This is a Facebook conversation
I had with several responsible gun owners regarding how the nation
might best respond to the epidemic of neighborhood massacres where
high power semi-automatic weapons are always the weapon of choice.
 |
| Columbine Massacre |
 |
| Semi Automatic War Weapon |
Jim Hibbett: Why would anyone rush to
the conclusion that these words(Obama's general statement about suggestions
forthcoming for reducing the likelihood of more citizen massacres. He also said their may be some actions he could initiate by executive order.) indicate that
the second amendment is being threatened? It may mean that all gun
purchases will be required to have registration and background checks
and possibly some type of weapons of war be made illegal(as they used
to be). There is so much unreasonable fear around this issue. What is
truly making persons afraid now in the land? Ask yourself if it is a
legitimate fear, like 'Is someone's family gong to be mass murdered
at school or the movies?" or a fear that is very low on the bar
of actual reality? There is no way to eliminate all fear in life but
there are reasonable ways to reduce true and real threats to our
citizens. The later is all this debate is about, not taking away
anyone's reasonable guns so you will be suddenly attacked by
criminals or the government. REASON not EMOTION needs to be securely
in place for this important conversation. Let's take a big breath and
pay attention to what is true and real.
Steve
Waller The past four years have demonstrated
that there is radicalism to the inth degree in office. And, little
regard for patience in going through the system of government, but
to jump quickly to fulfill a personal ideology.
Jim
Hibbett Steve. That kind of statement might be
considered by some as a 'jump quickly' unsubstantiated statement
based on what feels and not so much what the record shows. We all
need to resist letting our tendencies to free deeply running
emotions to cloud our capacity to describe what is actually there.
Emotion is not a bad thing itself, it is our source of passion, but
it becomes a real enemy of reality when it runs the show and takes
precedence over careful thought and reason. Saying something is to the' nth degree' is nearly always
an exaggeration, not based on any factual foundation. This president's record is quite centrist on most
all issues, even compared with previous republican presidents.
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and now
...that right is infringed upon when it is altered as to what the
government says we can bear... criminals WILL posess guns
ILLEGALLY... it is the criminal where strict law needs to happen...
there is "talk" as to the government having our military
going door to door... WAKE UP AMERICA! Conformity to a society that
is ruled by the government is and has been occuring. Take a stand...
The ATTITUDE to trust and allow certain guns for us to surrender is
an infringement on our rights and freedom.
Jim
Hibbett Be careful of such 'talk.' That is
usually exactly what it is. Talk really is cheap and usually not fact based. That is the kind of thing that stirs
unreal fear and takes away ones reasonable peace of mind. Obviously
there has always been and must always be limits on any right
including what kind of 'arms' are reasonable and that do not not
become a serious threat to other innocent citizens. If we can't
discuss such things without an 'all or nothing' mind set then we
can't even have a functioning government. Surely that is not what
anyone wants. There are limits and boundaries to all things and in a
democracy the "People' through lawful processes sit down and
make decisions in the public's interest. There is always and must be
a trade off or balance between individual rights and public well
being. No one is an 'island unto himself.' This is nothing new. But
some , however unintentionally, are letting unrealistic fears stop
such a democratic process from happening. This is occurring around
several issues facing us as a country. This sets our country back,
keeps us from adapting to new realities and facing new challenges.
We get into a rut that makes good governing impossible.
Micki
Didas Sorrentino As
"The People" it is time for individuals to stand up and stop from such
changes to occur. It is in these "trade off" as you so put it. That the
only thing being traded off is our freedoms. It is this complacient
attitude in trusting the government to
handle it. It will do just that and take away our rights that our
founding fathers fought for.... As I originally so put. It is simple.
The second ammendent needs to be upheld. You have to stand for
something....or as people fall for everything!!
Mike
Nale Jim if you check the laws we have back
ground checks in place already you can check this! The mentally
unstable idiot that murdered those poor children tried to illegally
buy a gun 2 days before he murdered those helpless kids his mom knew
he was mentally unstable taught him to use weapons and gave him
illegally access to her weapons her careless behavior cost her life
and a lot of innocent children president Obamma's head law
enforcement pick also gave illegally weapons to Mexican drug cartel
members and got many people killed and 2 dea American agents , also
giving weapons to Islamic extremest fighting in Syria if you do not
want to carry your choice it is my choice and any other law abiding
citizen to keep and bare arms guaranteed by the constitutional of
this great nation I shed blood 3times in war for this right and to
protect this right for other Americans have you ever served your
country ?
Jim
Hibbett Well Micki. It likely is not as simple
as you wish and the only way healthy government has ever worked,
including with the founding fathers, is that all stake holders(gun
owners are a steak holder but not the only ones, that is all I am
saying) have a voice that WILL BE HEARD . That is what people have
died to protect, not that one voice alone be heard with no other
discussion allowed. No right or amendment is above the open and
honest scrutiny of the people. No one can ever get all they want,
not if you wish to have a real democracy and true freedom. There is
the individual and there is the community and both have to be
honored and protected. Yes , if there is no trade off then you have
either tyranny(which you fear) or chaos and every person for
himself(which you also should fear.) Balance is always the only
reasonable goal for a democratic society. It is uncomfortable to say
the least to be a citizen during times of great social change but we
should be thankful that we have a voice for how changes unfold in
the democracy, but no one gets to call all the shots. It is that
simple. That is where we always have to start if we love freedom and
democracy. There is no other right place to seek solutions to
different opinions.
Jim
Hibbett Is it possible to stick with the topic
presented? To go everywhere is another way , however unintended, to
keep the conversation from going anywhere. This is the kind of thing
that the national conversation must move beyond and that we
hopefully can agree we want to move beyond. Otherwise as a nation we
have no capacity to make genuine decisions and policies in the best
interests of all.
Micki
Didas Sorrentino I clearly have expressed how
I feel on this issue.I will not go back and forth. Yes,it is that
simple. The People need to stand as a whole and not let the second
ammendement be infringed upon. That is how tyranny starts...freedoms
being taken away....
Mike
Nale Without the 2nd right amendment in place
we would also lose freedom of speech the right to gather and all our
other rights a man who has the right to bear arms is a citizen a man
who does not is a subject !
Jim
Hibbett We have regulated the use of
automobiles all along and continue to require higher standards of
safety and we attempt to keep drunk drivers off the road. Nothing is
perfect but we genuinely try and do make progress in safety. Few are
on the sidelines demanding that it always be left as it is and no
new regulations and requirements be formed. Some are wanting the gun
issue to never be thoughtfully studied and appropriate
regulations formed with the expectations they be seriously enforced.
There is this powerful voice in the room that uses its power to
squash any genuine oversight. A power that funds many of our politicians and requires them to not have any serious discussion about gun safety. This power protects the status quo no matter
what new crises the country finds itself facing. That is what needs to be seen and changed. NO one gets to call
all the shots.
Jim
Hibbett Actually armed citizens lowers our
freedom to assemble and speak out for all know that someone with a
gun may not like what is being said and feel threatened by free
speech. Thus free speech is hampered and damped down by the unspoken
threat of violence.
Jim
Hibbett Micki. As I attempted to explain for
anyone to say their way or the highway, no discussion allowed or I
will leave the table, is not patriotic or American. It is highly
self centered and assumes ones personal individual wisdom is always
greater than any other voices. when did this idea of democracy take
such strong roots? It seems this particular issue really brings it
into the open.." I don't care what anyone thinks or a what
anyone's concerns are, my way or nothing.... or I will leave the
conversation.' If that is not what you are saying please correct me. I'm
seeing this democracy destroying attitude in too many voices. Not a
good sign for any of us as a nation. I'm confident if we keep
talking to each other some of that attitude will dissipate . I
surely hope so.
Randy
McJunkins @Jim... If you are saying that my
ability to protect my family should be negotiated by someone other
than me you are wrong. The second amendment was not written to
guarantee America that they will have the guns needed to hunt game.
Hunting was an ever day thing back then. It was written to give us
the ability to protect us and our family from people wishing to do
us harm, with a strong emphasis on the Government. Owning a weapon
of choice is not so we can cause harm to the general public, it is a
strong deterrent to keep the criminal element at bay. Look back
through history, other countries would not attack us because they
knew “there would be a weapon behind ever blade of grass”. Now
if you limit America to let us say, you can only own shotguns for
hunting. Do you really think that anyone, whether it is another
country or our own government, is going to be worried that you
brought a shotgun to a machine gun fight??? You buy home owners
insurance to protect your house, although it is highly unlikely you
will ever need it for its core purpose. History has shown that
people in the past has really need this insurance and the ones that
had it were extremely happy they did and the ones that did not have
it wish they did. I buy guns as insurance to protect me and my
family. Although I it is highly unlikely I will ever need them.
History has shown were people in the past has really need them but
their Government had taken them and said “we will protect you”.
Where are they now? How many glowing examples do you need before you
understand it can happen to anyone at anytime. It has been shown
that all but one of the mass shootings in the recent past has
happened in “GUN SAFE ZONE”. There have been MANY ones that
happen in other places that good people stood up and defended
themselves and others with guns of their choice. If you truly think
your Government could never take you rights away from you totally
then you really need to pull your head out of the mud. Read your
history at all the examples from the past. The second amendment is
non-negotiable. It does not say the right to bear arms that is
approved by the Government. It was written for us to be able to
protect ourselves from ALL enemies foreign or domestic. And if my
enemy is carrying an AK-47 I sure don’t want to be holding a
shotgun.
Jim
Hibbett Have you tried to find a bazooka and
maybe a can of nerve gas or bombs to add to your arms to protect
yourself Randy? This debate is not about you having reasonable guns
to protect your family. It is about doing what we can to lessen the
chances of the wrong persons having easy access to true weapons of
war and slaying our innocent children and adults.(please keep those
very real images in mind when discussing this topic. that is all its
about.) The fear we all have of that is EXTREMELY real and even
certain to happen. (because we have negligently let our land be
proliferated by weapons of war.) The fears you have mentioned though
possible are nearly infinitesimal compared to our very real Public
fear of these repeating massacres. There are numerous things we can
do without taking away anyone's right to bear arms to decrease the
likelihood of them continuing and growing. All rights have limits
and ALL Americans have a voice interpreting and deciding those
limits, not just a few who very strong feelings about it one way or
the other. Just as no one would suggest that bazookas, nerve gas and
bombs be on legal market at gun shows, many of your fellow
Americans(not the government) believe some other weapons of war be
considered as ones to add again to that list. Responsible gun
regulation is only one arm of a serious effort to reduce the chances
of mass killings or our own people. Your opinion runs the risk of
appearing that your interests lean very much toward self interest
rather than also public interest. You don't want that to happen I'm
sure. This debate has been postponed for at least two decades for
irrational reasons. We are finally getting around to sitting down to
have an honest talk. That is always good whether in a family a town
or a nation.
Randy
McJunkins OK Jim what do you call reasonable?
And do you really think taking my ar-15 away from me is going to
stop mass killings? If a person wants to do harm to people he is
going to do it. In China, I think on the same day as Sandy Hook,
there was a person that killed a mass with a machete. You people
don’t seem to understand taking ones guns will do nothing but
hinder good people from protecting themselves or others from these
people. Think if you can if there was an armed officer in any of the
mass killings. First off the person probably would have never
attempted the crime, but if he did attempt it the outcome would have
been totally different. Let’s say hypothetically someone who has
made their mind up that they are going to break into someone’s
house and harm them. Now they have two houses to chose from, yours
where they know you have no guns or real way of protecting yourself.
Or mine. Which do you think they will chose? There are other ways of
stopping these horrible crimes than taking someone’s rights away
from them. Oh and if it required me to have a bazooka or tear gas to
stop this guy from breaking into my house and doing harm to my
family, I sure would be glad I had it. And pardon some of the
wording, I really hate auto correct.
Jim
Hibbett Anyone ever feel surrounded? I've
spoken my peace for this post as well as several of you have. I will
add I have heard no one , on this post, express any serious concern
about the only reason I'm talking..... innocent American people,
many no doubt gun owners, being massacred by high powered weapons of
war. I just have not heard that as what is topmost on anyone's mind.
Take a look at all the comments above and you will not see this as
the problem being lamented. I've heard the concerns you have
expressed. What I have heard is, in my own paraphrase , ' My
personal world is going to be greatly jeopardized and my quality of
life seriously harmed if weapons are war should become illegal."
I just do not see that threat to you as realistic. I do not think
that is true in any serious way. If I did I would be quick to
support you in your being mistreated or harmed. Respectfully.
Dave
Long The Second Amendment discussed so
thoroughly here is part of the "Bill of Rights"! The Bill
of Rights is the very foundation of our Republic! Please note that
it is not #5 or #9 it is #2 because of it's importance! You are
right Randy, the second amendment was created to afford us the means
to protect ourselves from our own government not for hunting. Jim,
you use the term "reasonable" to describe weapons you
believe we should be allowed to keep. Who decides reasonable? The
same President and Senate that haven't passed a budget in over 1000
days? The same administration that has spent more in four years than
the three previous administrations combined, and tripled our
national deficit in that four years? Are second amendment supporters
selfish or self-centered because they do place their own families'
security ahead of the general population? If it comes down to you or
the other guy, who will you put first? Yes, the welfare no scratch
that, welfare has become an ugly word, the well-being of the general
population is important and certainly it is something we should all
be in favor of, but secure and protect your own life and family
first. Fully automatic weapons, which are illegal to own have been
stolen from National Guard armories and police stations. Did the
restrictions stop some criminal or nutcase from stealing them ..NO!
Promoting self-reliance, patriotism, decency, parental
responsibility, and Judeo-Christian beliefs will do much more good
toward protecting the general population than any amount of
regulation will. Pandering to the many individual, minority groups
and minority religions while restricting the open practise of
Christianity in our schools, public gatherings, and government
institutions has eroded the morality and therefore the safety of our
nation and it's citizens!
Dave
Long Jim, I don't know of anyone who was
unaffected by the masacre of those innocent children in Connecticut
or the theater patrons in Colorado. Those acts are beyond normal
comprehension. What we are saying is that no new regulations or
restrictions will make anyone safer. Criminals and crazies will
always find a weapon of some kind to use in their eveil acts. It
makes no sense to restrict law abiding citizens in any way. The
people who will obey new laws are not the people who commit these
atrocities.
Randy
McJunkins Jim I do agree with back ground
checks for all people. And people with a history of mental illness,
assault or felony charges should not have access to any kind of fire
arm. And you are wrong to say I am not concerned about the problem
at hand. Someone could walk into my son’s school tomorrow and do
the same thing. Will I blame the gun he used? No. I will blame the
person who used it and then blame the state for removing the SRO
from the school system. And you are also wrong about my personal
world statement. Yes my family comes first but if I am in a movie
theater and someone comes in and starts shooting I am going to do my
best to stop that person from hurting anyone, Not just my family. If
I am able I will protect any person no matter the color, creed or
religion or if they believe in gun rights. I WILL NOT be in a
situation where all I can do is watch my family die, or any other
person, and not be able to do anything. That is thinking about other
people and not just my world. There are good people out there and
put in the right spot will react to the situation and stop these
crazy people. But they cannot do it if you tie their hands.
Micki
Didas Sorrentino I am a woman of few words.
Randy and Dave you have worded everything so well. And
Peggy...you're great!
John
David Putnam I am very glad that there are
restrictions on some of the types of weaponry that average citizens
are allowed to possess. I favor some of the suggested improvements
in background checks, reasonable restrictions and tracking of
private sales…..but only with the intention of helping stop the
criminal and mentally ill from easy access. I also favor the tough
enforcement of the laws that are on the books now. I believe it is
possible to stop “straw buyers” from purchasing and then
reselling to criminals if the current laws were actually
enforced.
Jim is to be commended for defending his beliefs. I appreciate his thoughts, especially when they challenge mine. Yes, he is outnumbered here but that in and of itself does not mean he is wrong. I feel the discussion is slipping a bit into areas that are not entirely helpful so let’s let it be for now…OK?
Thank you all. Really!
Jim is to be commended for defending his beliefs. I appreciate his thoughts, especially when they challenge mine. Yes, he is outnumbered here but that in and of itself does not mean he is wrong. I feel the discussion is slipping a bit into areas that are not entirely helpful so let’s let it be for now…OK?
Thank you all. Really!
- Jim
Hibbett Randy and other contributors. I have
no doubts about your sincerity and willingness to be of service to
others. I apologize for sounding otherwise in the heat of
discussion. I am truly listening to you and learning. I am also
emphasizing I think some of the fears strong responsible gun owners
describe and focus on in these conversations, and the national one,
are not nearly as likely, statistically speaking, or certain as
mass killings are to happen in most places the present national
situation. And so I appeal to such gun owners that they consider
these less-likely to happen personal concerns be placed at a lower
priority so we together can face this massacre epidemic
effectively. I appeal to responsible gun owners that your families
are far more at risk of being maimed and killcd in a massacre
using high power semi automatic weapons(however obtained) than by
someone breaking into your home with an intent to kill or mugging
you with lethal force on the street. Best wishes to you all. Thanks
for expressing yourselves. Signing Off. Jim:)
Micki
Didas Sorrentino Jim...everyone is entitled to
their own opinion..and discussion about what we feel and think...one
of the great things about America!!! Have a great day everyone!!!!
