Article written by Steve Adcock

Steve Adcock is the founder and editor, SmallGovTimes.com and works full time as a software developer in the southwest United States. When not at the computer, Steve can be found at the local gun range or in the gym.

4 Responses

  1. Gabe Jimenez
    Gabe Jimenez at | | Reply

    Actually Steve, that is precisely the problem! you nailed it right on the head! current gun laws have have such gigantic loopholes, that one could easily drive a semi-truck through, its not ven funny.

    I could at this very moment, with out any gun safety training, mental health verification, criminal background check or any other type of control, go buy a custom semi-automatic, military style rifle such as an M-16 or AK-47. So basically all those things that you list in your article:

    “unregistered, no background checks, no gun registration or tracking, no paper-trail, nothing”

    how you may ask? I could do it three different ways.

    Gun acquisition method one, I could go to a gun show, there are basically no restrictions in gun shows, everyone can pretty much sell anything to anyone, no questions asked. Think of it like a swap meet for guns.

    Gun acquisition method number two, I buy it at a yard sale. I am going to let that sink in for one minute. at a FUCKING yard sale I can buy a gun, again no questions asked, no background check, nothing, this is perfectly legal.

    Gun acquisition method number tree, I really want a gun, but I have a felony on my record, easy have my wife buy it for me, granted this is harder to control, but hey since there are basically NO CONTROLS, then is ridiculously easy to get away with.

    and why does this happen, you can thank the good people at the NRA, who see any and all gun control as a threat to the “right to hold and bear arms”. They are also the ones behind the “stand your ground laws” in florida, and the “no permit carry and conceal” in arizona.

    So maybe Bob Costas is wrong in preaching from the sports pulpit. But hey if not people like him, who?

    I give credit where credit is due, the NRA is so effective at spreading the “:gun control” paranoia, that ALL politicians are afraid of it. The great gun reform that was supposed to come during Obama’s tenure, and resulted in amo running out at gun stores from people buying it up, because “Obama is going to outlaw amo”, never materialized.

    In fact gun rights expanded under Obama, you can now take your gun to national parks, I feel so much safer from the bears now.

    So again, Costas it maybe wrong of him to address this issue during a football game, but maybe he would not have too if the citizenship could debate about this rationally and logically, and with out emotion, as you suggest.

  2. Adrian
    Adrian at | | Reply

    Gabe, there is a serious problem with your logic. Nearly all gun control legislation is aimed at the law abiding, not the criminal. At the same time our justice system is weak on crime, especially felons with guns types of crimes.

    Will stronger gun control keep guns from criminals? Let’s see, guns in general are legal while there is not just state statutes, but federal law outright banning drugs such as heroin. Has this prevented heroin users from obtaining their drug of choice? Not in the least.

    Does anyone “need” an AR15 with a 30 round mag? No, need has nothing at all to do with it. And to use that as an argument for banning them is a bit like arguing that we should ban Mazerattis because of speeders.

    Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights notwithstanding, statistics indicate that guns save lives…states with less restrictive gun control laws have reduced crime rates, especially violent crimes. Conversely, states with more restrictive gun control laws…well, look at Chicago IL…that pretty well sums it up.

    So, as law abiding Americans we have rights, not rights granted by our government, rights that are inherent of being an American. Defined by the Constitution, and to be protected, not violated by our government. The NRA as well as other organizations act as watchdogs of an overreaching govenrment and to ensure those rights are protected. That is why I am an NRA member

  3. Gabe Jimenez
    Gabe Jimenez at | | Reply

    Adrian,

    actually there is no error in my logic, but I will indulge you.

    to answer your question, “will stronger gun control keep guns from criminals?”. The short answer of course is a resounding yes. But I am going to take a wild guess here, and assume you prefer the long answer, which is also, yes.

    Lets take your drug analogy to start, to your question “has the banning of controlled substances such as heroin prevented heroin users from obtaining it?” Yes it has, by actively enforcing drug laws the government has diminished supply, this has the effect of increasing the price of Heroin, which in turn makes it more difficult, yet not impossible, to obtain. Has the government been successful at this effort, well mixed results at best I think, and it is difficult to quantify, how many users have gone with out due to price increases.

    But Heroin is the wrong drug to compare guns too. First of all, I dont think people can have physical and psychological addictions to guns, to the point where they throw their entire lives away, the way heroin addicts do, so really this is an unfair comparison. If we remain in the gun-drug analogy, a much better comparison would be marijuana.

    As you probably know marijuana has been decriminalized now in several states, blatantly and willfully, ignoring the federal government law that bans it and criminalizes it. The outcome of has been less arrest for personal possession, more time for police enforcement spent on seriously dangerous drugs and violent crimes. Now, pot has been decriminalized, but not deregulated. In fact it is highly regulated, most states require a permit or licence of some sort, and there are all types of rules as to how, when and where a person can buy and smoke marijuana. There are way more regulations in the books for pot, than for gun possession and acquisition. how is that possible?? At its worst pot will make you stupid, taking to an extreme someone could get behind the drivers seat all stoned and kill someone. But even then the number of people actually applying for “green cards” is quite small, in comparison to the number of gun owners who are not registered, have not gone through medical mental screening, criminal background check or had to take a course in gun safety. How is that rational or logical??

    lets take a look at your second analogy, guns as cars, Do you know the amount of regulation that goes into car production and operation??? there are gas standards that must be met, all kids of safety regulations and conditions placed on auto manufacturers, it must be a hell-of-a-good business, because let me tell you, they have to jump through some hoops! and that is just on the production side, before you jump behind the wheel of your mazzeratti, you have to get a license, where they will test your physical health (eyes, ears and memory), then you have to take a competency test to prove that you can drive, and finally you have to buy insurance in case you have an accident. Can you point out the equivalent laws and regulations in relation to gun ownership? no you can’t because they don’t exist.

    So yes we have the right to bear arms, but with rights come responsibilities, and we, as a society, have the responsibility to protect the right to live of the innocent by putting in place REASONABLE AND BALANCED controls and regulations, that do not place an undue burden on gun ownership, but that also stop those that are criminal, mentally handicapped, or not trained in the safe ownership, use and operation of a firearm.

    Gabe

  4. Adrian
    Adrian at | | Reply

    Gabe, I appreciate your response. And I do agree with background checks and training are certainly good tools to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. The NRA does not oppose these measures. The NRA does oppose what it, and it’s members view as measures that can easily become more oppressive and infringing of and on the intent of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendement.

    Again, my drug reference, I believe, still is quite relevent. Some drugs are banned outright and still get to addicts. Felons are forbidden from owning guns but still get them.

    I don’t see how restricting me, a law abiding citizen, from purchasing an AR15 that I might simply use for sport shooting or even hunting…which has little functional difference from any other semi-auto high powered hunting rifle (the primary difference being capacity and appearance) does a damned thing to prevent crime. Fully automatic firearms are, in fact, heavily restricted at both the state and federal level, yet they still find their way to the hands of criminals.

    I would argue that if the intent is prevention of crime, a better measure would be to stiffen penalties for all malicious and violent crimes…including illegal firearm possession.

    But I don’t believe the true intent behind most gun control legislation is prevention of crime, it is to disarm the general populace.

Leave a Reply