We need logical, well thought out gun laws, not laws based on liberal or neo- conservative values.
Everyone should have a background check, which would disqualify criminals and the mentally unbalanced before that person could purchase any firearm. We could easily close the loophole, which allows criminals and the mentally incompetent to purchase firearms at gun shows by simply requiring those who wish to trade, buy, or sell firearms at gun shows to have a license, which allows such activity.
No person such as Nancy Lanza, who was killed by her son Adam, should be allowed to purchase a firearm because she had a mentally unbalanced person living in her household. She was enabling him.
Of course, one can make the argument that if she had kept the guns under lock, Adam would never have been able to carry out his mission. None of us will ever know all that happened in the Lanza household. But apparently, Adam was very brilliant and likely would have figured out a way to get the guns, and maybe that is what he did.
The criminal in New York who killed the two firemen had a neighbor purchase the guns for him in her name. She can get as much as 10 years in prison for being an accessory. This is proof than no gun law will ever be perfect, but at least we should not make it easy for the criminals to get guns. It would also serve us well to run national advertising saying that people who supply guns to criminals will serve time in prison, and maybe we should have a law that would make killings in such cases a mandatory 20-year sentence with no time off for good behavior.
We should not allow the sale or purchase of ammunition clips that hold as much as 30 rounds. The nut-cake Loughner, in Arizona, was stopped when trying to insert another clip after he had exhausted the first one. If he had a 10-round clip he might not have killed as many as he did.
One of the most stupid arguments I hear and read is, “I am keeping my guns so that I can protect myself from our government.” Really?
Those who believe such nonsense might want to consider a combat situation in Iraq a few years ago. A whole platoon of Iraqi soldiers, all armed with powerful ARs, surrendered unconditionally when they saw one of our gunship helicopters hovering overhead. Your AK 47s, machine guns and the other stuff that allow little men who want to appear big would be like BB guns and cap pistols against an army tank.
The best way to protect ourselves against our government is to study the issues and then get out and vote. We have no right to complain if we don’t vote.
Jim Ferrell
Categorized | Letters to the editor
Do we need better gun control laws?
Posted on04 January 2013.
- UPDATE: Bail raised to $100,000; police say evidence mounts against educators
- UPDATE: Floyd Elementary principal, teacher released on bail; aide remains in custody
Tax assessor’s racist rants made public
- BREAKING NEWS: Extent of alleged abuse at Floyd Elementary revealed in court documents. Multiple search warrants served on student, teacher records
- CHARGES FILED: Records reveal case against educators
So let me get this straight, lets take away normal capacity magazines from people because a nut got hold of a gun? Nope, don’t think so. Lets lock up the nuts so society does not have to worry, how about that?
No law would have prevented this. No law will change people like him. The best thing to do is to protect the innocent. We are forced to send our children to the state to be educated. The STATE failed to protect those children.
Point two, gun owners to not buy a gun to look tough. We own a gun because we are NOT tougher than those 2 gang bangers that may decide to kick in our door at 2 am, or those 3 thugs that may wish to rob us in the Walmart parking lot late in the evening.
Perhaps you might not know, but its already a crime to buy a gun for someone who cant own one legally, its a straw purchase, punishable by the very sentences you propose.
Now, lets get on to the topic of protecting ones self from the government. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect hunting rights, it protects the citizen’s INHERENT right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against tyranny and foreign enemies. Laugh at that if you want, but remember many many people spent the last 10 years getting the equivalent of a masters degree in urban warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. Couple that with the millions of hunters, casual and competitive shooters, people who take self defense seriously, and even some gun collectors, and I would say that’s a pretty impressive force if ever needed to be called on.
Mind you, I am not advocating an overthrow of anything, just reminding you that gun owners as a whole are not what the left wing media portrays them to be.
Quite frankly, I’m not prepared to give up an ounce of personal liberty over the actions of a psychopath. not even a score of psychopaths.
I don’t think we make it easy for criminals to buy guns. Criminals aren’t going to go into a gun store and fill out any papers. They steal the guns and will continue to steal guns no matter what kind of laws we have.
Trust the misnomer.. That’s essentially what’s required. Lots of folks favor gun control because they believe gun control laws will eliminate or severely limit violence. The term “gun control” is a misnomer for several reasons.
First, gun control laws aim at controlling those who possess guns not the guns themselves. Realizing this deletes from the set of concepts the anthropomorphic ideas about guns. Guns don’t cause people to become criminally antisocial and start shooting sprees.
Second, passing a new law(s) which aim(s) to interrupt a hypothetical sequence of events that lead to murder (which is already illegal) fundamentally affect more those not involved in the plan for any crime. Media campaigns which enlighten the misguided/uninformed are generally more successful than laws. I see ads in the media all the time relating to drunk driving, drug addiction, texting while driving… but I have yet to see an ad about difficult circumstances which could arise consequential to the casual sale, exchange or careless storage of firearms. I’ve seen ads about safe sex but not safe storage.
Third, doesn’t it seem as an evidence against the actual premise of “control” that a law whose intended effect is some measure of positive control also having criminal penalties? If it is accepted that a particular law will change the behavior of most of those subject to the law such that certain negative (and already illegal) sequel will be abated, it does seem rather contradictory to also add a criminal penalty as consequence of a conviction for breaking the law in question. If it is the existence of the law that brings about the desired “control” then a criminal penalty is superfluous. If it is the existence of the penalty that brings about the desired “control” then realize that those who are most responsible for the most heinous instances of crimes which these types of laws seek to abate will go unpunished because they are almost all killed by their own hand or by law enforcement.
Gun control is not only a misnomer but, in the philosophical sense, also an oxymoron.
To answer your question, yes we do.
Mr. Ferrell,
There are no loopholes at any gun shows by any vendor or licensed gun dealer. PERIOD. And there hasn’t been for a very long time. Anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must submit to a background check. When 2 private parties get together they can sell/buy without a background check. That is a very tiny amount of guns sales nationwide. Very tiny.Want to close that ? fine.
You must be very careful about making statements about what occured at Sandy Hook, Ct. There were a lot of media press conferences by people that did not have reliable data………or the information released was disinformation. How do I know that? Because the same thing happened at Columbine. Almost everything broadcast the first few weeks were inconsistent with what really happened and the backgrounds of the shooters.
How do you know that Lanza killed his Mother? We found that out less than 1 hour after the shooting started? Did the FBI match the gun to the bullet in that short span of time?
I watched the video press conference of the Coroner taking questions and it appeared he knew nothing about what happened. He couldn’t answer even simple questions on what the children were wearing.
The rifle was in the car and then it was found in the school. It was a ranch rifle then it was an AR15. Lanza died with hundreds of bullets left. A man in camo out back of the school is caught and is sitting in the front seat of the police crusier.
A couple of parents were interviewed and I thought I was watching the Stepford wifes the way they spoke and the expressions on their faces. You would have never known they just lost their child.
Yes, guns killed those children but it is going to take time and possibly a freedom of information request to understand what really happened. In the meantime, I’m not willing to give up my RIGHT to own a gun. Because it isn’t and has never been about hunting.
Molon Labe
@Ferrell
This is exactly why ( see link) the Founding Fathers placed the 2nd amendment into the Bill Of Rights. It is 2nd because of its importance right after Freedom of Speech.
If there were any doubt why it was so important, you will know after clicking on this link. There should be no doubt why it is a RIGHT that a government cannot take away from us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8mkqI_dVJg&feature=player_embedded
Make no mistake that the Federal Government is already at war with its citizens. It is going to get uglier and possibly bloody over the next four. years.
Molon Labe
I would like if the Sheriff would post an Op-ed or if the PVT could do an interview with our Sheriff to get him on the record on his stance and what his office will do if new gun controls laws are passed?
Many Sheriffs around the country say and Federal law that restricts the second amendment is unlawful and therefore they will not enforce it. They have taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the USA and of the county and state they work for. Would Tony please chime in on his stance?