Category: Gun Control

Before you click away from this story or shutdown the Podcast, listen to this: we’re not today going to take any position on gun control. We’re not going to blast those on the Left for wanting to confiscate guns. We’re not going to demean Democrats or anyone else for feeling the way they think about anything — including gun control. What we ARE going to do is something novel: we’re going to watch and listen to a Virginia Representative and former Green Beret who “discusses” — not “argues” — realistic opportunities for us to stop mass shootings and protect Americans from them.

Watch or listen to this. We’ll gather after this short exhortation by this American Patriot and conclude or two:

None of what he had to say had anything to do with the pros and cons of gun control. What he addressed exclusively was the attitudes of American legislators on both the federal and state levels regarding gun control. And it’s unusual for us to see and hear ANY legislator speak objectively and non-emotionally about this critical topic. In the wake of several mass shootings, Americans typically turn away from any objectivity and respond totally from personal emotions. And until we can find ways to objectively and factually discuss meaningful and possible solutions that WILL work, no answers will ever be implemented. There most certainly will be pieces of legislation that grow from emotional lawmakers in the wake of new and unfathomable gun killings. But seldom do any of us make rational decisions that originate in instances of horror, death, and destruction. Gun violence is undoubtedly such an example.

Grass Too Long

Somewhere back in history, some wife realized there was long grass around their home. It looked messy, and critters hid out deep in the grass. There were bugs everywhere. The kids couldn’t comfortably go outside and play because the grass was just too long. What to do?

The grass had to be shorter. So how does one shorten the grass? There were no biological labs that could experiment on cross-breeding grass to find a way to shorten the grass. Somehow someone was going to have to cut the grass.

The combustion engine had not yet been created. Neither had electric motors or string cutters. Someone thought of a way to fashion a long, skinny metal blade on the end of a pole. That pole could be slung across the grass, and the grass could be cut. It worked! But it sure took a long time. And even though it was shorter, the grass was still pretty messy.

Her brother-in-law Bubba had an idea: a machine that automatically could sling a similar blade to cut the grass. It required the use of a recently discovered liquid tha burned when ignited and exploded in the right situations. He crafted a metal box with a small tank in which he could put some of that liquid, seal that tank so no air could get into it, and he could make a few drops of that liquid explode, forcing that blade to turn. He had invented a lawnmower!

After years of refining and revising that machine, Bubba discovered many others wanted to cut their grass. His machine made it much more accessible, much quicker, and the demand for the device was unimaginable. Everyone wanted a grass cutter machine.

Bubba, one day while sitting out back, started thinking about how that entire process had come together. It began with something simple: there was grass everywhere. While the grass was good for certain things — it fed the farm animals, made great stuffing for pillows and mattresses, and even made horse stalls smell better — it only was useful in certain situations. He had to find a way to allow the grass to do all the right things it did but stop it from getting out of hand. He conquered the issue by inventing that machine.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the Word. There are many good things those guns do. But guns cause problems in spite of the good they do. Just like grass growing everywhere that gets long and unsightly, guns too can create some not-so-good situations.

Bubba never thought about ridding the world of grass. He just wanted a way to control the grass without infringing upon all those situations in which the grass played significant roles.

Guns in the World have put us in a similar situation.

Summary

What can we do? What do we do? There are many possibilities — many opportunities — to quell gun violence. But the Representative nailed what keeps us from reaching any consensus on fixing the gun violence problem in America: answers NEVER result from nasty attacks from any side of any issue which always demean someone or some group on a personal level. Real solutions result only from the meaningful and respectful discourse between Americans. Practical solutions can result only from respectful discussions among those — ALL those — who have ideas they wish to share with others to effect a solution.

That type of discourse in the wake of mass shootings has been non-existent. Emotions seem to always take over conversations exploring possible ways to stop the violence. Americans must first face the same dilemma Bubba and his wife faced about handling the long grass. No one had come up with the right solution for controlling that grass.

Guns certainly are not grass. And there is no machine that alone can solve American gun violence. I’m no expert, but I’m fairly certain there is no single and no simple solution to end gun violence. That fact does not mean Americans are stupid. What it means is the creative Americans who have invented everything from a lightbulb to a Space Station have not crafted “a” or “several” answers sufficient to end gun violence. Until that happens, we must keep looking.

But you know what? We may have already seen a solution and just missed it. In the outrageous back and forth in the political sphere of solutions based almost solely on political ideology, there could very well be a solution buried on the pile of ideas thrown out that simple were discarded because of distrust of who offered them.

We maybe cannot fix the problem, but I’m confident we can make the problem better. Conversation is necessary to have any chance of getting to the end of this. Conversations are rare in today’s politics.

So why don’t we take the conversation totally out of politics? Isn’t doing so a novel idea? Why not let law enforcement specialists, medical doctors, theologians, and businessmen begin roundtable conversations to embark on a journey to end gun violence. It’s much more likely without any politicians in those meetings, the odds are much better than “a” or “several” solutions can be identified, discussed, and recommendations made that if and when implemented would if not totally at least partially eradicate gun violence.

Gee, isn’t having adult conversations minus insults and political perspectives something we ought to try: just once? It pains me to say this, but in our 250-year-old nation, those conversations, under those circumstances, have never happened before. That speaks poorly of not only American leadership but of Americans who have the power to force those to happen.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S., mass media hysteria escalates to deafening levels. They almost in unison scream for gun confiscation, mandatory gun buy-backs, assault weapons bans, repeal of the Second Amendment, and many more demands. But there is one mass shooting story common element we hear every time: “The United States has far more mass shootings than any other country on Earth.” Until recently, Americans had no choice but to accept what the media told us. Why is that? We are pretty certain there are more guns of every kind in the U.S. than in any other country. Because of that and because of the spotlight put on every mass shooting by America’s media, we just have believed it to be true. But is it?

Facts Matter

Every time there’s a shooting, the gun control advocates go nuts. The statistics reports are seen and heard all over the news daily. Make no mistake: any shootings of any kind are horrendous, almost always unnecessary, and always create lifechanging circumstances not just for the shooting victims and the shooter(s), but for family members, friends and relatives, and many in each community in which they occur. To that end, maybe getting flooded with news about these shootings is a good thing. A large number of Americans seek to implement processes — some kind of processes that can effectively stop these travesties. But there are issues in implementing any such process.

First, there is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm and discipline the federal militia. The Second 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.” Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 as the “true palladium of liberty.” In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.” Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.

Quite a few federal cases regarding the use of weapons in the context of citizens’ rights under this amendment have worked their way through the federal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. In every such case, the Court has ruled in favor of citizens having an unfettered right to own and bear arms for personal defense. You can see the conundrum gun control advocates face in trying to craft some type of legislation in Congress that could somehow curtail any mass shootings. So far, no such constitutional legislation that would pass muster has been written and passed.

The second huge obstacle in this craziness is that there currently are hundreds of federal and state gun laws implemented to do just that: stop illegal use of guns. Gun advocates have floated the number 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws already in existence. So why should we put any new laws in place?

That number is always thrown into any gun control discussion. But gun-control advocates are trying to undermine that “20,000 gun laws” argument with a new study that casts doubt on the meaning of the “20,000” number. A study from the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy counts only 300 “relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns.” The keyword is “relevant.”

The study does not include a tally of local gun laws. In fact, the authors note that since more than 40 states preempt all or most local gun control laws, there’s no reason to include local laws in a gun-law tally.

For the purpose of today’s discussion, let’s assume the 300 gun law number is accurate. That’s certainly far less than the 20,000 number. But any reasonable person must agree: 300 gun laws throughout the United States that are so comprehensive should certainly curtail if not eliminate any and all mass shootings. However, mass shooting statistics tell a different story. Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place.  Using those numbers, it is virtually impossible to create and make any new gun controls that could possibly pass muster pertaining to the Second Amendment.

“Stopping eighteen percent of mass shootings is worth the hard work necessary to put processes in place to do so,” is trumpeted by gun control groups. Without new laws to stack on top of the 300 such laws already on the books that could be more effective, what can Congress and law enforcement members possibly make happen?

That’s where realistic, comprehensive, and legal gun control discussions reach an impasse.

To make the dilemma even worse is that no one knows for certain how many illegal guns are on U.S. streets today. The percentage of guns that are legally purchased and then used to commit a mass shooting is very low. However, the overwhelming majority of gun-related crimes (including mass shootings and other murders) are committed with guns that have been stolen and traded for drugs. Those guns are passed from criminal to criminal, sold and resold, and may very well be used in hundreds of crimes before they are recovered from someone accused of a crime.

Given that fact, it becomes obvious that no actual count of the number of crimes committed with “illegal guns” is possible. In fact, most gun-related crimes are never solved and are certainly never linked to an individual gun, legally purchased or not.

Wow! Rather than finding answers, the research on this topic instead of revealing solutions reveals multiple new roadblocks in finding available answers to the question: How can a legal process be put in place that will stop mass shootings?

Muddy The Water

The media in America lust for bad news — especially news that includes mass shootings. One need only look at the non-stop furor during and following the recent shootings in an El Paso, Texas Walmart and outside a Dayton, Ohio nightclub. Day after day after day, 24/7 news reports gave Americans every possible perspective on the topic: from interviews with mental health specialists, Constitutional Experts, law enforcement officers, politicians, mass shooting victims and family members of victims, medical officials on each scene, and, of course, Media Gun Control pundits. This in itself did nothing at all to promote solutions to curb any such future shootings, they each almost in total morphed into a specific political narrative. The chief of those is “More Gun Control.” Whether that is called making assault rifles, multiple round gun clips illegal or just more extensive background checks, the media — primarily for ratings — harp on the gun control “story of the day.”

Sadly, Mainstream Media outlets who feed at the advertising trough to perpetuate their vocations find that television and radio ratings and newspaper circulations skyrocket during the days during and following mass shootings. Much of the noise that emanates from these news sources are bloated reports and interviews replete with innuendo and opinion and rarely include factual information.

Let’s ask a simple question: let’s look and listen to the analysis of the “study” created and circulated by a University of Alabama professor who is a self-proclaimed expert on the subject. Then watch and listen as his report — which has been used as the Bible of mass shooting data and statistics — is ripped to shreds regarding the accuracy and even its basis. The question: What’s the truth?

Is it any surprise that Professor Langford’s data that is sourced and that he “verified” is far from accurate? Honestly, if even half of the Americans that have been blanketed by the narcissistic American news media with these bogus facts had seen or heard this simple and brief report would still believe what they have seen on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC News and have read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Huffington Post. None of them have done any real investigation of the Langford report numbers, the report’s authenticity or accuracy, and none have actually spoken to Langford. How can I say that? If they had, the B.S. they put out about gun control would be totally different. Their lack of effort is telling. It proves one piece of factual information that TruthNewsNetwork has given to our members over and over for more than two years: Americans cannot trust that the information received from all of the above media outlets and dozens of others is factual. Realistically, most of what these outlets spew is false.

No wonder President Trump constantly calls primarily the two newspapers above, CNN and MSNBC “Fake News.” Actually, most of their reporting IS fake! To be honest, John Stossel who produced this report of Langford’s report has always been a fair and impartial journalist. For that reason, it’s surprising to me that he now works for CNN, and that CNN let this exposure of Langford and his mass shooting information actually air.

Where Are We Headed?

Honestly, as Congress goes back into session with gun control legislation top-of-mind for most Americans, once again it is doubtful that any meaningful legislation will pass both houses that will be signed into law. The primary reason is the issue of conflict of any such measures with the Second Amendment.

Sadly, the driving reason for any Congressional action regarding new legislation is purely political. With the 2020 election looming in our near future, politicians have jumped all over the gun control topic to further their political careers. We’ll hear debates about it non-stop until November 2020.

There’s a humorous part of this for me: a number of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates have actually floated gun confiscation as a way to stop mass shootings. Think about that. I doubt anyone has an idea of a real number of privately owned guns in America. But I think it’s safe to say there are several hundred million. Can you picture a scenario in which law enforcement officials would knock on 200 million doors and force their way into those homes to seize those guns? They’d probably try it at a house or two. But they’d find out really quickly how important the Second Amendment is to most Americans. And if they do, they need to rethink starting their seizures in the South!

The saddest part of this entire story is that politic positions have dominated the conversation about reaching a real solution to mass shootings. And they always use such shootings for strictly political purposes. Meanwhile, funerals continue, lives are lost and families are destroyed by these killings.

What’s the answer? Stop the mass shootings! How can we do that? It all begins with everyone who should be a part of such a conversation is included. Then all political posturing has to be drained from the conversation. What must control such a conversation is one thing and one thing only: What do we need to do and what needs to be included in legislation crafted solely to drastically reduce if not eliminate mass shootings? And what such legislation can we put into law that will sustain a Constitutional examination by the U.S. Supreme Court when compared to the Second Amendment?

You know what: I doubt a single meeting or conversation by lawmakers has ever happened based solely on those two things I just mentioned. That’s sad — really sad. What’s sadder is that unless that exact conversation happens and those participating stick it out to the end and reach a consensus, these mass shootings will continue.

Whose and how many kids must die before politicians swallow their political pride and do that?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Another school mass shooting: Santa Fe High School in Texas joins the recently attacked Parkland, Florida high school among the two dozen or so schools that have sustained similar attacks since the first: Columbine in Colorado.  Political rhetoric again runs amuck. The outcome of that rhetoric will no doubt be the same: no action, symbolic gestures from politicians at federal, state, and local levels, and students and their parents all across America will again approach school everyday in total terror of becoming the next target of some crazed gunman. Student protests like the one pictured above have not worked to initiate meaningful changes to stop such violence.

Want a fix — a REAL fix? There’s only one that can be implemented quickly. Listen for that fix in detail. And it has already worked!

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

READ THESE 2 SECTIONS BELOW BEFORE LISTENING TO TODAY’S PODCAST — THAT’S IMPORTANT!

A Democratic congressional candidate in New Mexico used an expletive in a television ad to condemn the National Rifle Association and inaction by U.S. lawmakers on gun control, beginning a 15-second spot with the words “F— the NRA.” In the ad, Albuquerque City Council member Pat Davis goes on to the say that NRA policies have “resulted in dead children, dead mothers and dead fathers,” and that “if Congress won’t change our gun laws, we’re changing Congress.”

Davis’s follow-up 15-second ad says “In the 15 seconds of this ad, an AR-15 can shoot 150 times……”

As nasty as was his first ad, denigrating every one of the millions of NRA members (not one of who has ever perpetrated a mass shooting)  is not nearly as horrible as the gross exaggeration contained in his second ad: NO AR-15 can shoot 150 time in 15-seconds. If there was a magazine that actually held 150 shells that could deliver those shells into the chamber of an AR-15 to fire in 15 seconds, the barrel of that AR-15 would literally melt.

Davis is given a pass by his supporters and benignly by many who see his ads. Why? He’s a former policeman. And policeman KNOW these things, right? In this case, not so much.

Let’s Get Started

The crux of every gun conversation is about gun control: will it work stopping murders; can it be done legally; what would that look like and who would implement that process? In this conversation we have heard many suggestions — all of which are fueled by the emotion of mass shootings and speculation of what would “definitely” work to stop such murders. But none that I have seen provide facts.

In today’s Podcast I am providing actual facts that explain using multiple other countries murder statistics as compared to their legal gun ownership so that finally Americans can get some real facts to form educated opinions. You will have to listen closely, for there are many statistics intertwined with narrative: DON’T LOSE THE FACTS! To make this easier for you to refer to these facts and statistics later, at the end of this I am providing a link to the written transcript of this Podcast — at least the statistics and country comparisons — so you can get comfortable to base your gun control opinion on facts and can pass these facts along to others if you wish. Here we go!

Below is the Link to Download the Transcript of this Podcast

Do We Need Gov’t Gun Control Laws

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

If you’d like to listen to the audio version of this story rather than read it, scroll to the bottom of the story, click on the audio link, and you’ll get the story in total. Thanks for listening in!

Short answer: Neither.

In the wake of the “mass” shootings in recent past years, many Americans are once again clamoring for gun control. Their cries are chiefly the result of emotional angst and are principally based on that anger, fear, and shock rather than reason.What needs to be done? Who needs to do it? What will it look like if a way is found to stop similar shootings? And is some type of gun control the answer? If so, can it be done, what needs to be done, and who needs to do it?

We will first discuss the specific areas of concern and potential “fixes” in the gun control conversation. At the end of this, we will summarize with the answer: OUR answer.

Background Checks

Most will agree there are holes in the gun purchase background check system that has allowed many to slip through the cracks. The process could simply be made more efficient, more timely, broader in obtaining more information on each applicant, and could be expanded to include the legal private sale of guns and even sales at gun shows.

Mental Health issues are a consideration that should be part of the background checks process, and MUST be an intricate piece of the gun purchasing process that includes the direct involvement of mental health professionals and law enforcement experts. But what changes should be made to the application process for this to be included? Remember: the HIPPA law protects the privacy of the medical records of all Americans. A HIPPA release would be required with each application if any health circumstances would be included in the gun purchase application.

New Gun Laws

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S. — especially a school shooting — gun control advocates repeat their demands for new gun laws — sometimes even gun confiscation. We have heard their justifications for new laws over and over again, but even with massive demonstrations, nothing legally ever gets done to address these shootings. Why is that?

There are MANY gun laws in force at the federal, state, and local levels that are obviously ineffective. Why pass new ones? Which ones would work if passed?

For the sake of this conversation, consider how many gun laws there are today. For many years, gun advocates have spouted the number 20,000 gun laws at federal, state, and local levels combined. Even President Reagan used that number. There is NO verification anywhere of that number or ANY number of the combination of federal, state, and local gun laws. What we DO know is there are many.

Alan Korwin, who co-wrote “Gun Laws of America” with Michael P. Anthony, has added up 271 federal gun statutes, but says all of these numbers are fairly meaningless. He has written an essay on his Web site addressing the question of how many gun laws exist, and whether this is even the proper metric in the first place. “If the goal of the laws is to outlaw crime, then there are enough, because all these luridly promoted acts of infamy involve many laws being violently broken…. Ask if there is sufficient ‘crime control,’ and everyone seems to agree there is not,” Korwin wrote.

If one assumes there are several hundred more gun laws today at state and local levels to add to these 271 Korwin stated (even if THAT number is accurate), there could easily be 600 gun laws in effect in the U.S. You can bet that all those laws on the books comprehensively include just about any gun issue one could imagine, and in total should with their enforcement regulate in every way ownership and use of every type of gun.

There are 30,000 reported deaths annually in the U.S. from gunshots. Here’s the breakdown of those 30,000 as reported by the FBI for 2016. (And the Center for Disease Control states that number is 33,000+, not 30,000):

• 65% of those deaths were by suicide (19,500);
• 15% were by law enforcement in the line of duty and deemed “justified;” (4,500)
• 17% were through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons; (5,100)
• 3% were from accidental gun discharge. (900)

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Total Gun Confiscation or of Certain Types of Guns

Gun confiscation will never happen in the U.S. as long as our government is in its present form. There are too many legal protections against that occurring. But there are many from the Left that would love nothing better than for the government to take away all guns from American citizens and abolish private gun ownership. Their justifications for doing so are primarily these:

1. We have law enforcement protection. No individual needs to have personal guns;
2. Too many guns means it’s too easy to access guns to kill people;
3. No one is safe as long as someone else has legal access to guns that might be used to kill;
4. Do away with guns and that will do away with mass shootings.

I will not take the time to counter each of the above arguments. I will just say American gun confiscation will never happen.

But what about laws to prohibit certain types of guns  — like “assault rifles?’

First, let’s make one thing clear: the most popular rifle termed by the Left as an “assault rifle” is an AR-15. “No one needs a military style fully automatic rifle,” gun control advocates maintain. “No one can hunt with those. Why should they be legal?” Here are answers for those:

1. ALL fully automatic weapons were removed from legal private gun ownership decades ago with rare exceptions. The AR-15 and similar styled rifle or a typical handgun to be legal, that gun must require the shooter to squeeze the trigger once to fire one shell. To fire again the trigger must be pulled again. That’s “semi-automatic.” A fully automatic weapon — like a machine gun — allows the shooter to pull the trigger one time, hold it down, which allows the gun to fire continuously until the trigger is released or the gun magazine that holds bullets is emptied. THIS STYLE OF GUN HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR SOMETIME FOR USE AND/OR OWNERSHIP BY ALL BUT THE MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND IN RARE CASES SOME GUN COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS.
2. An AR-15 is semi-automatic. It is NOT an “assault rifle.” That term actually applies to the military version of the AR-15 used only by the military and law enforcement. That version is a M-4 rifle;
3. Most handguns are actually semi-automatics. Far more gun murders are committed with a semi-automatic handgun than with an AR-15;
4. “What is the purpose of private use of hi-capacity magazines that hold sometimes several dozen bullets? Surely those could be used only for mass shootings.” Imagine a police officer in a gun battle with one or several criminals. Seldom is the setting of such a situation where each stands perfectly still out in the open at a distance of 5-10 yards while any shooting takes place. Seldom are the parties involved in such shootings calm and collected and steady when they aim and shoot. For self defense, military, or law enforcement use of semi-automatic guns does the first or second, third or fourth, and sometime subsequent rounds hit the mark, stop the perpetrator, and protect the shooter. Being able to fire as many as 10-15 times if necessary in such a situation is the purpose for the production of hi-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons.

Summary

How can we legitimately curb the gun violence including mass shootings? Let’s include the following:

Background Checks most assuredly should be toughened and broadened. There MUST be inclusion of mental health information of the applicant that MUST have a mechanism for FBI application processors to be able to quickly access those health records for applicants. Private and gun show gun sales should also require the same background check. How successful would this be? There’s no way to tell for certain, but several mass shooting perpetrators of the last few would have been prevented from gun purchases if such a system existed.

New Gun Laws No new gun laws — federal, state, or local — need to be passed and enacted. We need to begin to enforce EVERY CURRENT GUN LAW! Let’s face it: criminals don’t care about gun laws and will never abide by them. But immediately enacting on every law enforcement level a mandatory enforcement of every gun law would accomplish several things: 1) initiate a real deterrent for criminals, for they would experience real consequences for their illegal acts. If every gang-banger, drug lord, and drug dealer in Chicago knew for certain that if caught with an illegal gun they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, the huge number of violations would certainly decrease;  2) by aggressively pursuing, capturing, and prosecuting all those who break gun laws will remove a large number of people from the streets. That in itself is a very successful way to stop gun crimes; 3) Fear of consequences for criminal gun law breaking that is currently non-existent would immediately impact the social sub-cultures that are primarily responsible for a large majority of gun crimes. This would destroy that sub-culture.

The point is that there are — insert number here — laws on the books that address anything illegal that anyone can do with a firearm. Having that number of laws, plus one, isn’t going to make anyone safer. What will make everyone safer is if we enforce the laws that we have on the books now.

Gun Confiscation That cannot legally happen. Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens recently suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment that gives Americans the right to “hold and bear arms.” Doing so would require a two-thirds vote of Congress plus 38 States to formally approve any such action.

George Washington added his personal thoughts to the importance of the 2nd Amendment with this: “A free people ought not only be armed ad disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Americans for the foreseeable future will retain the right to own guns.

How do we stop senseless gun violence? It will take a combination of things: broaden gun ownership applications and make private and gun show sales applications mandatory; Mandate all law enforcement professionals aggressively attack criminal gun activity of every type — including maximum sentences for convicted violators; stop the senseless media lies about types of gun crimes, Media use of weapon terminology that is misleading to the American people, and maybe most importantly, instead of demonizing groups like the NRA, embrace and expand their educational programs that have taught millions of Americans the responsibilities of owning and using firearms, how to shoot, and personal defense. AND STOP THE FOOLISHNESS OF “GUN FREE ZONES!” Almost all mass gun shootings have taken place in gun free zones. Criminals love gun free zones, because they know they will face no opposition no one else will have a gun in those zones!

But the most important two things that MUST be done to curb this violence is for EVERYONE to begin to speak “to” each other and not “at” each other. Listening and really hearing those with opposite views on this matter and finding ways to bridge any gaps to find commonalities that all can work together to accomplish is critical. ALL must stop the politicization for political advantage: Democrats AND Republicans. A Mom or Dad who just buried their high school junior who was shot at school doesn’t care about political party affiliation or any political narrative desired by any class of gun control or gun advocate.

All that matters is creating an American environment to protect innocents while stopping illegal possession and use of firearms of every kind. We must stop threatening actions that will never be taken. And we must stop the hypocritical threats of such actions only when there’s another mass shooting.

“If” we together don’t work with ALL of the above elements to attack this horror that now is repeating itself more and more, we are doomed to repeat our history again and again. Who will pay that price? Primarily innocent children.

Enough is Enough!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download