Gun control: Ignorance & deception

Terry Garlock's picture

The children are buried, the hoards of reporters and camera crews have moved on to the next story, but Newtown, Conn., will never be the same. The anguish of families that lost a child may subside but will never go away.

How can we make sure mass school murders never happen again? The adult answer is — we can’t.

Since Cain slew Abel in a fit of jealousy, people have been killing each other with sticks, rocks, blades, poisons, bombs, guns and a hundred other tools of choice. New laws won’t stop it.

Why in recent years have we seen mass killings by suicidal lunatics? The popular and false answer is to blame semi-automatic weapons, but those have been with us since the early 1900s. The adult answer, of course, is more complex.

Our culture is becoming coarse, inhibitions are evaporating, honor and pride are fading, shame has disappeared, restraint is a distant memory, thug behavior is glorified in rap (I refuse to call it music), self-indulgence is the new normal, instant gratification is the national lifestyle, boundaries are no longer visible, respect for others is passe, casual violence at movie theaters is our modern version of the Roman Colosseum and video games teach kids slaughter as a practiced skill.

Taking comfort in personal responsibility, self-reliance, integrity and accomplishment through hard work has taken a back seat to the counterfeit glitter of a brief flash of fame.

The mentally ill have so many rights we can do little even if they appear to be dangerous, but when someone carries out a perverse plan to end their existence in a blaze of murderous glory, knowing their foul deeds will be spread worldwide in hand-wringing hysterical hi-def technicolor by a media seeking to fill hundreds of channels around the clock, we blame the gun.

Adult complexities do not satisfy the liberal urge to make even more rules for us to live by. When the first unbelievable reports of the Newtown shooting of children emerged, anti-gun activists were already pouncing on this opportunity to sell their agenda, having been patiently waiting for the next mass shooting to exploit the raw feelings of an electorate softened up by a few days of semi-sobbing TV coverage.

What about you? Do you realize you are being played? Whether you like guns or not, do you recognize the propaganda being fed to you, slowly but surely turning guns into objects of fear, evil and loathing? Do you wonder at legislators fashioning new gun control laws with apparently little knowledge of guns and no regard for our Constitutional freedoms? Do you wonder whether the media is reporting honestly?

On Dec. 11, a whack-job gunman started shooting in a shopping mall in the Portland, Ore., area. Nick Meli, a young man licensed to carry a firearm, had ignored the mall’s “No Guns” posting and had his Glock semi-automatic pistol, with which he confronted the shooter. The shooter then killed himself, having been stopped after killing two innocents.

On Dec. 16 a deranged gunman tried to shoot up a theater crowd in San Antonio, Texas, but an armed off-duty police officer shot back and ultimately just two innocent people were wounded.

You didn’t see much of these stories on TV news, maybe because the media doesn’t want to push the narrative that armed, law-abiding citizens can stop crimes in process. You’re being played, not only by what you see on TV, but what you don’t see.

On the first day of this 113th Congress, 10 gun control bills were introduced with various new rules and restrictions. But realistically, what new laws would have prevented the Newtown shootings?

My guess is – none. Connecticut already has strict gun control laws, and the shooter violated a long list of laws.

The assault weapons ban being proposed is a prime example of ignorance and deception. “Assault Rifle” (AR) has become a pair of dirty words, spit out by anti-gunners with breathtaking ignorance.

An AR is nothing more than another semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip that makes it look “mean.” About half of the TV talking heads get it wrong by confusing semi-automatic with automatic weapons.

An automatic weapon rapidly fires bullets continually as long as the trigger is depressed, a feature that has been illegal without a special permit for decades.

An AR is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning it fires one round with each trigger pull. Countless types of semi-automatic rifles and handguns have been owned and sold in America for a century.

Limiting magazines to 10 rounds may sound reasonable but will have little effect since replacing an empty magazine with a fresh load takes about two seconds.

Anti-gunners say we don’t need an AR to hunt. Well, pardon me for being a purist on Constitutional rights, but the Second Amendment doesn’t say a word about hunting, and I don’t need the government telling me which weapon I should use to hunt.

As it turns out, if I were to hunt deer, I would use my AR, a .223 caliber with a scope that I now use only at the range to punch target holes close together – at least I try – at 100 yards. But whether I hunt or not isn’t my government’s business.

Interestingly, the very popular .30-06 semi-automatic deer rifle is not affected by the proposed AR ban, but it fires just as fast as my AR with rounds twice as powerful.

You can even find that deer rifle with a more comfortable pistol grip and high capacity magazines, that is if you need proof positive the proposed AR ban accomplishes nothing. But it does appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.

If I wanted (and I do not!) to ban guns with the real effect of restriction to minimize rate of fire, I would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, including shotguns used for skeet shooting and duck hunting.

I would have to also ban lever-action rifles like the well-made Henry line, leaving only revolver handguns and bolt action rifles.

But having slid down most of the slippery slope, I should probably also ban handgun revolvers, which, after all, still fire one round for each trigger pull until empty, and reloading can be quick with prepared speed-loads.

And of course, to be meaningful, I would have to confiscate existing weapons that are banned, leaving only single-shot and bolt action rifles.

That, my friends, is a preview of the anti-gun crowd’s real, long-term, radical agenda.

But there is ample evidence gun control laws have little effect on crime. States with very lax gun laws, like Maine and Vermont, have very low gun crime rates. Chicago, on the other hand, has very strict gun control laws but rampant crime.

The previous AR ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004 and had no appreciable effect on gun violence in the U.S. because the majority of gun crimes – including mass murder and school shootings – were carried out with handguns.

The 1999 Columbine school murders in Colorado occurred right in the middle of that AR ban, and as usual in every other case the perpetrators ignored all laws. But they didn’t use an AR.

Before the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 there were few shootings at schools, but since then there have been 22 notable incidents.

Some say criminals bent on self-destruction and seeking a dramatic final statement choose schools because they know there are no defensive weapons at the school to deter them.

My guess is the lunatics are attracted by the dramatic effect and TV fame for their last act.

I don’t know what new gun control laws will be enacted, but I do know this. When the next mass murder happens, and it will, the anti-gunners will again be ready to pounce, stretching for ever more restrictions, regulations and bans.

I imagine they will stand down when citizens are no longer allowed to bear arms.

Do you really want to make schools safer? Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and encourage every school to select a few willing teachers or staff to be trained and armed.

That is better than hiring guards to do nothing productive while waiting for an attack that for nearly every school will never come. And if an attack does come, there will be someone there with a good chance to stop the perp from going all the way.

Do you really want to reduce mass murder? Convince the news media to impose a TV news blackout. Take away the attraction of a famous death. Give up the voyeur circus on our TVs at the expense of the victims.

Sufficiently interested citizens could read all about it in newspapers. Do you think the TV media is more interested in reducing mass murder or their own ratings? Good luck with that one.

Meanwhile, ponder your child’s safety and the evils or virtues of citizens armed for defense, knowing when seconds count, law enforcement is just minutes away.

[Terry Garlock of Peachtree City occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Tooth fairy?

Maybe you stopped taking them from tooth fairy, but you are quite willing to take them from the government.

You just exchanged one fantasy for another.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Uhh.. Stone those where your own words...

To now backtrack and say I did not say or infer that is pure unadulterated BS.

But you keep right on making those arguments Stone we will continue to crush them into powder.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey:
Quote:

Uhh.. Stone those where your own words...

If these were my words then please quote them.

The weight of your arguments would not crush a cotton ball, let alone a rolling stone.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
rolling stone, you asked for a quote...

here you go.

rolling stone wrote:

That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future..

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault314: nice quote

however it had no reference to the constitution as S. Lindsey attributed to me. Eighteenth century logic, definitions and quotes are exactly that. Like medical practices, gun ownership practices should be up to date and realistic. The very existence of the Constitution precludes the state of anarchy that gun violence represents.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wow do you even hear yourself think...?

Sorry You must be a product of Government Schools.. I should have known better...
Re-Read very slowly what your response was to renault and again tell us that it had no reference because in fact you just did it again.

If your argument was you wanted to amend the Constitution to change and modernize the 2nd, well that's an argument you could make...but... that was not what you said...

rolling stone wrote:

That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights.

Where in this statement is your argument for amending the Constitution?

It was obvious to ALL that you inferred that the Constitution was written "then" and "this is now". Clearly meaning there is no way it should apply to today's modern life...couple that with the original posting of "Doonsbery's" fact-less filled missive that we can also infer that you agreed with and viola case made argument crushed...and...POOF... there goes the powder.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey

I am in awe of your imagination.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
****pooooofffff****

Powder in the wind....

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Rolling stone - make up your mind

Your hypocricy knows no bounds. You quote an author (one can only presume because you agree with him) who says the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to citizens, it only applies to the formation of state militias as it was written in 1787. But when myself and others provide documentation from that era to counter your poorly informed claims, you accuse us of living in the past and that it doesnt apply to the "now." How convenient. If you are concerned with "dealing with the present" stop quoting people who base their illogic in the 1780's. If you have no problem with gun ownership, then why print the attack on the 2nd amendment? Get off the fence dude. I dont know where you get your stats, but you need to analyze them with a clear head, let go of your preconcieved notions. According the FBI statistics for 2011 (the most recent year available) 74% of gun crime in the US was gang-related. Did owning guns put them at risk of getting killed? or was it the gang activity that made them more likely to get shot. The FBI also says that having more than 5 tattoos makes you 10 times more likely to die a violent death. Should we ban tattos? Or is it that people predisposed to be on the fringe of society and prone to criminal behavior are the ones most likely to get lots of tats. Dont just parrot statistics man, think for yourself about what it really means. Do having guns in your home make it more likely you will get shot? Of course. Having knives in your house makes it more likely you will get cut. Having a pool in your backyard makes it more likely your child will drown. Should the government ban pools and cleavers "for our own good?" As long as the government allows alcohol and tobbacco sales the fact that owning a firearm increases certain risk factors has absolutely no merit. Because here is the bottom line, absolute truth of the matter. The only thing more likely to get you killed than having a gun in your house, is being the only one in your house without one. BTW, Is civilization an "app" for lung cancer and liver cirrhosis as well? Interesting that the Government wants to protect us weak, dependant citizens from ba, nasty gun violence and we poor peasants just arent smart enough to make responsible choices about firearms so they just have to do that for us. But when it comes to booze and cigarettes, things proven to kill far more people every year than guns could even think about, suddenly its a personal freedom issue. Yes, they are all about freedom wehn the G'ovt makes massive amounts of money off taxes for those things. I promise you if the Govt made just as much money from firearms sales we wouldnt be having this discussion, no matter how many Sandy Hooks happened. Abusus non tollit usum. It means "just because something can be abused, is no argument against its legitamate use." Just like glue, paint, oxycontin, alcohol, tobacco, swimming pools, cars, knives, hatchets, hammers, and a million other things that have been used to kill.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault314: I did leave out one thing

I forgot to mention that liking what I have to say is not one of my requirements.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Rolling stone - Im didn't ask you to write things people like...

But I would prefer you to write things that are logical, well reasoned, and not hypocritical. If only for your own sake. On one hand you state you have a particular opinion about guns, but on the other you qoute people with the completely the opposite viewpoint and present it as a well-reasoned argument. Still, please don't be surprised when myself or someone else points out the obvious and inherent fallacies and contradictions in your posts and then mistake that for us "not liking what you have to say." Like has nothing to do with it. We just have a tendancy to like to debate the facts. You dont provide any. Mike Doonsbury obviously didnt spend three seconds on wikipedia before throwing out his brutally flawed peice, which you reprinted without question or hesitatation. I understand. I mean, if you cant trust a known liberal political cartoonist to be objective, who can you trust, eh? But then you defend his position when its easily dismantled with anecdotal refrences to "statistics you have read" saying you are incrimentally more likely to get shot if you have a gun in your house. Without any analysis a t all, Im sure that sounds bad. I guess. But did you consider that people who want a gun in the home are more likely to live in high crime areas, thus the reason they probably want the gun in the first place? Simple logical explanations like that ellude you, because just like Doonsbury and every other liberal, You assume that just becasue someone disagrees with you, it must be personal, hence your immediate assumption that I "didnt like" your post. You didnt ask for my advice, but here it is anyway. Stop taking disagreements personally and start thinking a little deeper about cause and effect. Things are rarely as simple as politicians on both sides would have them appear.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault314: your concern for my well being is appreciated,

your advice, not so much. For the record: Doonesbury did not write the piece I quoted and you ascribed opinions and stances to me that I did not say. The emotional outbursts regarding guns appears to me to be on the pro-anything goes side. You appear to have your own assumptions, the main one being that someone who understands your point of view would have to agree with it, to do otherwise is not possible.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
rolling stone - You are being deliberately misleading.
rolling stone wrote:

you ascribed opinions and stances to me that I did not say.

When you quote a post that is a rant on how the 2nd amendment is not for individuals and only for state "militias" with the header that someone wrote this who is a better writer than you, no, you did not say that. But you are obviously intending that anyone who reads it take it as your opinion too. For you to come back later and say "oh, i never said that, you just assume that those were my positions" is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Nobody is falling for it. Also, I dont expect that everyone will agree with my position, despite the fact that I do my best to support my opinions with facts, statistics and in this case, direct quotes from the people who wrote the laws and lived in those times. However, I do expect that if you disagree with my positions, that you present your own facts, quotes and statistics. Other than an offhanded refrence to "some stats you read" (not actually providing the stats or the sources) you did none of those things. You also accuse people with positions similar to mine as "responding emotionally." However we are not the ones pasting mass killers pictures all over the news 24/7, while ignoring those stories where people use guns to defend themselves. Your side is the one who wont do the most basic research into the framers intent by reading other writings from those same people from that period. You just quote essays published on Doonsburys blog about what some random guy "thinks" the word militia meant in 1787. And when we point out why thats wrong, you change your tune and say it doesnt matter, 'cause whtever they actually meant back the doesnt apply anymore. Quit worrying about my assumptions and just debate me with facts and logic.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault314

Your obtuse conclusions are yours to keep.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
More Quotes

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” - Joseph Stalin

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements…They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” - Benito Mussolini

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
One BIG glaring problem here...

... is that the 2nd DID NOT ESTABLISH a right to own/possess firearms.

We already have the RIGHT of Self-Defense. The 2nd simply codified that Right and it established that Government may not interfere in any way with that right.

Your argument also suggest Militias mean the same today as they did 240+ years ago...

Many people try to "interpret" the Militia clause as meaning the "Army" but in the 18th Century Militia LITERALLY meant "CITIZEN" called up to protect ones Country.

Then there is the COMMA. Also one must read the Federalist Papers to know exactly what was intended when it was written...

Your copy of the argument is typical of the anti-gun interpretation without that little quoted but most important.. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON..

If, as your argument suggest, they meant a Governmental Regulated Army why then would the Government infringe upon itself? There simply would be no need for that comma and sentence now would there?

You see what you learn when logic rules instead of emotion.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
An example of deception, as summed up . . .

. . . in the last sentence. "I suggest they ask any police officer or infantryman if, given the choice, they would rather face an adversary with an assault rifle or a lesser capacity weapon such as a knife, revolver, or bolt action hunting rifle, and you will see the logic of reforming our current laws."

This implies either (1) semi-automatic rifles or handguns other than assault rifles are not as lethal as ARs, which is both false and ludicrous - remember the .30-06 semi-automatic deer rifle that fires just as fast and has rounds twice as powerful as my AR, or (2) that all semi-automatic rifles and handguns would be banned, which is a seriously radical notion.

The argument that existing banned weapons would be grandfathered suggests our government would be nice enough to let us keep our guns but, like Sen Feinstein's proposed legislation, those guns would have to be turned in to the govt at our death. Gee, thanks.

As far as this opinion about the 2nd Amendment, it is at odds with the Supreme Court interpretation, and my suggestions to anti-gunners is to seek an honest change to the 2nd Amendment. I will be on the opposing side of that argument, but at least in that instance the anti-gunners would have the virtue of an honest effort instead of the sleight of hand they often practice.

Terry Garlock

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
What is an assault weapon?

To me, this question is very similar to "What is pornography?", and would get the same answer: "I can not define it, but I know it when I see it".

The 2nd amendment is just fine the way it is written, it is the current interpretation that is problematic.

By the way, the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for ivory poachers in Kenya, who recently killed 7 elephants at one time, including a few-months-old calf.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Stone, in Kenya is was the poachers who were evil . . .

. . . not the gun they used to kill the elephants. Your comparison of an AR as something you can't define but know it when you see it is refreshingly honest, and I would argue it is a perfect example of the emotional triggers used by anti-gunner activists. Maybe the pistol grip on an AR, which makes for a more comfortable and firm aim, makes the rifle look more like an instrument to kill something, which of course they all are whether AR or not.

Terry Garlock

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - I

I think you are confusing the AK 47, but why don't we pass a law that will make killing elephants in Kenya with AR 15's illegal, it should be just as effective as the "controls" that Mr. Obama will put in place for the next four years.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Ptco
Quote:

it should be just as effective as the "controls" that Mr. Obama will put in place for the next four years.

Please share with us these controls. Thanks.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Controls

Don't know, but any that he puts in place won't be effective and they will be short lived. Now you're not saying that Mr. Obama is not going to put any controls in place, are you? Before all this happened at Newtown, he had already taken steps to increase the cost of ammo. He took steps to resrict the military to sell spent brass casings back to re-loaders. Thus causing the cost of ammo to increase. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that he will attempt to put a tax on ammo to make it very, very expensive. It's the same method that government has employed to "regulate" behavior around cigarettes. Nothing new here but just one in thousands of ways to "regulate" the use of firearms.

There's a comedy routine by Chris Rock on this, which is pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAPtQpUMXQ

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: I was incorrect on two issues

You are correct, I should have referenced the AK 47, and the elephant family had 11 members, not 7. I apologize for any additional confusion these errors may have caused. It was the mental imagery that I was after.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
That's OK rolling stone...

The news media likewise has had its fair share of confusing, deceptive and one-sided stories to support their cause.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Rolling Rock and OTTN

Are you sure you aren't suffering from a severe case of OTTN? Overexposure To Turbofan Noise! Would you like to see Air Marshals banned from having a firearm on acft? How about those trained & armed Flight Deck Officers?

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Don't really care that they chose an assault rifle.

Absent an AR they could have used any of hundreds of other variations of a semi-auto rifle.

The great irony in the deceptive agenda of the anti-gunners is demonizing the AR when they are actually used in a very small portion of crimes while handguns are the overwhelming favorite weapon of perps.

But the AR looks mean, so it's an easier public sell to ban the AR. Ignorance and deception, the ingredients of emotional triumph over reason.

Terry Garlock

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Perspectives
Quote:

Ignorance and deception, the ingredients of emotional triumph over reason.

That is my take on the issue also. I suppose we can agree on that much.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
I can hear the crickets chirping....

...as time passes without my left leaning friends taking issue with my friend Terry's letter. I guess they have decided not to attack reasonable positions backed up by factual data.

If we only had elected officials who had similar thought processes.

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
Terry Garlock and your ASSAULT RIFLE

Very well written sir. I shall forward on with credits.....

You speak well for us Middle America types that refuse to give up on the framework and principles that 'made' this country great. Many liberal minded folks could sure stand to get to know who we Constitution loving, 2nd amendment respecting, and law abiding citizens really stand for instead of the way we are portrayed in the media and by the self serving political manipulators that pit so many of us neighbors against each other.

Way to many laws in effect right now that demonize the middle class just by their very existance. We are the ones our liberal family members are going to turn to when this government loses control and the support of the ones it used to serve.

Anyways.... thanks for taking the time to express this arguement in such reasonable, factual and peaceful manner.

Harlot OHara
Harlot OHara's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2012
*hordes

(not hoards)

FYI.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
You are correct, I was wrong.

Enjoy

Terry Garlock

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Garlock, your right about one

Garlock, your right about one thing,

Quote:

,… the lunatics are attracted by the dramatic effect and TV fame…

Take Alex Jones for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo

The NRA should make Alex their media spokesperson, eh?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Reasonable conversation to seek solutions

Alex Jones was not an example of 'reasonable' - and certainly didn't represent the NRA (I hope!) I'm glad that Walmart changed their position this morning - and will send a representative to be part of the conversation in Washington. Personally, I have more faith in local leaders implementing a sensible strategy to protect our children - maintaining Second Amendment rights - and developing strategies that meet the need of local communities to protect children and families from the mentally ill and criminals. (I think the parents who heard the shots fired from semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons had difficulty differentiating between the two during the shootings in the theater. The lady in Walton County did an effective job with a 38. A lady was shown this morning on the news who used a machete quite effectively until the police arrived. Let's see if the conversations help to reach solutions for urban and rural (suburban) America.

It's interesting how (less government folks) seem to be waiting for the (government) to come up with a solution.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM, I would argue there is no solution . . .

. . . other than being prepared to defend those we care about and hope for cultural shift in the right direction. Government can't solve everything. When someone commits larceny, those dips in Washington scurry about to make new laws against larceny instead of recognizing there are already laws in place to enforce and laws will be broken by bad people sometime no matter what.

CA Gov Jerry Brown enacted over 800 new laws that went into effect Jan 1. I hope Californians feel safer.

Life comes with risk, and no matter how much we Americans believe we are entitled to a risk-free existence, we are not.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock

My response:

Quote:

Personally, I have more faith in local leaders implementing a sensible strategy to protect our children - maintaining Second Amendment rights - and developing strategies that meet the need of local communities to protect children and families from the mentally ill and criminals

Being prepared and working towards a cultural shift in ones community is a solution. Individuals who work together for common goals can find solutions to problems. It amazes me that the 'less-government' crowd appears to throw up their hands if GOVERNMENT does not come up with a solution. My family and relatives have never believed that Americans believe they are entitled to a 'risk free existence'. (Never remember living in such a situation in my lifetime) There are communities within California that do feel safer - because they have worked together to wisely spend their funds to protect families and properties. (Yes, some of those funds came from government - but it took the cooperation of the leadership within those communities to make those funds work for them.) It appears that Fayette County has some difficulty with this - even though Peachtree City is celebrated as being an outstanding city.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM, pls help me with translation to . . .

. . . steps I can understand. What changes exactly do you think are practical - real change, not symbolic, not just talking?

I don't know how you persuade a scattered media industry to self-impose a news blackout to take away the moment of fame lunatic murderers seek. I don't know how you convince Hollywood to tone down the violence in movies that sell tickets. I don't know how you impose censorship on a video game industry feeding to immature minds the fantasy of violent power they seek to scratch a hormone-driven itch.

Gathering to have discussions might help grease the communal gears but I doubt much would come of it.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock: Small steps can work towards big results

This I learned in the Civil Rights movement.

1. Where is our leverage with 'Hollywood'? Not supporting their movies, using 'social media' to critique their productions. (Women across this nation - and especially here in Atlanta at Spelman college - campaigned to boycott a 'rapper' who used derogatory words describing women. He and some others in the industry CHANGED!! (A small step - but a beginning)

2. Where is our leverage in Fayette County? I don't know of one school community within Fayette County that does not want to come together to develop/improve strategies to protect their children. Very few in Fayette County would approve of the ban of all weapons - but many would want to know how to get improved help for mentally disturbed persons; what violent games should not be purchased for young children, etc., etc., etc. There must be leaders in the communities here in Fayette that could direct action steps to achieve more than just getting the gears in motion. This could include volunteers to monitor the schools during the day (armed) who are approved by the Board (fingerprinted, etc.,). Law enforcement can train these individuals. If there are schools/teachers/administrators within our community who want to be 'armed' - then parents and school officials can work on these strategies - within the current law.

3. I am always amazed at the nay sayers. If persons just come to listen and complain - well that is not a conversation - and I agree, would be a waste of time. There were nay sayers in the 60'a that said segregation would never end in the south. There were those who felt that the time had come for equality for all citizens in this country - and WORKED TOGETHER TO TAKE STEPS TO BEGIN THE CHANGE. If you don't believe change can occur in order to protect our children - don't use your position in the community to stop those who don't want to wait for the ineffective leaders in Washington to tell the parents in Fayette County what steps they can take. There are steps to take to protect our children - without taking away Second Amendment rights!

Quote:

I don't know how you convince Hollywood to tone down the violence in movies that sell tickets.

STOP BUYING THE TICKETS IN YOUR COMMUNITY!! No one forces us to attend movies or buy games. This is where parents/churches/community leaders come in play. The producers of such films, games have their First Amendment rights - but remember - they're in the business for a profit. We have our rights as individuals not to support their business.

The schools in Fayette County have good security strategies in operation. Discussions on how to improve those strategies do not have to wait for instructions from Washington!! What will work for Fayette County may not work for LA. . . BUT FAYETTE COUNTY RESIDENTS have the intelligence and attitude to get results IMO.

I was just reminded that the high schools in Fayette County have already had this discussion with their students - and a student who brought guns to school to 'protect' his fellow classmates was reported - and the guns were taken from his car and he was expelled. It is very possible that plans are already in operation for school communities to come together for ACTION PLANS on protecting the children in Fayette County.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Sorry, DM, sounds like a tiny peep in a windstorm . . .

. . . to me. You can't arm anyone at a school now by fed law until that law is overturned. The other activism stuff might have a small local effect, but of course I'm a glass half empty kind of guy - I call that a realist.

While all the meetings are going on, I'll be focused on armed defense just in case, and I do expect the Washington weenies to mount a new assault on our 2nd Amendment rights, which have already been infringed in degrees varying by location.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock

Schools in Georgia, California, New York, and many other states etc. have had armed guards in neighborhood public schools for well over 20 years! I have personally supervised armed guards on two campuses during my career. (What Federal Law was disobeyed?) You manly guys feel you have to make a big thing about this gun thing when common sense can be used to protect children. I'm like Nuk - where are these 'Gun Free Zone' signs here in Fayette County? You and yours can continue to focus on armed defense to display your manhood - but there are parents in this country who want their local leaders to take the steps to protect neighborhood children NOW! No one has taken my gun from me or mine; no one has taken your gun from you and yours. I pray to God that those who exhibit the communication skills and mental dexterity of Alex Jones are made to calm down enough to carry a gun in public. IMO playing the political game of protecting all of us from GUN CONTROL is like a tiny peep in a windstorm - with no goal but political posture. Parents want steps taken by local leaders to protect their children from criminals and the mentally disturbed. There are no laws that prevent a community/school district from doing this! If in our present culture vacuum, we need armed protection in our neighborhoods, then so be it. This can be done without banning all guns - or flooding our schools with gun carrying adults. My God, if people feel secure with one armed guard at our local banks - then our local communities can decide what steps they feel are necessary to protect our children in our public schools.

It appears that the Giffords have a sane approach to 'gun control reform' in America. There will be others who present a call for reform: The immediate need is for local communities to do what they can do under the law to protect their children and families from criminals and the mentally disturbed. WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THIS DO NOTHING CONGRESS TO PROTECT LOCAL COMMUNITIES. THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND COMMOM SENSE ARE AVAILABLE TO DO THE JOB. No one is taking your guns from you. Come on 'conservatives' - don't wait for the 'government' to protect your kids!! There are steps that can be taken NOW.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/01/08/gabby-giffords-gun-control-reform-sh...

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM, you're chasing your tail in circles.

I give up.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock

Don't give up - just continue to base your opinions and solid suggestions on facts.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
What Steps?

There are 80 Million Gun Owners in America.. There are some where around 200 Million guns in America.

Laws work for the LAW-ABIDING Citizens...by definition Criminals commit crimes thus ignoring LAWS.

So here is the problem DM, Lion, Gort all of the rest of the Scary gun crowd.

There are simply too many guns already in Citizens hands, law-abiding or not.. So what will a Ban do? Isn't that the central question here.

A Ban on "Assault" Styles weapons first has to be re-defined. Since the 1994 "Scary" Gun ban a whole host of new Semi-Automatic guns have been produced that would not past that test so..BUT are no where near the AR or AK styled weapons... they will have to re-define what a "Assault" Weapon is.

Now in typical Government Knee-Jerk over reaching over regulating paranoia they will go for the "over kill" if you will excuse the pun and try to add in almost anything that has a cartridge and not Black Powder. So they will come up with an abortion of a Bill that neither keeps anyone safe nor actually does what they intend...

So it will go the House where it will not pass nor will it probably pass the Senate either...

The President feeling the pressure to "DO" something will enact the law by Executive Order most likely removing the Grandfather clause for those that have the now newly banned "Scarier then before" guns.

So now what?

Well we wait...in between the calls for Impeachment, threatened Law Suits for the next tragic event. Which I assure you will happen, after-all with the Media giving the "crazies" exactly what they want fame, stardom and relevance it will happen again.

Then we have round two of "We have got to do something" more then the last time....

This time they come up with a gun buy back program and give us a time frame to get "rid" of all of the "Way to Scary" guns.

Some will comply most will not..

So now what?

Well, we get confiscation and you get the largest, biggest battle over Constitutional Rights ever fought. Both sides will say they are right...both will believe they have the moral authority to resist.

One will say come and take them the other will say you can't fight the Military.

So the question now is... What will the military do.. Obey an unlawful order to fire on Americans who resist the seizure of their guns or will they join the resistance or simply stay neutral.

All this is simply conjecture... but History has shown us that our Government will and can go to extreme measures it believes it needs to do to protect their power...

"On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the creation of internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. The order—a direct result of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor the previous December, which killed thousands of Americans—placed 120,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps. "

Tell me where did FDR get the Constitutional authority to do this? There was none. So can our Government defy the Constitution and commit an illegal act upon it's citizens?

"Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported."

"A stunning report in the New York Times depicted President Obama poring over the equivalent of terrorist baseball cards, deciding who on a “kill list” would be targeted for elimination by drone attack. The revelations — as well as those in Daniel Klaidman’s recent book — sparked public outrage and calls for congressional inquiry."

You betcha...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Thanks for the essay. Thanks for moving from Youtube to. anonymous sources. LOL. I carry. I'm considered a pretty good shot on the range. I do not support a ban on all guns. I do not support those who think that only this Congress filled with politicos can solve this problem. At least we know where you're getting your extreme right opinions from when you're honest enough to share as a 'cite'. There is no federal law that can stop local leaders from continuing to take steps to protect children in public schools. That a conversation has started regarding causes of these tragedies is progress. It is difficult to solve a problem without knowing or understanding the cause.

Quote:

There are simply too many guns already in Citizens hands, law-abiding or not.. So what will a Ban do? Isn't that the central question here.

NO! It's how do we protect our children attending public schools; how do we protect the public who are unarmed.
It's a sad political stand by people like you placing emotion and fear in citizens. (They don't need anymore emotion or fear.) Our current laws do not prevent us from working to solve this problem.

In almost every case of these tragedies - the perpetrator has been mentally disturbed or a criminal . There are 'steps' being taken to address these 'causes'. In the meantime, local leaders can legally take STEPS to protect their children in public schools and those citizens who want the freedom to enjoy life in these United States without resorting to carrying a gun 24/7.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM although emotional your response answers little...

Although you address the "Mental" issue briefly you fail to grasp that it is NOT the focus of this Administration... Guns are.

We will see a ban not Mental Health reform.. On that would you care to place a bet?

Davids mom wrote:

There is no federal law that can stop local leaders from continuing to take steps to protect children in public schools.

Actually you are incorrect. If a "Local" leader says for instance that the 2nd only applies to the National Guard, Police and a few selected others and then calls for the State Police to Confiscate everyone's guns there are in fact MULTIPLE Federal Laws that would prevent him/her from doing so. However the biggest deterrent is the 2nd itself.. You have actually given the perfect example of why the 2nd was written in the first place.. To place boundaries and restrictions to prevent Government from over-reaching during an emotional event.

DM I am using logic.. The emotion is what the Politicians are stirring when the evoke memories of Ct.

You cannot legislate safety. Do YOU think you are safe?

Are there already laws against Burglary on the books? Is it a possibility you might be Burglarized?

Are there laws against assaults? Do you believe you are immune from one?

Are there laws against Theft? Ever had anything stolen?

Dm you can enact all the feel good but do nothing laws against anything you want.. That only means that IF they catch the perp they can prosecute them BUT it will do NOTHING to stop the act...

DM do you really believe a Hi-Cap Mag ban will work..?

Do you really believe a AR/AK ban will stop criminals and crazies from killing...yes... even School Children?

Fact is DM NOTHING can keep them safe. If nothing else the Israelis should have taught you that... Do you think they have not enacted all the laws they can to protect their kids and do you think they are anymore safer for it?

So what can we do that they have not already tried?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Do nothings - the bane of the world
Quote:

Fact is DM NOTHING can keep them safe. If nothing else the Israelis should have taught you that... Do you think they have not enacted all the laws they can to protect their kids and do you think they are anymore safer for it?

Do nothng? Throw out the Constitution, laws, etc.etc. - since there is nothing we can do about the acts of criminals and those who are mentally disturbed. Thanks for your solution. You are a very insightful, articulate, and knowledgeable human.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
DM

What are YOU doing to protect the children in our schools?

Nothing. That's what I thought.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe. LOL
Quote:

Nothing. That's what I thought.

Thought is the non- operative word here ! Have a nice day!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm bit of a Drama Queen aren't we?

Did I say throw out the Constitution? I think I said there are NOT any MORE laws we can enact that will actually do anything...

Show me where in the last 60 years any EVENT that the perp that committed the act did not break laws ALREADY on the books.

You see DM there is NOTHING more in the way of enacting laws that will actually DO something to stop... I said STOP the act.

No LAW could stop me from committing a CRIME if I was intent on doing so.

In fact the Secret Service quietly acknowledges that they could not even stop a determined Assassin who does not intend on getting away..i.e. Suicide Killer.

Do you think there are enough Laws against Assassinating the President Dm?

Has it ever happened before.. Did LAWS stop them?

btw- The NRA on today's meeting..." We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals."

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."

Glad you didn't take that bet aren't you?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Attacks on Second Amendment - SL

We'll see/hear on Tuesday. What suggestions/ opinions did the NRA offer? Weren't they in line with other organization's suggestions? The focus of this exercise is to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed.
The SC will deal AGAIN with the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those law-abiding citizens who have a gun in their home or rifles for hunting, collecting, etc. should not have anything to worry about. Is the Second Amendment the last vestige of exclusive power for some in this country? Thank heavens minorities and women in this country don't feel they have to pack in order to feel powerful in this country.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM
Davids mom wrote:

The SC will deal AGAIN with the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

First the SC has NO interpretative powers DM.. NONE. Their charter is not to interpret laws but to consider if a law is Constitutional. Since the 2nd is already in the Bill of Rights all they should be allowed to do is see if bans are legal or not... that's it.

Davids mom wrote:

Those law-abiding citizens who have a gun in their home or rifles for hunting, collecting, etc. should not have anything to worry about.

Really because many on your side of the fence is calling for house to house confiscation.. Feinstein, Waters among others.. The Brady Campaign not so public face is as well... so.....

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - The conservative expert

Sorry I used the wrong word. (Interpretation/as Mr.Garlock also stated) The SC will deal with the Constitutionality of law if that law is brought before it in an appeal. So far, the right to bear arms is secure. No one will come to your home and force you to give up all of your guns.

This makes for some interesting reading:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=United%20Stat...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM your condescension aside...

...I am still 100% correct.

One must also remember that SCOTUS ruled 5 to 4 that the 2nd Amendment clearly meant that average Citizen can own a Firearm. That means DM that one vote and only one vote decided that we have the Right to own Firearms.

So don't tell me no one wants to confiscate guns.. when Feinstein and Waters and many others have publicly stated it and then you actually have 4 Justices that say we do not have a Constitutionally guatanteed Right to own Guns.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Did you read the dissenting opinions? Sorry for appearing rude. Of course you are always 100% correct! However, your concern appears to only be about one's right to house an arsenal of military-like weapons in one's private home. Tuesday will see if that 'right' is what the contributing organizations focused on - and if and how that will be addressed in the report to the president. Should be interesting. I understand that you and Alex Jones have a lot in common. Hummmmmm.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM you would win the argument IF....

...you could show me where in the Constitution I can find "NEED" and "QUANTITY"...

Simple there it is DM.. just go through the Federalist Papers and all of the notes from the First Continental Congress and find where in the arguments for the 2nd NEED and QUANTITY is mentioned.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - The conservative expert

You are so entertaining! I'm not trying to WIN an argument with you - just sharing my opinion. If you would like to write an essay regarding the absence of the words NEED and QUANTITY in the Federalist Papers and the First Continental Congress - and it's relation to the Second Amendment - be my guest. Today, the opinions of the SC and their interpretation of the Constitutionality of appeals brought before the SC is more relevant to the implementation of the Second Amendment, IMO.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
dm- clarify please?
Davids mom wrote:

Thank heavens minorities and women in this country don't feel they have to pack in order to feel powerful in this country.

What exactly does that mean? Do you mean to say that only white men are concerned about protecting contitutional amendments?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Renault

No. But it does appear to me that there is an almost frantic effort for some in this country to maintain power. Walmart, which is the largest retailer for guns and the NRA which has great funds to support legislators, are being supported by 'white men' most vocally. I don't see/hear many women or minorities among their vocal supporters. IMO, the power in this country still remains in the 'vote'. Since the NRA and Walmart may be the biggest losers if the sale of guns is reduced by a universal background check, and the NRA is perceived as losing a 'fight' - I just wonder if this 'angry white men' thing may have some validity. Quite frankly, more women will be 'carrying' in the future, and the Second Amendment will not prevent us from protecting our home and our children. It assures us this right. I personally don't think I need a weapon that rips and tears flesh beyond recognition and sends multiple bullets within seconds to get the job done. I am not a hunter and have very little knowledge of hunting guns. This is where the knowledgeable members of the NRA can be of assistance . Which weapons used by the military are not necessary for the civilian homeowner? The rant of 'Revolution if you take my gun' is seen by many as a last gasp of some 'angry white men' - and Alex Jones didn't do much to change that perception.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Steve

obama never wanted to be President. He wants to rule as a dictator. This is just another step in his quest to destroy the American dream and become a fascist dictator. He doesn't know how or want to solve problems. obama wants to rule over people with an iron fist.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Mr Garlock
Quote:

You can't arm anyone at a school now by fed law until that law is overturned.

You are aware of this?

http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/Ga-Lawmaker-Proposes-Bill-to-Allow-Pr...

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
G35D, there are many such efforts in process . . .

. . . and I don't really know but assume that until the fed Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is repealed a local law to the contrary will be trumped. Is there a lawyer in the house?

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
School Safety in GA

State legislators are now considering a bill to allow administrators to carry. Marietta High School has an armed resource officer on campus, as do almost all High Schools in our country. These are practices initiated by local leaders. Communities do not need to wait for the NRA and Feinstein to settle their gun control dispute. School officials have legal counsel, and try to operate within the law. The Gun Free Law of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Gun Law of 1994 pertained to students carrying weapons on campus and their punishment.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Mr Garlock-I'm not a lawyer but

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-school-guardian-plan-allows-te...

Some states already allow teachers to carry on school property.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Gun Free Act

Please read:

Gun Free Zone Act - 1990

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Gun Free Schools - 1994

This guidance is to provide information concerning State and local responsibilities under the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), which was enacted on October 20, 1994 as part of the Improving America?s Schools Act of 1994 (the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)), Public Law 103-382. Preliminary information was mailed to Governors and Chief State School Officers in a letter dated November 28, 1994. Revisions to the guidance were made and issued on October 31, 1995. This revision of the guidance contains an additional question and answer (Q. 10) concerning reporting.

The GFSA states that each State receiving Federal funds under ESEA must have in effect, by October 20, 1995, a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school. Each State's law also must allow the chief administering officer of the local educational agency (LEA) to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Garlock - Free zones

good to know that this is a Federal law, that should keep all the crazies off our school grounds! Now we need a few more Federal laws to really make sure that they know that the Feds mean it this time. No more armed crazies on school grounds!

At least this will bring some "comfort" to liberals that happen to be clueless about firearms and crazies.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
School zones

I keep going through them looking for those rumored free drugs and free guns and never seem to be able to find them. I must be doing something wrong?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Funny how "Gun Free" zones have the most violence...

...yet areas that "Mandate" a gun in every home i.e. Kennesaw seem to have the least...

Go figure..

Many Anti-Gun advocates claim that no one is trying to take away your gun.. That is patently false. Dianne Feinstein clearly stated she would ban and confiscate all guns.. Maxine Waters said much the same.

The Brady Campaign Mission Statement states that they just want "Sensible" regulations... However when you move to their public forums the very people that are involved in their organization openly state they advocate confiscation. So their very public face is not the face they present in semi-private environs.

No Ban will work...without confiscation. So let's drop the pretense and just admit that is their end game. They know this too. So what do they do?

They know right now we won't just say, aww shucks, here they are... so they have to nudge us, scare us, out us do anything they can to ostracize us.
Failing that they need regulations and Laws, Constitutional or not doesn't matter.

But in the end there will always be the majority of us that will say "Come and get it" so then comes confiscation.

How far will they be willing to go and how far will we be willing to go?

Now that is the question.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Garlock - Gun

Gun free zones are soft targets. If laws could eliminate murder, we wouldn't have any murders now. Gun controls (laws) not only violate the Constitution, they put us at a disadvantage against those that don't obey the law. Or do gun control advocates believe that those controls will instill virtue where there isn't any?

If the people want to amend the Constitution then they should actually do it and stop with piecemeal laws that violate it.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Terry G. - Gun Control

Our culture is becoming coarse, inhibitions are evaporating, honor and pride are fading, shame has disappeared, restraint is a distant memory, thug behavior is glorified in rap (I refuse to call it music), self-indulgence is the new normal, instant gratification is the national lifestyle, boundaries are no longer visible, respect for others is passe, casual violence at movie theaters is our modern version of the Roman Colosseum and video games teach kids slaughter as a practiced skill.

That pretty much sums it up.

Thanks for posting this.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

Garlock has hit on a sad reality. This is when parents (home training) and the adherence to moral values in the schools is important. . . necessary. If 'corse' movies are not box office hits; violent games remain on the shelves; disgusting music is not listened to by the majority of teenagers; etc. maybe this trend towards the acceptance of violence in our culture will start to change.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Parenting
Davids mom wrote:

This is when parents (home training) and the adherence to moral values in the schools is important. . . necessary.

That explains a lot. Let's see how these kids turn out without knowing who the baby-daddy(s) are.

16 and counting

When 70% of children are born out of wedlock, it breeds an epidemic of hopelessness, poverty, despair, thuggery, and violence.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe

There are some very productive citizens in our world who don't know who their biological father is. With the elimination of abortion, unfortunately there may be more. Some claim that the man they called Jesus was conceived out of wedlock. He did OK. Having the support and guidance of a human or spiritual father is important. Any child confronted with hopelessness, despair, poverty, needs help. Again, parents and communities need to step up and combat the glorification of policies that are contrary to community moral standards. No easy answers, but to do nothing is erroneous. To limit a child because of the circumstance of his birth is wrong. Many individuals and organizations are working to lift children out of the circumstance of poverty and hopelessness . I know you agree with their efforts. Right?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
It is the parent's responsibility to raise a child

Contrary to progressive bed-wetting liberal belief, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a mother and a father dedicating their time and resources to bringing up their children right. Parents need to step up,(not communities) and unfortunately the family structure has broken down to where having as many babies as you can in order to get more of a welfare check is glorified. People that have children that they can't afford or out of wedlock without both parents in the picture are guilty of limiting their children's development. It's not society's fault and society should not be responsible for raising the children. Can you get that concept through your thick skull?

Elimination of abortion? What in the blazes are you talking about? No one is trying to put limits on abortion. In fact, we encourage as many democrats and bed-wetting libs to get abortions. We're even forced to pay for contraception for everyone now. It's too bad the woman in the video would not avail herself of these taxpayer funded services. Now her brood will probably be wards of the state for most of their lives. What kind of hope do these children have with a role model like this woman? Where are the baby-daddies?

For you to compare Jesus to children without both parents raising them (married or not) ins ludacris, but that's the mentality that we have come to expect from you. You're all about trying to push your version of moral equivalence in every aspect of life, and it just doesn't fly. You're full of crap.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

You're full of something - and it apparently is not brotherly love. My expression of my opinion has no affect on any one with a different opinion. Relax and enjoy the day!

Recent Comments