all made up. He just wants to help make your mind up for you. He's also an idiot or a grand fabricator of the truth. Most of the so coined idiots with guns came by them quite legally. No dishonesty, no trickery, no laws broken in acquiring the weapons in question. Reminds me of my brother-in-law that wants registration for rifles over a certain caliber and tries to call anything black, evil, with a detachable mag and a pistol grip in rifle length as a "non-sporting-sportsman's-rifle". He tries to come off as "pro-gun" but he clearly wants limits enforced, he's just two steps shy of wanting all the guns grabbed and he's just articulate enough to fool most folks. Now, call me crazy but I'm not overly fond of namby-pamby, "let's talk about it" folks. When they want to talk what they really mean is, "shut the hell up, listen, let me tell you why I'm right and you're wrong."

You're welcome to agree with them all you like. Me? Well to me folks like that aren't worth the vast quantities of oxygen they steal. I want to form a dialogue with them about as much as they want to form one with me. The point where we differ is I'm honest enough to admit it.