Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Gun’


CNN, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

There was a time that CNN lived up to its name as a “Cable News Network”.  These days, it seems it’s anything but the news.  It’s opinion and even then, poorly formed and ignorant opinion.  (I’ll discuss the pit bull, Chris Cuomo, another time!)

As I often do during the day, I’m reading through CNN.com/US and there’s an article about gun control.  The author, Jeff Yang, suggests that an answer to the “epidemic” of gun violence is to make owners of guns get insurance.  The article is stupid enough on its own but simply the fact that CNN would publish it is amazing!

Let’s walk through a few counter-thoughts for a moment:

  1. Requiring doctors to have insurance doesn’t stop malpractice from happening.  It only provides a means for the survivors or victims’ families to carry on, at least financially.  The patient is still injured, suffering, or dead.
  2. Requiring drivers to have insurance hasn’t stopped car accidents from happening.  It only provides a means for financial recovering in the wake of a crash.  The damage is still done, injuries still happened, and in some cases, the dead are still dead.

There is no case I can think of where requiring insurance has prevented a potentially negative event from occurring.  In fact, “requiring” insurance is not always enforced even in cases (such as driving) until or unless an event occurs that brings it to light.  The fallacy of those who think like Mr Yang is the thought process that believes a law will prevent something from happening.  Obviously Not!  Even with all of the thousands of laws on the books today–if not millions–crimes and law violations occur on a regular basis.

Insurance may cause a law-abiding citizen to reconsider gun ownership if the cost of that insurance is too great.  For the criminal, die hard, or mentally ill?  Not necessarily.  And even if a person has insurance for a legally obtained firearm, there is no guarantee that in the heat of the moment, someone will not end up dead.

CNN’s Andre Spicer has an equally ineffective idea:  Let’s convince retailers that selling guns isn’t in their best commercial interest!  Great!  So that takes care of Walmart and introduces more shops that are “gun free” like Starbucks.  It doesn’t get guns off of the streets.  It also does nothing to stop a destructive person from walking into an elementary school with a gun and killing people.  How much more gun-free can you get than an elementary school???

Well, those signs in the windows or at the curbs that says “Gun-Free Zone” were REALLY effective, weren’t they!?!?!?!!!

The only answer to gun violence in this country–or anywhere in the world–is a complete revocation of any rights regarding gun ownership with full surrender, then confiscation, and then extreme punishment for anyone found to own a gun.  At that point, there would almost have to be immediate incarceration on a felony charge with the possibility of life in prison or the death penalty before things would change significantly.

I don’t advocate any of this, by the way!  I don’t advocate anything mentioned up to this point!!!

HOWEVER, I do agree that doing nothing is not the right answer, but there needs to be an unemotional, logical, reasoned out approach, hammered out by liberals and conservatives, and then simply implemented.  Doing SOMETHING and doing the RIGHT THING are not one and the same though.  A change may mean that the Constitution is amended–it has been before and likely will be again.  Not an easy path or a likely one at that.  But if and when it does occur, be prepared to either live by the new rules or to move into the criminal class when you don’t.

And be prepared in that day to live with a lot of other changes that will leave the United States of America less great, less free, and less united!

Read Full Post »


Now that the five Republican candidates for Senator Evan Bayh’s seat have had their say in this week’s debate, it would appear that whoever wins the primary will be a strong Second Amendment supporter.  On the other side of the November election will be Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat, from the 8th District, who is also a supporter of this most basic right.  No matter who wins, Hoosiers can be assured that their junior Senator will advocate for the right for private citizens to bear arms.

So what exactly is this right anyway?  Not until December 15, 1791, did this amendment even exist.  The revolution against England had ended eight years earlier.  The final version of the amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The amendment is often partially quoted and even then, misused to support a position of common gun ownership by anyone and everyone who is legally eligible to do so.  Taking into account restrictions against felons, minors, mentally ill, etc., quite a few of us are eligible to own and bear an arm.

But what the amendment says is a sentence, not a phrase.  Read in its entirety and kept in context, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on the need for a free State to maintain a well-regulated militia.  In as much that few private gun owners belong to a militia—well regulated or not—one could argue that the right DOES NOT apply to the general masses.

The characteristics of  a well-regulated militia have to include a centralized command and control structure, jurisdiction, members, and a common mission.  This is not to suggest that such militias do not exist in Indiana, but the membership of such militias are a pittance compared to the number of registered gun owners in the state.  The Post-Tribune reports only 27 militia-style groups in the state.  By contrast, in 2004, the last year data could be found for, the Indystar.com reported at least 300,000 Hoosiers as having gun permits.

Despite Constitutional interpretation that would support restricting gun ownership, courts have upheld the more liberal interpretation.  Sadly, even if gun ownership restrictions were enacted and an attempt was made to disarm Americans, it’s likely that the ones giving up their guns would be the law abiding citizens—not the miscreants of society who view a gun as a tool of the trade for obtaining that for which they are unwilling to work.  The unarmed masses would easily fall prey to the criminal element who would undoubtedly continue to shun law and order, owning and using guns to achieve an end.

In 2010, it’s not just a right to own a firearm as interpreted by the Supreme Court, it is a necessity to be armed for ones own protection as well as for the safety of ones home and family.  The balance comes from legal and responsible ownership to include registration and safe storage of a weapon.  Too often, a firearm in a home has become the means by which a family member or friend is accidentally killed or injured.

Perhaps it’s time for the Second Amendment to be amended to clarify the right and to remove any ambiguity.  It would certainly remove the question as a political litmus test and allow our candidates to talk about the issues that are more pressing—like unemployment, property taxes, and medical costs.

EXAMINERhttp://www.examiner.com/x-45753-Indianapolis-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m4d21-Second-Amendment-Right-to-Bear-Arms

Read Full Post »