The gun lobby and the debate on gun violence

by | Aug 30, 2015 | Ads, Gun Control | 44 comments

Last week, we experienced another horrifying shooting when a disturbed former news reporter shot two former co-workers in the midst of an on-camera interview and posted a video of the murders on Facebook. It comes in the wake of the Charleston shooting that shocked the nation and opened up a needed discussion about race. While states across the South began taking down Confederate flags and confronting their histories of race relations, few people seriously talked about the need to address the problem of guns and violence.

At a time when Donald Trump is garnering applause for blasting political correctness, it’s become politically incorrect to blame gun violence on the proliferation of guns. The gun lobby has cowed politicians from supporting and implementing common sense reforms that have broad public support. In fact, their bullying tactics have virtually shut down the debate. That’s not the way our democracy is supposed to work.

For the past twenty years or more, the gun lobby has excited its base by claiming that the government is coming for their guns. It hasn’t happened. Despite horrific mass killings in schools, universities, theaters, and places of worship, we have more guns than ever, even with the election of supposed gun-confiscating politicians like Barack Obama. As gun sales have increased, so have mass shootings. 

In North Carolina, we’ve moved in the wrong direction. We’ve failed to close the gun show loophole that allows private sales without background checks while allowing guns in more places including bars and entertainment venues. In essence, we’re making it easier for volatile people to access guns and take them into more volatile places. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Contrary to the claims of gun advocates, more guns do not make us safer. Study after study has shown they put us at greater risk–greater risk of suicide, greater risk of accidents, greater risk of homicides. We must reach a balance that both protects our rights and keeps us safe.

That said, I realize that the discussion of gun regulation in this country is difficult. It pits two uniquely American principles against each other: the interpretation that the Second Amendment means unfettered access to guns verses the right to feel safe in our communities, a fundamental expression of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Balancing questions like these has been a hallmark of the success of our democracy. I have faith that we are a strong enough country to address the issue of gun violence without infringing on the rights or quality of life of most Americans. 

We need to have these discussions, though. As the father of Alison Parker, one of the murdered journalists, acknowledged, the story will probably fade away in a week or so with nothing done to address the underlying issues that led to the attack. That’s heartbreaking for him and it should be for us. As political leaders, we should not cower because of misleading attacks by special interests, whether it’s this issue or any other.

The gun lobby is not interested in saving lives or preventing murders. Their goal is to shut down debate through intimidation with misleading and often personal attacks. Our goal should be to stand up to special interests that have too much money and too much influence. We should be more worried about the next Sandy Hook than about losing the next election.   

Paid for by the Committee to Elect Holly Jones.

44 Comments

  1. wafranklin

    Radagast: You are wrong. I am a retired Army officer with distinguished services. Difference is, I can think, you cannot, and will not. But thanks for the insults chickenhawk. You and your friends are too bamboozled to know you have been snowed by the NRA and the ever present right wing. And no all “real veterans” do not support the 2nd Amendment a it has been perverted in the last 40 years by zealots controlled by the NRA and the gun lobbies who keep putting out trash which you you folks buy zealously. Don’t know where you suck up lie from, likely Bill O’Reilley and his bunch of lying bastards, but cite to me where a someone took over a country with seizure of all guns first and foremost. But, then, that would require you read, a doubtful proposition. Of course with you Teabillies, I supposedly have no rights to an opinion. Wrong on a dozen accounts. I am only a citizen ticked off at men who want to parade their weapons around in public, intimidating many other people, deliberately. Admit it, you get off on that. But even more important what does that gun do for you other than replace that which you severely lack physically and emotionally?

    !
    !

  2. Radagast

    And the crap continues, without rational look at what really is. First, the 2nd Amendment was forced into the Constitution by Southern slave owners who were frantic about “servile insurrection”,
    Holy Crumoley, wafranklin, smoke another joint!
    The First Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights because of the Stamp Act, and the British attempt to destroy all “patriot” presses and publications who would not adhere to King George of England. Benjamin Franklin was one of the first American printers, and he NEVER owned a slave!
    The second part of the First Amendment (which of course, you conveniently neglected) was Freedom of Religion (as King George mandated that everyone had to be a member of the Church of England).
    The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights because the British (ever heard of Lexington & Concord?) were trying to seize the firearms of the American patriots.
    You claim to be a “Special Forces” veteran? I hardly think so, you’re an imposter. Most “real veterans” I know support the Second Amendment, exponentially.
    Ummmm…..I guess you forgot to check that the captains on the slave ships had single-shot black powder guns? But hell, never mind the facts!
    And check your history. What is one of the first things a totalitarian dictator did while seizing power? First, take over the newspapers and radio stations, and second, seize everybody’s guns.
    But shucks, never mind the facts.

  3. wafranklin

    And the crap continues, without rational look at what really is. First, the 2nd Amendment was forced into the Constitution by Southern slave owners who were frantic about “servile insurrection”, or slave revolt, much more than if the British would return – the militia was to insure these fearful men that someone would come to help if their slaves threatened them, and thus were to be armed. Many were from the Caribbean where blacks had taken quite scalps from white owners. So spare me that crap about the 2nd Amendment being about love of arms, etc. We have over 300 million guns afloat in the US and 330 million people. We have a predatory arms industry which brings military grade weapons to a civil sector with lots of men who have an infantile obsession with guns, willing to throw themselves on the pyre to prevent any gun control, no matter how uncomfortable most citizens are with guns openly displayed. It has the NRA which has the high priests of this religion and bribes congressmen to keep its power, which is its only justification. It has become a fundamentalist religion for irresponsible men suffering from this vast delusion of wearing capes and stopping crime. Australia suffered a big massacre in 1996 by someone using military grade weapons and clamped down totally on guns. We have many thousands dead and wounded each year to please all these infantile fantasies while Australia has (I think) only a few deaths. Mean while you folks argue about the number of pebbles on the beach in endless and circular arguments while the death merchants make their billions on this adult fetish about guns. As an aside, who were the first customers for early multiple shot weapons. First were slave owners and then ships captains, both to contain mutinies. Gun nuts do not care one whit about my rights to a gun free environment, and in fact go to lengths to make us all miserable. BTW, I was an armorer in the Army, was in combat, shot small and large bore, etc. I handled and shot nearly all the small arms in the world during my tours in Special Forces. I also came home and gave away all my guns, destroying several. Guns provide solace for the large number of delusional men who are lacking in other ways, including mentally and emotionally. Not that this will change anything, but I get to express my disgust over the lack of maturity of large numbers of men who have been sucked into this imaginary world. And they are all waiting for the final shoot out, all against all, last man standing, for some ultimate orgasm.

  4. Radagast

    As a Damned Yankee who moved to North Carolina, I was a retired police officer with a concealed carry permit in New York State. North Carolina recognizes other state’s CCP’s (but not New York’s) as The People’s Republic of New York will not recognize any other state’s CCP. In fact, both of my handguns would now be illegal in The People’s Republic of New York (due to magazine capacity).
    Fortunately, I was granted political asylum in North Carolina. (Dopey me, I didn’t find out until later that all I had to do was show my badge with a letter from my former chief, and I would have been granted a CCP, as a retired cop).
    In order to get my CCP here, I had to attend the class, qualify on the range, and pass a police background check
    Actually, I’m glad I took the class, because (unlike New York) North Carolina is a “stand your ground” state, and has “The Castle Doctrine”. .
    In my class was a variety of “average” law abiding citizens (most of them moms & pops with families) from every racial genre.
    Their main focus was (like mine) that they hoped they would never have to shoot anyone, but they just wanted to “possess and carry” (legally), just in case.
    One question these “anti-gun nuts” never seem to be able to answer is: “how do these criminals and inner city gangs manage to obtain illegal firearms, when those venues have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation?”
    And their standard reply always is: Be-dee, Ba-dum, we need more gun laws!”

  5. Morris

    This discussion is a good illustration of why additional “gun control” laws are dead on arrival. Because this isn’t exactly a right-wing blog, and shows that a large number of citizens on all sides of the political spectrum realize more gun control laws only restrict those who obey laws. Murderers, by definition, don’t.
    Nothing in Holly Jones’ argument would have stopped any of the mass shootings, robberies, etc that happen in this country. But it is a fact that since we have had increasing gun ownership in the last few decades, we’ve had decreasing violent crime. Correlation or causation? I can’t say, but as one who has stopped a violent attack on himself and his wife with a legal gun and a legal carry permit (if you are wondering, no one was shot, I just placed my imposing looking 45 on my dash when someone was screaming at my wife and I to get out of our car or “they would kill us” in a traffic jam. They evaporated like smoke when they saw the gun).
    So for me this is the “3rd rail”. It substantially reduces the chances I will be voting for Holly.

  6. JTGilgo

    I like how this piece is filed under “Ads, Gun Control.” That alone saved me from wasting valuable time in recycling a winning argument.

    Good to see you as always, Mr. Sorrentino. Enjoy the batting practice.

  7. Radagast

    Radagast, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU CAN REPORT ON SOMETHING THAT WAS PREVENTED OR DID NOT HAPPEN???
    Point taken. Yes, it is difficult to prove a negative. As I noted, one source is “The Armed Citizen” which is a page in every month’s NRA Magazine. As always, you never hear that reported, because that doesn’t fit the “anti-gun” agenda. I know this is hard to believe, but the mere fact that someone in a household or on the street may have a gun is a deterrent to criminals. Why? Because they know their intended victims might shoot them!
    Yes, innocent lives are taken every day, particularly in the inner cities when gangs (most of whom are of a certain racial persuasion) get into their “spray bullets everywhere” turf wars. Innocent victims do get caught in the cross fire (many of them children). .
    “More and more are being committed by the good guys (cops) than ever before?” Would it surprise you to know that the overwhelming majority of police officers go thru their entire careers without shooting anyone (as I did)? Of course it would, because that doesn’t “fit the agenda”.
    This current “black lives matter” and “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” insanity comes straight from the top. The Messiah (Barack Obama) could stop this in an instant, but he chooses not to. Why? Because as one of Obama’s heroes (Saul Alinsky) said: “create anarchy in the streets”.
    Nope, President Kardashian would rather go to Las Vegas and Alaska and make speeches about “climate change” (which is not even on anybody’s radar).
    Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. (who is black) says: “Obama started this war on police”. Predictably, he’s being called an “Uncle Tom”, and a “White Man’s (N Word)” by
    the usual suspects in the Main Stream Media.

  8. Bob

    I have not heard how any of these suggested impositions would have stopped any of the crimes. What I do hear is that these people, including Holly Jones, want to take or at least know who has personal weapons. If there is any serious desire to stop crimes with guns, start imposing and carrying out Death Penalties!

    • Sean D Sorrentino

      You assume that the anti-gunners have “stop crime” or even “stop mass murder” as a goal. They don’t. This makes no sense to you because you believe them when they lie to you and tell you that they want to reduce crime and mass murder. You look at the proposed new infringements and you look at the goals and because you think logically, you can’t see any rational relationship between the two. So you are confused.

      In reality, they want more crime and they want more mass murder. Only through scaring the public can they convince people that they might have a point with their totally illogical fixation on guns instead of criminals. Scared people do stupid things. They might even vote for gun control.

      But if you look at the list in terms of “how much power will this take away from the people and give to the Government,” you can see their real goals. Bigger government, smaller people. A gun means you can say no to them. They can’t possibly allow that.

  9. Zhong Zhang

    Madness. You can continue going on about laws. But laws will never stop a determined killer, and that’s what these people are. You aren’t going to disarm the populace. Maybe you should stop blaming the tool and blame the person using the tool.

    • Troy

      Wisely stated Zhong.

    • Nate Bennett

      I never said anything about disarming anyone. You missed the point I was attempting to make. That adding more useless laws is well useless. I’m all for the 2nd. Hell I carry every day 😛

      • Troy

        Take a closer look Nate. Zhong was responding to another comment. But he as a more overreaching concept than just better screening procedures. The ultimate long range goal would be complete disarmament. And he isn’t wrong.

        The sad fact that firearms make what is going on convenient. They make it fast and furious. And it’s sad that the person is no longer responsible for their actions but the implement is. Yet as a society of people and a nation of laws, we hold responsible an inanimate object rather than the actor who perpetuated and used the implement. In our modern times of responsibility, with community and intelligence based policing based heavily in rational choice theory, one would think that would the first of achievable goals; making and holding people responsible for their own actions. Maybe not.

  10. Nate Bennett

    Meh. Going on about adding more laws again? I mean honestly there are already laws on the books for this sort of thing. The Virginia thing is terrible but the deranged person purchased that firearm legally. Therefore current methods of “back ground checking” are invalid and useless.

    He’d never been committed of any crimes that would invalidate his ability to purchase the firearm he’s good to go. The whole “are you crazy” thing enters into privacy rights in regards to medical conditions. Just how far do people want to go in order to “feel safe?” Want thought police out there? Destroy the first amendment?

    Rather than deal with bandaids how about getting to the real issues that liberals never want to tackle? Broken homes, a piss poor education system, promising that everyone can be a millionaire or astronaut as a child? Nope can’t pull those things off, gotta blame an item rather than what’s wrong with society.

    Clean up the shit pool before trying to add more shit to it first.

  11. Sean D Sorrentino

    You can almost hear Holly Jones laughing with joy. “Woo Hoo!” she shouts. “Two more photogenic dead bodies that I can use to try to get elected!” And she climbs up on the dead bodies and tries to point the finger at the people who didn’t do anything wrong.

    That’s the real issue here. Holly Jones is using Play #1 from the Anti-Gun playbook, “Blame the people who didn’t do it.” She’s blaming the honest citizens for the crimes they didn’t commit.

    Here’s the reality. The murderer went to the gun store and purchased a firearm on layaway after passing a background check. Since he had never committed a crime more serious than a traffic offense, nor had he ever been sent to the loony bin, he was legal to possess a firearm. Not only that, because he purchased the gun on layaway, he effectively had a waiting period between purchase and taking possession. In any case, he purchased the gun 2 months before he murdered the two journalists.

    So pray tell, what “common sense gun laws” do you imagine would have prevented this crime? Because I don’t see any. All the silly changes you propose would have had no effect on him because he DID get a background check. He DID wait 2 months between purchase and murder.

    And the only crime data that matters, the crime data put out every year by the FBI says that since 1993 all crime, not just murder, has been cut basically in half. Fewer people get shot. Fewer people get killed. Fewer cars get stolen. Fewer people get robbed. Basically crime is down to pre 1900 levels. It’s effectively the lowest crime we’ve had since the US became and industrial country.

    Not that you’d hear it from the anti-gun whiners. They’ve got an agenda to make the government strong and the people weak, and they’re not going to let little things like facts, logic, and statistics get in their way.

    • Greg

      Registration and confiscation is what they are ultimately after. You, of course, know that and they won’t admit to it. The fatal flaw in there plan, though, is all those pesky people we call criminals. They don’t follow the rules now and they won’t when they ban the guns either.

      • Sean D Sorrentino

        The real fatal flaw is the millions like me who, should they accidentally succeed, will refuse to comply, and fight back with the very few cops they have on their side.

        They are stupid enough to believe that Americans would meekly turn in their guns.

  12. Radagast

    I believe the BATF would have original jurisdiction on any prosecutions for fraud by falsely filling out 4473.
    I stand corrected, sir, so let me re-phrase: The BATF does not prosecute those who lie on Federal Form 4473, in a fraudulent attempt to purchase a firearm. Incidentally, that is a felony which is punishable by up to ten years in prison.
    That fact was confirmed by VP Joe Biden who stated: “we don’t have the time or the manpower to prosecute everyone who lies on a Federal Form (sic) Form 4473.
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
    My point is, if the Federal Government does not enforce existing gun laws, how will more “gun laws” help the situation?

    • Theodore Ziolkowski

      Radagast, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU CAN REPORT ON SOMETHING THAT WAS PREVENTED OR DID NOT HAPPEN???

      THE ARGUEMENT YOU MAKE ABOUT HOW MUCH CRIME WAS PREVENT BY A GOOD PERSON WITH A GUN DOES NOT HOLD WATER. BECAUSE AS I SAID PREVENTION CANNOT BE PROVEN USUALLY, THEREFORE, IT IS A FALSE NUMBER.

      HOWEVER; THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT LIVES THAT ARE TAKEN ALMOST EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY WITH A GUN CAN BE COUNTED AND VERFIED. MORE AND MORE ARE BEING COMMITED BY THE GOOD GUYS [COPS] THAN EVER BEFORE IN HISTORY.

      • Sean D Sorrentino

        Sir, your Caps Lock key appears to be stuck. Perhaps you might wish to return your keyboard for one that operates correctly.

  13. Henry Armfield

    I just introduced Holly Jones to Grass Roots North Carolina….

    • Troy

      I fully intend to vote for Holly Jones if I live that long. While I hold a different position on this issue, I do support her candidacy and know she would be better in the office of Lieutenant Governor than who occupies that chair now.

  14. Radagast

    I agree with you that these are all tragedies.
    But what we never hear reported is the number of crimes that are prevented or terminated by law abiding gun owners. Check “The Armed Citizen” in each month’s NRA Magazine.
    For those who advocate more “gun control”, I have one simple question. What state or federal gun law would have prevented Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Francisco (Kate Steinle), or Virginia?.
    Answer: none.
    In Sandy Hook, the shooter used his mother’s gun (shame on her for not securing it).. In the Sanctuary City of San Fran, it was a 5 times deported Illegal Invader, who had a hand gun stolen from a federal agent. The Charleston church shooter went thru a background check and bought the gun legally. The “obviously disturbed” gay black man who shot the reporter and cameraman in Va. had no prior incidents or mental health diagnoses on record which would have prevented him from buying a gun legally.
    Should some of these people’s backgrounds have been “on record”? Absolutely! But then you run into lawsuits from the Mental Health advocates and the ACLU.
    What is also not reported is that prospective gun purchasers who intentionally lie on the Federal Form 4473 to purchase a gun are not prosecuted by the FBI (which is a felony).
    I have been a hunter, police officer, and concealed carry holder for the last 50 years. So please don’t judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
    I’ve never shot anyone and hope to God I never have to. On the other hand, I will never be a helpless, disarmed victim!

    • Troy

      I believe the BATF would have original jurisdiction on any prosecutions for fraud by falsely filling out 4473.

  15. Troy

    Ok…just for the record. What are those “common sense reforms” with the broad public support that will categorically, undeniably, reduce, halt, and bring forevermore to a halt, the incidences of mass shootings in this country?

    No, I’m not being flippant or trivializing. Please tell me how instituting more stringent controls on guns now will bring about a modification in behavior later that will suffiiciently thwart, abate, or halt that individual from carrying a most heinous act.

    We need to have a debate; a frank and open discussion about this matter it was said and I’ve taken the opposing view. But rather than bury myself in ideology and hyperbole, I’m willing to listen. I’m willing to consider any rational legislation to thwart mass violence through stricter access to firearms.

    • Theodore Ziolkowski

      TROY, I SUGGEST THESE. GUN CONTROL REFORMS.

      I support the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. I have read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Stories and Letters from several of the “Founding Fathers” and I believe that I understand their intent.

      It is my belief that we do need additional Laws and Controls on “People with Guns” and I recommend the following:

      NOTE; there is no removal of any Gun from any Individual.
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
      [1.] Applicants MUST be required to pass the same Mental, Physical and Eye testing for any and all individuals, who are applying to purchase a Gun. The same tests that all members of the Secret Service and F.B.I. are required to pass.

      [2.] Mandatory “Gun Handling Classes.” With Mandatory Scoring Requirements set to “Pass.”

      [3.] Mandatory “Gun Shooting Classes.” With Mandatory Scoring Requirements set to “Pass.”

      [4.] Mandatory “Gun Instructor Training Classes” to be developed by and taught by members of the ATF. With Mandatory Scoring Requirements set to “Pass.”

      [5.] Mandatory re-evaluation of all “Gun Instructors” every 4 years. To be performed by the ATF.

      [6.] Mandatory re-evaluation of all Individual Carry Permits every single year, by local Police Departments.

      [7.] A Law that would Mandatorily require there be a Ballistics Test of every weapon Manufactured or Imported into United States of America on file with the ATF. Then a Ballistics Test would be associated directly to a specific Weapon and Serial Number, Dealer and Owner. The various Police Departments could request that the ATF personnel perform a Comparison Ballistic test on a Bullet that the Police Departments have that was involved in a crime, to the ATF Data Base.

      [8] Mandatory “Electronic Trigger Locks” that only the Owner can use. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [9.] Mandatory requirement that every Gun Owner must have a Metal, Self-Locking Gun Vault. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [10.] Mandatory Requirement that NO weapon can hold more than 7 Cartridges. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [11.] Mandatory Requirement that NO Magazine, Clip or Canister hold more than 7 Cartridges. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [12.] Mandatory Requirement that NO Owner possesses more than two Magazines, Clips or Canisters. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [13.] Mandatory requirement that every Gun Owner be required to have the same minimum Liability Insurance Coverage on their guns as they are required to have on an automobile in the State in which they reside. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

      [14.] Mandatory requirements are established to allow specific reasons for an individual to carry a weapon in public. Like being an Individual who transports Money or Precious and Valuable cargo. It would be legal to carry [UNLOADED] if one were going to a target practice site and the return trip home. It would be legal to carry [UNLOADED] if one were going to a hunting site and the return trip home [UNLOADED]. It would be legal if one were to purchase a weapon and the return trip home [UNLOADED]. It would be legal for the trip to a gun repair shop and the return trip home [UNLOADED]. It would be legal if one had filed for a restraining order against an individual with fear for their physical safety.

      [15.] Any and all individuals with protection orders in abuse cases, shall be barred from owning firearms.

      [16.] Every sale of a weapon or transfer of ownership of a weapon shall require a mandatory background check.

      • Dave

        Troy asked you for “common sense” reforms not an anti-gunners wet dream

        • Theodore Ziolkowski

          DAVE HAVE YOU ALWAYS BEEN STUPID? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE SINGLE THING IN WHAT I PROPOSE THAT ANY HUMAN BEING WITH A HEART AND COMPASSION FOR THEIR FELLOW MANKIND EITHER HUNTER, POLICEMAN, OR HOME SELF DEFENSE SUPPORT CAN PROVIDE ONE GOOD REASON TO OBJECT TO.

          • Theodore Ziolkowski

            Dave, PLEASE SHOW ME ONE THING IN WHAT I PROPOSED THAT IS “ANTI-GUN?”

            ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I PROPOSE IS DIRECTLY AIMED AT QUALIFYING THE INDIVIDULS TO BE GOOD GUN OWNERS, AND SAFE GUN OWNERS,CREATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OWNERS OF GUNS FOR ANY DAMAGE THEIR GUN CAUSES.

          • Nate Bennett

            Except one factor that you’re failing to realize. Criminals don’t ever follow laws. It’s easy to purchase a firearm through other channels. Hell our country even exports guns for terrible acts.

            Fast & Furious? How about how we armed Syria? Or have we already forgotten about the whole contra ordeal?

            Responsible gun owners, such as myself, are well trained in the use of our weapons. We’ve taken classes. We unfortunately have to already. Do people have to take a course for a hammer or knife? Nope but both can also be deadly.

            The true underlying issue here is people are scared of things that go bang. They’re also terrified of dealing with the underlying social issues at hand here. How about we tackle those first before attempting to make law abiding citizens criminals?

      • Sean D Sorrentino

        And here we see exactly what they have in mind. Note that not one single thing on this list would prevent any crime. But it sure would give the government ultimate control.

        [1] So you’d put a civil right in the hands of people who can “just say no” with no oversight? Yes, you would. And you’d encourage them to say “no” as often as possible. Plus, you’d price poor people out of the self defense market. How Progressive of you!

        [2.] I can teach an average person to handle a gun safely in about 15 minutes. They aren’t that complicated. Why “mandatory” classes and a “test?” So that you can put another costly regulatory hurdle between poor people and their rights. How Progressive of you!

        [3.] Again, about 15 minutes. Again, more cost, time, and hassle, delaying and denying civil rights for poor people. How Progressive of you!

        [4.] This is awesome. Let’s put the government in charge of limiting the people who can teach the stupidly basic skill of “this is the holdy end, this is the flamey death end. But it makes instruction harder to find and more expensive to get for poor people. How Progressive of you!

        [5.] More costs and fewer instructors by requiring them to recertify in a skill that you really can’t forget. Costs passed on to the people who want to get training, further pricing poor people out of exercising their rights. How Progressive of you!

        [6.] Obviously you think that under your regime that the police are too stupid to remember that if someone breaks the law they should check their database and see if they have a concealed carry license to revoke. But this has the “benefit” of costing more money, further pricing poor people out of their civil rights. How Progressive of you!

        [7.] “Ballistic Fingerprinting” was long ago busted as scientific. You’ve watched too many episodes of CSI. It doesn’t work, it’s expensive, and in the states that it was tried in (Maryland, to name one) it never solved a single crime. But it makes the cost of owning a gun go up, which again prices the poor out of their civil rights. How Progressive of you!

        [8] More expense for a piece of vaporware. It doesn’t exist. Not just “we’ve got some teething problems,” but “Does not exist in any form anywhere.” Note that the cops will tell you to piss up a rope before they adopt this. But again, the added costs will be passed on to the customer, pricing poor people out of their civil rights. How Progressive of you!

        [9.] More costs. Fewer people that can afford to exercise their rights. How Progressive of you!

        [10.] What, because if I get attacked by more people than I have bullets for, I should just die already? How Progressive of you!

        [11.] You’ve basically copied #10 over again. Also, WTF is a “Canister?” I’ve only been shooting for the last 30 years. Obviously I still have things to learn about guns, so maybe you can explain that to me, the newbie in the gun world.

        [12.] Because it’s so difficult to build what amounts to a metal box with a spring inside. SO VERY DIFFICULT. Are you going to conduct house to house searched for metal boxes and springs? How Progressive of you!

        [13.] Mandatory requirement that every Gun Owner be required to have the same minimum Liability Insurance Coverage on their guns as they are required to have on an automobile in the State in which they reside. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS FOR ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL ON A MILITARY BASE OR IN COMBAT.

        [14.] So you believe that it’s perfectly OK to use deadly force to protect “Money” or “Precious and Valuable Cargo™” but not people’s lives? How Progressive of you!

        [15.] This is already Federal law and also the law in basically every state. I’m starting to get the idea that you don’t know much about what you’re pontificating about. How Progressive of you!

        [16.] Because background checks totally stopped Columbine, Aurora, the Gabby Giffords shooting, Newtown, Charleston, and this recent news reporter murders. And I suspect that you’ll try to institute background checks between Ray Ray and Ice Dog when they trade guns for drugs on our city streets? You’re demanding another law that won’t solve any problem at all, so I can only assume that you’re doing it for some other reason than your stated goal. How Progressive of you! (seriously, that is totally a progressive trait, lie, take more power.)

        So, genius, please explain how you’re going to collect the multiple hundreds of millions of guns currently in circulation. You’re sure not going to do it. And if you’re dumb enough to think that the cops are going to do it, I suggest you put your hand in your back pocket and carry your butt to New York and/or Connecticut and insist that their cops start confiscating the millions of guns that New York and Connecticut residents refused to register.

        • Theodore Ziolkowski

          Sean D Sorrentino YOU MUST BE A VERY WELL PAID MOUTH PIECE OF THE N.R.A. SEEING AS YOUR PRESENT ALL OF THEIR ARGUEMENS SO EXPERTLY.

          IT IS A VERY SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A GUN DEATH IN THE U.S.A. WITHOUT THE REMOVAL OF EVERY GUN.

          IT IS A SIMPLE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH BY CANCER WITH CHEMO-THERAPY

          BUT THE CHEMO-THERAPY REDUCES THE CHANCES OF DEATH.

          THE PROPOSALS I HAVE MADE REDUCE THE POSSIBILTY OF DEATH BY GUNS.

          I ALSO AM WILLING TO BET YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THOSE UNDER THE POVERTY INCOME AND I WILL BET YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE POOR AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE YOU CARE FOR THEIR RIGHTS SO DEEPLY.

          YOU HAVE SHOWN VERY CLEARLY THAT YOU LIKE GUNS MORE THAN YOU LIKE PEOPLE. YOU ALSO SHOW YOUR LOVE FOR MONEY WITH YOU CONCERN ABOUT A POSSIBLE INCREASE IN COST TO THE GUN OWNER. YOU NEED TO LOOK IN A MIRROR AND ASK YOURSELF WHY IS MY GUN MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN MY CHILDREN OR MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

          THE FACT AND STATISTICS HAVE PROVEN THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER F GUNS IN THE U.S.A. SO PEOPLE CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES HAS NOT HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT. THE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HAS INCREASED AND THE NUMBER OF SUPPOSEDLY AVOIDED INCIDENTS HAS SEEN NO DECREASE.

          IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS TO FIGURE OUT THE MORE GUNS THE MORE INCIDENTS OF SHOTINGS OF INDIVIDUALS.

          WE MUST CONTROL THE INDIVIDUALS WHO GET GUNS AND YES WE MUST RECHECK THEM ON A REGULAR BASES. WITH TIME PEOPLE DO CHANGE AND THINGS IN THEIR LIVES CHANGE AND SOME VERY GOOD PEOPLE GO INSANE AND DO BAD THINGS.

          • Sean D Sorrentino

            Once again, your computer keyboard appears to be defective. Please return it to wherever you purchased it and get one with an operating caps lock key.

            Have you ever heard of the psychological term, Projection? There is a lot of evidence that people who think that everyone else is an insane dangerous person are generally the sort of people who are very afraid of themselves being insane dangerous people.

            Perhaps you should consider arguing with me instead of the person in your bathroom mirror.

        • Theodore Ziolkowski

          Sean D Sorrentino YOU CERTAINLY ARE CONCERNED WITH COST THROUGHOUT YOUR POSTING. HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE LAW OF THE LARGER THE DEMAND THE LOWER THE COST?

          [1.] EVER “RIGHT” WE HAVE IS SUBJECT TO SOME ONE SAYING NO. EXAMPLE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE THE RELIGION OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERRIDE MY NO WHEN YOU INFRINGE ON MY “RIGHT” TO PRACTISE MINE.

          [2.]GUN HANDLING AND GUN SHOOTING CLASSES ARE USUALLY HELD TOGETHER. ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN TRAIN SOMEONE TO SAFELY HANDLE A GUN IN 15 MINUTES. THAT IS WHY THE N.R.A. GUN CLASSES TAKE A HELL OF ALOT LONGER.

          [3.] THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE MONEY TO OWN A GUN. IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS TO PURCHASE A WEAPON LEGGALLY TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

          [4.] I DO NOT CARE WHO GETS A LICENSE TO TEACH GUN SAFETY, BUT SOMEONE MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE THEIR LICENSE TO DO IT. I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT IDIOTS LIKE YOU TO TEACH THEM IN 15 MINUTES.

          [5.] HAVE YOU EVER HEAR OF DEMENTIA OR ALZHEIMERS? B.T.W. THEY ARE NOT AGE RELATED. HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT LAWS CHANGE AND THEY NEED TO INCORPORATE THEM IN THEIR TRAINING. OR GUN MANUFACTURES COME OUT WITH NEW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THEIR WEAPONS.

          [6.] DO YOU HONEST THINK POLICE DO THIS? NEITHER THE CITY, COUNTY OR STATE POLICE WHERE I LIVE DO IT. HOWEVER I WILL AGREE WITH YOU ONE THIS ONE AND CHANGE MY ONE YEAR REQUIRMENT TO FOUR YEARS IF IT IS MADE MANDATORY FOR THE POLICE TO DO WHAT YOU SAY.

          [7.] (A.) http://brassfetcher.com/ (B.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics (C.) Forensic ballistics involves analysis of bullets and bullet impacts to determine information of use to a court or other part of a legal system. Separately from ballistics information, firearm and tool mark examinations (“ballistic fingerprinting”) involve analyzing firearm, ammunition, and tool mark evidence in order to establish whether a certain firearm or tool was used in the commission of a crime.

          [8.] YOU SIR ARE A LIAR THE TRIGGER LOCK DOES AND HAS EXISTED AND THERE IS NOW AN ELECTRONIC TIRIGGER THAT ONLY THE OWNER CAN USE. GET UP TO DATE. LOOK AT THE DIGITAL LOCK http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=gun+trigger+lock&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=3486719981&hvqmt=p&hvbmt=bp&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_77h5rru11a_p
          OPTION #2 AT: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrBTzbm6elV4SoAR.JXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=ELECTRONIC+TRIGGERS+ON+GUNS&fr=mcafee

          [9.] SIR YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH MONEY THAN LIFE THEREFORE I DOUT IF ANYONE WILL EVER CONVINCE YOU THAT YOUR GREED COST LIVES.

          I WILL STOP RIGHT HERE BECAUSE I NOW REALIZE YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE UNLESS IT IS YOU, A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY THAT IS MURDERED.

      • Troy

        Wow…Ted. That’s quite a laundry list. I only have a few comments in no particular order or preference:

        I am a firearms instructor. It is my business to train people to responsibly handle and possess these mechanisms with responsibility. When they don’t there are sanctions, criminal and civil that can and should be brought when that person fails to act reasonably and rationally. I’ve taught Constitutional law, not just read about it. Do either of those qualify me as being right? Certainly not. But it does make me knowledgable about my subject matter.

        The screening processes you advocate in #1 are, well, beyond the pale. I’ve stopped short of saying that they’re just silly and ignorant. Those agencies and all law enforcement agencies screen looking for a certain mindset and individual, within established parameters. The private individual isn’t going to make arrests, investigate crimes, protect dignitaries or Presidents. I could list any number of incidences surrounding those agencies and recent failings they’ve been publicly embarrassed by with regard to personnel. Any screening process you implement is going to have a holes in and no matter how regimented or strict, someone always manages to slip through and invariably end up on the 6:00 o’clock news.

        This discussion was intended to be a calm and rational discussion which has turned into an ersatz shouting match (based on the use of caps in your post) and is most sincere on my part. It is also relevant to the private ownership of firearms by private individuals, not members of the US Military. Which, if you saw the rates of incidence for UID’s (that’s unintentional discharges) you’d probably backtrack on your last sentence of suggestions 8-13. If you take a look at North Carolina General Statute 50-B-3.1, you will find something quite similar to what you propose already on the books in #15 of your manifesto.

        Otherwise, your “common sense” suggestions can stand or perish on their own merits. There is certainly nothing more that I need comment on with regard to your proposals that would bring anything you said within the realm of ‘common sense’. Frankly, common and sense are wholly lacking, based on your writing.

        • Theodore Ziolkowski

          Troy AT LEAST I CAN RESPECT YOUR THOUGHFUL REPLY. FIRST I USE CAPITALS BECAUSE I AM LEGALLY BLIND AND HAVE GLAUCOME AND RETINAL DEGENERATION.

          YOU ARE CORRECT NEITHER OF US IS AN EXPERT AND EVEN IF WE WERE THAT ALONE WOULD NOT ENSURE THAT WE COULD NOT MAKE MISTAKES.

          AS A GUN INSTRUCTOR, I WOULD GUESS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN PEOPLE YOU PROVIDED INSTRUCTIUONS TO MAYBE YEARS LATER ON A GUN RANGE OR OUT HUNTING AND ABSERVED THEM VIOLATING THE RULES YOU TAUGHT THEM.

          ANY SCREENING PROCESS AS HOLES IN IT BECASE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO ELIMINATE EVERY POSSIBILITY BECAUSE WITH TIME THERE ARE CHANGES NOT ANTICIPATED. ALL WE CAN DO IS TRY TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

          COMMON SENSE IS AN UNDEFINABLE STATEMENT. BECAUSE HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH OF US FITS IN WITH WHAT IS THE COMMON PEOPLE. HOWEVER; I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN ONE IS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT A MAJORITY OF ALL CITIZENS WANT AND EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE POSSIBILITY EXIST THAT THE ARE EXPRESSING THE COMMON SENSE.

          I WILL SAY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE U. S. CITIZENS WANT MORE CONTROLS ON INDIVIDUALS GETTING GUNS AND OWNING GUNS.

          I WILL SAY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE U. S. CITIZENS WANT TO STOP THE MURDERS OF ANY INNOCENT CHILD AND ANY INNOCENT PERSON WITH GUNS.

          I ALSO REALIZE THAT THE ONLY ABSOLUTE WAY TO ELIMINATE GUN RELATED DEATHS IS TO ELIMONATE ALL GUNS IN THE U.S.A. WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I ARE OPPOSED TO.

          BUT I THINK YOU AND I COULD WORK TOGETHER AND COME CLOSE TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT.

          THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU.

    • Theodore Ziolkowski

      Troy, WHEN YOU PHRASE YOUR QUESTION LIKE THIS YOU DO NOT SEEK OR WANT A FRANK AND OPEN DISCUSSION. “What are those “common sense reforms” with the broad public support that will categorically, undeniably, reduce, halt, and bring forevermore to a halt, the incidences of mass shootings in this country?”

      • Sean D Sorrentino

        Says the guy who frankly wants registration, confiscation, and enforcement at the point of police guns. You aren’t “anti-gun.” You’re anti citizens having guns. You want the government to have the power to tell us how we must live and you want the citizens so powerless that we have to obey. How Progressive of you!

      • Troy

        I find your lack of comprehension disconcerting. Just because you fail to grasp what the question is asking doesn’t invalidate it. It is a legitimate question in response to a generalized statement. Every politician wants a vote. They like to use key words and phrases like “common sense” to promote a generalized acceptance among the populace. Saying something is ‘common’ doesn’t mean that it is. In fact, everyone goes on to quote statistics as a means of establishing what common sense is with regard to this subject; be it crime rates, or defense of self rates, or homicide rates. Pure statistics without context are nothing but numbers. There is nothing to say what the independent or dependent variables are and nothing is ever written about how other things may have an influence on the outcome. No, they only give you the numbers they want you to hear; and they always favor the side of whose telling the tale.

        To illustrate the point of common sense, I’ll give you a ‘common sense’ statement about guns. “Keep your finger off the trigger and it won’t go off.” Now that my good fellow, is common sense.

        Truth of the matter is, you have no interest in discussing this. Somewhere in this debate there is a line. People come down on one side or the other and refuse to consider the other side of the debate or if they do consider it, it is only for the purposes of ridicule. In that analysis, you would rather lecture at or talk down to.

      • Morris

        Nothing will bring forevermore a halt to mass shootings.in this or any other country. Certainly removing guns from the law-abiding citizens of this country will not do it. There is a chance that one law-abiding citizens with a gun can halt a violent incidence. Some of us have.

  16. Betty McGuire

    All we can do is keep up the fight for more gun control.

  17. Brad

    Thanks so much for your comment. This madness has to stop. When a group of 6 year old children are shot in the head in Sandy Hook and absolutely nothing was done, I essentially gave up hope. A obviously disturbed man was able to legally purchase a gun and then shoot 3 people and then himself last week. Still no hope. Where are our minds and our morality?

    • NFB

      And, of course, the party that capitulates to the gun lobby and sits by while the bodies mount claims to be the “pro life” party.

      • Matt

        You pretend to care about lives? Compare 500 people a year killed by so called “assault weapons” with 45,000 alcohol related deaths per year. Which one of you has called for end to alcohol? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Keep selling your aborted fetus body parts.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!