Annie, get your gun!

So, what to do? You’re at a BBQ with a mixed bag of friends, some liberal, others conservative, and the conversations are beginning to drag. What to do? Well, you could suggest a game of “pictionary” or some lawn bowling. Or you could just stand in the middle of the patio and loudly make this statement:

“I am a Democrat and I believe in gun control!”

Suddenly, your dull, lifeless BBQ will come to life! Maybe not in a good way, but it will be much more lively.

I am a confirmed liberal Democrat and I earned my bona fides long ago. That having been said, I am a firm defender of the Second Amendment. There are several reasons for this.

One, is that I support the Constitution of the United States. We are to be a “nation of laws” and the COTUS is the supreme law of the land. There are reasons that it is so difficult to amend the Constitution.

Two, virtually every legal gun owner is a law abiding citizen that respects firearms and uses them properly.

Three, gun control laws do little or nothing to reduce gun violence. In some studies, the legal carrying of a firearm has been shown to actually reduce some crimes.

I am a legal gun owner and a legal carrier of a firearm, even though I choose not to carry most of the time.

Truthfully, guns are not the cause of violent crime in America. The high murder rate is due to a “culture of violence” not the “gun culture.”

Guns are tools, examples of fine craftsmanship and even works of art. They are only dangerous when used in an improper manner. Responsible gun owners keep their weapons from the reach of children and teach their children gun safety.

The focus on reducing gun violence should not be on the gun it’s self, but on the culture that breeds gun violence. Gangs, drug trafficking and poverty are the reasons for gun injuries and deaths, for the most part.

Gun control laws generally just become a nuisance to law abiding gun owners. Certainly I am for background checks, but much beyond that, gun control laws are mostly “feel good” laws that do little to achieve their well intentioned objectives.

Cain killed Abel with a club. Today, perhaps he would have capped him with a 9mm. Regardless, he would still be dead. Throughout history, be it a club, spear, sword or a gun, man has figured out a way to kill his fellow man.

Banning guns will do nothing to change that.

Now, the patio is open for discussion………………………………….


William Stephenson Clark


Advertisements

45 Comments

Filed under Gun control

45 responses to “Annie, get your gun!

  1. The only disagreement that I have with you on this subject is that a gun is a deadlier weapon than a club or a knife. Sure, when wielded by an experienced user, a club or knife can kill with a single stroke. But most people would not be so lucky, so that there IS a chance that the victim of such an attack could live through it. It is much easier for a clumsy person such as myself to cause the death of another person with a gun than a club or a knife.

    I don’t want to take away anyone’s constitutional right to bear arms. I believe the original intent of the framers was that an individual should be able to defend himself against a tyrannical government in the form of militias. I could be completely wrong because, from what I read, it doesn’t appear to be clear what the framer’s were thinking. HOWEVER, I can’t agree with the old guns don’t kill, people do argument because people kill faster, easier and more with guns than any other weapon.

    • WSClark

      “I believe the original intent of the framers was that an individual should be able to defend himself against a tyrannical government in the form of militias.”

      Perhaps that was the original intent, although we can never know for sure. I am not aware of any separate writings by the Founders that indicates a thought one way or another.

      The 2nd has been a subject of much debate, particularly recently. The current Court has ruled, however, the the right to bear arms does extend to the individual.

      It now is settled law.

  2. The 2nd amendment supporters are fervent and I understand how they feel. I feel that fervent about separation of church and state, and would organize and lead the march to keep our country from becoming a theocracy. It is a passion I don’t have adequate words to express, but I relate to the passion of gun owners — borders on obsession!

    • WSClark

      When I step back from the issues of the day and look at the COTUS, I reflect on the need to support and uphold the Constitution for all people. I am very glad that the support for the Federal anti-gay marriage amendment collapsed. Had it passed, it would been the first to deny rights, rather than extend them,

      The COTUS is the basis for our law, and we truly need to adhere to the concept of being a “Nation of Laws.”

  3. How do I feel about the 2nd amendment? I don’t think about it until I hear or read a discussion about it. Never enters my mind because it is so low on my list of what is important.

  4. G-STIR

    I firmly believe that guns are not the problem! However, about those pesky bullets……………..

  5. I wonder if those who are so fervent about ‘gun rights’ think I am silly for worrying about The Constitution being written to more closely resemble the Bible? I think they’re silly for worrying that someone is going to take their guns away, so it’s quite possible they think the same way about what I feel passionate about.

    One more thing I share with the fervent gun rights advocates — no one will take their guns and no one will take away my right as a woman to make my own decisions about my health care. It doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not. You see, this is where both arguments are futile and useless — abortions have always happened and won’t ever stop no matter what. Guns have always been owned and always will be. Both are legal now and it wouldn’t change if they became illegal!

    • indypendent

      The only thing that would change is the price of a gun and the price of an abortion- both prices would be higher because guns and abortions would be illegal.

      The demand would still be there – probably more of a demand becaused they would be illegal.

      So how exactly is making them illegal helping the overall big picture?

    • That and acquiring both would potentially be more dangerous.

  6. I think Griffin owns a shotgun (or maybe it’s a rifle, all I know is it’s a long gun). I haven’t asked him but I don’t think he has fired a gun since he left the military. He was an MP and well trained, but I think he, like me, has other interests. If he decided to collect guns, resume his younger days of hunting or take up target shooting it would be fine and dandy. It doesn’t interest me but we don’t have to share every hobby. He doesn’t paint rocks, I don’t play golf. 😉

  7. If you read in the paper one day that fnord was shot and killed and your thoughts stray to wishing she had protected herself against gun violence — STOP! Don’t ever have that thought. Have this one — She never spent a second of her life worrying about the need to protect herself from guns. She would have felt that such a waste of time! If she’s died from gun violence then she would have said, “It was my time!”

    All those who choose to prepare for this eventuality of needing to protect themselves or their families should do exactly that!

    And neither of us has the right to think the others decision was a poor one. Both decisions were the correct ones for the individuals who made them.

    • WSClark

      I don’t worry about needing to protect myself. To be honest, just being aware of your surroundings and using reasonable precautions is more likely to keep you safe than a gun will.

      • I find those who call me ‘sheeple’ (and worse) to be tiresome, boring, egotistical — they made their decisions and don’t think we should be allowed to. ::eye roll::

        How interested would they be if we went onandonandon about our hobbies / interests that they didn’t share?

      • WSClark

        You are correct, Fnord, about some going “off the deep end” regarding their “hobby.”

        Such is the case with those that claim the “Obama would take away their guns if he could.”

        That isn’t even close to being true, but they continually repeat it. Like other “one issue” positions, it serves little to continually bang the drum, despite a complete lack of evidence to support the position.

      • This is SO TRUE!

        There are parts of town here in KC that people call “bad.” Having seen bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia and Chicago, I always laugh at this. There are “bad” neighborhoods and then there are BAD NEIGHBORHOODS. It’s all relative, isn’t it?

        I don’t walk with fear. Fear is the enemy of reason. It also goes back to the Serenity Prayer for me. I take proper precautions, am aware of my surroundings and that is all that is in my control. So I don’t worry about the rest. And I am happier for it. And I meet a lot of cool people that I would not otherwise meet.

    • One last thought on this subject of being prepared to protect yourself and / or family…

      I could not shoot a human being. I couldn’t! Even if they were threatening my children or grandchildren, I could not. It isn’t in me. I don’t want it in me.

      • GMC70

        Such is the case with those that claim the “Obama would take away their guns if he could.”

        Sorry to part company with you here, WS. His record says he would.

        He simply doesn’t have the votes to do so, and he has other priorities. But given the opportunity, I have little doubt that he and others, many (but not all) in the Democratic party, would do so.

        When those with such a record say they don’t so intend, well, I’ll be blunt. I flatly don’t believe them. Their actions speak otherwise.

        And fnord, given the proclivity of some of the left to gungrab, this statement – “they made their decisions and don’t think we should be allowed to. ::eye roll::,” I find quite ironic. Pot, meet kettle. For many who see the 2nd am. as central, that is EXACTLY what we wish the grabbers would do. But they don’t.

        Ultimately, the 2nd. Am isn’t about guns. It’s about the relationship of a free citizen to the State. The very definition of a police state in which only the state is armed. And given that gov’ts themselves are historically the greatest violators of human rights, it is in most cases a recipe for disaster for only the State to possess arms. Given the opportunity, sooner or later that same State will abuse its powers. It’s human nature – it’s what we do. And has been so from the beginning of time.

  8. tosmarttobegop

    Got you WS, pick up grenade, pull pin, throw!

    I have yet to read the responses should be interesting.

    This is one of those subjects that has as much to do with emotion as facts.

    My wife offered to pay for me to get a concealed carry permit for my birthday some time ago.

    From my past background and having actually been in those situations where sound judgment and the when and where a firearm is the correct response, I think I would be well qualified to carry.

    But still it has not been a driving force in my life, one day I will as much because of the training and experience that I among other should. Better me then the likes of J.J,

    But then do I see the real needed?
    Yes and no, the reality of the situation is that by and large the need to be able to defend yourself or others is rare and quiet random.

    Much simpler for everyone if there was a calendar you could look at and see that on a certain date and at a certain time and place there would be action A that led to action B and the end result is action C. Then the obvious solution would be to simply on that date and time to not be at that place.

    I agree, my owning a firearm and I do own a number of them is no threat or danger to others.

    Also that a fire arm is a tool and the reality is that any tool is dangerous and a threat to anyone else.

    Believe me the end result of me beating you in the head with a claw hammer is no more damaging or deadly then me shooting you in the head with a 357. In fact you might actually stand a better chance of surviving it if I did shoot you.

    I have met people that survived being shot with nine m.m. shotguns, 44 magi’s, 38s and 357.

    Also I have met people who had killed someone with a 22 or a 25 auto.

    It often falls back on to the there has to be a cause rather then simply human nature or random occurrence.

    Porn causes rape, guns causes murder and the like, but the reality does not bare out such causes being the reason.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    I agree the use of common sense is far more a protection against being a victim then a gun is.
    I would have not problem going through the intersection of Ninth and Washington in Wichita in broad daylight.

    But would not go through there at night even if I had a full automatic machine gun and several hand guns with me. Being aware to possible problems often has the same out come as being armed.
    Our second anniversary, having not been on a honeymoon we spend two days at the Holliday inn across from Century two. (as it turned out we stay in the same room Michael Soles was in when he shot up down town Wichita) We were expecting my parents who I had called to bring up my scope since I did not have a pair of Binoculars. My wife at first started to take the chain off and open the door.

    Then as a after thought decided to look out the peephole, there was two large Black men standing there waiting for the door to open. When the door did not open they moved on to every door on the floor.
    Finally one saying to the other that no one was going to open their door.

    I took a place at the door to watch them while my wife called the front desk to report it.
    After ten minutes no one had showed up and I called to tell them I was not paying this much to be setting in a room scared and in danger! If security has not been up send them up to escort us do we were leaving!

    The simple act of looking first might have at least saved us from being terrorized if not worse.

  10. GMC70

    What can I say, WS. Exactly right. Even a stopped clock, etc. . . .

    I’d add only that in the final instance, the 2nd Am. is in fact the protector of the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, etc. Gov’t, left to its own devices, always trends toward tyranny. And in the end, the only real check on gov’t is a citizenry determined and equipped, if need be, to make the cost of tyranny intolerably high. Chairman Mao was right in one respect: power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun.

    American rests on four boxes: the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Don’t open the last unless the other three are completely unavailable.

    I hope and pray that we never have to exercise that ultimate option.

    • indypendent

      And fnord, given the proclivity of some of the left to gungrab, this statement – “they made their decisions and don’t think we should be allowed to. ::eye roll::,” I find quite ironic. Pot, meet kettle. For many who see the 2nd am. as central, that is **EXACTLY what we wish the grabbers would do. But they don’t**

      ————————-

      American rests on four boxes: the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box, and the **cartridge box. Don’t open the last unless the other three are completely unavailable.

      I hope and pray that we never have to exercise that ultimate option**
      —————————-

      GMC wrote these two statements in separate comments today but I find both of them very telling.

      In the first statement he/she is telling us that the 2nd Amendment supporters are wishing for Obama and Democrats to take their guns but they won’t. (which tells me that these so-called gun grabbers are not exactly grabbing – so what happens to that argument?)

      And then in the second statement, there is a subtle threat of gun violence for anyone who dares to come to get their guns.

      So are the 2nd Amendment supporters really wanting their right to protect themselves or are they just looking for a fight?

      Sounds to me like a bunch of bullies out looking for a fight and then that will somehow justify their violent actions.

      And that is EXACTLY what is wrong with some of the 2nd Amendment supporters. They are just riled up people just itching to pull that trigger finger.

      Seems to me, if GMC wants to go by people’s records – think of Timothy McVeigh. He was a white male , Christian, 2nd Amendment supporter, anti-government and thought he was justified to become a mass murderering domestic terrorist.

      Shall we go by his record and assume that all white males, Chirstian, 2nd Amendment supporters and anti-government to be the next murdering domestic terrorist?

      Just asking…..

      And don’t accuse me of being anti-gun. I am not afraid to use a gun to protect myself or my family – especially against any fool who thinks they are on some mission to wipe out the government on their perceived threat of guns being taken away.

      Seriously, dude, how many guns does it take to make one feel superior?

      • GMC70

        In the first statement he/she is telling us that the 2nd Amendment supporters are wishing for Obama and Democrats to take their guns but they won’t. (which tells me that these so-called gun grabbers are not exactly grabbing – so what happens to that argument?)

        I said no such thing; indeed, just the opposite. Fail.

        And then in the second statement, there is a subtle threat of gun violence for anyone who dares to come to get their guns.

        Let me be clear. If gov’t proceeds, on an organized scale, to violate the Constitution, the “threat” isn’t subtle. Molon Labe. Come and take them; bullets first. WE WILL NOT DISARM.

        There’s a lot of assumptions there, and a huge straw man. “Anti-government?” Where? Show me. Limited gov’t; yes. Anti-government, no. Gov’t is necessary. At best a necessary evil, to adopt Paine’s quote, but one necessary by the nature of the human animal. You’ll find no “anti-gov’t agenda here; if you see it, it’s your projection, not my position.

        I’m a realist, however. I understand what gov’t is, and has always been historically, and will always be, this side of heaven. A Leviathan, seeking to devour what it may. History is full of gov’ts who are the worst abusers of human rights. Think it can’t happen here? Think again. Remember Jim Crow?

        Your position strikes me as naive.

        Oh, and it’s not how many guns are needed to feel superior; the superior historical logic of my position is evident to anyone who thinks. In truth, it works like this – if you know how many guns you have, you don’t have enough.

        (Especially desirable are the “eeeeevil” black rifles, for their innate ability to piss of liberals.)

        😉

    • prairie pond

      I disagree. It’s the first amendment that protects all others. Your right to own and use guns would be taken away without a wimper or a bang without the ability of someone to speak up about the loss of rights.

      You can kill ME, but you can never kill my words.

      • indypendent

        Me thinks some gun lovers protest too much.

        Or maybe that nail’s head was hit right on target?

        And to think, I did not have to use my gun.

        LMAO

  11. WSClark

    “Even a stopped clock, etc. . . .”

    Well, excuse me if I don’t thank you, GMC.

    Kindly refrain from attacks on other posters. It may be appropriate for WEBlog, it is not here.

    No one has insulted you, no one has has belittled your point of view. Kindly do the same.

    • GMC70

      Relax, WS. It’s at worst a gentle ribbing. You especially should recognize that others don’t always see HUMOR as you do.

      Remember?

      I agree with you.

      And I’ve not insulted or belittled anyone. I don’t do that there, I won’t here. I will disagree with posters from time to time, and point out what I see as errors in logic; they will do the same. If you see that as “belittling” or “insulting,” then that vaunted “tolerance” y’all are so proud of isn’t very tolerant at all.

      • indypendent

        The people who think they never insult or belittle someone are usually the worst offenders.

        But you have a good day and God Bless you.

  12. I love to hear tstb tell of his realization that his guns weren’t going to be taken from him. Smart man, one who stopped and looked at facts. Then, if I’m remembering correctly, when he found out how good it was to throw off that fear and know the facts, he kept looking and found neocons — something that was truly scary. He admits the ‘one issue’ he had paid attention to wasn’t valid but what he found when he really started looking was way more dangerous than the rumors he had once listened to and believed.

    Friend that he is, he shared all this info with me. I have blamed him and thanked him ever since!

    • indypendent

      And don’t think that Neocons won’t take away everyone’s guns if they wanted to. Their goal is world domination through military strength – and that is THEIR military – not some average Americans with guns in their homes.

      • GMC70

        Their [“Noecons”] goal is world domination through military strength – and that is THEIR military – not some average Americans with guns in their homes.

        LOL!!

        Oh – You mean, you’re serious?

        OK, now I’m REALLY laughing. Where do you people get this stuff?

  13. prairie pond

    So many people think gay marriage is more dangerous than guns.

    WTF?

    America. What a country.

  14. indypendent

    Where do we get this stuff? Try doing some research that is not on Fox News and talk radio.

    You have more to fear from the NeoConservatives than any Democrat.

    So let’s not see you come to liberals for help when the NeoCons take away your precious guns.

    • The only way you know what is truly dangerous is to let go of your fear of what isn’t. Some will never be able to accomplish that. They need that fear and hold on to it for dear life.

  15. tosmarttobegop

    “Sorry to part company with you here, WS. His record says he would“.

    There is where I have to say sorry GMC on this we part ways.

    Since Obama has came into office there has been the extension of gun rights where you can carry in a National park. You can also bring your firearm on Amtrak where you could not before.

    The ammo shortage turn out to be a combination of two factors.
    One being paranoia, fearing of upcoming Liberal withdraw of gun rights and that it will be going through the availability of ammo.

    The old bug-a-boo we have always suffered when ever a Democrat wins the White house.

    But with the passage of time and the revealing of facts it has not came about.
    President Reagan and than President G.H. Bush brought about more restrictive policies then President Clinton did.

    When ever ammo hit the shelves it was bought up just as soon.

    Some by the paranoid gun owners and the rest by places like the Bullet stop.
    The gun shops buying it at Wal-Mart prices then turning around and selling it at a much higher price.

    The second factor was two wars going on at the same time.

    Ammo manufacturer were working second and third shifts on both ammo for the Government and for the private section. Of course the first priority was the Government contracts.

    It all just played into the paranoia and was based on nothing that was not clear and understandable. I still receive e-mails warning of some insidious plots and pointing to some piece of legislation.

    So far a simple review of the legislation has shown no such thing. One was laughable in that reviewing the amendment it actually said nothing about guns, ammo or even restrictions!

    That is not to say that there are not some legislators have not put in something but it was often so out there that there was no support from any legislators for it. shot down before it was even heard by the rest of the committee.

    All that means is that there are some that is true that wishes they could disarm everyone.

    In generally some misguided thought process kind of like if we ban cars we would eliminate drunk driving.

    Both parties have their share of out there thoughts, there are just as many Conservatives that think that Social security, Medicare and Medicate should be abolished

    All with the thought that for the betterment of the country to let the old and infirmed to die sooner then later.

    Both sides have reason to be watchful but not paranoid, do not buy into the prima-facie of they are out to get you!

    Too often when looking behind that prima-facie is someone spinning it for their own agenda. Not spreading any real truths.

  16. tosmarttobegop

    This is going to take some time so it is in two parts:

    Where do you people get this stuff?

    Perhaps from one of the most frightening source their own mouth.
    Not from some Liberal website but their own and the concepts and ideas were just so delusional that no one in their right mind would have thought of them.

    Middle East peace? The United States was to invade and occupy Middle Eastern countries and install a Democratic government. Using such logic points, the United States being the last super power that it was our duty and right to inflect our will upon the world. Also being the last super power no one could stand up against us, they literally believed that it would be a cake walk.

    And they had a list, first Iraq, then Iran, followed by Syria and S.A.U. along with Egypt, Libya, Lebanon and Sadie Arabia simply put the only country in the Middle East that was safe from the United States invading and Occupying was Israel.

    This all from their own website, What is called the “Bush Doctrine” was not new, it was proposed by the Neo-Conservative with the PNAC and on their website. Before that it was known as the “Wolfowitz doctrine” first proposed by Paul Wolfowitz under the Ford Administration. It was never taken serious and Wolfowitz was considered a laughing stock by everyone in the White House and the Pentagon.

    That is except for Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfield they though not true Neo-Conservatives were like minds.

    Also one of those wonderful ideas of Wolfowitz was group B, his group was set up to go over the intel that the CIA got on the Soviets. While the CIA was saying that the Soviet Union was going broke under it own weight and was no longer bent on the destruction of the Untied States.

    Group B conclusion was that the Soviets had developed a secret weapon that was able to track our subs without the use of Harmonics. They proscribe to President Ford that the Untied States should go hot war with the Soviets and fire the first strike starting that war.

    When asked what evidence there was to have came to those conclusions?
    Wolfowitz told Ford they had no evidence of what they had concluded.
    No evidence to base the idea that the Soviets had created any such secret weapon.
    But it was just logical for them to have done!

    When Ford countered with if there is no evidence that they were doing it why would you think they had?
    It was then and perhaps an explanation as to how we ended up invading Iraq.

    Wolfowitz said, “Just because there is no proof they are doing it does not mean they are not!”.

    Thank God that Ford was not G.W. Bush huh?

    • I remember when you first shared links with me (it was back when we first met at the old place before there even was a WEBlog) and my first reaction was how public this evil was. It was truly hiding in plain sight. Then I began reading and asked for more links, finally I learned enough I was actually able to follow the trails and find my own links…

      All this while we had a POTUS being led around by his nose ring because he was too busy posturing in flight suits, too incurious and perhaps lacking in intellectual abilities. I knew who was pulling the strings and it was scary. Sometimes I thought the outing of Valerie Plame brought attention from the media and may have been what saved us. Bush probably still didn’t realize what was going, but he did know it was negative attention. He was well sheltered and the outcries had to get really loud before he realized things weren’t comin’ up roses.

  17. tosmarttobegop

    Neo-Conservatives are not the same as those who say they are Neo-Cons.
    The Neo-Cons are nothing more then simple minded and partisans.
    Kind of the forerunners of the Tea Party.

    While the Neo-Conservatives are delusional Ideologs who take a warped lessons from history.

    An example is, we went to war against Germany and Japan defeated them and instilled a Democratic government. Now they are strong allies and strong Democratic friends.

    So going to war and defeating the world is in the best interest of the United States.

    The Neo-Conservative by their own admission are admirers of the Nazis and that of Leon Trotsky who was the one who established the Red Army and the theory or “ Perpetual revolution.
    Using the Red army to invade and defeat other countries to install a Communist government.

    Since the other people are not smart enough to realize how much better they would be with a Communist Government. Otherwise saying it would be for those other peoples own good.
    Kind of sounds familiar huh?

    Again all from their own mouths and words that is where we people get this stuff.

    It took me a year of trying to discount them and to convince me that these were the people now in control of the Government. A little voice in the back of my mind kept telling me what they were saying about Iraq and Saddam was not adding up. All I started out doing was to reassure myself that what I was hearing was right.

    To shut up that little voice and assure myself we were doing the right thing.

    What I did find was shocking and frightening about what was going on in my country.

    A worst nightmare coming true….. The President and those around him were lunatics!

  18. itolduso

    ‘I could not shoot a human being. I couldn’t! Even if they were threatening my children or grandchildren, I could not. It isn’t in me. I don’t want it in me.’

    Maybe. Maybe not. Not knocking you at all. It is just my experience, that given the right circumstance and pushed on with the right leverage, people can and will do things that they ordinarily would not.

    However, owning a gun, even using a gun, does not necessarily mean shooting someone.
    I once responded to a call to emergency services. Upon arrival, the two people who had kicked in the door of an elderly couple during the night were peacefully sitting on the ground instead of causing trouble. THe reason? A gentleman of 80 years old was pointing a shotgun in their general direction. The same shotgun that had been pointed at their heads as they kicked in the door.

    • “…the right circumstance and pushed on with the right leverage…”

      Tis true, itoldyouso, I have never been any good at predicting the future.

      I always smile when I hear the stories like you shared of the 80 year old gentleman. I’m also always tickled pink when they turn out well.

  19. itolduso

    “I’m also always tickled pink when they turn out well”

    Me too.