Confiscation is not the answer
January 10, 2013, 1:40 pm
Filed under: Happening Now, Politics | Tags: , , , , ,

I hear the Mayor of NYC and the governor of New York State screaming about the need to confiscate guns, take guns away from law-abiding citizens so that crime will go down. The real idiocy with these things is that Law Abiding Citizens are not the ones committing the crimes, with guns. The ones who commit gun crimes are those who don’t care about laws in the first place, they are called criminals.

The history of gun control is that it does not work, crime increases when citizens do not have guns with which to protect themselves from criminals with guns and other weapons that destroy lives. Where I live is a prime example, when we are out feeding our animals, we never know what or who we will meet up with. I do know that the border patrol has caught a number of drug smugglers and people smugglers in our county, some on our property. These people are armed with semi-auto and automatic (assault weapon) weapons. You see that is the other problem with this discussion, one side seems to want to make any gun an assault while the other side wants to make every gun OK to own. Somewhere in the middle is where I am. I own handguns, and semi-automatic rifles and a single shot 30-06 rifle.

None of my guns is an “assault” weapon, because none of my guns can be fired on full automatic. Yet it is said that anyone who owns a gun that can hold a magazine of more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. Wrong! Assault weapons are those weapons that are capable of firing either one round at a time of 10 rounds at a time. The law says that those weapons are not available for sale to the general public, in other words, I can’t buy an assault weapon even if I wanted one, which to be perfectly honest I do not.

Interestingly enough, criminals seem to be able to get and use assault type weapons in committing their crimes.

The UK has taken guns away from their citizens, the police who used to go around with only a club as their protection and weapon. Are now armed with guns, simply because the criminals who they have to go up against began using guns once the citizenry had no way to protect themselves. So it seems that if you take away the guns from those who will obey the law, then those who do not obey the law will be able to get guns anyway, and are more than willing to use them in the commission of crimes. So, once again I find myself asking why are we trying to remove a deterrent from our law-abiding citizenry when it does actually cut down on violent crime? Just look at the Florida, when the citizens were not allowed to have guns, gun crime was rampant in the state, when they passed the law that allowed citizens to begin carrying concealed weapons, violent crime went down. In every state where this has been tried, violent crime has decreased. Where are there more gun related deaths? Try Chicago, Washington D. C. and other places were guns are not allowed in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but the criminals have plenty of firepower.

So in this debate, let us scrap the “feel good” stuff and begin to look carefully at what it is we are trying to accomplish. So called “Gun Free Zones” are the places were these crimes happen, over and again. Whether it is a movie theater or a College campus or an elementary school. How do we deter these things or at least protect those who are the innocent victims? We make sure that there are armed persons there to protect those places. Not necessarily, teachers but persons who are trained in the use of guns and are willing to use them to protect those teachers and kids. There are many who are trained. Most of us who served any time in the military, know about and respect guns, and how they are to be handled. In States were Concealed carry is acceptable, you have a group of folks who are able to protect themselves and others.

I know that I would be happy to spend a day or two a week in our school system to protect those who are there to learn and to grow, and there are teachers who also do not want to carry guns, as well as those who do have the license. Let us use the resources we have to protect those who cannot protect themselves, it will be a deterrent when the school or theater is no longer a “gun free zone.”

What do you think? Does this make sense, or do you have a different perspective?


thanks for the great post. it reminds me that i have to bring more structure into my blogging. your blog is very interesting. please let me know how to go for your rss blog. lista de email lista de email lista de email lista de email lista de email


Comment by lista de email

A majority of crime in New York and throughout the United States is committed by criminals with handguns that do not obey the law. A woman in Georgia recently shot an intruder multiple times while protecting her and her kids, and the criminal still was able to leave the scene and drive away. This is not Hollywood, an injured criminal can kill you. But under this mad legislation, if you have more than seven rounds, you are the criminal. Disgusting. This while our politicians, who are surrounded by taxpayers-paid armed security, tell the law-abiding citizen that they cannot protect their family and that they will dictate how, when, and where you can defend yourself, is soulless.


Comment by Can-C Eye Drops

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: