Thoughts on Gun Control

Was watching Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson last night and was impressed with some of the ideas they expressed.

  1. 100 kids were shot in the south side of Chicago last weekend alone which falls within a ten block radius. Gang banger crime constitutes 70% of all gun shootings/murders in this country. They buy on the black market from drug cartels and due to the suspension of “stop and frisk” (a wildly  successful strategy in NYC in the 90s under the reign of the G-man), it has become far easier to buy and own an illegal weapon. Any hand-wringing on these types of purchases?
  2. Let’s own up to this: There is a mental illness issue going on in this country and many people pass through background checks because and -I DID NOT KNOW THIS- MDs are prevented from (due to doctor/patient privilege)  releasing mental records to the public. I believe in personal privacy but there are many instances when you deserve to lose those rights- applications for FBI/CIA/ NYPD/FDNY and the purchase of an AK-47 and AR-15 which are deadly military weapons.

What Tucker and Sean were trying to express is that we have good rules on the books but they are not being executed properly. Gun ownership is certainly an American right but without proper oversight, it will be taken away- mark my words.

This is not a new story. For heaven’s sake, one of our most important founders Alexander Hamilton was shot down like a dog by the VP of the United States!

4+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

92 thoughts on “Thoughts on Gun Control”

  1. The laws on the books must be enforced, but there should be no additional ground ceded to the left via either expanded background checks or red-flag laws.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. EThompson:
    This is not a new story. For heaven’s sake, one of our most important founders Alexander Hamilton was shot down like a dog by the VP of the United States!

    “[S]hot down like a dog”?  Really?  The Burr-Hamilton duel was conducted under the rules of personal duelling in effect at the time.  Hamilton fired and missed, with his shot breaking a tree branch directly above Burr’s head.  Burr’s shot hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen, from which he died the next day.  Duelling was legal at the time, and although Burr was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey, he was either acquitted of the charges or they were dismissed in all cases.

    This was a freely-contracted duel between two men, conducted according to pre-arranged rules agreed to by both, and followed in the duel.

    I do not see how this can be characterised as “shot down like a dog”.  When you shoot a dog, the dog does not agree to the combat, and is not armed with equal lethal force.

    8+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. John Walker:

    EThompson:
    This is not a new story. For heaven’s sake, one of our most important founders Alexander Hamilton was shot down like a dog by the VP of the United States!

    “[S]hot down like a dog”?  Really?  The Burr-Hamilton duel was conducted under the rules of personal duelling in effect at the time.  Hamilton fired and missed, with his shot breaking a tree branch directly above Burr’s head.  Burr’s shot hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen, from which he died the next day.  Duelling was legal at the time, and although Burr was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey, he was either acquitted of the charges or they were dismissed in all cases.

    This was a freely-contracted duel between two men, conducted according to pre-arranged rules agreed to by both, and followed in the duel.

    I do not see how this can be characterized as “shot down like a dog”.  When you shoot a dog, the dog does not agree to the combat, and is not armed with equal lethal force.

    Read Chernow’s Hamilton. The dueling system was illegal in the state of New York so that is why it occurred in New Jersey. At that point in history, duels were a highly scripted drama and there was an unwritten law that you did shoot but purposely missed. It was all about ‘saving face.’ Aaron Burr did not abide by this and managed to kill a great American.

    He paid for it dearly and ended up dying on Staten Island alone and reputation destroyed.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. EThompson:
    an AK-47 and AR-15 which are deadly military weapons.

    Pardon, but your ignorance is showing.  The AK-47 is indeed a military weapon.  But there are numerous civilian-grade versions (not full automatic) that tend to also be called that.  The AR-15, on the other hand, is and has always been a civilian firearm.  It is the not-fully-automatic version of the military M-16.

    Aside from that, the history of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right applies to weapons suited to the general militia, that is, military firearms.  And of course, “deadly” applies to every firearm.  Your use of “deadly” is a rhetorical flourish that suggests you support gun control.  And hints at your condescension towards the deplorables who own such firearms.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. Phil Turmel:
    Pardon, but your ignorance is showing.

    I’d be happy to have a conversation about this topic, but I will not tolerate incivility and rudeness. You need to take a class in how to put forth an argument in a civil manner, but I know the PTBs will never call you on this one.

    Pls just ignore this post.

    0

  6. Mike LaRoche:
    The laws on the books must be enforced, but there should be no additional ground ceded to the left via either expanded background checks or red-flag laws.

    Not even mental illness? I’m getting so irritated at this point I think parents of minors who kill should be held accountable as well.

    0

  7. EThompson:
    I’d be happy to have a conversation about this topic, but I will not tolerate incivility and rudeness.

    Your original post contained misstatements of fact.  Misstatements of fact are best attributed to ignorance.  Calling them out is a correct statement of fact, and as I see it, neither incivil nor rude.  When people repeat talking points which are factually incorrect without educating themselves on what they’re talking about (for example, the AR-15 as a “deadly military weapon” when, in fact, it has never been the issued to any military, anywhere, and has such low power that it is not legal for deer hunting in some states), then there is nothing incivil nor rude in correcting these misstatements.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. EThompson:
    In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight selective fire rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle model 15, or AR-15.

    I suggest you keep up with your reading. And btw, don’t either of you ever call me ignorant again; I’ve read more about military history than you’ve forgotten.

    A select fire rifle is one capable of either semi-automatic (one shot per pull on the trigger) or full automatic (fires as long as the trigger is pulled) operation.  That is what “select” means.  The original rifle designed by Armalite and designated the AR-15 was adopted by the military as the M-16, a select fire (optionally full automatic) weapon.  All of the rifles sold today to civilians as “AR-15”s, “AR”s, or “M4” variants are semi-automatic only (non select fire).  It is illegal to sell newly-manufactured full automatic weapons to civilians in the U.S., and legacy full automatic weapons can be sold only under severe restrictions.  Thus, every weapon in civilian hands today which is called an “AR-15” (or variants of the designation) is a semi-automatic weapon which has no commonality with the Armalite prototype with that designation or the select fire (full automatic) weapons derived from it.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. I feel compelled to rebut the thrust of the original post – which seems to me to be saying we must cede some ground so that Second Amendment rights are not eliminated completely. I submit that the left is fighting a strategically total, but tactically incremental war on gun ownership, which will never end short of total confiscation. Recently, for the first time, some of them have become sufficiently bold to say that “You’re right. We are coming for your guns.” I also want to affirm John’s comment: an AR-15 is not a military weapon. Neither is it an “assault rifle.” That is an intentional misrepresentation in furtherance of emotional, not rational, policy making. Neither did I find the factual corrections to be impolite. The post actually suggests to me the effectiveness of the left’s relentless and dishonest tactics in furthering their agenda of stigmatizing everything and anything about guns. We must take care to not be even marginally or linguistically disarmed by their relentless lies and calls for “reasonable” gun control. There are plenty of regulations in place and, like the rest of law, they are most easily enforced against the law-abiding. Gang-bangers and career criminals – not so much.

    I would also think long and hard before encouraging doctors to become like unto the Stazi. Schools of public health are manned from top to bottom by Marxists – statists to the max; folks who think a medical history ought to include an inventory of guns in the home. Red flag laws are an invitation to abuse by anyone with an ax to grind against any gun owner. After enactment, expect activists to go after any neighbor they know to be a gun owner; there are such types even in my own neighborhood, armed with self-righteous anger, ready to war for social justice. It will be ugly.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. I tend to think of gun ownership and horse ownership in the same terms. Once, both were essential to productive existence.  You had to have horses if you were to go into town to participate  in citizens’ meetings, move your wares or produce to market.  Once, you had to have firearms if you were to protect your produce or your livestock, by which you lived, from marauding animals.  And from marauding hostiles, be they Indian tribes or outlaws.

    I’m from Appalachia, and all my life, the culture of hunting was very important here…I’d like to think it still is, but sadly I can’t help noticing that the young’uns aren’t really into it.   Meat is cheap and reliably available; you don’t hafta go out in a freezing dawn and wait for venison to stroll by…so…they don’t.  So then, what do they really need guns for?  They’re the stuff of hobbies.  Like horses.

    i think it’s very important for the populace to remain armed.    But people tend to assume that the circumstances they’ve known during their own lives will endure forever.  As increasingly likely as it actually is, most people cannot imagine a scenario wherein the only protection they have for their lives,liberty and property  will be their own individual weaponry.

    ”Comfort, content, delight, /The ages’ hard-fought gain:/They vanished in a night!/ Only ourselves remain.”  as Kipling wrote.   We are surrendering—gladly, willingly! the last vestiges of personal security.  And when the time comes, again, when “only ourselves remain”, I think we will regret that surrender.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. This is one of the issues that conservatives put out facts and logic but miss the rhetoric points. They come out as unfeeling and wanting to see people die. We have to hit back with about the same emotional level. The left only sees guns as killing good people so there needs to be stories of guns protecting good people. These stories need to be as famous as the mass shootings.

    We are in a lot of trouble when we show up to a rhetorical fight with “pea shooters” when they have “semi-automatic weapons”.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  12. Hypatia:
    I think it’s very important for the populace to remain armed.    But people tend to assume that the circumstances they’ve known during their own lives will endure forever.  As increasingly likely as it actually is, most people cannot imagine a scenario wherein the only protection they have for their lives, liberty and property  will be their own individual weaponry.

    As always, it’s important to think more than one move ahead.  The main reason an armed population is so important to the preservation of liberty is not that they will be able able to defeat the military forces of a tyrannical government in a pitched battle (although the lesson of history is that they probably will, especially if the defenders are numerous and have the support of the population at large), but rather that their mere presence will deter attempts to impose tyranny in the first place.  Just as the uncertainty of whether a potential victim may be armed deters an individual criminal, the presence of an armed citizenry deters would-be tyrants, which is why they always put disarming the populace near the top of their agenda.

    As L. Neil Smith wrote in Down with Power,

    If you remember nothing else … remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons.

    10+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. 10 Cents:
    The left only sees guns as killing good people so there needs to be stories of guns protecting good people.

    The left needs to acknowledge that the majority of mass gun killings happen in Chicago and Baltimore by gang bangers who are certainly not passing background checks. Where is the outrage about this?

    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    Let’s start at the top of the food chain, shall we?

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  14. EThompson:

    10 Cents:
    The left only sees guns as killing good people so there needs to be stories of guns protecting good people.

    The left needs to acknowledge that the majority of mass gun killings happen in Chicago and Baltimore by gang bangers who are certainly not passing background checks. Where is the outrage about this?

    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    Let’s start at the top of the food chain, shall we?

    You are going with facts. That doesn’t change minds as much as stories. Individual stories told powerfully mean something. The left does this really well and has moved society.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. EThompson:
    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    What is the evidence that any substantial fraction of these shootings have involved weapons imported illegally into the United States?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  16. civil westman:
    I would also think long and hard before encouraging doctors to become like unto the Stazi.

    Give me a break! If somebody is mentally unstable there should be limits on their gun ownership. We have limits on drivers with bad records, credit checks on people applying for mortgages and car leases, but nothing on the mentally insane roaming the streets with “clean” records. Surely hope one of your relatives doesn’t because a victim of a mass shooting because more are coming.

    0

  17. 10 Cents:

    EThompson:

    10 Cents:
    The left only sees guns as killing good people so there needs to be stories of guns protecting good people.

    The left needs to acknowledge that the majority of mass gun killings happen in Chicago and Baltimore by gang bangers who are certainly not passing background checks. Where is the outrage about this?

    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    Let’s start at the top of the food chain, shall we?

    You are going with facts. That doesn’t change minds as much as stories. Individual stories told powerfully mean something. The left does this really well and has moved society.

    This is in large part because their propaganda arm, the MSM, refuses to publicize defensive, proper and courageous use of weapons by average people. They are obviously suppressing news of typical Chicago weekends; it does not further the narrative. Fake non-news both.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  18. The  soviets had many more insane asylums than prisons.  Dissenters had to be insane,right. Be very leery of red flag laws. They will grow like affirmative action laws. Make zero more compromises on guns.

    8+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. John Walker:

    EThompson:
    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    What is the evidence that any substantial fraction of these shootings have involved weapons imported illegally into the United States?

    Are you kidding me? These are teenage boys with juvenile records a mile long. Drug cartels are in the business of gun smuggling because they need them the most to protect turf.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  20. EThompson:

    John Walker:

    EThompson:
    Why aren’t we beefing up our DEA agencies who not only deal with drug cartels but the biggest importers of illegal weapons in the country?

    What is the evidence that any substantial fraction of these shootings have involved weapons imported illegally into the United States?

    Are you kidding me? These are teenage boys with juvenile records a mile long. Drug cartels are in the business of gun smuggling because they need them the most to protect turf.

    What is the evidence that any substantial fraction of these shootings have involved weapons imported illegally into the United States?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  21. John Walker:
    The main reason an armed population is so important to the preservation of liberty is not that they will be able able to defeat the military forces of a tyrannical government in a pitched battle (although the lesson of history is that they probably will, especially if the defenders are numerous and have the support of the population at large), but rather that their mere presence will deter attempts to impose tyranny in the first place.

    This argument is old news. I could own a cadre of high-powered weapons but I certainly doubt I could defend myself against the National Guard let alone a platoon of Marines.

    My point is that I believe wholeheartedly in the second amendment but owning a gun is a responsibility not unlike owning a car or a house and it is blatantly obvious that mentally disturbed people are getting access due to inefficient background checks. I’m only suggesting that mental disorders should be included in these checks otherwise we can continue to lose the lives of children in high schools.

    Hypatia was right in suggesting the times they are a-changing.

    0

  22. PhCheese:
    The  soviets had many more insane asylums than prisons.  Dissenters had to be insane,right. Be very leery of red flag laws. They will grow like affirmative action laws. Make zero more compromises on guns.

    Yes!  Thank you for reminding us of that!   And our  country gave in to it, too: witness the institutionalization of Ezra Pound.

    This is very difficult.  On one hand, we want to recognize the fact that anyone who wants to commit a mass shooting has  to be insane.  And that’s true, right?   But we can’t ignore the danger in applying this pre-emptively.  It may lead, and we know it  has led,  to imprisoning/institutionalizing people with dissenting views.

    I think the only way to view guns is  the way we view cars.  Yes, they kill a lot of people.  But the benefits of universal personal mobility outweigh the awful blood cost.  (And BTW this isn’t inconsistent with what I said about horses, above:  horses are dangerous too, and many people died by being thrown, like Palmerston and King William, and in carriage accidents..) So with guns: the benefits of availability of personal self-defense, you might even say maintenance of survival skills once needed and always potentially needed again, outweigh the lamentable fact that guns are often the choice of aberrant individuals who turn murderous.  No one called for banning cars after that cretin backed over that girl in Charlottesville, Va.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply