This post has everything to do with Gun Control - Updated. | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Warning, spoiler alert: The old Rooster crows about Gun & Knife Control and other nonsense. Skip this article if your mind is already made up. I wrote this article several months ago for my own clarification but decided not to submit for publication. As we start 2016, the news reports have been reporting that our POTUS has rededicated himself to additional gun control. I do not consider myself a "gun nut". I do not have a loaded gun in my house. I do not have a concealed carry permit. I am not a hunter. I have not fired a gun in the past 5+ years. I have seen what destructive power a gun can have firsthand. I also have seen how it can save lives in both my military and private citizen experience. My interest in the subject is not based on some testosterone fueled manhood persona. I am seriously concerned on how certain members of our government are using the issue to exert more control over its citizens. I am also concerned about the abuse of power that I see in Washington DC. With that foundation, I offer this rant if for no other reason to get it off my chest. I understand others will disagree and that is their right. However, it is not their right to take away my rights in pursuit of their vision for this country. Buckle up or move on; here I go again.

    The recent news and pronouncements from the POTUS and Hillary about the evils of guns and the need to have more "GUN CONTROL" can't solve the problem that we see in Jerusalem. I do not think this is a case of random violence as the POTUS has tried to characterize it. Israel law licenses and controls gun much more than we do here in the USA. Apparently, gun control in the Middle East is not too successful in controlling the hate that seems to fester in people. "According to Yaakov Amit, the head of the Public Security Ministry's Firearms Licensing Department, the difference between the gun laws in the US and Israel are as clear as night and day. There is an essential difference between the two. In America the right to bear arms is written in the law, here it's the opposite... only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license."

    Because of the numerous knife attacks on Israeli citizens, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat urged licensed Israeli gun owners to carry their weapons and help defend civilians. The area is a small portion of geography, which is essentially under Marshall Law. It is heavily patrolled by Israeli military as well as local police force but still the Mayor feels the need to call upon citizens to help protect the populace. My point is that we may be focusing on the object and not the underlying cause. As Reverend Gene Scarborough often points out, the problem is most likely in the hearts and minds of humans. It is not an inanimate tools of destruction that is the problem.

    If we were able to remove all guns and knives from that or any society, I suspect there would be a substitute weapon found instantly. Perhaps it could be a rock. I cannot pretend nor do I offer a complete solution to these problems, but I think I can safely say that bringing a knife or rock to a gunfight will not make you safer. The choice of weapon is subject to what is available at the time. Should we ban airplanes as a result of 9/11/2001? I have seen young boys in the prime of their testosterone years and armed to the hilt, throw down their guns, grenades, knifes, and fight with their fist. I always suspected that it was because the argument was not worth dying over. It kinda of like the rule not to light a match to see how much gas you have left in the tank.

    I draw a parallel to my time in Vietnam. Our efforts at pacification CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support) was to surround a village in early morning and then search for weapons caches and hidden VC supply. We would confiscate all weapons found and then bring in the Medical Teams (Med-Cap) to provide medical assistance to the villagers. Several times after we left the village, we would take fire from the village from hidden VC. When we would return to the same village later and go through the same procedure, we would hear the stories of the VC coming back at night into the village, raping the women, and killing the village leaders.

    We did all that we could to disarm the entire country of weapons but the VC seemed to always find a way to acquire guns and weapons. We had 525,000 US soldiers there and we could not protect the villages from the relatively few VC enemies that terrorized the south. The problem then as now is that it was very difficult to tell the "us from them". One thing I do know is that our version of complete gun control did not work then and I doubt it will work now.

    The citizens of that country did not have a constitution or bill of rights. They were subject to a tyranny by their own government as well as the insurgents and lacked total freedom of movement. Any young man of military age was suspect if he was not already in the military in defense of a northern invader. They had two choices. Either joins us or fight us.

    Yet in spite of all the efforts to disarm, control and disrupt the actions of the insurgents, they managed to kill over 58,000 of the best-equipped and well-trained military force in the world. They were able to resupply their combatants using a medieval trail that was at some places passable only by single file. The total effort to eliminate guns and weapons was a complete and absolute failure.

    The same may be true in regards to countries. The possession of weapons does not in itself create a danger; it is the motive and actions of those in possession of weapons that I fear most. Yet, somehow, we are still engaged in the debate over gun control as the means to prevent a determined enemy from causing havoc in a peaceful nation. Examples exist everywhere to indicate that "Gun Free Zones" are neither without guns or free. In human disagreements, there is no defense against one group that is willing to sacrifice life under any threat of control to accomplish their goals. No amount of negotiation will solve a problem when one of the parties has no intention of adhering to a negotiated settlement. Naivety in dealing with a determined and resourceful enemy has proved to be a disastrous route to destruction. Destruction of the enemy has so far been the only way that mankind has found to render their terror defense. I have noticed that even some of the conservative and gun rights crowd have fell into the trap of using the number of rounds in the recent shootings in California to make a point on motive and intention.

    For the record, the reason for having a large number of rounds in your possession is to insure that you don't run out of ammunition while you are engaged in whatever reason you felt the need to have just one round. The quantity of ammunition is not an indication of anything except your commitment to your purpose. Take my word for it; giving out of ammo in a gunfight is not a good thing. It is worse if you are in a gunfight without a gun or ammunition.

    We should be careful not to lose site on the commitment to purpose vs the methods used to achieve it. No reasonable police force would limit the ammunition available to its officers on the basis that the presence of ammunition alone indicates nefarious intent. No sane army limits the resupply of ammunition in pursuit of the goal of the unit in operational activity. If someone decided to obtain a weapon for self-defense of his home and property, is it an indication that he has some nefarious motive when he also decided to maintain several thousand rounds to accomplish that protection?

    If you feel safe in your neighborhood congratulations. If you happen to live in a location that is overrun with thieves, murderers and criminals, do you lock your doors at night?

    Weapons and ammunitions are merely tools used to accomplish a purpose. A carpenter may show up at the job site with a hammer, saw, ruler and many other tools of the trade, but if he doesn't have nails I doubt he will ever get anything built. Let us be careful to separate the tools from the intention. Until we as humans have been able to develop a crystal ball that can tell the intention we should be wary of assigning inanimate object with intention and opinions.

    Almost everyone would agree that selective gun control that can identify the bad from the good would be an admirable goal. However, laws designed to limit the possession of weapons are only dependent on the law-abiding citizens adhering to the law. Criminals and determined anarchist do not intend to abide the laws of society when they are trying to accomplish their purpose. Criminals are more than willing to let the government make their goals more attainable by limiting the law-abiding citizen's ability to protect themselves.

    My last point is based on the principal of trust.
  • Do you trust a government to protect your rights that will try to eliminate 18-ounce soft drinks in a cup?
  • Do you trust a government to protect your rights that can and will monitor all your private conversations and correspondence without a reasonable legal review?
  • Do you think that because I have voiced a strong opinion on the subject said government may investigate me?
  • Do you trust a government would tax you because you have too much money regardless of how you earned it?
  • Do you trust a government that resist a background check on immigrants and Syrian refugees but wants to check every American citizen trying to legally purchase a gun?


Finally, do you trust a government that will condemn and take your property without due process so they can build something that is "good for the community"?

    This country is great because it was built on the principles of individual rights and property rights. Granted we have not always live up to the ideal and even today there is a ground swell to prevent the police from doing exactly what they are hired to do because we have a few bad apples. If you don't subscribe to the fact that it is just a few bad apples, maybe you should buy a bigger lock and dead bolt for your doors and windows.

    Did you ever hear the story about the boy who called wolf too many times? Eventually no one paid any attention to him. Police may be in the process of doing the same thing today due to the overreaction to police abuse.

    Maybe a short video will help you to understand why it is not the gun's fault.

   


    Evil Gun Myth Busted

UPDATE: January 6, 2016


    Since the post was originally posted, the POTUS has announced a new initiative aimed at reducing gun violence. The specifics will be rolled out during the next few days and weeks, but it appears that the focus will be on expanding the requirement for a background check and additional emphasis on mental health. My first impression is that the POTUS will make an attempt to expand the definition of Mentally Ill to include a large segment of the population. Would that list include any person who has ever been to a psychiatrist or counselor for stress or depression? Would you disqualify any veteran who has PTSD? Would your doctor be required to report that you are taking medication for sleep or anxiety? Have you ever lost your temper and said "DAMMIT"? Would that include your uncle Red Neckerson and his wife Necatrune who TMAC has admitted has mental problems Once the list is established, it is a simple matter of expanding the criteria for inclusion on that list. Who make the determination of what qualifies for inclusion on the "No Buy List"? I hope it is not the same nuts who currently compile the "No Fly List", which includes numerous errors and outright political revenge motivated listings..

Here is the list that determines if a federal prohibition would exist for any person who:
  • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
  • Is a fugitive from justice
  • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
  • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
  • Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
  • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
  • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
  • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
  • Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
  • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
FBI WEBSITE     I will withhold and additional comment until the details become available. I would however point out one thing that we should pay close attention to is the Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process, Equal Protection. For me it boils down to a matter of trust. I don't trust the government to show restraint and observation of our legal rights; left or right, democrat or republican, have all abused the authority we have given them through the vote. Does anyone remember the "Enemies List" that the left were so concerned about during the Nixon administration?

Update: January 8, 2015



As any lawyer would do, the POTUS has a constant description that he applies to his approach to gun control. He uses the phrase common sense is in every discussion. The phrase I guess is supposed to convince everyone that there is no need for discussion or debate about the issue. "Just trust me on this I am right". The phrase suggests that everyone agrees on the conclusion. By any definition this subject is not one that has universal agreement on solutions.

Here is the definition of is Common Sense. : sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

If you think I am just a paranoid nut when it comes to our government you might enjoy this joke post.



Post id# 18285


Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




A Unique Classic Covered by a Legendary Irishman The Old Rooster Crows, Public Vignettes, Visiting Writers, Literature, The Arts Pip Squeak Politics

HbAD0

 
Back to Top