default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

This is not about controlling guns

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:28 am | Updated: 9:19 am, Fri Jul 5, 2013.

Why do the liberals want to ban the private ownership of firearms? This is the key issue surrounding the twisting of a grade school massacre into an argument to strip the right to keep and bear firearms in America. Nothing these shady leftist operatives are proposing would do anything to prevent a similar massacre from happening. Nothing they are proposing will make anyone safer from violent criminals. Everything they are proposing would leave us much more vulnerable to violent criminals and deranged killers. So why are they doing this?

The gun control issue is not about the control of guns at all; it is, like most other liberal agendas, about the control of people. Despite either carrying firearms themselves (Diane Feinstein) or having scores of bodyguards protecting them with firearms, they argue that guns owned by the masses should be illegal – a notion based on inequality between the laypeople and the important government figures, and screams hypocrisy.

The elites know that a disarmed populace is much more controllable as it cannot fight back. Let us remember that the Second Amendment was designed and made part of the Constitution to allow the populace to resist when the ruling class became intolerable, or when we were subject to a foreign invasion. The leaders of our country at that time wanted citizens to be able to fight any tendencies of oppressive government. The Second Amendment was never intended to solely provide hunters with firearms. Only 17 percent of gun owners in America are hunters anyway. It’s a specious argument meant to distract us from their real goal: Total disarmament.

You notice that most of these massacres occur in what the left calls “safe gun-free zones”. Safe for who? The shooter? If we really want to stop school massacres from happening there are proposals on the table that make sense.

The NRA has told a “truth that hurts” by proclaiming the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. They suggested we consider putting armed security guards in every school. But where are these people going to come from? We’ve been brought up to believe that job properly belongs to law enforcement personnel, as they have the training and the authority to stop the bad guys. The key issue is proximity. If the guards were at the schools they could react in time. Maybe we could take a portion of these TSA airport screeners and re-deploy them to the schools.

But we need more than that because there still won’t be enough airport screeners-turned-school protectors to keep our children and ourselves safe. The citizens need to be trained. An American should know how to shoot a gun! There are professional firearms training schools such as Front Sight that have offered to fully train any teacher in defensive firearms for free. Let the teachers and school officials defend themselves if they choose to and are properly trained.

What needs to be addressed is the mental health of these killers. These individuals are loners who isolate themselves, often raised on some over-prescribed psychotropic drug. They consume dozens of lengthy “kill-a-thon” movies and spend hours daily immersed in a violent video game fantasy world where the player slays people by the hundreds. Movies, television, and the gaming industry glorify killing, yet from the left we hear nothing but crickets chirping.

It is a stark difference from the 1970s when the leftists demanded we remove cigarette and liquor ads from television, deeming those 15 second ads to be so mind altering that they drove scads of youth to smoke and drink. Fifteen seconds versus hundreds of hours. We now have a generation raised on violent video games where they may have “fantasy killed” a thousand people on their path to be the best gamer. They have consumed hundreds of killings in movies, TV and video games, yet the left screams the solution is removal of guns from the people who seek to protect themselves with legally owned weapons. How can anyone claim the gun is the culprit? Have triggers suddenly started pulling fingers?

Instead they tell us that the people who legally own firearms, have licenses, and are taught in gun-safety classes to never point a firearm at anyone unless your life is truly in danger, need to give up their guns. The liberals and their echo chamber in the media tell us that the storeowner protecting his store from thieves, the single mom protecting her children, or the rancher protecting his cattle from coyotes is the problem and the depressed loner who goes on a killing spree in a school is the victim.

Make no mistake; the left wants to destroy private firearms ownership in America. They want to confiscate every shotgun, rifle and pistol in America. This is their goal, and every step they take toward it ensures the honest citizen is far less safe from violent crime and from a government that wants total and undeniable control over you. It’s not about guns, nor is it about making schools or theaters safer. It’s all about controlling you.

Ken Johnson, a software industry entrepreneur, routinely contributes to the Opinion page. Contact him at theamericantune@yahoo.com. Send news tips to news.calent@gmail.com.

© 2015 Calaveras Enterprise. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
  • 7 Printed Comments. Unless expressly asked not to publish your comments to stories and posts, we reserve the right to publish your comments in whole or in part, in our printed product.

Welcome to the discussion.

28 comments:

  • Cleareye posted at 1:10 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    Why not ask Australia? They are a sensible country, very similar in history to us.

     
  • Cleareye posted at 1:08 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    The entire "confiscate" line is a simply marketing technique used to drive sales by the manufacturers that pay the exorbitant salaries of their flunkies at the NRA.

     
  • Cleareye posted at 1:05 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    You know you are full of #@*@! The entire argument and all the proposed legislation revolves around what is an "assault weapon." That question and definition must be debated openly and fairly, then a conclusion is reached and laws enacted, if necessary for the better of society as a whole. The Constitution is a living document, intended to be changed as needed, including any amendments.

     
  • Cleareye posted at 12:56 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    Maybe we should not allow men to have guns, but only women? You will not find a case like Sandy Hook committed by a woman, insane or not.

     
  • Cleareye posted at 12:54 pm on Sat, Jun 15, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    Rank hysteria!
    No one, and I mean NO one has suggested the government confiscate all weapons. Your comment is ludicrous. What people want are laws that are reasonable with the intent of identifying people that should not have guns, in the same way as most of us do not have a supply of TNT in storage "just in case!'

     
  • RandyCrow posted at 7:05 pm on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    RandyCrow Posts: 3

    USA has become a Police State and as Paul Craig Roberts wrote recently Police State's don't allow the people to have guns. The ATF has required every gun, shotgun, rifle pistol, purchased to fill out form 4473 since the early 1980. The purchaser can be fined $250,000.00 if he/she lies on the form and the ATF has the legal right to do background checks to verify information is true. The USA has background checks now on all gun sales because all gun sales begin with new gun sales and all new gun sales require ATF form 4473. My guess this new law will require gun owners to registrar their guns. Anyone who doesn't is subject to jail time. It will be easy to find out who has not registrared his/her guns because the Fed already has a Federal Registry from ATF form 4473. So this new registry is about catching current gun owners failing to registrar his/her guns and putting he/she in jail and confiscation guns. This week there were three targeted-killing to get Obam's gun registry passed. The Suwanee fireman hostage, Mathew Warren suicided, and the VA School Mall shooting, 4-5 miles from VaTech and designed to bring back memories of the VTech shooting. The big deal is getting a gun law passed that will allow gun confiscation of existing gun owners guns and putting gun owners in jail for failing to registrar his/her guns.

     
  • Peter Lincoln posted at 1:31 am on Sun, Mar 31, 2013.

    Peter Lincoln Posts: 333

    Men kill children, not guns..

     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 9:07 pm on Fri, Mar 29, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    Because if you can change the facts, you can change just about anything you want to fit your agenda. Facts actually do matter.

     
  • Jerry Tuck posted at 7:25 pm on Fri, Mar 29, 2013.

    Jerry Tuck Posts: 360

    Can we agree that a GUN, or GUNS, was used to kill 20 five and six year olds? Why is the debate raging about the kind of gun used and not about the tiny bodies that had to be scooped up into body bags?

     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 2:04 pm on Thu, Mar 28, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    Are you saying that there is a massive coverup by all the TV stations and the investigators? Here is NBC reporting that the Bushmaster was used

    http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501282-investigators-adam-lanza-surrounded-by-weapons-at-home-attack-took-less-than-5-minutes?lite

    "At the school, Lanza fired the 154 rounds from a Bushmaster .223-model rifle and the final bullet from a Glock 10mm handgun to take his own life, said Stephen Sedensky, the chief prosecutor investigating the shooting. Police recovered 10 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster that Lanza took to the school. Three of the magazines had a full 30 rounds still in them."

    You guys can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

     
  • Jerry Tuck posted at 8:52 pm on Sun, Mar 24, 2013.

    Jerry Tuck Posts: 360

    Shifty, I hope you meant scared and not scarred. I would certainly hate to have any permanent damage attributed to the dread Liberal group and the evil agendas that we and the UN are planning for the true believers.

    Cleareye, you answered your own question; the column begins with something that stupid because that is basically what the treatise is. Agenda 21 just didn't get any traction so now liberals/Democrats/Socialists are plotting to take everyone's guns. People who probably never read the constitution in their lives are now Amendment scholars. This is all smoke and mirrors to keep everyone paranoid and at each others throats while the real agenda, raping this country, is done in the socalled halls of democracy. Please. It is all so boring. I do agree that what you call "tripe" it lowers the overall IQ of the county but I want to read it all so I know what is being said out there. And, as I said in a letter string earlier, if our security forces and national police agencies can't work together to stop terrorists from flying planes into several important buildings then what are the odds that they will ever stop their turf war long enough to decide which outfit gets to come collect our guns. I say "our" because liberals have guns too, guys. I need a drink.

     
  • shifty posted at 12:49 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.

    shifty Posts: 93

    There we agree, I am scarred anytime the Liberals want to do anything....

     
  • Cleareye posted at 11:17 am on Mon, Mar 11, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    "Why do the liberals want to ban the private ownership of firearms?"

    How can this guy expect anyone to read this article when it begins with something so stupid?

     
  • shifty posted at 11:10 am on Mon, Mar 11, 2013.

    shifty Posts: 93

    it is a verified FACT.., the bushmaster was NOT used...

     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 4:38 pm on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmsaFh8cjz0 They show a shotgun in the trunk. The officer said that it not correct that the long gun was in the car.

     
  • kjohnson posted at 8:45 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.

    kjohnson Posts: 197

    Don,

    Hi Don, You may be right that I was lied to by the news services !

    The news outlets I got my info from were CBS, NBC and ABC - and they can be quite off base

    Here is a youtube compilation of their reporting that the Bushmaster was not used.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK8Z5K5M2Dw&feature=player_embedded#!

     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 8:08 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    I don't know what papers you read. He clearly used the Bushmaster and shot himself with a pistol. The shotgun was found in the car. They said he was found with a used 30 round magazine from the Bushmaster. You have your facts all mixed up.

    "A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school, along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun.[19][20][18][21][68] A 30 round magazine was recovered with the rifle."

    "Wayne Carver II, the Chief Medical Examiner of Connecticut, was asked about the wounds, and replied "All the ones that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon."

     
  • shifty posted at 3:05 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    shifty Posts: 93

    again,all of the bickering is IRRELEVANT...Criminals do not buy weapons legally... laws will NOT fix anything except make all the"sheeple" moving targets, I for one say nay nay..

     
  • kjohnson posted at 10:54 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    kjohnson Posts: 197

    Hey Don,

    Thanks for the reply - but there are already huge piles of regulations on the manufacture, sale, transfer and ownership of firearms now. Probably close to 25,000 federal, state and local laws. I am not a black gun guy, I like the old school stuff from the 50's and 60's, but when anyone buys a military style sporter or an engraved Colt pistol they have to fill out a set of federal forms and there is a waiting period where they check you out before you can pick up the purchased firearm. The system works amazingly well now. Mentally unstable folks and criminals are already screened from buying.

    The NRA was/is pushing for a nationwide system where state and federal databases are linked so a person can go to a gun show or store and before they buy a gun they have an instant background check on premise that allows / disallows them to buy a gun. The buyer is cleared and then they can buy a gun or several at the show.

    This system has been blocked by the federal level Democrats since 1989 as they seem to want to make it mind numbingly complex to purchase or own a firearm. The one big issue is the NRA system would encrypt the purchasers data after 2 months of clearing the purchaser, and the Democrats want the data to be retained forever, with no restrictions to outside access to gun owners data, ( aka the New Your paper publishing all gun owners in the newspaper) This leads to the desired Democrat goal as a national registration of all firearms is the backdoor requirement to a confiscation effort.( we believe)

    On the Sandy Hook killing he did not use a bushmaster - it was found in his trunk after he killed himself so unless he made a quick return to his car to lock it up during the shooting, it was never used in the shooting. The demonization of the Bushmmaster fit's the script so that is why it is still associated with the shooting. It was found in a car unfired. Alll were killed with semi auto handguns.

    I still believe that all these wimpy losers choose places where they will meet NO resistance. If anyone had fired a round over this loser's head he would have dropped to the fetal position crying and stopped shooting. He didn't even need to be shot, just made aware he was not the only one with a gun that day and the shooting would have stopped immediately.


     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 8:43 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    Think you got your facts a bit mixed, Ken. The Sandy Hook shooter only used his pistol to kill himself. Otherwise, as I read it, he used the Bushmaster to do all the killing.

    Obviously we aren't going door to door to take guns away, but gun show loopholes need to be closed. Also private parties selling to others without a background check is also a glaring hole. I never said take guns away, but they should be regulated because they are deadly weapons.

    Voting is a right that can be taken away. If someone has a history of violence or mental sickness, I think their right should be suspended. If there are no background checks, it would be a joke. Unfortunately background checks means big brother to a lot of people who don't trust their own government. Where do you distinguish the rights of the individual vs. the laws of the government to protect people?

     
  • kjohnson posted at 4:24 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    kjohnson Posts: 197

    Hi Don,

    In a recent DOJ memo from January 4, 2013 "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies" the Obama Justice Department states that an assault weapons ban would not be effective without mandatory gun confiscation. This is on the record.

    The State of Washington Democrats just today were discovered trying to get a gun control bill pushed thru their State Legislature that would require an annual unannounced home visit and inspection by a police officer if you own certain types of guns.

    In California we have right now about a dozen Democrat sponsored gun control bills that cover all sorts of people controlling legislation that lead to confiscation. The logic is we must do something or we will lose our liberal funding base even if it is unconstitutional or completely useless.

    Here is how the story will play out. Gun owners must all be identified. This can be accomplished by mandatory registration schemes and thru the outlawing of private party sales unless government approved forms and transfer papers are instituted. The CA Dems are scheming to get all guns recorded so they know where they are, who owns them and of course this provides a master list for a future confiscation effort. All in the name of "Public Safety"

    You mention the "no one needs" argument to justify your leanings to certain gun control and eventual confiscation, such as 30 round magazines, certain military styled rifles etc. The fact is that same argument can be used to restrict all guns, all ammunition, all private ownership rights.

    Who needs to hunt when we have plenty of protein in the stores ? Who needs to defend themselves with a firearmn when the liability laws and firearms use laws are so stacked against shooting an intruder ? Who needs to go shooting at a gun range as a sport when there are plenty of other activities that are safer and more politically approved ?

    Also the Sandy Hook shooter did his damage entirely with handguns. No "assault rifle" was used. In fact he went to buy a .223 sporter Bushmaster, and was denied the sale at a gun dealer as he was not legally able to own a firearm. So he killed his mother and stole her locked away firearms. The now infamous Bushmaster was in his trunk and he used normal ordinary handguns. So if we believe school shootings happen because handguns with detachable magazines exist then we need to restrict all handguns with magazines - right ?

    The only way gun control will truly work is to outlaw the private ownership of firearms and ammunition, go door to door with an armed team and physically check each and every home to find, confiscate and destroy the weapons. Can you magine that playing out ? I can't and I do not think it will ever come to that but that is the only way to make it work.

    Short of that - your "common sense gun control" only affects the law abiding and not the crazies or the criminals.

    Please connect the dots - how will taking your neighbors military styled firearm away make schools safer ? How will taking a 30 round magazine away from a Oklahoma rancher make you safe ? How will passing hundreds of useless gun control laws make you safer ?

    Ken

     
  • kjohnson posted at 3:59 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.

    kjohnson Posts: 197

    Hi - appreciate your reading the column - you and Don Urbanus have similar questions so I have posted answers below under Don's comment.

     
  • JerryA posted at 5:04 pm on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    JerryA Posts: 39

    Wow, it is amazing what you wrote. I've been involved in the fight to keep and bear arms in California for years and I've seen confiscations take place before my eyes and these were legal firearms. All over the country anti-gun Democrats are either proposing or want to propose prohibitions that demand citizens relinquish certain legal arms. This country is getting scary, especially many Americans in how they look at the Bill of Rights.

     
  • Cleareye posted at 3:52 pm on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    Cleareye Posts: 642

    This kind of intellectual tripe is the result of our failing schools that teach kids the earth is flat and created in 6 days, etc.
    Nowhere in America is anyone proposing confiscating guns and disarming law abiding citizens. This is all a fantasy created from whole cloth by someone either unbelievably ignorant or simply lying for the sake of profit.
    It demeans any community to have this trash published even though I support the Enterprise for doing so.

     
  • JerryA posted at 1:05 pm on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    JerryA Posts: 39

    Ken is right on the money, those of you that think gun confiscation is not a real thing, then wake up and smell the coffee. In Sacramento, AB174, introduced by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, (D-Oakland) proposes the removing the grandfather clause of SB-23, SB-23 was a ban on so-called "assault weapons" that was pushed by Don Perata, former pro-tem. The clause in bill allowed law abiding gun owners to register those scary rifles if they wanted to keep them or else turn them in or get them out of the state. Thousands of law abiding gun owners in California did just that, in good faith registered them believing the government of California would keep their word and not go after them, however AB-174 reneges on that. In Missouri, Democrat lawmakers have introduced House Bill No. 545 a bill that gives Missourian's 90 days to turn in their rifles. When Diane Feinstein pushed her gun ban in 1993, she wanted all Americans to turn in their sem-auto rifles or go to jail, but she did not have the support in the legislature at the time. This is only the beginning, if you read the game plan of the gun prohibitionists, they want them all and its no exaggeration.

     
  • Dond posted at 10:27 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Dond Posts: 2

    In other news:

    Bret Harte High School Braces for Looming Layoffs - So, who is going to pay for the TSA-like security detail you envision? They can't even afford enough teachers!

    And the one about the elderly airline captain who shot his kids and then himself - Here's a pretty good example of someone who probably shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun, what with the arrests, the anger management issues and history of substance abuse. This story refutes your idea that killers are all amped up on violent video games, unless you are talking about flight simulators.

     
  • Dond posted at 10:07 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    Dond Posts: 2

    Apparently no-one reads this, but here is some input that you may find helpful.

    First of all, no-one is suggesting that the government "take away your guns." No-one. In case you didn't understand that, here it is again: No-one is suggesting that the government take away your guns. What is happening instead is that many people on the left and on the right are noticing that this country is awash in unregulated firearms and are suggesting moderate reforms to try to restrict the amount of guns getting into the hands of criminals and lunatics. For you to suggest that someone wants to "take away" your guns makes you sound like a crazy person - someone who is living out a paranoid fantasy of armed resistance against an enemy that is unseen by people around you.

    These moderate reforms include things like closing the gun-show loophole and outlawing huge magazines that enable bad guys to kill many, many people without having to reload so often. These moderate reforms will bring guns more in line with the common-sense standards that are in place for cars. It's pretty similar to the way people are required to get a drivers license in order to drive. The general idea is, although cars are meant to transport people and goods they can be dangerous, so folks have to prove a minimum level of competency in order to drive, and the state keeps records of who owns which car through license plates and registration. Same with guns - although they are meant to kill animals and poke holes through pieces of paper, we generally want to keep them out of the hands of little children or criminals or crazy people. It turns out that it's hard to do that if you don't have any realistic registration or licensing of guns.

    Another way to look at it is the way certain weapons are illegal - rocket launchers and hand grenades and vials of anthrax, for example. We don't walk around saying, Why punish bazookas, bazookas don't kill people, bazooka triggers don't pull people's fingers - because that would sound kind of insane, wouldn't it? No, bazookas are dangerous enough that they are illegal. And yet it IS an imposition upon us good Christian people who simply want bazookas for target practice and self defense, because we can't get bazookas. It may well end up being a similar imposition on you - because, like a car, you may someday be required to register your guns and prove some minimum level of competency and responsibility. And you may be required to reload more frequently when you are making holes in pieces of paper, which will be quite an inconvenience.

    Noticing that there is a problem is a good first step, but your solutions don't seem very realistic. Running schools like TSA checkpoints, for example, indicates that you (a) don't have kids, (b) don't prioritize education, and (c) are from another planet. Because, are you serious? Really? And arming teachers and janitors is insane, unless you want to train them all in combat and gun safety. School principals and police associations are horrified at this possibility. And who is going to pay for a TSA checkpoint in every school? Might you be suggesting that gun owners pay a special tax or a registration fee that could be used to fund well-trained armed guards in every school - and while you're at it, in every movie theater, bus stop, and restaurant as well? Because they are going to need to be better-armed and better-trained than the bad guys, and right now the bad guys have huge stashes of military assault weapons with extended clips.

    Or didn't you know that there was an armed guard at Columbine High School?

     
  • risingsuncaltelcom posted at 9:55 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    risingsuncaltelcom Posts: 188

    Interesting. I've never heard anyone suggest that all guns should be taken away. Guns that can shoot 30 bullets in 30 seconds maybe, but all guns? This is something that the NRA keeps repeating and it is dead on arrival. It's just a scare tactic. I've read that a majority of people agree that there should be more background checks - especially at gun shows where a mentally disturbed person could get a gun. Apparently 40% of all guns sales are from private citizens to people who never get a background check. I think the main goal should be to keep guns out of the hands of violent and unstable people - if you can. Even if that had been done, it still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook slaughter though. Let people have their guns - but get a background check. It should be like getting a car. Take a test. Get a license. Of course, people drive without licenses too. It might not stop them all, but it would stop some of them from getting a gun.