Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016    Login | Register        

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]


tgarlock's picture

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

Terry Garlock, PTC

rolling stone's picture

[quote]Ignorance and deception, the ingredients of emotional triumph over reason.[/quote]

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

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?

PTC Observer's picture

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.

rolling stone's picture

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's picture

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

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

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

Please share with us these controls. Thanks.

PTC Observer's picture

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.

tgarlock's picture

. . . 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

Terry Garlock, PTC

S. Lindsey's picture

... 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.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

The argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to "militias" is an inherently flawed concept for several reasons. Foremost of which is that a standing army already existed. People forget that the constitution wasnt ratifed in 1776 like most people think, it was ratified in 1787 and dint go into effect until 1789. The history of the U.S. military dates to 1775, even before the Declaration of Independence marked the establishment of the United States. The Continental Army, Continental Navy, and Continental Marines were created in close succession by the Second Continental Congress in order to defend the new nation against the British Empire in the American Revolutionary War. These forces demobilized in 1784 after the Treaty of Paris ended the War for Independence. The Congress of the Confederation created the United States Army on 3 June 1784, although the Army's founding is celebrated as occurring on 14 June 1775. The 1787 adoption of the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," as well as the power to declare war and gave the President of the United States the responsibility of being the military's commander-in-chief. It therefore makes no sense that in the very same document that establishes a standing army and navy for the countries defense, they would feel the need to include an amendment at the same time that provided for a militia to protect the country. The US army and navy are established in the constitution under article 1 section8, powers of congress, NOT the second amendment. also, looking at the historical context, the bill of rights was larely based on the English Bill of Rights from 1689, which allowed protestants to bear arms for their defense, NOT for the creation of a "militia." In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court, remarked that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker in 1803. In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws." Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins. Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty." Clearly, even viewed from the historical lense of the 17 an 1800's, the right to bear arms was intended as an INDIVIDUAL right, not one meant only to establish the national guard. Doonsbury needs to read a little history.

PTC Observer's picture

post their pal and all true too....unlike most of the opponents' arguments against our Constitutional protection to bear arms. In fact the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights almost didn't happen at all. As the debate over ratification raged, more than a few disagreed with enumerating rights. The rationale is more than a little prophetic, that is that by enumerating rights it suggested that the government had the authority to "grant" rights, therefore they had the option to take them away. Our God given rights to life, liberty and property cannot be grant by or taken by any government. It is ironic indeed that a government constructed to protect these rights is now a democracy that seizes every opportunity to deprive our rights.

A government totally corrupted from its original purpose to protect Life, Liberty and Property, spinning out of fiscal control is a doomed government.

God's Natural Law cannot be changed and time will prove this. We are proving ourselves unworthy of the gift of this nation.

"A Republic if we can keep it madam." - B. Franklin

S. Lindsey's picture

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

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

<cite>“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.”</cite> - Benito Mussolini

rolling stone's picture

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. Both sides of this debate need to be better informed. Are you more or less likely to be a victim of gun violence if you have a gun? Data that I have read suggests that possessing a gun does put you at a higher risk by a significant factor. Does the constant risk of having a loaded gun around increase or decrease one's quality of life? Guns being stolen during home and car robberies, accidental shootings by children and cases of mistaken identity suggest one is not as free as one would hope for. What guns are used in most crimes? Again, data that I have read suggests that these guns are newly acquired either through legal or illegal means. There is an app for dealing with violence, it is called civilization.

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's picture

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

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's picture

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.

[quote=rolling stone] you ascribed opinions and stances to me that I did not say. [/quote] 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's picture

Your obtuse conclusions are yours to keep.

S. Lindsey's picture

I am never more amazed at people then when I hear the Constitution is an old outdated document and does not have relevance today argument.

The amazing ignorance of that argument is compounded by the lack of understanding that if you take away the very document that codified our Natural Rights, then you place all of the power into the hands of Government to protect those very rights.

What Government gives it can also take away.

Stone there is no easy way to say this.. You are simply the most gullible person on this blog or you are an idiot... Heck you choose.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

rolling stone's picture

[quote]I am never more amazed at people then when I hear the Constitution is an old outdated document and does not have relevance today argument.[/quote]

I did not say or infer that. My references are to the interpretations.

[quote]Stone there is no easy way to say this.. You are simply the most gullible person on this blog or you are an idiot... Heck you choose.[/quote]

I had to think about that one and I must admit that at one point in my life both were true, but then I quit taking wooden nickels as payment from the tooth fairy.

S. Lindsey's picture

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.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

rolling stone's picture

[quote]Uhh.. Stone those where your own words...[/quote]

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.

here you go. [quote=rolling stone] That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future..[/quote]

rolling stone's picture

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 picture

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...

[quote=rolling stone]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.[/quote]

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.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

rolling stone's picture

I am in awe of your imagination.

S. Lindsey's picture

Powder in the wind....

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

PTC Observer's picture

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.

PTC Observer's picture

Truth, is not time dependent. Rights are not time dependent.

rolling stone's picture

Truth and Rights are independent of time. Peoples' interpretations of the 2nd amendment are independent of the Truth and subjective regarding Rights.

PTC Observer's picture

You have been reading too much propaganda, truth does not change with time and it is not subjective.

It is your flawed definition of truth and rights that has caused you to be willing to give up your freedom to a mindless enity called government. It is blind acceptance and belief that a benevolent government can somehow protect you and your family that is so disturbing. On this you are not alone, you have millions of sheepel to join with you to infringe your fellow citizens' rights. You are all wrongheaded in your beliefs, government will not protect you it will only enslave you. Read history it is there where you will find the truth about your belief in government "protection".

I choose individual freedom Rolling, you go trust the government but don't force me to give up any of my freedoms for your blind beliefs.

John Mrosek's picture

The mention of the "Attraction of a Famous Death" caught my eye and reminded me of the Olympic Park bombing in 1996.

The day after the bombing, my wife and I attended the cycling event, which is a predominantly European event. Several of the attendees suggested that this kind of thing happens more often in America because we give the wrongdoer so much more attention. Interesting. Still, I oppose (as does our First Amendment) any restraint on the press.

Your premise is right--- murderous instincts are innate in humans. We will always find a way. Only an armed civilian on site can essentially stop a shooting. The police have to travel to the site. Statistics bear this out.

Connecticut, with the most stringent gun laws in the country, could not stop this massacre. You are right, Terry, humans find a way to kill.

I went to the FBI website. They publish stats on murder. In 2011 12664 peolpe were murdered in the USA. (Murders known to the FBI) Of that number, 8583 were killed with guns. The means if you were murdered in 2011, there is a 7 in 10 chance you were killed by a gun. That is an epedemic of gun violence in the USA.

Since Dec, over 20 school kids were gunned down, executed in their school in connecticut.
2 firemen in new york state responding to a call, prepared to put their lives on the line for the poeple unsure what they would find, were gunned down and assasinated in a thrill killing.
In Aurora Co. a lone gunman went the the movies intent on executing the patrons and succeed for 6 wounding 20 more. After that you mention that you illegally took your revolver to the movies, "just in case'. Just is case of what ?
A lone gunman went to a shopping center and tried his best to assasinate Rep Giffords. He came damn close to succeeding. 6 people died including a child.

Is any of this sounding sick to you ? I agree our society is saturated with the glorifaction of gun violence.

The story that bothered me was the one where a guy gunned down his teen aged son dressed in a nija suit goofing around in the back yard at night. I can't imagine how that guy felt when he figured he 'got one" and then figured out who he got.

The NRA and you argue to put armed folks into the schools to protect us from hwo ? Ourselves ? What is to stop the guard from going rouge and turing on their school? Which schools get them ? What about movies thaaters? What about churches ? What about shopping centers? Government buildings ? Star Mill protection soceity ? Macintosh Militia Corps ? Oaks Grove Elementary Guardians Society ? How does it play out ? Fatyette county Armed military camp ? Really ?

The gun laws fail not because tey are too strict, it is because the most strict are too laxed. Far too laxed and too many loopholes.

The US government in the 2nd amendment calls out the 'rights to bear arms'. Are you willing to regsiter your weapons with the government ? No ? Why not ? It is the government gave you the right to have them. Don't trust the government, then what good is the right that they gave you ? Can't have it both ways. If you are not willing to shoulder the responsiblity ( and being a good conservative, who knows better about personal responsiblity), why do you think you have the right ?

So the situation is almost hopeless because of the number of guns in society. But there is no absolute right inthe USA or anywhere.

In a nation that talks about gun right like a bunch of 3rd world gansters, is it time to change the second amendment to remove the passage 'right to bear arms'.

In society where 4 US citizens get gunned down in Libya and ther is a unparralleled political storm, and then 20 kids are gunned down at home, in our house and the same folks who want heads to roll in the government turn around and advocate for local guns rights, I'd say we've gone off the tracks in the wrong direction.


S. Lindsey's picture

Tragedies happen. That's a sad fact of life.

No laws will change that fact either. You see C55 after this the next event will occur and yes there will be "someone" calling to ban this or that.

That is what we are fighting.

Our Freedoms are sacrosanct and no Government may interfere with that. Now that being said we all have our Freedoms restricted when they interfere with the Freedoms of others... but that interference is limited.
When we allow Government to slowly nudge us away from defending the Constitution for the "greater" good or to save "just one life" then we are slowly abdicating our Freedoms to that Government.

One must remember Hitler was elected too.

Germany had private ownership of guns as well.

How did that turn out?

C55 I understand what you are feeling...but you must remember this. What if the next big tragic event involves speech in some way are you willing to curb your opinions so maybe "one" life will be saved..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Newspapers should be publishing the names and addresses of those that receive food stamps and welfare checks. These do-nothing moochers do more harm to the country with their votes for the curren fascist polices of obama than any law abiding gun owner will ever do.

These miscreants are stealing from working Americans. We should demand that the government stop this theft NOW!

<cite>Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.</cite>

<a href=" Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home</a>

obama has no solutions and refuses to negotiate with opposing parties. He is a wanna-be fascist dictator.

<a href=" Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life </a>

<cite>Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.</cite>

Personal protection is not good enough for the peasants that obama wants to rule over with an iron fist.

[Quote]All current former presidents are entitled to lifetime Secret Service protection. However, as a result of legislation enacted in 1997, President George W. Bush will be the first president to have his protection limited to 10 years after he leaves office.[/quote]

The legislation doesn't make Obama any less of a hypocrite. If anything, it makes him more of a hypocrite. If armed protection is good enough for him, it should be good enough for those he works for. He's just an overpaid public SERVANT, after all.

[quote]He's just a public SERVANT, after all.[/quote]

TRUE!! And for the next four years he will serve us as President of the United States. a prestigious and powerful world position - and you will remain - Joe Kawfi, embittered citizen of these United States. I know, I know, - sort of hard to take. LOL! At least SL has his ideology to defend - you just have your 'hate'.

Senator Chambliss:

I understand gun control legislation will be introduced in this New Year by Senator Feinstein. I am writing to voice my opinion on this proposed legislation and all gun control. There are four points I wish to make:

1. I am vehemently opposed to further gun control legislation as presented by Senator Feinstein. I am further opposed to gun control as advocated by the Brady Center and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

2. Mental Health issues must become a part of the instant firearms background check at point of purchase

3. Existing gun control laws must be enforced

4. Violence in the media must be addressed

Full Disclosure
I am a member of the NRA, an avid firearms competitor, hunter, and a member of multiple other shooting and firearms related organizations.

I am 46 years old. The first school shooting in The United States of America occurred four months before I was born, at the University of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966. Every subsequent school shooting has happened in my lifetime. This is without exception or qualification.

Eleven months after my birth month, on October 23, 1967, there was a workplace shooting in Lock Haven, PA in which a gunman extinguished six souls. Workplace shootings in the United States occurring prior to October 23, 1967 took place on August 22, 1928 and December 16, 1935. From this point forward the United States experienced an explosion of workplace killings, next on May 15, 1969 in Twinsburg, OH, and then sky rocketing through the 1970’s (four shooting claiming 25 lives), the early 1980’s (three shootings claiming 21 lives). Coinage of the term “going postal” began on August 20, 1986 in Edmond Oklahoma when 14 lives were taken in a Post Office. There have been at least 10 workplace shootings since 1986, claiming at least 76 lives. I find it absolutely stunning that all but two workplace shootings in the history of this country have occurred in my lifetime.

There have been two major Federal gun control measures enacted in US history, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. There are and have been innumerable state, local, and temporary Federal gun control measures. The NFA addresses, in the main, machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and sound suppressors (often called, quite incorrectly, silencers). Such devices are highly restricted and controlled by the ATF. The GCA primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. It also restricts who may purchase or possess a firearm.

Per the GCA, as quoted from Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - …(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

My Stance
Something went horribly wrong at, or just prior to, the time we began experiencing school and workplace shootings en masse. It was only after law abiding citizens were no longer able to purchase firearms through the mail from the catalogs of Sears, Montgomery Ward, and Western Auto and have them delivered to our front doors, or easily obtain belt fed machine guns, anti-tank weapons, grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons and field artillery, that we experienced these crimes.

I am not drawing a cause –effect relationship between increased gun control and gun violence, but the correlation of the rise of both is quite close to 100%. That is to say, keeping certain firearms out of the hands of the public does not seem to have on effect on the will of some to kill. Anecdotally, it seems that the prevalence of guns does not incite gun violence, or any sort of violence. To wit, given no small amount of experience, I have never witnessed a shooting, much less an altercation of any kind, at a gun show, gun club, or hunting camp.

To purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer each of us must fill out an FFL form and answer a series of questions, as mandated by the GCA. The questions include criminal and mental histories. The criminal histories are verified almost instantly through the FBI instant background check system. The mental history is anyone’s best guess as no such meaningful database exists. I hope that we might take mental dis-abilities and firearms a bit more seriously in the future. I understand the privacy issues, but the names of those gunned down are anything but private.

The effects of the Hollywood gore machine on our youth are far too well documented for me to chronicle here. Is the impasse in addressing the media issue one of first amendment concern or is it profiteering? I suggest the latter. It is an outrage that Harvey Weinstein, Jamie Foxx, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz, Jon Hamm, et al, should direct shame and anger over school shootings in any direction other than towards the nearest mirror. At the very best these individuals provide instructional guidance to inspired and glorified violence, at worst… I fear we have not yet seen the worst. Please address this by introducing legislation to curb such instructional violence as is so vociferously and endlessly advocated by these individuals.

Further media effects include the celebrity like status afforded to perpetrators of mass killings, which often results in copy cat crimes. Never held in any regard are the numerous citizens who legally use a firearm to defend themselves or others. In fact they are quite often denigrated. Is this the impression we wish to leave on so many of our children?

In light of the vast disconnect between gun control legislation and curbing gun violence I must ask, what is the point? Is this gun control only for the sake of gun control? Why didn’t we see this sort of violence when weapons of mass destruction were easily obtainable? And why do we not address the root cause? I believe the answer is both sinister and cowardly. Let’s take action now.

Moses In PTC

God bless you!! A voice heard - and understood.

RKS's picture

"For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup."

G35 Dude's picture

Mr Garlock after reading your column I have to say that I agree with most of it. However when I came to this part I had to chuckle.

[quote] 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.[/quote]

So it's ok for the print media to report details that the TV media shouldn't? Would you like to have a discussion on how many criminals through out history have been glamorized almost solely by the print media? I think a better suggestion would be for the entire media to focus on the victims and hero's instead of the shooter. Quit making the shooter the victim. Make him what he is. An evil monster. Or even better deny him any coverage by name. Just say something like a 25 year old gunman broke into a school today and shot x number of people before being shot by police officer Bob Johnson a 10 veteran of the local police department.

But then we must remember this suggestion to limit coverage by one branch of media but not the other was made by a member of the print media. LOL

tgarlock's picture

. . . to you, but important to me to point out I'm not a media type, I'm a regular Joe like you. I write and send in a column now and then when the mood moves me, and they print it if they wish.

I've never been a reporter, just write op-eds. I see your point on the appearance of bias, but I don't think so though we all carry our own buckets of bias wherever we go.

For example, I've always felt that war reporting would better serve us all if it were print only. That's not to favor one segment of the media, my point is it better serves our national purpose to keep videos and emotions out of it, let the troops get the ugly, nasty job done, and let those sufficiently serious read all they wish about the war. That would keep the noise way down and minimize the politics as well.

Same with taking the fame away from mass killers. If you think it's a bad idea on its merits, fine, but don't get carried away about my bias, which I believe to be a nit. It;s all academic anyway, will never happen.

Terry Garlock

Terry Garlock, PTC

You set up a straw man--the "anti-gunners" and then attack this opposition with a bunch of NRA nonsense.

Those of us--the adults and the majority of Americans-- do not see guns as the objects of reverence and love the way you seem to.

I am not opposed to a person owning a gun for self-protection in his or her home. I would question the wisdom of this since such guns result in more suicides, domestic dispute deaths, or accidental shootings by children than shootings of someone threatening people in that home. But if you decide to have a gun in your home, you can do so.

I am not opposed to a person owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting. No one has suggested otherwise.

If you want to fire a military style weapon for fun, I would suggest that gun ranges rent you those weapons for the experience.

I do not want private citizens to own military style weapons. I cannot believe that this is a controversial idea.

The problem is that the NRA and others have allied themselves to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. They use fear to get innocent and naive citizens to buy more and more dangerous weapons. Militia groups grew and gun sales soared after the election of our first African-American President and the first northern Democrat in 50 years. Gun sales soared again upon the re-election of our first African-American President.

America cannot let the paranoid in our political system dictate our gun and public safety policies. And the NRA and others who think Americans need to arm themselves against a tyrannical Federal government are living in a world of dangerous paranoia.

Yes, let us have the adults in America determine our gun policy but the NRA and its adherents are not acting like adults.


Mike King's picture

The paranoid are not the gun owners, nor are they the NRA zealots who wish to relive their fantasies. The paranoid are the groupies perhaps like yourself who wish to dictate to folk exactly what weapon they are entitled to own in spite laws to the contrary.

You can not show one example where gun restrictions have prevented crime, nor can you show one example where the banning of guns has eliminated them from the landscape.

You are correct, however, in that America can not allow the paranoid to dictate our gun and public safety policy realizing, of course, that is is those like yourself that are paranoid.


Ad space area 4 internal