A Thought About the NRA Magazine “American Rifleman”

Unfortunately, my father is a supporter of the NRA and, more unfortunately, we have the same name.  Because of these facts, my father’s mail comes to my house because it is easier for me to separate out our mail instead of worrying about him remembering to send any of mine he got.  This of course means that I have to deal with the NRA magazine he gets.   The covers are always bold and hard to miss.  The most recent cover; however, just reinforced to me the paranoid fear mongering that is the hallmark of the NRA political agenda.  The cover had the quote,

“if they ban one, they can ban them all”.

This statement is totally about getting their members to agree with the NRA’s actions out of fear.  There is a kernel of truth to the statement, but historical precedence shows that rarely do actions of that nature really spread to the extreme.  Yet, the NRA is unable to face the truth that the banning of some guns may not actually lead to a full ban on all guns, since that would not fit their cause.  Be that as it may, I have come up with an equally valid quote that is fear based and has the same kernel of truth to it while being opposite in agenda to theirs.

“if one can kill, they all can kill”

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “A Thought About the NRA Magazine “American Rifleman”

  1. Yet, the NRA is unable to face the truth that the banning of some guns may not actually lead to a full ban on all guns, since that would not fit their cause.

    Unable to face the truth or able to see what has happened in history; here and many other places. It wasn’t that long ago, that Washington D.C. was forced to end it’s gun ban on handguns, end it’s ban on functional firearms being kept in the home.
    Through out history; in many other countries, gun bans have been enacted. I will not claim that the ban created the conditions for the horrific killings that happened later, but they ban was part of the process to enable the horrific killings.

    “if one can kill, they all can kill”

    Absolutely true. I agree – if one gun, if one person can kill, they all can kill. Again though history shows us how little of a problem this really is. 32,000 suicides, homicides and negligent deaths a year; from over 280,000,000 firearms. And 18,000 of those are suicides, as much as we would like to reduce them, there is no assurance that removing firearms would lower the suicide rate.Look at Japan for example.

    About 50% of the homicides are related to gang or drug activities; think people already breaking the law are going to stop killing? I don’t.

    And while I think the NRA is too shrill, too alarmist (mostly for fund raising reasons) if there were fewer people out there calling for all firearms to be banned I would completely write them off. Unfortunately the reality is we do have people calling for all firearms to be banned. We do have restrictive laws slowly trying to do exactly that — New York State and California being two great examples.

    Bob S.

    • 280,000,000 guns seems most likely low to me and at the same time high. How many guns does one person need and as I stated in another post of mine, the bad gang people you talk about are getting their guns from the same place you do because of the ineffective laws we now have. Do you really believe their are gun manufacturers that deal exclusively in selling guns to criminals. They are the same gun manufacturers and dealers where you buy your guns. I also doubt the death numbers are as low as you state.

      • How many blog posts does a person need?
        How many conversations with friends does a person need?

        Where in the world does need enter the equation? Do you need to go to free from unreasonable search and seizure? Probably not, but that right is still there.

        , the bad gang people you talk about are getting their guns from the same place you do because of the ineffective laws we now have.

        Okay, the laws are ineffective. What changes would you make to make the laws ‘effective”?

        Maybe we can model the gun laws after our drug laws…..oh…wait….how about our experiment with Prohibition of Alcohol?

        Do you really believe their are gun manufacturers that deal exclusively in selling guns to criminals.
        No, I don’t. Nice straw man argument. Again, it is already illegal for a felon to be in possession. It already illegal for someone using (illegal) drugs to purchase a firearm. It is already illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone prohibited. So what changes in the laws would make people stop breaking the law?

        and let’s not forget that any decent shop set up can turn out firearms by the dozens, that people can still smuggle in firearms — after all, if they can smuggle in millions of pounds of drugs, firearms are no problem.

        I also doubt the death numbers are as low as you state.

        PROVE ME WRONG !! Don’t ‘doubt’ me. Prove that I am wrong. I would post a link but you would discount that. Show me the evidence that I’m wrong.

        Bob S.

  2. I don’t believe anything I would say to you would change your mind any more than what you say will change my mind. The argument that the bad guys get their guns from the same manufacturers is not a straw man argument. It is my attempt to get people to realize that the gun manufacturers are supplying both sides of the fence. They know how many guns they make and we could probably find out how many have been sold legally if the laws would allow the auditing of gun store records. The reality is that gun manufacturing is a business like any other retail endeavor and the only way to continue making a profit is to continue selling your product.

    You are right, the problem will never go away because we are human and flawed. There are certain categories of prescription drugs that are highly regulated because of their addictive natures but they still get into drug abusers hands. Why, because of greed, a human trait that has been with us since the beginning of time. So, would a ban on certain guns stop the violence? Probably not. Would a ban on Uzis lead to a ban on hunting rifles? Again, probably not. Should we be afraid of the conversation? No

    I find it interesting that you believe history has shown us that guns have had little affect as far as killing the population. I am assuming you are leaving out all the war deaths caused by guns, since that has been a significant amount of death from say the revolution on. Your immediate claim that only 32,000 deaths a year are due to guns I assume applies only to America? Yeah I guess if you want to use the cold logic of statistics then it is small compared to the millions of Americans out there. Then by that same token, why did we go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq since Al-Qaeda only killed 2000 people and not all of them were Americans. Seems silly in light of your argument. Let us put it another way then. Say you live to about 70 years old, then you can expect to have lived through 2,240,000 deaths by guns in your life time. Again, given statistics, that is a small percentage; however, from where I sit, that is a horrifying number.

    Now as far as the laws go, I do not know what will work but I can see that what we have isn’t. My point, constitutionally permitted to me by law, is the right to speak my mind. My only goal in the conversation is to get people to think about what they are saying, to put it into terms, which they may not have thought of before. Allow the conversation without recrimination or fear mongering. As you say, there are people who would call for the banning of all guns, just like there are people who call for the banning of absolutely no guns. Unfortunately, the side wanting no bans seems to be doing most of the talking and legislating, while the deaths go on.

    Some states may have more restrictive laws out there, but enforcement is lax since the states have to fight off the NRA every step of the way. Also, in the states with some guns banned, have they gone overboard the other way and tried to ban all guns? Unless something has happened that I have not heard about, then I would guess the answer is no. It is an imperfect world. Will gun supporters always have to fight against excessive bans? Yes. Will gun control advocates have to continue to put up with disappointment? Yes. Democracy is about finding a middle ground that all can live with. The extremes should not be allowed to control the conversation or the conversation will stop. Look at our government today.

    For what it is worth, I feel guns go against God’s wishes. Thou shalt not kill seems pretty simple to me, but being human, I fail since I do eat meat. Should I say, well, I ate a burger today, I should just go out and get a gun to kill it myself or hey, I killed a cow, guess I should take it to the next level? In for a penny, in for a pound. No, I don’t think so. Finally, your argument that because there are people that want to ban all guns, we should ban no guns, seems to support the opposite extreme instead of opening up the door to negotiation. Also, your fear that all guns would be banned is really quite unfounded. America learned the folly of such drastic censorship during the Prohibition era and everyone agrees how bad an idea that was.

    • Robert,

      You certainly know how to twist things.

      The argument that the bad guys get their guns from the same manufacturers is not a straw man argument

      That isn’t the argument I called a straw man.

      Do you really believe their are gun manufacturers that deal exclusively in selling guns to criminals.

      I called that idea — you set up an argument — “exclusively” in order to be able to show that everyone does it. Absolutely criminals get their firearms from legitimate manufacturers. Again I ask HOW you could change the laws to stop that.

      It is my attempt to get people to realize that the gun manufacturers are supplying both sides of the fence

      That is a slur designed to imply the manufacturers are illegally providing firearm to prohibited persons or criminals. Nice. Instead of admitting the criminals will find a way to get firearms; you accuse the manufacturers of being in league with the criminals.

      Would a ban on Uzis lead to a ban hunting rifles? Again, probably not.
      You say probably not but that ignores the history of gun control in the country. Washington D.C. is a great example. One law lead to another in the Capitol under there was a de facto ban on firearms in the city. It ignores efforts like what is going on in New York State — their ‘assault weapon ban’ lead to reduced magazine capacities and still the anti-rights cultists (aka gun control advocates) are still pushing for more restrictive laws.

      Should we be afraid of the conversation? No

      Another straw man argument — you claim that we are afraid of the argument — who is stopping you from talking about the subject? Talk all you want.

      I find it interesting that you believe history has shown us that guns have had little affect as far as killing the population.

      Man that is another twist of the argument. I have to give you credit for consistency. My comment was designed to point out the history of gun control throughout the world.

      Through out history; in many other countries, gun bans have been enacted. I will not claim that the ban created the conditions for the horrific killings that happened later, but they ban was part of the process to enable the horrific killings.

      Look at the countries that implemented gun control as part of their agenda; Germany, Russia/Soviet Union, China. Would those countries have killed millions of people regardless of firearms being prohibited; I believe so. Did it make it easier for them to do so; I believe so. But firearms do allow for people to defend themselves. Time for one of my favorite quotes on the subject

      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      Unfortunately, the side wanting no bans seems to be doing most of the talking and legislating, while the deaths go on.

      Yet you admit you don’t know what laws would make a difference. I don’t understand this attitude. “We don’t know if this will stop murders or suicides but hey, let’s pass it and find it.” You want to talk about laws that will work, fine. Let’s talk about laws that will reduce violence and death. But let’s focus on the causes of the violence and crime; not the tool. Doesn’t matter if we get rid of all the guns if people are still being murdered at the same rate.

      Democracy is about finding a middle ground that all can live with.

      This is the biggest misconception out there. That my rights are subject to majority vote. Sorry but saying we are a democracy is wrong. Flat out, no way around it — INCORRECT. We live in a Constitutional Republic. That has meaning. It clearly defines that regardless of the will of the majority some rights we have are simply inviolate. No one is trying to stop you from talking about gun control. (this debate should be prima facia evidence of that). What we are saying is “enough with the laws that restrict our rights”. We are done with gun bans like Chicago had, like Washington D.C. We are done with restrictive laws based on cosmetic features like California and New York State. We are done with having to show ‘good cause” like Maryland. The tide is turning and while gripe and moan about the deaths continuing you ignore some simple facts.

      http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2014/10/graphics-matter-year-the-fifth.html

      That while the number of firearms in the country has been increasing; death, crime and injury has been trending down.

      That while the number of people carrying firearms in the country has been increasing; death, crime and injury has been trending down.

      That while the number of states allowing Open and Concealed Carry — even Constitutional Carry (no permit needed) has been increasing death, crime and injury has been trending down.

      The simple fact is that the freedom to keep and bear arms isn’t the driving factor in the number of deaths. You want to reduce deaths and crimes; let’s talk about education, poverty, employment, the inane War on (Some) Drugs. Let’s talk about strengthening the family; making sure that kids have both parents involved in their lives.

      Bob S.

    • I am wondering if reading comprehension is an issue here. Not trying to be mean but my comment wasn’t how many blogs do you need.

      How many blog posts does a person need?

      How many blog posts ???? The idea is you don’t ‘need’ to post at all. Much less as often as you do. Perhaps you should adopt the gun control advocates idea — who needs to post more than once a month (one gun a month laws).

      See our rights aren’t based on “need” – we have them before we need them. I don’t need the freedom of religion until the government tries to stop me because they don’t like my religion. I don’t ‘need’ to be free from troops quartered in m house, until they show up on my door step Unreasonable search and seizure — what a laugh now days with the government trolling through our conversations here, our emails, our phone calls. But there are still limits which I won’t ‘need’ until the police try to use something against me in court.

      I have more guns than I need but surprisingly, unlike your blog posts, mine don’t get me in trouble. Imagine that.

      Bob S.

  3. Surprise, legislation is a hit or miss process. You have to try things and hope they work. Prohibition was a law that was tried, didn’t work. As far as twisting things, that is life. We all twist things to suit our needs. Also, my statements following yours are not meant as twisting arguments but as counter arguments. You will note that I took what you said and looked at it a different way, which is a legitimate way to argue a point. I am willing to admit that my statement about doubting your numbers was not a valid assessment of facts and should be denied full consideration; it is just a feeling of mine. Again, I did not set up the idea that bad people get their guns from the same manufacture as you and I as an argument, it was a statement of fact. The gun manufacturers know how many guns they produce and given the ability to audit gun stores, we could get an idea who is selling to criminals and who is selling to legitimate gun owners. I will not say that I do not believe the gun manufacturers are not to blame for some of the problem because they are strong backers of the NRA and the laws they endorse. It is the NRA backed law that allows gun dealers to deny law enforcement the right to audit them. Can I prove that the gun makers are duplicitous, no.

    Again, I point out that I do not know what laws specifically would improve the situation, but I would welcome any suggestions as opposed to nothing. As far as democracy being a compromise between differing ideals and people, how the hell do you think the the constitutional rights you so grandly stand behind, came into being. Our forefathers argued over the wording of these rights for a long time. Some got what they wanted, others did not. In addition, they did not intend theses rights to be a be all, catch all/ all or nothing law. They provided for the ability to change laws that were not working or to make new laws where they are needed. They did this because history is not static, humans are always finding new ways to do bad things or reiterate old ones. We like to kill and harm each other and, while guns are not the cause of that problem, they do make the process easier and are a source of constant temptation for a race rife for it.

    As far as having lots of guns to protect your rights, the Iraqi people had lots of guns, did that stop Saddam Hussein from running a brutal dictatorship? No. Just because you have a gun does not mean you can use it to kill. A lot of people think that just by owning a gun they are safer; however, you will never know that until you are faced with a life or death situation. Many people will find that they will freeze in the moment. This of course, supports the Gun advocates assertion that gun ownership does not imply criminal intent. My argument; however, is that given the pressures of society and our human history, do we really need to add tinder to the fire. In addition, the side that is more willing to use their weapons will always win in the short term, but history has shown that in the long run dictatorships fail. Look at Germany, Russia, Japan, and Iraq. Unfortunately, I admit that guns were needed to do so. However, another aspect of history to consider is that our ability to kill has only been increasing. One side comes up with a better way to kill and then is countered by the other side. The other side then finds a better way to kill the first side. Look at the loss of life in the Civil War and WWI because of the failure to understand this fact. On the other hand, the IRA are a good example of how two sides can become entangled in a war neither can escape until one side decides it is time to lay down their arms and try for peace. Blessed are the peace makers. Look at how India gained its independence. Sad to see that that has not turned out better.

    As far as twisting your presentation of the historical nature of gun control in the world, that was not my intention. My intention was to show the callousness of you arguments as far as to the effect guns have had on deaths in the world. You consistently state facts like 32000 killed every year like this is all there is and ignore the overall effect guns have had throughout history, while touting the overall effects gun control has had historically. Limiting one side of the argument really is not valid.

    • Surprise, legislation is a hit or miss process. You have to try things and hope they work. Prohibition was a law that was tried, didn’t work.

      Sorry but that is a poor idea. “hey, let’s make everyone named Robert a slave, he can work to reduce crime, pay for everyone’s medical, etc” — would you go for your rights being violated that way?
      No, I wouldn’t either. The legal system set up a series of tests for how much the government can interfere with our rights; try researching ‘levels of scrutiny” — our Constitutionally protected rights are afforded “Strict Scrutiny”.

      The gun manufacturers know how many guns they produce and given the ability to audit gun stores, we could get an idea who is selling to criminals and who is selling to legitimate gun owners.

      Exactly how could that be done?
      I am sincerely interested in knowing. Because right now gun stores have to check everyone against the National Instant Criminal Background System — so anyone who is purchasing a firearm has to be NON-Prohibited. Of course, this doesn’t stop criminals from getting firearms; they simply use friends and family who can pass the check to buy the firearms. Of course, that is already illegal. So exactly how will auditing gun stores tell us who is selling to criminals?

      It is the NRA backed law that allows gun dealers to deny law enforcement the right to audit them.

      Sorry please don’t take this the wrong way but when someone tells a lie, I am going to call it a lie. In what way are law enforcement officers denied the power (governments have power, people have rights) to audit stores? The ATF is denied more than one random, no reason audit per year. But if they believe there is a problem (see reasonable suspicion, probable cause) they can and do audit as much as necessary. — Again though, how is auditing stores going to stop criminals from getting guns?

      My argument; however, is that given the pressures of society and our human history, do we really need to add tinder to the fire.

      I’m not copying your comments before but still addressing the point. Let’s look at the facts – you say that ownership adds ‘tinder’ to the fire; but the facts still doesn’t support that conclusion. Using Bureau of Justice Statistics, CDC WISQARs and FBI Uniform Crime Reports we find that my numbers are fairly accurate – please check for yourself. I’ll include suicides in the mix, along with accidental deaths; still only about 32,000 deaths per year. Firearm Related Violent Crime is below 400,000 crimes per year. Let’s round off at 400,000 for easy math. 400,000 divided by the number of gun owners 50,000,000 times 100 to express as a percent – we get 0.80% of all gun owners involved in a death or crime each year — IF each and every death and crime was committed by a different person. Doesn’t sound like gun owners are taking advantage of the tinder they have, does it?

      n addition, the side that is more willing to use their weapons will always win in the short term, but history has shown that in the long run dictatorships fail.

      And how many people did they kill before they fell? Millions. I don’t want to be one of those, I don’t want my family to be one of them. I don’t even want you to be one of them. There is a reason why our forefathers who had just fought a war against their government preserved the right to do so again. Think about that.

      y intention was to show the callousness of you arguments as far as to the effect guns have had on deaths in the world. You consistently state facts like 32000 killed every year like this is all there is and ignore the overall effect guns have had throughout history, while touting the overall effects gun control has had historically.

      Not my intention to limit it nor be callous. I point out the nature of the other governments to show that it is the people that matter. 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of American citizens and statistically few deaths – not being callous to point that out, just showing the numbers. On the other hand, guns in the hands of ruthless people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao — well there doesn’t need to be a lot, just more than the people have to result in the death of millions. Nor are firearms alone the factor; look at history and Genghis Khan; believed to have killed over 40 million people. It isn’t the tool it is the person that matters.

      Let’s boil it down to a simple thought experiment. As much as you dislike the NRA; which situation would you believe to be safer

      A.) You unarmed in a room full of criminals with records for violent crime and no gun.
      or
      B.) You unarmed in a room full of armed NRA members

      Bob S.

  4. Got me on the blog posts, good one. The discussion is getting so long winded that I missed what you had said when scrolling and yes, I guess I was being a bit of a smart ass. It is a failing of mine. This has definitely been challenging. As far as how many blog posts, I don’t know. I guess as many as I can write to get the ideas out of my head. Very few people actually listen but it helps me get thoughts off my chest. I don’t have delusions anymore that my thoughts will greatly affect the course of the world, but I do have the right to express them as you so rightly suggest. You don’t need to try and convince me that guns are great because I will not come to that belief so why are you arguing so hard. I am just another anti-gun nut, which I never said I advocate the banning of all weapons. Truth be told, I do not believe that could ever happen, human nature being what it is. We talk about changing our swords into plowshares; however, it never seems to last very long. I am not so naive. I can still wish it was otherwise.

    • As far as how many blog posts, I don’t know. I guess as many as I can write to get the ideas out of my head.

      So if you shouldn’t be limited to how many times you exercise your rights; why should I be limited in the exercise of my rights?
      We already have laws to cover fraud (free speech crimes). We already have laws to cover murder, rape, robbery — regardless of whether or not the criminal uses a firearm. What gun control advocates want is to limit the rights of gun owners for the actions of the criminals.

      You don’t need to try and convince me that guns are great because I will not come to that belief so why are you arguing so hard.

      Well, the horse could allows learn to sing (hope you are literate and catch the reference) but more importantly while you may not get many visitors, I hope someone will read our debate and come away better informed. I hope that I can sway that undecided person to consider the impact on our rights of ideas like you propose — “hey let’s keep passing laws until we get something right” is a bad idea.

      I am just another anti-gun nut, which I never said I advocate the banning of all weapons.

      Thank you for that and I believe I have never claimed that you do advocate such an action. I have pointed out – and I hope you will agree – that some people do call for banning all firearms.

      ruth be told, I do not believe that could ever happen, human nature being what it is. We talk about changing our swords into plowshares; however, it never seems to last very long.

      I happen to agree with you. That is why I oppose further gun control laws. Because they don’t affect the human nature only the tool used. “Hey, murder is wrong so let’s make it harder to get a GUN” — doesn’t address what we can do to stop/reduce the number of people wanting to murder. Let’s focus on the culture, the attitude, the nature of people and work to change those instead of the tools. Much harder to do, but we can make a difference that way.

      Bob S.

  5. “Sorry but that is a poor idea. “hey, let’s make everyone named Robert a slave, he can work to reduce crime, pay for everyone’s medical, etc” — would you go for your rights being violated that way?
    No, I wouldn’t either. The legal system set up a series of tests for how much the government can interfere with our rights; try researching ‘levels of scrutiny” — our Constitutionally protected rights are afforded “Strict Scrutiny”.”

    Unfortunately that is how it works. A lot of debate goes into it but in the end that is what could and does happen as you have expressed with your examples of Germany and Russia, not to mention what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Bad laws come out too. Constitutional rights were created by man and are only as good as man can make them. If you believe in God you can believe in some greater force that ultimately punishes those who break these laws, otherwise you have to hope that other people will abide by these constitutional rights. The legal system may have the ability to test the effectiveness of laws but that is only as good as the people administering the test so it is not absolute. There are no laws that man can create that will not be broken. There unfortunately is someone figuring out how to get around any law as soon as it is made. That is why the forefathers created the ability to amend the constitution. They never saw it as an absolute be all/end all document.

    “Thank you for that and I believe I have never claimed that you do advocate such an action. I have pointed out – and I hope you will agree – that some people do call for banning all firearms.”

    One thing to remember, my initial post did not say anything about my thoughts on banning all guns, nor in my replies have I stated that that was my goal. You have brought that argument in as a straw man argument. I merely stated my dislike of the fear mongering nature of the cover statement of The American Rifleman to which you felt I was in need of education. As far as agreeing to the fact that some people want to ban all guns, I have already done so, while also pointing out that there are people who absolutely refuse to ban any gun. I also stated that these were two sides of the extreme that allow little room for any meaningful discourse. In addition, I never said that the goal of my posts was to support an anti-gun agenda, you made that decision yourself.

    “I happen to agree with you. That is why I oppose further gun control laws. Because they don’t affect the human nature only the tool used. “Hey, murder is wrong so let’s make it harder to get a GUN” — doesn’t address what we can do to stop/reduce the number of people wanting to murder. Let’s focus on the culture, the attitude, the nature of people and work to change those instead of the tools. Much harder to do, but we can make a difference that way.”

    I have stated in many of my posts and replies that this is my opinion;however, that does not mean I won’t try to say things that might change the nature of the discussion. I also feel it is necessary to remind people that guns were made by man for one thing and one thing only, to kill. Unlike some other things we have created to grow and prepare our food that have also been used to murder, guns were made to kill, nothing else. If I am correct, their introduction was first in the service of war to kill people before they became a tool to gather food. By the way, what is so bad about removing one tool from the overloaded tool box used by those who commit crimes?

    “Well, the horse could allows learn to sing (hope you are literate and catch the reference) but more importantly while you may not get many visitors, I hope someone will read our debate and come away better informed. I hope that I can sway that undecided person to consider the impact on our rights of ideas like you propose — “hey let’s keep passing laws until we get something right” is a bad idea.”

    Actually I am quite literate, unfortunately I do not know this reference. As for my visitors, I believe both sides will find something to take away from our discussion. As for passing laws until we get something right, that is what we do since we all cannot agree on what is exactly right. Do you realize how many laws have been written to combat the wrong things people do? Do you realize how many had to be rewritten to cover something that was missed or not known at the time? See my post ” A Failure of Imagination” to understand this. At every point there are people saying that there is no need for such laws because they impede their rights, while others are saying that they need these laws to uphold their rights. There is no black and white answer. Even our religions can not help us there. I was under the impression that child molestation was a punishable offense, yet for a long time the Catholic church harbored sex offenders in their ranks. Swindling people out of money is wrong yet there are traders on Wall Street who do so everyday and are protected under the law because the laws are outdated. There is no absolute law made by man. Many governments have changed laws before and after the fact to legalize something they have done. My hope is only to get people to think a little harder about how and why they think about things the way they do. I express my opinion on subjects that bother me in hopes that someone else has the same feelings and that I help them express them.

    “So if you shouldn’t be limited to how many times you exercise your rights; why should I be limited in the exercise of my rights?
    We already have laws to cover fraud (free speech crimes). We already have laws to cover murder, rape, robbery — regardless of whether or not the criminal uses a firearm. What gun control advocates want is to limit the rights of gun owners for the actions of the criminals.”

    The difference is that my right is not a tool to be used to kill. However, I will let you in on a little secret, I do not believe my posts are completely harmless, since I have express in other posts that literature can lead to killing as well. There are people out there who will use ideals as justification to do bad things, like anti-abortion advocates murdering doctors to stop the killing. Like Russian Communists using Karl Marx’s work to justify the atrocities they committed to achieve his ideal. Pol Pot was also a believer in the ideals of communism and look what he did. So I do worry. However, the exercising of my rights can’t directly harm anyone. If they don’t like what I say, then they don’t have to listen, also, I do not advocate violence to solve the problems I bring up, such as Sharon Angle did when stating the possible need to resort to second amendment remedies to change laws. Finally, with every new law there are parties who feel they are being unduly hampered because of the actions of criminals. In a lot of cases this is because they want to continue doing the bad things that caused the law to be created. Look how much Wall Street cries over any legislation to reel in their excesses. They cry that they have learned and they can self regulate their industry, but every time we let them do just that, there is a case of massive fraud that comes to light, Enron, Tyco, and the Meltdown of 2008. A favorite quote of mine is “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. There is no one law that is going to solve all the problems and any law is only as good as the people that support it. That support, unfortunately can change with time. Take for example the Glass Steagall act. It was put into place after the great depression in an attempt to stop it from happening again. For many years it did its job, but the banks and insurance companies complained that the laws hindered their ability to make profit and eventually got the law removed. From that point on, we have dealt with one investment bubble after another culminating in the Meltdown of 2008.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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