Skip to content

Living By The Gun…


link.jpgJust in February, another shooting on a college campus leaves three dead including the shooter; bullets riddle a city council meeting leaving six dead; five women shot to death in a retail shop as an apparent robbery goes bad and to top it off, we have a Presidential Candidate who says that the “second amendment” is as important then the “first amendment.”

After the shooting last year at Virginia Tech I posted my concerns, April 18th, 2007, and my desire to see gun controls. Again I re-post that belief:

“Gun Control” is an issue that reaches farther than the City of Warren.

Last Sunday I went to the Unitarian Church in Youngstown and afterwards, during the coffee get together, a comment was made to me about the many murders Warren had experienced in the past week. This person, who teaches at YSU, even stated that it looked like Warren might be “overtaking” Youngstown as the “Valley’s” murder central.

As a Viet Nam Era Vet, who also survived being ten feet and to the right of the Ohio Guard on May 4th, 1970 at Kent State University, I do have a strong opinion on the matter of “Gun Control.”

Maybe Virginia Tech, and the “horrific” murders, will open our eyes to the NEED to revisit the issue and implement a uniform NATIONAL Program.

I know that “gun advocates”, plus so called “sportsmen”, will run and quote the Constitution on their “rights” to “bare arms” but the victims of this “mass murder” also had Constitutional rights, that of “Life, Liberty and Happiness.”

14 Comments leave one →
  1. 02/09/2008 7:06 pm

    20,000 gun laws are on the books. The top law in the land is Do Not Murder. You’re saying more laws will stop this? What magical law can you pass that will stop people from murdering? Which law hold more weight with a killer than the 20,000 that are already on the books?

    There are 270,000,000 firearms in the US. What law will make them disappear? Sure, you can make it impossible for the law abiding to have a gun, but criminals don’t follow the law. Of course, people like me will never turn in their guns (and I have quite a few), so I guess to enforce your laws we’ll need to revoke the 4th amendment and allow the police to go house to house without a warrant to take them. Of course, Kent State would be a pleasant memory compared to the police state you’d need to make that happen.

    Each law you pass does nothing more than give the government even more power. Didn’t your 10 foot experience teach you that they are the last group you want to have firearms? Or, are you under the illusion that if we just get the right people in power, everything will work?

    Yes, these are tragedies, but there are many, many more you ignore when you forget how many people are stabbed, poisoned, raped, etc. which didn’t use guns.

    But, go ahead and give the government more power to oppress the people. Next time 10 feet might not be enough.

  2. Tom permalink
    02/09/2008 10:18 pm

    “…the victims of this “mass murder” also had Constitutional rights, that of “Life, Liberty and Happiness.””

    Yep, and they chose to ignore the right to defend themselves…sadly you can see where it got “THEM”

  3. 02/10/2008 9:42 am

    Robb and Tom, Thank you for your comments and opinions.

    I must admit to not seeing the logic in the assumption that because someone didn’t have a gun they are abettors in their deaths and therefore are justly targets to be murdered.

  4. 02/10/2008 10:30 am

    Actually Tristan, the point they are making is that more laws will change nothing except make things more difficult for those who would follow the laws, and grant more power to an already corrupt government. Many people argue that it would never be necessary to violently overthrow the government, but be honset, folks already claimed that the last two presidential elections were stolen. If someone (or some party) rose to political power and managed to game the system such that we could not vote them out, how else would we get rid of them?

    If you want to stop firearm crime, a cultural shift is needed, one where people are encouraged to defend themselves against violence, and guns are not mystical totems of power. Once those who would use violence to further their own needs or wants realize that their victims are more than willing to fight back, they will begin to re-evaluate the wisdom of using violence for their own selfish needs. Crime is an actuarial assessment based on a very short time line, once the risk of getting injured or killed immediately, rather than possibly jailed later, becomes very likely, you’ll see violent crime begin a downswing.

  5. 02/10/2008 10:38 am

    Agree with you on the fact that a “cultural shift is needed” in any approach to this situation.

    I do believe that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Second Amendment issue this Spring and in my humble opinion, dialog such as this is healthy and constructive.

    Thank you for your input.

  6. 02/10/2008 11:28 am

    Last I heard, murder is illegal in most states, counties, cities, and probably even the entirety of the United States. That did not stop the Virginia Tech shooter.

    Last I heard, robbery was illegal in most states, counties, cities, and probably even the entirety of the United States (so long as you are not the IRS or a politician). That did not stop the people who committed the robbery, and ended up shooting those women.

    Last I heard, it was illegal to take firearms into the facility where the city council meeting was being held, much less shoot police officers. That did not stop that particular shooter.

    And yet more laws concerning the use of firearms will, somehow, stop criminals?

    It is not even worth pursuing the Constitutional, self-defense, and “punish the lawbreakers, now the law-abiding” aspects… Your argument fails at the most basic of logical levels.

  7. 02/10/2008 2:52 pm

    Glad to oblige. Pardon any snark you may receive from us, but it’s a rare day where someone who believes in gun control will debate us openly.

    The fact of the matter is crime is a huge problem in the US. Notice I said Crime and not Gun Crime. To the person getting mugged, raped, beaten, etc. it is irrelevant what weapon is used. A weapon is a tool that gives an advantage to a person over his opponent. My 98 pound mother who is going through chemotherapy absolutely cannot stand up against even a modest sized man intent on harming her. Her .38 special only requires enough strength to pull the trigger to give her the advantage.

    No amount of gun laws are going to affect the criminal element in our society. Only law abiding people like my mother are hampered by background checks, waiting periods, microstamping, etc. Criminals steal their guns or buy them off of friends & relatives. Making it more illegal for them to do so won’t give them any incentive to not do it.

    What us gunnies want is to shift the culture away from violence. It’s not the gun, it’s the lack of parenting, the glorification of violence in today’s movies and music, and the generalized failure of family values (as in valuing the family, not the religious family values). Removing the gun, like in England, Japan, and Australia, has done nothing to curb crime. It has only emboldened those who would harm us and made the government even stronger.

    If you actually would get together with some people who shoot, you’d find that most of us are obsessed with safety. We teach our children (mine are only 5 and 2 and yet already know not to touch firearms) to not abuse firearms much in the same way we teach them not to play with knives or matches.

    The problem is that, no matter how well intentioned your ideas of gun control are, it doesn’t do anything except hamper the law abiding. And while you might think it’s only a minor inconvenience, you’re talking about adding on to the inconveniences that border on prohibition already. Every law only makes it harder on those who will jump through the hoops and nothing to stop those who won’t.

  8. 02/10/2008 5:35 pm

    You raise many a valid points for discussion.

    It will be interesting in what the Supreme Court has to rule on the fact whether the second amendment was designed just for a “standing militia” or every citizen.

  9. 02/11/2008 8:36 am

    I’d be interested in your comments about statements made by Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign.

  10. 02/11/2008 10:47 am

    Paul Helmke is a compulsive liar, plain and simple. Paul will continually tell you 30,000 people a year are murdered with guns. I dissected that here using CDC numbers

    Most everything Paul says is predicated on a lie. If you’d like to see dissections of everything he says, simply read his posts on his Huffington Post Me and my fellow companions have done all the work there and originally on the Brady Blog itself until they got so tired of having their arguments demolished that they disabled comments.

    Seriously Tristan, gun control is a lie predicated on the falsehood that somehow the inanimate object itself is responsible for the damage and not the person wielding it. I could saw off a shotgun to 14 inches, replace the stock with a pistol grip, convert it to fully automatic, fit it with a magazine that held 100 shells, and walk around the mall with it concealed and you’d have nothing to worry about. I won’t hurt you. It’s already illegal for someone to shoot you without just cause, what else can you do to “prevent” them from doing so? Making the tool “more illegal” does nothing.

    Pick a single quote from Paul and I’ll be happy to demolish it, backing it up with verifiable statistics, facts, and whatever else you’d need.

  11. 02/11/2008 8:26 pm

    Tristan, nice to see that you are engaged in a conversation with the gunnies here. Keep it up. I’d invite you to take a few minutes and read the following link. It’s an article based on an imaginary conversation between 4 guys about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Pretty straight forward and enlightening. Enjoy. Unk

  12. 02/12/2008 10:20 am

    GrumpyUnk, thanks for the very interesting site.

    I always hate when people start off a post, or even letters to the Editor, with a clarifying statement, but here it goes.

    My Dad was from North Dakota, and when we came over to this country from England, it was the place I was raised. Dad taught me at an early age to hunt, it was a family event for Dad, Mom and myself. So saying that I hope you can see that I’m not totally about getting rid of guns.

    Since “Unk” mentioned about the second amendment, that’s the first place I’d like to go on some of my comments.

    I feel that the constitutional right to bear arms is first and foremost a collective one. With the intention to protect the right of states to maintain militias to assure their freedom and security against the central government. Now I understand that in today’s world it would take a lot more fire power than handguns and/or hunting rifles.

    So in my opinion I feel that the second amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon an individual to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulations of gun ownership, such as licenses and/or registration.

    It would seem that the second amendment, and/or the constitution, contains no prohibition to reasonable regulation of gun ownership. We don’t object to registration and licensing cars and even the family dog so why not weapons.

    Does the second amendment guarantee an individual’s right to own tanks, missiles and even nuclear warheads? For like rifles, shot guns and pistols these are considered “arms”.

  13. GrumpyUnk permalink
    02/13/2008 12:49 am

    Tristan, you are gonna be a tough nut to crack. You’re obvious intelligence is what’s not going to allow you to hold these wrong headed ideas forever.

    G-d love ya, Unk

  14. 01/07/2010 11:08 am

    Well, the Heller decision proved that Tristan was correct. The small minded saw that the concept of “individual right” was mentioned, yet missed that it allowed for regulation of firearms. Even Heller had to register his gun and was rejected the first time.

    I agree with Tristan that the only interpretation of the Second Amendment is to protect a Civic right, that is one directly connected to the Article I, Section 8 militias. The “individual right” is a new creation that is without basis in history, law, or the Constitution.

    It is hard to enforce laws that were written to be unenforcable, which US gun laws are.

    Unfortunately, there is a loud minority that wishes to see the destruction of firearms regulation. I am not sure why they wish this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: