Is Gun Control the Answer? Politics Didn’t Create the Oregon Shooter

Conservative Author Completely Stumps MSNBC Panel On Gun Control

We had a school shooting in our community a day before the Oregon shooting.  I wrote this article for our local newspaper (I submit an article every 2 weeks) showing that sin is a the root of the problem.  Please pray that it will reach hearts.  Here is the link to the article.  http://www.southtownchurch.com/blog.php

Seems I heard that Mike Huckabee said a gun free zone is a sitting duck zone. I would agree.

Usually what it takes to stop a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun. I’m for good men and women having guns.
I’m glad our local Lee College has security guards that are actually armed with real guns.

My thoughts on gun control:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-in-light-of-conn...

David R. Brumbelow

Do you want your teacher armed with a .45 on his hip?

You ask a snarky question of him. His hand drifts down to his holster. "You feel lucky today punk? Well, do ya?"

These thoughts are certainly not really original with me, but listening to some out there liken guns to cars with respect to regulation, I would be just fine with laws that license guns like cars.

We would be entirely free to own and use a gun on our own property, just like a car.  If we take it out in public, there would be licensing (just like the CCW course I had to take, which included legal instruction (i.e. on the laws) and required shooting of the gun in some different scenarios), because the need for safety and sanity is higher.  We would also be able to go from state to state, just like with a car.  And even a retest every 5 years or so would be fine.

If this is done correctly, I think it would take care of many of those supposed teachers who would pull a Clint Eastwood on the students.  In my opinion, this would be similar to allowing airline pilots to be licensed to carry while flying.  I don't worry that they will go postal on the passengers either.

...But if I had, I'd be much less worried about someone willing to carry openly and going about his business, than the thug robbing the store who probably had a pistol under his shirt that no one could see anyway, and that he likely wasn't licensed to carry concealed.

Of course, if someone walks in wearing a ski mask with an AK-47 held at the ready position, that's a much different question.  I think even Hillary should be able to tell the difference between the two -- she would easily know which she would get offended with and from which she would hide.

I have not personally seen rednecks carrying the AK-47's in supermarkets but I have definitely seen the pictures and it is happening (legally by certain types who want to flaunt their freedom). Personally, I am not comfortable with any moron being able to carry because I don't really trust them to make good decisions with their guns. I would not want everyone bringing their guns to my church either. I would not trust the vast majority of my church to handle a gun properly in an emergency. 

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually. I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

Mrs. Rodham-Clinton doesn't realize the legal restrictions already in place in owning a military issue AK-47.  By military issue, I mean a selective fire weapon.  There are semi-automatic only look alikes, but these firearms are not AK-47s.

GregH wrote:

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

Mark_Smith wrote:

Do you want your teacher armed with a .45 on his hip?

You ask a snarky question of him. His hand drifts down to his holster. "You feel lucky today punk? Well, do ya?"

In Israel, elementary teachers carry assault rifles. Seems to work.

T Howard wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

 

 

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

 

Of course, it would really depend on the size of the uprising, how badly the government wanted to quell it, and what collateral damage they are willing to accept.  You are right that our government has missiles, spy satellites and drones, but at the moment, our government is pretty powerless against Al Qaeda, ISIS, or really, about any other terrorist group because they are not willing to do what it takes (cf. the accidental shelling of the MsF hospital) to completely take them out, not because they don't have the capability.  With a large enough uprising (like the same percentage as those who went to war against Britain 200 years ago), done in guerilla style, rather than outright fighting like during the Civil War, I suspect it wouldn't be as easy for the government to get rid of it as you think.

I don't disagree that a few hundred "militia" members wouldn't have much chance.  Still, an idea is a powerful thing.

T Howard wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

 

 

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

 

Ask yourself why we are still fighting in Afghanistan.  Ask yourself why Russia failed against Afghanistan.  Dissidents with 300,000,000 guns in the USA could put up a pretty good struggle too, if need be.

GregH wrote:

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually.

UK and USA gun crimes are an unfair comparison for obvious reasons.  Compare instead violent crimes in each of these countries.

ejohansen wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually.

 

 

UK and USA gun crimes are an unfair comparison for obvious reasons.  Compare instead violent crimes in each of these countries.

Yes but even that is hard because the two countries have different definitions of violent crime. And those statistics do not necessarily reflect crimes committed but rather crimes report. However, it does appear that the US has a higher homicide rate per capita and a higher rape rate per capita while the UK is worse in crimes such as burglary.

One thing the US has that the other countries don't have is the second amendment.  Which wasn't about having guns for hunting, but to resist the government if it became tyrannical.  Removal of guns from the citizens is the what the other countries have essentially done and is essentially what the 2nd amendment is a protection against.  However, it is the only thing that will stop the shootings, not necessarily the killing.  Department of Justice study shows none of the current gun control ideas will ultimately work.   Background checks, waiting periods, smaller magazines, banning "assault" weapons won't actually stop a person who wants get the job done.  There are too many guns already in play.

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment.  Just my thoughts.

It isn't absolutely clear, but from this article, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-ke...

it appears that the mother of the killer and her son were avid members of the gun culture in America. 

I don't know what the solution is, I think it is incredibly hard to put the genie back in the bottle (too many guns in circulation already), but it seems to me the pro-gun mentality of almost unfettered access for everyone is no solution. 

wkessel1 wrote:

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment.  Just my thoughts.

Does not our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution give us specific directive to indeed rebel, armed if necessary, should our government become (more) tyrannical.  I doubt the Roman empire had that option in their founding documents. 

ejohansen wrote:

Ask yourself why we are still fighting in Afghanistan.  Ask yourself why Russia failed against Afghanistan.  Dissidents with 300,000,000 guns in the USA could put up a pretty good struggle too, if need be.

There is a marked difference between Afghanistan / Iraq and the U.S. Neither country has the robust government intel, surveillance, and infrastructure that currently exists in the U.S. Every major city, highway, communication hub, and transportation hub is surveilled 24/7. The climate and terrain of both countries is rather hostile and remote compared to the U.S. And, it's easy to smuggle serious firepower and trained foreign fighters into/out of these countries due to close proximity to other unfriendly Middle Eastern countries (i.e. Pakistan and Iran). Sure, dissidents could hide out in the woods or mountains for a period of time (probably longer in the Western states), but I doubt they could successfully hold/retake major cities or transportation hubs, especially if the local/state police and national guard side with the government.

In short, your S&W 9MM, Mossberg shotgun, or AR-15 is going to do you little good against a take over by big brother.

Jim wrote:

I personally would never rebel against the government:

• Were the law such (settled law) that all guns had to be surrendered ... I would comply

My personal case for gun ownership is personal protection from armed intruders

As would I. I appreciate my right to keep and bear arms, and I do. But, if it is legitimately repealed, I would comply with the law of the land.

Just because those documents may give discretion to rebel, doesn't mean we have to follow them.  Romans 13 instructs us to submit to the government because their authority comes from God.  Unless what the government want me to do is in direct conflict with God's commands, I should submit.  Even if it the government goes against the Constitution or other founding documents.  That is how I apply Romans 13, you may certainly differ.

From your interpretation then, did the founding fathers of the USA sin in their revolution against the king of England?  No new countries could be formed, no democracies created (I know, we are a democratically elected republic), no people freed from tyranny.  God removes leaders, does he use revolution to do it?

God does in fact remove leaders and puts new ones in place whenever He wants.  He can use whatever means He desires, including rebellion.  He has used the sins of people to accomplish his purposes - thinking of Joseph brothers off the top my head.  Since most (not all) of the founder father's were Deist and probably not actually Christians, their first consideration wasn't what would God think about this.  That being said I can't say it was sin for them, that is ultimately between them and God; I can only speak for myself.  For me to not submit the government, they would need to go against Scripture and not my opinions or even my rights.

I began legally carrying a pistol wherever I legally can recently. One part of that was I no longer live and work in the Washington DC area (I now live in gun friendly Tennessee) that has much more restrictive policy than the rest of the US generally. The other catalyst was the Charleston shooting. It shocked me into consistent proactive action to be able to protect those around me, and myself. 

Above someone mentioned that they wouldn't mind open carry and were more concerned with concealed carry. This I both do and don't understand. Open carry is inherently more dangerous for the carrier. He loses the advantage of surprise and becomes a target for opportunistic attacks from those wanting a free gun and are able to get a drop on the carrier. I see regular reports of this in the news. I support the concept of open carry being legal, but it's a bad tactical move in most everyday cases. The fact is those concealed carrying who are a real danger will do so whether the law allows them to or not, and you will never know until a shooting occurs. I tend towards allowing all non-felons to conceal weapons or openly carry them. In America it makes a lot more sense in a nation of maybe 350 million guns in a huge territory with little structure to stop them. 

Remember also that while driving is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms in common use is a constitutional right. The idea that one should be permitted to do so much like a driver of a car is missing this basic privilege vs. right difference. 

Remember that the American Revolution was a conservative one. Always keep in mind the hundreds of years that lead up to it. 

• - The colonies thought of themselves and were chartered as crown colonies outside of the reach of parliament. 
• - Revolution occurred in England and the colonies were left to themselves for decades if not a century with their own state assemblies acting as parliaments might in England under common law. 
• - When a weak monarchy presented itself and Parliament was ascendant, they started to legislate in ways that were averse to the longstanding common law powers of parliament. 
• - Colonists appealed to the king as their protector against parliament but he refused his duty. 
• - Colonists were standing up against a usurping parliament, and in the Declaration of Independence charged the king himself with not fulfilling his feudal obligations of his crown charter. 

The American Revolution was perhaps the only conservative revolution in history. Treating it as a standard rebellion against government, contra Romans 13 is naive at best. 

My last hand gun was a Sig Sauer 357 for my job.  Fine weapon .  I carried a concealed weapon for my job for 25 years.  I only had to skin my hog twice in my career for arrests.  Since Ive retired I have not carried a hand gun in 10 years even though I can secure federal credentials that allow me to carry a concealed weapon in any state in the US regardless of the state laws.  The only guns I have now are a few shotguns that I use to hunt,  So y0u can see Im not a real gun person.  Some people are hunters and gun people.  Some people are just gun people but don't hunt.  These people like to target shoot,  shoot trap or like to shoot assault guns.  I understand both sides of the issue. Although I am more open to some gun control, I understand the NRA members outlook.  If you give an inch the liberal side will take a mile,  This is why the NRA and their members don't want to give an inch. If you take NY City which has stricter gun control and compare it to Philadelphia, which has no gun control.  You can see the argument for gun control.  NY which is five times the size of Philadelphia has same number of people murdered per year as Philadelphia.  As far as these isolated mass shooting incidents some of these could have been avoided with better parenting.  I understand that in the Oregan incident tne young man had a history of mental illness issues and the mother did not get the guns away from him.  In the CONN situation it was the same thing the mother did nothing to control her sons access to firearms even though her son had clear mental issues.  Now not all mass shootings are this way, but ones that are require more of the parents to step up to the plate.  You cant always blames the guns no one in both of these situations has mentioned the irresponsible parents.  Anyway Im more afraid of PETA than anything elses.  That is the only reason i would be afraid of gun control, because PETA would use it against hunters.