As someone who has grown up around firearms of all kinds in a military town in west Texas where September 1 (Dove season) and November 1 (Deer season) are practically considered state holidays you can bet I’m on the 2nd Amendment side of things. A young boy would always look forward to receiving his first gun, typically a BB gun, then a .22 and finally a larger caliber rifle suitable for deer, a .223, .243, .270 or the venerable .30-.30. A real “man’s” gun.
Father’s would take great care to teach their sons not only to shoot well but safely, to care for their firearms and respect their lethality.
Not everyone has grown up in this way but one thing is for sure, firearms are part and parcel an American tradition in many ways. I’m not going to rehash the 2nd Amendment, it’s very clear on what it says and Madison’s intent is without question. Those that wish to alter the 2nd may certainly attempt to do so but to interpret it via some Utopian goofball logic just won’t cut it. The ‘right to bear arms’ means just that and quite frankly if we were really following this to the letter it would mean the same today as it did 200 years ago, what you possessed then was equivalent to what the Continental Army soldier carried. End of debate as far as I’m concerned.
Fast forward to today. Our President and his followers have decided that this is a grand opportunity to do something they have always wanted to do, start the disarming process of American citizens. Dont’ think so? Think again. One might ask, ‘why would our government want to do this?’, and that is THE question. It’s very simple really. What stands between us as citizens and a corrupt government? What defines a corrupt government?
The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the Constitution and hence our rights as citizens of the Republic. But really, what can we do against an armored division? While bearing arms is our right they won’t necessarily protect us from an all out military onslaught. So what really protects us? How about an oath? Every member of the military vows to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Pretty simple. But will the commanding General of a Division honor that oath if given the order to roll in to your city? Will the Colonel in charge of a Brigade consider that his oath was to the Constitution and not to a temporary seat warmer in the oval office? What if the Constitution was amended by an unlikely majority of both houses? This probably won’t happen all at once, no, it’s the slow erosion, the sleight of hand over time to lull their constituency in to a sense of well being. This was all started in 1934 by the National Firearms Act and again in 1968 via the Gun Control Act then the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 that finally died off in 2004.
So here we are again, another attack against the 2nd with a proposed renewal of an Assault Weapons Ban on steroids and 23 Executive Actions signed today by President Obama…none of which will do a damn thing to protect the defenseless. You think differently? Ok, let’s take a look at all 23 actions. Take some aspirin now, preventative for the headache you will have in a few minutes. I’ll score each item as I deem fit as it relates to ‘addressing gun violence’.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
What ‘relevant data’ is that and who decides what is relevant? This should really concern all law abiding citizens as it’s very open ended. As an idea it get’s a C, relying on our government to execute it receives an F and hoping that our government doesn’t abuse this get’s a ‘WTF are you thinking?’.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Here we go, tie in Obamacare with gun ownership. Federally mandated taxation coupled with firearm reporting, see any danger there? And just what are those ‘unnecessary legal barriers’ anyway? F for the same reasons as above.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Incentives? You mean, like we will cut off funding for X, Y and Z if you don’t tell us what we want to know? F again.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Oh great, so our Fast and Furious AG Holder is going to decide who is ‘dangerous’ and who may or may not have a gun? Anyone see anything wrong with giving one man this much power? I’m not sure I can even grade this. If you turned this in as a paper in school the teacher would have to report you under these very same rules as being dangerous.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
So, why was the gun seized to begin with? What if that person purchased that gun legally in 2005 but has it seized in 2013 because it was used while defending his home? Somewhere in between the law abiding citizen ran afoul of one of those ‘laws’ that our AG has deemed to describe someone as dangerous? Now his gun is gone. You think I’m stretching things a bit here? I’m simply applying open ended assumptions to open ended Executive Actions. As the gun was stolen or lost it’s not with it’s legal owner anymore, so how does this stop gun violence? F.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Well, that’s brilliant. You mean IF legislation is passed requiring person to person buyers to undergo a background check that the ATF wouldn’t know to send out this information? I’ll call this one ‘filler’. Failed again.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
WTF is that? So the crazy bastards like Holmes and Lanza would have been stopped by this ‘campaign’? I’m all for firearm safety courses and training, the NRA along with dozens of other organizations have been doing this for decades. Welcome to the party but it won’t stop murders. Ok, gun safety campaigns on the surface are good but this is already being handled…another Fail.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Safety standards for gun locks and safes? Let me simplify this for ya… they all work very well IF you use them. I’ll say this much, legal firearms owners should be held accountable for securing their weapons. Lanza’s mother knew damn good and well that she had a mentally unstable young man living in her home and as a gun owner she should have secured her firearms from him. She paid for that mistake with her life and the lives of 26 others. But how is reviewing safety standards going to keep this from happening again? Worthless and simply providing more federal jobs for the CPS Commission. Fail again, gun safes and locks already work well, how to get people to use them is the problem.. Neverquit says tax breaks are good but that would reward us evil gun owners.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
More taxpayer money to the feds. So does this apply to local law enforcement and don’t they have access to the FBI’s national database for this? Our resident LEO ‘OldBear’ will chime in on this. Ok, not a bad idea if it’s not already being done…but again, how does this stop gun violence? I’ll give a D simply for not being totally stupid.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Ok, if this isn’t being done already then I’ll give them this one. If one of my guns is stolen and turns up in Ohio I’d like it back thank you very much. I’m just not sure how this protects our children… Fail.
continued…
Gonna finally get around to nominating someone who knows which end is which on a firearm? I notice this is number 11, bury it in the middle so no one will notice. Like it will matter. Fail.
I’m all for that as long as it doesn’t include ‘children should simply huddle in the corner’ so they can be shot at will. I think this is really a state/local issue though and should be handled by such agencies. Ok, so the idea is valid but already being handled and should be a local issue, not Fed. Get’s a B.
Since law enforcement isn’t already trying hard enough to stop crime. Worthless because it’s redundant. Fail.
Oh man… I love this one. Enlist the CDC to figure out why people shoot people. It’s not a disease bub, it’s someone getting pissed off at another or defending their own lives. New defense in court. “I caught the bird flu and started shooting people.” Fail again…
Again, let’s enlist our illustrious AG to lead the way on gun safety. “I’ve got this really good idea, build a steel box to store guns in, no one will be able to use them” “Uh, sir, it’s called a gun safe.” Ok, maybe biometric mechanisms on guns which are already being designed and there are plenty of biometric gun safes out there. What next, mind controlled weapons? Whatever, it’s real simple, secure your weapons. I’ll give a D out of charity.
“We want you docs to know that you can ask about weapons so you can report them to us”.. the ‘do you have weapons in your house’ questions. See how Obamacare keeps working it’s way in to this? There was some Snopes stories that were false out there very similar to this… not false now. If you show up at the hospital with gunshot wounds guess what? Cops will show up and report made, not to the Feds mind you but locally where it really matters. More worthless questioning with what I suspect are ulterior motives.. F.
Uh huh… once again “we want to remind you doctors that you can and should tell us everything you can about gun owners”. Just a friendly reminder. F again as above.
Oh goody, can we arm them? Wait, what is a ‘school resource officer’ anyway? Let me guess, an unarmed individual there to help detect violent students? You mean, like a teacher? If they are armed you get an A.. if not, another Fail. (read more in the next post below)
Again, a local function that is typically already on the books and not just for schools or churches but for any location where there might be large numbers of people. More local responsibilities that are probably being dealt with… you get a D only because it’s a good idea but should be kicked out of class for plagiarism.
They don’t know already? Could it be because Medicaid rules are as convoluted as our tax laws? No help here.. Fail.
Finalize what regulations? Oh yeah, they had to pass it in order to see what was in there. What does this have to do with school safety or preventing mass murder? If someone is not getting mental health because of insurance regs then ok.. it’s a B.. if that’s not really the problem then another F.
Uh huh, still haven’t completed this in the last 4 years? Fail again and really redundant.
Oh good, let’s talk about it some more, especially with people who won’t be here in a few years. One last F. Action, not words is what is needed.
There sure seems to be a lot in here about mental health but no real meat, just feel good ‘actions’ to talk about things some more and share the information.
Overall O’s list of 23 is an abject failure at best and should be viewed even by his loyal fans as a pure waste of ink. Someone should reimburse the child props for their time. This is the kind of lame crap that gives government a bad name, lots of motion but no real action.
So back to the real issue, securing our children and ‘addressing gun violence’.
1. Lock the doors at school, let’s not make it too easy.
2. Highly trained armed security, a ratio of 1 per ? needs to be established.
3. Give X amount of teachers the option to train and carry as a last line of defense.
4. Consider true safe rooms in class rooms or at least make sure there are secondary routes of escape. Don’t heard defenseless children in to a corner with no hope of escape, only to be slaughtered like the children in CT.
5. Secure your weapons. I think tax breaks for gun safes is a brilliant idea (Neverquit). Penalize those whose guns are used in murders because they were not secured. Under my laws, if Lanza’s mother were still alive she would be facing some serious charges. If I leave my gun unattended and the neighbor kid breaks in and steals it then shoots another neighbor he will face justice…but so will I for not bearing the responsibility of securing my weapons.
You can not and will not be able to filter out the lunatics and criminals that exist outside of the law so you better have proactive security in place. Once again, if you want secure schools you must implement school security. Clicking your heels together and wishing happy thoughts won’t cut it.
Next up, assault weapons ban by Feinstein (which will never get past the House and probably not the Senate either). I’ll preempt that discussion with these questions. What happens when these new ‘executive actions’ and any laws that are passed don’t work and the killings continue? Will the government decide that all guns must be turned in? I ask this because with over 300 million weapons out there what will stop the next nutcase from obtaining/stealing a gun of any kind and killing defenseless children?
The erosion of rights all in the name of stopping ‘gun violence’ will eventually lead to total confiscation if the trend continues. Now you know the definition of a corrupt government but by the time you realize this it’s too late, your only line of defense is gone. What will you do when they come knocking?
School Resource Officers: Per NASRO,
Quote
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Oh goody, can we arm them? Wait, what is a ‘school resource officer’ anyway? Let me guess, an unarmed individual there to help detect violent students? You mean, like a teacher? If they are armed you get an A.. if not, another Fail.
So, what is the fucking difference in an SRO and armed security that the NRA proposed…. which I might add that the MSM completely shot down as nuts.
I think we have some serious double speak and political posturing going on instead of actually working towards some solutions to curb gun violence in America. Seeing that Obama has this “school resource office” statement in his executive orders, and this will, undoubtedly be buried inside any legislation introduced to Congress, when the House does not pass it, the Dems on the extreme left will then be in a position to say “we gave them what they wanted” and they still refused.
I had some ideas that will help, all voluntary on the part of legal gun owners. Solid ideas that will expand firearm education and safety, and one idea that will help aid victims of gun violence – and will not affect the fair market price of firearms:
Provide tax break incentives for citizens who have purchased gun safes and trigger locks in the last 5 or 10 years.
Make all firearm safety courses tax deductible for firearm owners.
Provide one free (voucher, whatever) 10 round magazine for every 20 or 30 round magazine turned into local law enforcement.
Create a fund for victims of gun violence and add 1% surcharge to every firearm sale and transfer to fund it, and make this tax deductible as well.
I think Americans who are not educated or experienced with firearms need a better understanding of which firearms are the problems in our society. Some “bullet” points to consider:
*Assault weapons are not in the top ten firearms used in crimes.
*99.9% of citizens who legally own labeled “assault weapons” never commit a violent crime with a firearm.
*Nine of the top 10 firearms used in violent crimes are handguns, the 10th is a shotgun, the MOST popular firearm in the world for sporting use.
(This is according to statistics from the BATF, list is derived from the ATF’s investigations of 88,570 guns recovered from crime scenes in 46 cities in 2000.)
*The Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to stop Columbine.
*The State of Connecticut already has a 10 round magazine law.
They’re going after the wrong firearms, and acting like they are doing something good.
Quote
To answer your question: When anything with a serial number is stolen, or otherwise missing somehow, and you report it to a LEO, that information is immediately (at least in our case with computers in the cars) available to every police department in the Nation that has access to “NCIC” (National Crime Information Center”). The serial number is just a click away from the officer in the field.
On the other hand… If Joe Doakes sells a firearm to Sam Smith, as a private sale, there is no record of the transaction and the last entry available is the first buyer from an NFL Dealer. It may have changed hands a dozen times between when it was bought and when it gets tagged by a LEO.
“Now”, does that mean I agree with total background checks for all firearm transfers? NO! “Why?”, you ask. Very simple. First of all it is rediculous to force grandpa to get a background check on his favorite grandson who is, by the way, a Federal LEO, before he can transfer his favorite 1911 .45 ACP to this fine young American Patriot. This is simply a backdoor to total registration. Every thing this administration has done regarding firearms has been with an eye to disarming the honest, law-abiding American Citizen.
This is not all I believe, but have other things to get done right now.
“More Later”. 🙂
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The battle of Athens, Tennessee, following WWII is just one example of why our Founding Fathers made our citizen right to keep and bear arms, without interferance by calculating politicians, a RIGHT.
A very interesting review of our recent (WWII) history.　 An even more interesting statement by our present-day government:
“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among “terrorist risks to the U.S.A.”
This attitude proves beyond any doubt that the administrative branch of our present day government considers itself to be an enemy of the very citizens who have risked everything to protect our freedoms.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/#ixzz2IN9bKicG
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
******************************************************
The Battle of Athens, Ga., at the end of WWII clearly shows our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were　 talking about when they said: “”¦Shall not be infringed.”:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
ï‚·
how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
ï‚·
why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
ï‚·
how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of “law and order”.
Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression – as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield – is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.
Since 1915, officials of seven governments “gone bad” have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. “Gun control” clears the way for genocide by giving governments “gone bad” far greater freedom to commit mass murder.
Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by “gun control”. McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.
This is a bare bones summary of a major report in JPFO’s Firearms Sentinel (January 1995). To learn how the gutsy people of Athens, Tennessee did the Framers of the Constitution proud, send $3 to JPFO, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53207; and request the January 1995 Firearms Sentinel. This document is from:
chiliast@ideasign.com (A.K. Pritchard)
(Apologies for not including this in the prior) You can find the basic facts about the Battle of Athens (Tennessee) by “Binging” the term “Battle of Athens, TN”, or something similar. The basic facts are that returning GI’s found their county under seige by local ruffians led by a rich resident (with political contacts in D.C., BTW) and the Sheriff of the County: “The best sheriff money could buy”. The local sheriff’s mob even had been “auditing” the ballot boxes the past three elections, at the sheriff’s office, before the ballots went to the county clerk. No explanation necessary. Locals had been asking D.C. for help for years, to no avail. The GI’s took on the local bullies while they were “adjusting” the ballots at the sheriff’s office. The GI’s had the same weapons that the sheriff had. “GI’s=1, Sheriff=0”. But the story is worth reading, not just the outline.
To those that would question regulating ammunition any differently than firearms by requiring higher standards or additional requirements to purchase I say this. A firearm is useless, other than as a club, without ammunition and therefore is part and parcel the same.
If you say ‘well, who needs 1000 rounds?’ you are then venturing in to limiting the usage of firearms which is a direct infringement on the 2nd Amendment. For example, let’s say I shoot in a competition and go through 500 rounds one day and then decide to shoot another the next, if I’m not allowed to purchase more than 500 rounds in a given period, say 30 days, then I won’t be able to shoot. Furthermore, my weapon, that I may use for personal defense as well, is without ammunition and is inoperable. A club.
Before you say ‘that’s your choice how much you shoot’, yes it is and should continue to be as long as I wish as it’s my right to bear arms.
If you want to get in to the ‘militia’ thing in the 2nd then I’d say read this:
“”The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”
Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said:
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.”
Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a “collective”Âť “• not an individual “• right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is “well regulated” and “keeps and bears arms,” the National Guard. But they are wrong.
David I. Caplan, who has examined this issue in depth, provides this analysis:
“In colonial times the term “Ëśwell regulated’ meant “Ëśwell functioning’ “• for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: “ËśWhereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation”¦’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines “Ëśregulated’ among other things as “Ëśproperly disciplined;’ and it defines “Ëśdiscipline’ among other things as “Ëśa trained condition.’”
Privately kept firearms and training with them apart from formal militia mustering thus was encompassed by the Second Amendment, in order to enable able-bodied citizens to be trained by being familiar in advance with the functioning of firearms. In that way, when organized the militia would be able to function well when the need arose to muster and be deployed for sudden military emergencies.
Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, “A well regulated militia”¦” somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting “the right of the people to keep”¦arms”; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.”
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
So, limit the ammo, limit the 2nd Amendment, simple as that and it’s a no no.
Excellent stuff. Enjoyed the Battle for Athens immensely. There is a YouTube video on it:
http://youtu.be/T9tUQxsrQGw
One of the best reads regarding the 2nd Amendment is Scalia’s “Opinion of the Court” for Washington DC vs. Heller:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
A long, but must read.