Skip to content

New gun laws or slippery slope… Orlando revisited.

June 14, 2016

gunlaw

Like ten’s of million of people around the world I was angered at the senseless murdering of innocent citizens, by an unstable man searching for a cause. Unlike some of those millions I do not support the lifestyle of most of those at that night club, but they too have the same ‘right to life’ as everyone else. So it is with heavy heart that I have to say that I am in agreement with both Mr Trumps ideas on enforcing a ban on immigrants from countries that have any connection with terrorism and the Presidents call for ‘limited’ new laws regarding who may obtain a firearm.

Yes I know it is shocking to see me support any idea concerning gun control coming out of the White House, but that man along with others like him should have never been allowed to legally buy a firearm. I can see the hundreds of fingers moving to the un-follow button but please hear me out. I am Alaskan… and by the very nature of how I lived, had firearms of every sort. I do and will continue support your right to own a firearm with every breath I take, but come on we have to start somewhere to keep guns out of the hands of people who are unbalanced or have a link to terrorism.

Mr Trumps idea to stop all immigration, from questionable nations, while we tighten our background checks, because obviously whoever did the background on this guy did not do their job, is one I fully support. But I think it may also be time to tighten, or even add, new ‘limited’ laws pertaining to people who are mentally ill, have a history of violence or show any links to radical terrorists groups or countries.

Believe me I have fought with myself over this and even if we did enact measures like Mr Trump is calling for most of the last acts of terrorism in the U.S. would not have been stopped. The majority of the terrorist acts committed in recent history were perpetrated by offenders who were American citizens working normal jobs and would have not been effected by Trump’s policy’s. I believe it may now be time for those of us who support our right to bear arms to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe we need some new ‘limited’ regulation on who can purchase a gun.

TRUE
it is not the gun that kills people
but the person behind the gun.

So maybe
it is time to make sure
that they can never
have that
Gun.

Advertisements
11 Comments leave one →
  1. June 14, 2016 12:50 pm

    OUCH, Pete, not sure I can go along with you on this one. Yes, mentally unbalanced people and certainly anyone with a violent history let alone terrorist leanings should be refused the right to own any firearms. But I think most of this is already covered under existing laws..? I go back to the idea that we can somehow control internal terrorism by restricting gun owner’s rights; when has restricting something has ever been shown to be effective..? I suppose one could offer up cigarette use as an example although I would say intensive education and social leanings have at least as much to do with the decline in smoking as making cigarettes more restricted. Attempts to restrict access to alcohol and drugs certainly have failed miserably. And I do not believe the government can truly ‘control’ firearms anyway; if a jihadist or extremist loon wants to obtain a firearm they will find a way to get it. And, in the end, most of this is moot anyway because until the government will secure our borders and control immigration trying to further restrict firearm access seems likely to only impact law abiding gun owners. And it didn’t escape my attention that the Orlando slaughter happened in a ‘gun free’ zone…

    Like

  2. June 14, 2016 1:14 pm

    I tend to agree with you most of the time Pete. I’m also glad yer relocation went well. I MUST disagree when it comes to the “gun control” issue. If anything I believe that there are too many restrictions as it is and if gun laws and gun free zones were more relaxed where more people could carry, then there would be less tragedies such as Orlando. Just look at what took place there in Texas about a year or 2 ago with “attempted terrorists”. Chicago is a complete city that is a “gun free zone” except law enforcement. Criminals will commit crimes whether with guns, boxcutters or pressure cookers. The inanimate object is not the problem. The Orlando shooter was also investigated twice by the FBI. That should have had him on some sort of watch list to prevent/delay purchase, but it didn’t. I do agree with you on everyone has a “right to life”. I know the old curmudgeon knows these things I”m speaking of as you’ve been around the block a few more times than I. 73

    Like

  3. June 14, 2016 3:37 pm

    This has been such a topic of discussion these days. So many different ways of looking at the same issue. A person’s right to “bear arms” was written at a time when “arms” meant a muzzle loading musket or pistol that took over a minute to reload & fire.

    Today’s armament is a whole other realm of deadly.

    Terrorists took control of three planes, reportedly with box cutter knives, and instantly, box cutter knives- or any knife, or sharp instrument was immediately banned form all air travel.

    Some nitwit tries to light his shoe on fire, instantly, liquids and matches are banned.

    But repeated mass shootings with guns that quickly kill and wound over 100 people… then people come out of the woodwork shouting “protect the guns!”

    Self-defense is another argument. Let the guy buy a revolver. When he stops to reload after 6 shots, everyone in the club can tackle him and bring him down, like the citizens on Flight 93 who ensured that would not be a fourth plane used as a weapon.

    But better background checks, better communication between federal databases (which is what Homeland Security was supposed to facilitate) and stricter laws would have kept devastating weapons out of the hands of individuals who, after the fact, we can all agree shouldn’t have had them in the first place.

    According how you count a “mass shooting”, there have been nine mass shootings in the past year, including a massacre at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, the anniversary of which will be observed this week. In six of those mass shootings, perpetrators were armed with assault-style rifles.

    These are not “home defense” weapons. They are not “protection.”
    They are offensive weapons of war. Meant for taking out as many people as possible.
    But they are still fully legal for most any individual to walk into a store and purchase when they’re angry and want to inflict serious damage.

    Heavier weapons of war take considerable effort to obtain, and are often only seen in action movies- like Terminator 2. But these weapons are still obtainable by enthusiasts with the time, energy, devotion, and bankroll. It’s time we move assault rifles, and assault–style rifles (which many know can be easily modified by the user for automatic or near automatic file, extensive magazine loads, etc) time to move them all up to a higher tier, with more stringent hurdles to obtain them.

    nn

    People say that if you restrict them, then only the bad guys will have them.
    How many bad guys do you see walking around with Terminator-style guns?
    None.
    That’s because laws and restrictions work.
    Time to tweak the laws to ensure those that have the big guns are those who _should_ have them.

    Those who insist it’s the individual and not the implement, should also be working to allow everyone to bring their knives and guns aboard airplanes, because- as you said, it’s not the weapon.

    Or maybe it is the weapon in the wrong hands. And till we can ensure it’s the right hands, you need to hold back on handing the weapon over.

    Here’s how the Simpsons addressed the issue, many years ago:

    Like

  4. Dwight permalink
    June 14, 2016 4:11 pm

    You don’t really need multiple 20-round magazines for hunting; and 100-round magazines are just ridiculous! I would be in favor of smaller magazines (say 4 rounds) for rifles, but current size magazines for handguns. At least 4-round magazines for rifles would slow down the rate of carnage…

    Like

  5. Del permalink
    June 15, 2016 2:39 pm

    Ouch! Forever Alaskan and kd7ltn hit out of the park. I pray for ieba and his chitlins. And really ieba really doesn’t know what the second amendment is about. Hope you have more then 6 shots when and if you need to protect yourself from the invasion our government is letting happen in our backyards. I have many relatives that live in your area. They are prepared. Hope you are.

    Oh and by the way not the first shot was used when the twin towers were brought down.

    Like

  6. Intlxpatr permalink
    June 16, 2016 10:49 am

    Heh Heh Heh, Pete, I am born Alaskan. I couldn’t wait to get my Rifle Club patch. We hunted and we fished, but only for what we were going to eat. It was never a sport. We respected the tools we were using, and the lives we were taking.

    The assault rifle has no purpose in private hands. None. Before I could get a rifle, I had to pass the Rifle Club test; before I could get a car, I had to pass a test for a license. I have no problem with restrictions on gun ownership and usage. It’s not like we are taking guns away from hunters or from our police or our soldiers. It’s not like we are disarming our National Guard. Putting restrictions on weapons which kill people efficiently is not wrong; it is rational.

    We have an irrational relationship with our weapons. The vast majority of people will never misuse their weaponry and need have no fear of the restrictions being applied against them. You just had the courage to utter a rational reservation.

    Like

  7. Del permalink
    June 16, 2016 11:20 am

    Like

  8. Jon permalink
    June 19, 2016 3:50 am

    A little late to post, but I also have to respectfully disagree with our blogmaster. You will never stop someone who has this type of mindset no matter what you do or how many laws are enacted. On the other hand if people legally licensed to carry were around all of these mass shootings the damage would’ve been lessened to a large degree or maybe prevented.
    Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country but has the highest murder rate in the country. Why? The criminals (who are the ones who are going to always have weapons along with politicians & Hollywood) will keep on doing what they do. I can’t see them suddenly have a come to Jesus moment, pack up their weapons & go to their nearest police precinct with them in one hand & a Bible in the other & tearfully saying their sorry for everything they’ve done because of the next new law.
    If the FBI has people on a watch list, maybe they should put ’em in jail then they can watch them from a point of safety for everyone else. I recall the protesting when Pres. Bush wanted to wiretap people with known terror connections over seas.
    Guns aren’t killing this country, political correctness is.

    Like

    • June 21, 2016 7:44 am

      Spot on, Jon! Political correctness is killing this country and the liberals just want more and more. I’m certain, although to this point I cannot back up my supposition with hard facts, part of the reason the perp of the Orlando slaughter wasn’t at least under surveillance was based upon political correctness. I’d bet if he had been a young white male he’d have at least been watched carefully if not detained for a lot of questioning and follow up. ISIS must be laughing out loud watching this country once again rip its heart and soul apart fighting over gun regulations! Instead of dealing with the real issue – internal to the USA terrorists and terrorism – the liberals have once again made the shootings about gun control. This is what ISIS does; it finds sensitive (i.e. ‘controversial’) areas in its enemies’ philosophies/beliefs and attempts to highlight them. We are playing right into their hands with our knee-jerk responses. Now in a development right out of ‘The Twilight Zone’ I now understand a grade school teacher who worked with the shooter’s wife when she attended that school claims the shooter’s wife was a ‘special needs’ child incapable of understanding consequences and hence could not be an accomplice! Hmmm, she went on to graduate high school and college in the Californian school system yet she cannot understand consequences..?? Just when ya thought it couldn’t get any more weird!

      Like

  9. Del permalink
    June 29, 2016 9:27 am

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: