Friday, October 2, 2015


I have quite a few friends and family members who are justifiably proud of their principles, their sense of right and wrong.  To waiver for even a nanosecond is unthinkable.  I respect them immensely.  But they are wrong.

Here's why:  Once again there has been a mass shooting, a massacre at a school, this time in Oregon.  And once again the rhetoric from both the political right and left is in-your-face.  The liberal left would just love to outlaw all guns, just declare them illegal and confiscate them all.  The Tea Party and the NRA say that will happen when you pry them from their cold know the rest.

And nothing gets done.

The left must understand they can NOT close down gun makers, gun stores, private ownership of guns, etc. If they try the matter will be tied up in the courts for years, decades even.  Not gonna happen!

The right must understand that no one is going to knock on their door and rifle through their stuff (pun intended) and seize their guns.  If someone tries, there will be blood in the streets.

Nor can they grab up all the ammo.  There are already hundreds of millions (billions?) of rounds of ammunition in private hands.  If they try it will just give the black market and smugglers another product to profit off of.  Not gonna happen!

Both sides need to suck it up, bend their principles a bit, and find common ground.  To a pragmatist like me this is just so obvious.  They need to sit down and find out exactly what both sides CAN agree on. 

Obviously criminals past and present can not...MUST not have guns.  When they are found in possession of guns, it's off to the lock-up they go.  Look aggressively.  Not enough prison space, you say?  Then MAKE more prison space.

Obviously the mentally unstable can not...MUST not have guns.  Find a way to identify these sadly troubled people.  Look aggressively.  

Surely both sides can agree on this.  Yes, compromise is often dirty, and often leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  But at least SOMETHING gets done.  And something desperately needs to get done.  We all need to quit beating our chests and refusing to bend.

Lets face it:  The only difference between good guns and bad guns is who is holding them.  Lets stop focusing on the guns, and concentrate on who is holding them.

Compromise, dammit!



  1. The idea that Obama or the liberal left wants to outlaw all guns and confiscate them all is patently ridiculous. As for keeping guns from the criminals and the people with mental problems, that's what universal background checks are for yet the NRA and the right say that's only the first step by a socialist government gone mad. Bullshit!

    1. Agreed, but that's what the right THINKS the left wants to do. And if universal background checks are holding up something getting done, then think outside the box. Again, identify what CAN be agreed on and run with it. It definitely isn't ideal, but it's SOMETHING, which is more than we have now.

    2. To just say "bullshit", without proposing anything else, isn't getting the job done.

  2. Mass media is the driving force here. How to be known and go down in history as a repeated name. Hitler is still famous worldwide in some view, same goes for others. Now with Facebook, Twitter etc, walk into a mall or school and start shooting and pass away knowing your name will be famous. That is the real problem everyone ignores.

    Should Americans be able to own guns? YES.

    Should they be able to go harm others ? NO!

    Are back ground checks that prohibit ownership, because someone needed help to get through a divorce or loss of family members, in the past, really what we need? NO. Is it what we got now? YES!

    Have not most people been aware when a person becomes unstable and becomes a danger? YES

    People need to observe them around them, they know when they are happy or sad and can tell when they have slipped to the nutty side. They need to be able to call someone free, who can work with person who is ready to commit suicide and get famous at same time.

    As you know, I shoot pistols and long range 300 yard + and also carry concealed. If My wife ever felt I was acting strange and dangerous, she would call police ASAP. I would expect no less from her.

    1. I agree that those who commit mass murder should NEVER have their name or photo released to the public. They deserve absolutely NO publicity that could make them into a cult hero.

      I'm not so sure "self policing" will work, though. Too many people are hesitant to "get involved" these days. To anonymously call and report that someone needs counseling is a good thing, but I doubt there are enough counselors out there to be able to help all those who might need it. And what's to stop a person who is known to be unstable in his own home town from driving 50 miles away and buying weapons where he is not known at all? And if you should call the police to report an unstable person, what are the police to do? They can't just decide on their own you shouldn't have guns and take them from you. They don't have that power. That's a pretty slippery slope.

      There already exists a national database of convicted criminals, so it should be fairly simple to identify them at the time of traffic stop/investigation/arrest and search their car/premises for illegal possession of firearms. IMO we just need to find some way to keep guns out of the hands of the unstable, too. We're never going to get all the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, but I think we can do things that will reduce the problem considerably.

      And for the record, I own firearms and have a CHL, too. :)

  3. I think any rational "liberal" knows you can't take away all the guns. Nor should you get rid of deer hunting rifles and the like. But no one needs an assault rifle to hunt with. And the gun show loophole needs closed. Honestly it's common sense thinking that buying a deadly weapon should be more difficult than buying a pack of cigarettes.

    1. Realistically you're right Pat, but I think many look enviably at the ban/restrictions many other nations have placed on their citizens and would secretly love to do the same here. Obviously they would get no where if they tried. That's why I think they shouldn't waste their time trying, but should pursue those things that CAN be agreed to.

  4. Yes, PLEASE COMPROMISE, for the dead. Especially for the little ones of Sandy Hook Elementary.

  5. Attempts have been made, many, many attempts. No matter what or how weak the suggestion of limiting in any way, shape or form, the ownership and use of guns, the NRA makes damn sure the congress knows that they'd better oppose it if they want to keep their seats.

    Frankly, I seen little or no hope. If something can't be done after Sandy Hook, then the paltry killings at Umpqua CC, Seattle CC, etc, are going to occupy the newspaper for less and less time, each time it occurs. It's going to be groundhog day, every month or so.

    So no, I have no suggestions, no magic solution. The NRA and Tea Party have the world they want, at least in this respect.

    You are aware that gun sales go up after each shooting like this? Personally I think the puppet masters of the NRA, the gun manufacturing industry, hear 'ka-ching!', the sound of the cash register, with every one.

    1. Agree it would be an uphill battle to get anything meaningful accomplished, but I'd still like to see it tried, regardless of how modest the results. IMHO the NRA is mostly just a fundraising apparatus for...themselves?...the gun manufacturers? I don't know, but they just seem way to preoccupied with raking in cash. And you know how I feel about the Tea Party!

      I do believe in the right to bear arms, but even if I didn't, that genie isn't going back in the bottle. We just need to facts and and do what we can to make it a bit more sensible.

  6. Compromise has become a dirty word, but our country wouldn't exist without it.

  7. I agree with you 99%...dammit, compromise! Something needs to be done to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and those mentally unfit. However... ...The liberal left would just love to outlaw all guns, just declare them illegal and confiscate them all... <-- Can you name ONE politician who has introduced legislation to that effect? Not that Rosie O'Donnell is a politician, but she's pretty liberal left, and even she has said that she didn't want to take Charlton Heston's guns (that was before he got Alzheimer's).

    We need to start the compromise by the right acknowledging that nobody in America wants to take away everybody's guns. And the left needs to acknowledge that good, law-abiding citizens have the right to own as many guns as they want to. And maybe we all need to realize that the NRA is nothing but a self-serving organization who should not "buy" politicians.

  8. You are my knowledge no politician has formally introduced legislation to outlaw guns. However, many, including Pres Obama just this this week, mentioned the success Australia and the UK have had, "countries very similar to ours", reducing gun violence. Unsaid was they reduced it by banning almost all private ownership of firearms.

    Yes, compromise is a necessary part of a successful government. And I completely agree, the NRA is just another politician buying special interest.