Gun Control Or Public Safety?


To start, let me say that I am, for the most part at least, a strong Conservative. That is to say, I believe in small, limited government, a strong military, secure borders, and free enterprise with only the most necessary restrictions on business. I also believe in legal gun ownership.

Some people believe it should be everyone’s unrestricted RIGHT to own and even openly carry a handgun on their hip. Here in Texas, as in many other states, we have that right, but there are some commonsense restrictions such as having a clean criminal record and not having a diagnosed mental disorder that would make us a danger to others. There are very few responsible American citizens who object to those restrictions.

Yesterday, President Obama announced 10 steps he will take, through executive actions, to enforce those commonsense restrictions and help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who ‘should not own guns.’

Immediately Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular began sounding alarms and the right-wing media began throwing around the term “gun control’ in the headlines. They are calling the president’s proposals illegal and un-Constitutional; Marco Rubio is quoted as saying  the President is “waging war” on the Constitution and Ted Cruz is promising that if he wins the presidency, these and other Obama executive actions will all be repealed.

All that is for the courts to decide and while the kinds of actions Obama proposed may fall under the very broadest definition of “gun control” they are, more importantly, clearly needed Public Safety measures.

The dirty little secret that the people who are screaming “gun control” are not being very vocal about is the fact that IF THEY had stopped playing politics long enough to create some clean, commonsense legislation that had eliminated some of the public safety threats caused by guns being in the wrong hands; what is about to happen via executive actions would not have been necessary.

A prime example is closing the gun show ‘loopholes’. What, I ask, is worse: causing some minor inconvenience for people who want guns for personal protection or sport, or selling a gun to someone who will have no second thoughts about using it to commit a crime or to someone who is incapable of distinguishing legal behavior from illegal behavior?

Conservative lawmakers are screaming about the 2nd Amendment being violated. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, it does not address the problems that are caused by ‘guns in the wrong hands’ so regulations about gun sales, which were proposed yesterday, can hardly be considered a violation of the amendment.

It’s true that nothing being proposed for executive actions would have likely stopped the vast majority of mass shootings we hear about so often but you can be sure that they will make it harder for people who should not have guns to legally own guns, and that will certainly save some lives.

On Monday night the President Tweeted the accusation that the “gun lobby” may be holding Congress hostage, not a comforting thought, but perhaps a very realistic one, considering that Washington is chock full of politicians who care more about funding their next campaign than they do about their constituents’ safety. 

All this is not to say that President Obama is not incompetent or that he does not have a deep dislike for what is traditionally American or that he has not proposed many dangerous, reckless and frankly stupid things in the past. He has always impressed me as someone with an Anti-American agenda, but on this one issue I personally can’t fault his actions.

I want everyone to own and even, if they want, carry a gun — everyone except, that is, the people who are a danger to me and you and our families.

Liberalism: Naive or Diabolical


This past week brought with it another lesson for voters: take what you read and hear in the media (even some of the “Conservative” media) with ‘a grain of salt.’ Cases in point are the insinuations against Dr. Ben Carson and the consistent editorializing and misinterpreting of what he says.

As an example, Dr. Carson made the simple, logical statement that he feels that “the likelihood of Hitler accomplishing his goals” (the goal of exterminating the Jewish people, from the face of Germany and then from the world) “would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

It’s very hard for me to rationalize opposition to that statement. Carson was NOT saying that the Holocaust would not have happened. Obviously the power and armament of the German Army would most likely have eventually overwhelmed even the most well armed and aggressive civilian opponents of Hitler’s plans, Carson was simply voicing the common sense dictum that you have a much greater chance of not being defeated if you are equipped to fight back. The problem is, Ben Carson is trying to express this common sense to people who stopped listening as soon as he said the name ‘Hitler.’

Hitler’s name is a sore spot with people who support Liberal causes, especially gun control which was the particular Liberal cause that Carson was attacking.

“I’m telling you there’s a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.” Carson told Wolf Blitzer in the CNN interview.

The immediate problem with suggesting to a Liberal that gun control does not prevent murder, but instead prevents self-defense is that that fact (and it IS a fact) is an indictment of a core Liberal belief that guns are more dangerous than people; and more than that, it is an indictment of their beloved President Obama.

What, predictably, is the first thing that will happen after some crazy shoots and kills a group of people? Obama will be on TV calling for “more gun control” and either ignoring or dismissing the growing number of voices that are asking: What If?

WHAT IF there were guns being carried by one or more people in a group being attacked by a shooter? It will save many lives if the shooter is put down as soon as he shows his gun or at least immediately after his first shot.

WHAT IF  there were no “gun free zones.” It would prevent a majority of mass shooting attempts (by all but the most suicidal shooters) if it is obvious to a perpetrator that he will not be able to walk away from the situation.

Obama is a well educated man and a clever manipulator of people and situations. Don’t you think that he realizes that gun control does nothing but disarm the people who would not consider using a gun for anything but self defense or hunting?

Isn’t it obvious that that is exactly the point Dr. Carson was making with his Hitler analogy?

Time and time again President Obama has clearly illustrated his contempt for the Constitution, his disregard for National as well as personal self-defense and his determination to change the face of America.

America does not need a facelift! Nor does it need a Liberal successor to Obama, who will continue guiding America on the destructive course Obama has set for it.

In my opinion, what America needs is a president with common sense, a dislike of politics as usual, a disregard for political correctness, great respect for the United States Constitution and an unbounded dedication to restoring America to its former greatness.

In my view, there are only a few contenders for the presidency who fit that description. Watch the Liberal media (CNN, MSNBC and most networks) and you will see those few contenders regularly denigrated, dismissed and/or misinterpreted.

Another Shooting That Could Have Been Stopped Before Anyone Got Hurt


USA Today reports another school related shooting today at approx. 2 pm (EST) in Christiansburg, VA.:

“The shooting happened (today, Friday, April 12, 2013) in a community college branch at the New River Valley Mall, not far from Virginia Tech. An 18-year-old community college student was charged with wounding two women with a shotgun at a mall branch of the school in southwestern Virginia Friday afternoon.”

Note that this shooter did not use a semi-automatic weapon, he used a completely legal shotgun.

One particular sentence in the USA Today story caught my attention:

“A man using a public computer in the mall told ‘The Roanoke Times’ that he saw the a man with a gun walk into the college lobby and point his weapon at a woman. He ran and did not see the shooting.”

If this witness, or some other person who saw this kid carry a shotgun into the mall, was trained to carry and use a weapon, he would more than likely not have run and allowed what could have been another mass shooting to continue. The shooting could have been averted.

Therein is the basic message that the NRA and other 2nd Amendment groups are attempting to relay to the media, the government and the public: ‘more guns in the trained hands of normal citizens = fewer innocent lives lost or put in jeopardy.’

In this case no one was killed and the shooter surrendered immediately to the first uniforms on site (Mall security officers) but it could have turned out a lot differently. Hypothetically, if this particular shooter had been confronted in the mall parking lot or in the mall itself by a legally armed and trained citizen, before he got to the college office, he may have laid down his gun and saved two innocent college employees the pain and expense of being shot and hospitalized. Had this unstable young man not laid down his weapon when confronted by a legally armed and trained citizen he may have been justifiably wounded or killed with no innocent lives jeopardized.

Most states (with the sad exception of Illinois (also Washington D.C.)) have some form of licensing procedure that would allow willing and stable adults to carry a concealed weapon but instead of encouraging this and focusing on the innocent lives this could save, the media and the gun grabbers are focusing on regulations that will deter responsible gun ownership. Their misguided theory is that legal gun ownership by people who have proven themselves to be responsible citizens and who are willing to help law enforcement stop criminals, is inherently dangerous and even reckless. All this attitude is doing (and has done) is to make criminals and other unstable people feel safer and to embolden them.

Ironically, Illinois, the one state that allows virtually NO citizens to carry guns, is one of the highest crime states in the country. Wonder why?

Making Sense of Gun Control


The Wall Street Journal headline reads: “Battle Lines Drawn Over Stricter Gun Laws”; it could just as well read: “Once Again Politicians Manage to Make Nonsense out of Common Sense”.

Proponents of stricter gun laws feel that making it even harder for the average citizen to purchase a gun will somehow stop violent people, who don’t care about gun laws or any other laws, from obtaining guns. That, like so many things proposed as law, makes no sense. No restrictive gun laws will EVER prevent another mass shooting tragedy.

We already have laws on the books that make it very hard for anyone to buy a gun. Stricter anti-gun laws will simply discourage law abiding citizens from going to the trouble of legally purchasing a firearm while the people who intend to use guns to perpetrate violence on other people will still be able to purchase their black market guns, or steal other people’s legally obtained guns, and they will continue to use them to commit crimes. In a most recent case, William Spengler, a convicted felon who could not legally own a gun, set a fire to draw volunteer firemen to the scene and then shot four firefighters, two fatally and two seriously. No gun laws could stop him or will stop the others who will certainly follow. Gun violence is a social problem not a gun problem.

There are knee-jerk reactions in the aftermath of every mass shooting like Colombine, Aurora and Newtown but Newtown, because it was a senseless slaughter of innocent children, has caused the halls of Congress erupt in debate and, as the WSJ headline tells, battle lines have been drawn. There are those who want tougher gun purchase/licensing laws; those who realize that our current laws are sufficient and tougher laws will not reduce the body count or prevent the next mass shooting; those who realize that even this elevated discussion of gun rights is an attack on our Second Amendment rights; and those very few extremists; some who would love to have every gun in America confiscated and melted down and others who want every citizen to have a gun strapped to his or her leg.

It should be obvious to every thinking citizen that the old saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is absolutely, unquestionably true. The only effect of keeping the guns out of the hands of normal, stable people is to make them defenseless victims. Our laws should, and do, restrict the legal purchase of guns to American Citizens who do not have criminal records and who have not been adjudged mentally ill or incompetent. What more can we do without tearing the Second Amendment to shreds (not that many of our Senators or Congressmen truly care if the Second Amendment is shredded, as long as they get good publicity and lots of votes the next time they are up for election).

Recommended Reading: “The Face of Evil” by Leona Salazar.