One Small Voice. A Lot of Big Ideas. Let Freedom Ring!

Why are we having a national conversation about gun control, anyway?



There are only a few issues that are handled effectively at the national level: national security and defense, immigration policy, our monetary system, and international trade.


Unfortunately, our federal government has become so vast, our states have surrendered so much power, that the federal government has taken on the of persona of a God, regulating minutia with a one-size-fits-all mentality, from public education to healthcare.  Once the federal government takes control of any issue or institution, what follows are laws and regulations, piled upon more laws and regulations, boosted by a larger federal payroll who justify their paychecks with more regulations and larger payrolls.


We’ve long ago stopped trying to figure out where our tax dollars go. And with no federal budget for the last four years it would be an almost impossible task, anyway.


This brings me to the issue of Gun Control.


Our 24-hour, up-to-the-minute news media crashes into our homes, our cars, our i-pads, our computers with non-stop coverage of events. Bad news sells. Really bad news sells really well.


So when a tragedy of the magnitude of the Newtown, CT or VA Tech shootings occur, we are bombarded with horrible images and press conferences, followed by so-called “expert” analysis and follow-up by any warm body that has ever witnessed, been victimized, studied or written about such events.


Hysteria ensues. And every parent has the horrible thought of, “What if that were my child? What if that was my town?” That’s normal. That’s healthy, even.


But from there, the conversation should inspire LOCAL conversations. How safe is MY school? Do I, as a parent, want armed resource officers or armed teachers?  What is the unique culture of MY community? How well do we take care of our mentally disturbed citizens in MY community?  Do MY schools have a history of violent behavior among students?  


The answers are going to be different for every community in the nation. In rural communities, the vast majority of children learn to shoot in grade school, many have killed their first deer or squirrel by age 12 and everyone knows one another. They know who’s “not quite right in the head” and they know who can be counted upon. Those communities should be able to set their own rules, allowing gun racks in pick-ups in the high school parking lot and pocket knives in backpacks, if they choose.


Conversely, an inner city metropolitan school in a high-crime neighborhood and with a history of violent behavior among students may want to go so far as to install metal detectors.


Gun Control is about control. Local control is always a better solution than national control, whether we’re talking about guns or education.


 We the people are the government. We need to take back control of our communities. We need to come together as neighbors that understand the unique culture and concerns of our community, not as fellow countrymen living 3,000 miles and 30,000 light years in experience away from one another.


Do you really want one person, the President, making decisions for you, your community, your school about what guns, if any, should be allowed? How many you should own?  How many rounds they shoot? Do you really want 535 people making decisions for over 330 million people spread over thousands of miles and representing thousands of diverse communities?


The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the individual’s right to bear arms. And it states that that right shall not be infringed.  Is it a common sense infringement to outlaw automatic machine guns without a special permit? Probably. Is it a common sense infringement to outlaw all handguns? Probably not.  But who do you trust to make those decisions?


You and your neighbors should decide together what works best for your unique community. The federal government has way too many other messes to clean up than to waste time deciding if my handgun should have a 10- or 15-shot magazine.


20 comments on “Why are we having a national conversation about gun control, anyway?

  1. NEO
    January 17, 2013

    Outstanding point, Freedom. When Wyatt Earp banned open carry (especially by drunken cowboys) in Dodge City, it was common sense, not an infringement of freedom. If President Grant had tried it, it would have been catastrophic.

    Big difference between what’s needed locally and nationally.

    • Freedom, by the way
      January 17, 2013

      Good analogy and thanks for the little bit of a history lesson, Nebraska.

      • NEO
        January 17, 2013

        Strangely, i just struck me while reading your post, and gave me a chuckle I thought I’d share.

  2. Teresa Rice
    January 17, 2013

    Well said Freedom!

  3. Josh Ventor
    January 17, 2013 This is not just about the ridiculous killing sprees American gun owners tend to go on every few months; it’s about the day-in, day-out human deaths which are almost entirely attributable to the availability of guns. You are so used to it you don’t see it as a problem. Look at that graphic and think of all those people, all those families, all that suffering, most of it needless, that happens every day in America. That’s 926 people dead since Newtown. And yes, that is mostly attributable to guns, because no other country has a gun murder rate like the U.S.’s. If you want to claim it’s not the guns, then you better have a replacement answer for why the rate is so high in America compared to anywhere else. Why? Come on, why?

    And like all gun-loving conservatives, you neglect that the 2nd Amendment says, “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.” Note the phrase “well regulated.” When the US has the highest gun murder rate in the world, it’s clearly not well regulated. I could go on about the militia part too, but what’s the point – you just cherry-pick the bits you like. And the Amendment – it’s just words, made up by people. It’s not like a law of physics or anything.

    When the problem persists, and the people ask for it, then the federal government steps in. That’s 55% in favour, also known as a majority. So that’s what “we the people” are saying.

    • Freedom, by the way
      January 17, 2013

      Josh, first of all, the “ridiculous killing sprees” are not always committed by gun owners. The Newtown shooter did not own, but rather stole, the guns he used. And they are never committed by responsible gun owners. You accuse me of “cherry-picking” bits of the 2nd Ammmendment, yet you cherry-pick the poll answers you choose to share with us. A majority of those polled, 61%, said they believe that stricter gun laws would not reduce the amount of violent crime in our country. But polls, like people, are falliable. If this poll were taken 6 months from now, the answers may vary wildly. But the 2nd ammendment is not about the majority, anyway. The Bill of Rights was written to protect Indiviual Liberties which is really in the interest of the majority if we are to be a free people. If you really read my post and aren’t just dropping into blogs to blast defenders of the 2nd Ammendment, you should understand that I am not advocating that we don’t look at the issue of violence in our country. I am advocating that the federal government step back and let the states and localities, and thus the citizens, have a greater say. Many states already have instant background checks–even at gun shows. Many require registration and permitting. Those who feel that any law is unconstitutional is free to file a suit, work to change the laws or move to a less restrictive area. You said “When the problem persists, and the people ask for it, then the federal government steps in.” That is truly sad to think that Americans believe the federal government can solve hardly anything. But in the instance of gun control, the federal government did NOT wait to be asked. They stepped in where they are not needed, not wanted and are sure to make a bigger mess of things.

      • nooneofanyimport
        January 19, 2013

        I commend you for publishing that dumb comment (the idea that 2nd amendment is conditioned upon the existence of a “well regulated militia” is clearly bunk: ), and also for attempting to converse with said commenter.

        I personally would’ve just spammed him. I’m so done with trying to talk sense into those who will not hear.

        Great, and inspirational post, Freedom. I’m sharing it!


        • Freedom, by the way
          January 19, 2013

          Yea, you’re probably right, Lin. Since he didn’t come back he’s just trolling blogs looking for landing sites to spew the liberal idiocy.
          Thanks for sharing this and any little tidbit from my site you desire.

      • Josh Ventor
        January 21, 2013

        Regarding killing-sprees not always initiated by gun owners: interesting that you make the point that these sprees are not conducted by “responsible” gun owners (I’m assuming you think that as soon as a responsible gun owner starts shooting up schools or movie houses he is no longer classifiable as “responsible” – this is called a tautology). The Newtown shooter stole his mother’s guns and killed her and others with them. I’m not sure this point props up your argument. In fact, by saying this, you admit that regulations are useless, and it was the existence and availability of the guns themselves that allowed the deaths of those teachers and children. So if regulation isn’t the answer to prevent this kind of thing from happening, what is? I can think of only one answer: getting rid of the guns altogether. I’m pretty sure your not advocating this course. So what’s your answer? Assuming that you don’t want to see another Newtown…can I make this assumption?

        Regarding cherry-picking stats: I also saw the poll number on what people believe about violence and guns. The reason I chose to disregard it is this is the polling of a “belief,” like, “I think it’ll snow next Tuesday.” While people know that they want stricter gun controls (we are asking what they want) their belief about the effect of those controls is irrelevant. I can tell you with certainty that stricter gun controls will result is less gun violence, because the evidence of every nation on earth reflects this. What those who were polled “believe” is meaningless.

        Now, I was going to concede your point that I missed the mark in my response, because you claim: “I am advocating that the federal government step back and let the states and localities, and thus the citizens, have a greater say.” However, you appear to be against against any increase in regulation regardless of what level initiates it, as evidenced by your posting of this, advertising rallies with the purpose of demanding “NO NEW GUN LAWS”: So I won’t be conceding that point.

        I’m curious (genuinely) what you want, if you think almost a thousand dead Americans in the last month (including this little guy: from gun deaths is okay. Are you just fine with these numbers? I mean it, I’d love to know how you and your conservative friends feel about the gun death rate in America. Mothers, fathers, children, loved ones, friends, toddlers, babies, schoolchildren all have to keep dying at this rate – way beyond that of any other civilized nation on Earth – to protect your freedom. Do you think it’s worth it? I’m not being rhetorical here, or trying to bait you. I want to know. Please, you and anyone else who believes that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, and that laws should not be changed. You either a) feel that this death rate is okay, or b) want it to be reduced. Which is it, and if it is b), how do you propose this should be achieved, if not by regulation?

        In other words, either there’s a problem, or there isn’t, and if there is, what’s your solution? I look forward to some thoughtful responses.

        • Josh Ventor
          January 21, 2013

          “I’m pretty sure your not advocating this course.” I of course meant “you’re.” Proofread!

        • Freedom, by the way
          January 21, 2013

          Josh: I edited a portion of your comment out. I can take sarcasm. I will not tolerate it when it is directed at faithful readers of my blog. (And military patriots, to boot).

          So, you think you can magically make all guns just “disappear” and we’ll have no more murders, no more robberies, no more rapes, right? Have you looked at Chicago, lately? Handguns are BANNED yet Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation by HANDGUNS. It has been proven again and again that gun control laws do not work. Only tougher punishments for criminals who use a gun work.

          You want the death rate to go up? Take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

          You want the death rate to go down? Enforce the current laws and have even tougher laws on people who commit a crime using a firearm. The drug culture, gang culture and high unemployment lead to more crime. And a knife or a blunt object can be just as effective at close range. Death by gunshot may go down if guns were banned but crime and murders? No. Not until you fix what ails our culture.

          But of course the 2nd Ammendment is not all about self-defense. It’s to keep tyranny at bay. There IS a reason China, that bastian of human rights, does not allow its citizens to own guns.

          If you are really interested in learning more there are many more robust web sites and blogs you may visit to “test” your theories and perhaps be convinced to see the light. Seek wisdom with your heart and you will find it. This is all I have time for right now.

          This quote about sums it up:

          “You may not like guns and you may not wish to have a gun. That is your right. You may not believe in God. This is your choice.
          But if your home is broken into the first two things you’ll do is 1) Call someone with a gun 2) Pray they get there in time.”


  4. samiam60
    January 17, 2013

    Barack Obama has taken his Community Organizing skills and applied them on a National Scale. Your words are absolutely correct my friend and Barry has mastered the strategy of moving people by Emotions (ie children used for backdrop) very effectively and we all know emotion is a powerful force that can subdue facts. Until the day comes when the American People are slapped in the face with facts and reality I fear Obama will be free to continue his path of destruction throughout the land.

  5. Pingback: Thoughts on the Anniversary of General Robert E. Lee’s Birth | danmillerinpanama

  6. Pingback: » Thoughts on the Anniversary of General Robert E. Lee’s Birth » Tea Party Tribune

  7. Pingback: Opinion Forum » Thoughts on the Anniversary of General Robert E. Lee’s Birth

  8. Citizen Tom
    January 19, 2013

    An excellent post!

  9. Pingback: Happy Birthday, General Lee | danmillerinpanama

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: