Serve and protect, that is the credo of law enforcement officers, and they do, every day, serve and protect us from harm all across America. However, it seems shoot first and ask questions later is becoming a slogan of choice among America’s not so finest. Sadly, our love/hate relationship with guns has put us at odds for nothing. Gun enthusiast or pacifist, tourist or would be terrorist it doesn’t seem to matter, asses are at risk, literally. The only difference is whether we get shot by the bad guys or good guys.
Seriously, when someone is shot, does it matter if the bullet came from a properly registered, legal firearm or not?
We might as well admit it to the world. While we are out policing the planet, our own streets are loaded for bear. Al Capone and John Wayne are alive and well, living together in the good ol U.S.A. where we dare defend our rights no matter who has to pay the price. What a bunch of hypocrites! Not just the fence straddling, self-righteous, but the blame gaming nincompoops on both sides. Hypocrites all!
Forget gun control. We need some progress toward self control.
This brief post is brought to you buy PHOTOGRAPHY – Shots That Injure No One
Ads appearing beneath this post are NOT ENDORSED by this blogger.
Honie Briggs 
As one who would like to see guns regulated and one who believes that the Constitution is all that saves us from the fringes, the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment much as it does the First. “[W]ell regulated militia” is not a descriptor of the right to bear arms, it is an explanation. The Amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Just as the Court does not take the “Congress shall pass no law” clause in the First Amendment literally (or we would have pornographic billboards across the street from elementary schools), it does not take the final clause of the Second literally. Compelling reasons and rational regulation is required. There should be no fear for gun owners. The Constitution protects their rights just as it protects mine.
so agree that we need self-control but today’s events at the Navy Yard show that it is not alive and well
love the pics
It never ceases to amaze me when the gun control issue comes up, and the most logical people I know have a cache of weapons stashed in their basement/what have you.
“Why do you need all those guns?”
“Just in case.”
Which, is not a legitimate answer.
It’s the same thing with some people who shop at Costco.
“Why do you need a 25 gallon drum of picante sauce?”
“Just in case.”
Which, is a legitimate answer if we expect an invasion of Martians on flying tortilla chips.
Some people’s logic!
I think there are those in the NRA who thrive on the fear of the government taking their guns away. As a gun owner I think that the minimum standard to carry one ought to be at least as rigorous as the standard to drive a car – even so, I am reluctant to let the government intrude too far into my business. I don’t think owning a family heirloom is the same as packing a glock when you go to Stuffmart. In reading the link it amazes me that shots were even fired in that situation, and I cannot even fathom professionals taking that step without considering the safety of bystanders.
I agree with you on all counts. Fear is a driver among all sorts of organizations that need mass participation/dollars to exist. The very fact that the 2nd amendment uses “well regulated militia” should be a clue that the intent was not for every Tom, Dick, and their other brother Dick to be equipped with an assault weapon. The framers could not have possibly imagined a Stuffmart cropping up every 10 miles across a land which had not been fully exploited, I mean explored yet, much less that such places would be ammo depots employing the largest population of uninsured Americans. Back in their day, if you got shot you just gave the doc a couple of chickens or a blueberry cobbler when he made a house call for a gunshot wound. If it was for more than one family member, you might give him a musket, some home brew, and a plug of tobacco. That’s how alcohol, tobacco, and firearms came to be all one agency. (kidding of course) We miss teachable moments when we get distracted by fear mongers fanning the flames.
My dad was an avid user of what you might call assault weapons. He shot them competitively and he went through the lengthy and expensive process it takes to be licensed to own automatic weapons. For me they have no appeal, and I have no desire to own one. I don’t want the responsibility. The stakes are so much higher in the wrong hands. I think that there are too many loopholes, ways to get around the law or to modify a weapon illegally. I agree that the founding fathers never envisioned owning such a piece of weaponry. Most surplus Civil War rifles were sold to citizens to use as a means of hunting game for substance. Owning a firearm was owning something that you used to feed your family. You grew up understanding how to use it as a tool – today most Americans live in cities and buy their food from the local grocery or from really cool Italian markets instead of foraging in the woods. The need is different.
You said it all right there, Lorri – “understanding how to use it as a tool” THAT is huge. Skilled marksmen who know their responsibility exist. Having fired an assault rifle, I’m with you, they are not for me. Loopholes pretty much defeat the purpose of any sort of ban. Of course, today once again the nation is thrown into a gun related event, unfolding even as we comment. The public discourse will no doubt revolve around these issues until all sides have exhausted the same old arguments.
I’ve been watching that story progress today – it amazes me how many military installations have had these kinds of assaults – who would have thought that the military would need protection.
I think there is a middle ground where responsible gun ownership is the law. The paranoia about that has to be put aside so that we can find logical answers that protect our rights not to be victimized as much as they protect our rights to own firearms.
Hi Honie, as an outsider (nonUS person) the gun debate in America has always mystified me and everyone I know. We don’t have a culture of guns here in Oz and never have, so it’s hard to grasp why some are so pro gun, when there is so much gun related violence and death.
It’s a constitutional thing. The greatest achievement of cooperation “we the people” have to show for ourselves is the U.S. Constitution, and its second amendment states:
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.
Of course, “we the people” focus on the words “keep and bear arms” not “well regulated”. That seems odd since the words “well regulated” are at the very beginning of the amendment, but hey, what do I know? I probably shouldn’t worry my little head about details like that. Kind of like that whole united in United States thing.
Who am I to bring that up?
Shout or shoot are really the only two options some of “we the people” can seem to muster on the subject of guns. It must be due to stress. You know, traffic, taxes, and policing the world, it wears on a people after a couple hundred years.
The argument to keep and bear arms crosses all boundaries of ethnicity, gender, geography, and decency. For all we know the founding fathers debated whether to say a well regulated dish of beans is necessary to the security of a clean plate, it’s right to keep and share farms, shall not we infringe on the natives to teach us how they did it?
It was guns or beans, and they went with the gun thing. Does that clear it up for you? 🙂
Hmmmmmm …… nope 🙂
Self control is incredibly disarming.
Indeed, Lyle. It would certainly shock me if suddenly there was an outbreak of it.
Yes and yes. Whenever any of talk about this issue hearts and minds collide. Within my own family this happens. When I remind some of my more hardheaded and hardhearted members, I am a victim of gun violence, I was very nearly not here to have this discussion with you some even say to me, “so what, my rights are still more important than your opinion”. I am always stunned.
It is stunning to listen to the rationale. Without regard for facts, the emotion that devolves into belligerence when just trying to have a discussion that promotes understanding is quite stunning. Hunters, sportsmen, tradition, protection, we get it. Violence and ignorance and hatefulness, yeah, those are not conducive to the pursuit of anyone’s happiness. Cooler heads may yet prevail, but more laws don’t seem to be the answer. Does anyone really believe a criminal says to himself, hey there’s a law against shooting people, maybe I shouldn’t do it? hmmm. Is there a such thing as responsible gun ownership? Absolutely. Just like there is a such thing as responsible parenting and responsible driving. Are weapons always going to find their way into the hands of people who are irresponsible? Yeah. Just like there are people who should not become parents and texters who should not drive.
There is always an exception, to every rule an exception. Being able to have relevant and sane discussions, that is one of them. When I say, “I want you to be responsible and I want you to be safe. I don’t want you to be a statistic, I don’t want your child to be a statistic”. This doesn’t mean, I want to take your gun, it means I think there should be rules. Hard to get beyond the emotional response, I do recognize I have one also. I know this is a hard one for me, I get it. But I like to think I have retained enough of my mind to be able to seperate what is my emotional response from what is my pragmatism.
So well said, Val. Wouldn’t it be great if people on either side of this issue could talk just like you have written here? I want you to be…that is a key statement. I wonder how the relative who is defensive about his “rights” would complete that sentence. I want you to be…quiet? I want you to be…wrong? Doesn’t it seem the more afraid they become that they might have to agree you are making sense, the more defensive they get?