« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s Time: Rethinking the 2nd Amendment in 2012

Why Conservatives Must Now Accept a Harsh Reality on the Access to Guns in America

First and always foremost I encourage everyone to ask their father who is in heaven for his grace and protection for those involved in the tragedy in Connecticut. I also encourage people to pray for the shooter, his soul is at the mercy of the almighty who will judge him on the throne as he is now departed from this life and where he might end up, as I said about former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, we must ask God to take mercy on him because hell is a serious bounty for the life we choose to lead when we choose to lead it outside the will of God.

There comes a time when maturity sets in for an individual. Now, some people unfortunately never grow up mentally, therefore they never seem to grasp the concepts of maturing beyond their current state. I believe conservatives have, to their detriment fallen into this unnecessary trap of being so stridently opposed to even the very mention of consideration when it comes to gun laws. The natural reaction by conservatives is to strike like the viper against the hand that would have them surrender their weapons. The 2nd amendment like all amendments are 50% literal and 50% symbolic. Most countries around the world don’t have the same freedoms we’ve enjoyed and arguably taken for granted here in America. Most countries don’t have a concrete set of values that promote the idea of basic liberty. The idea, was to promote freedom in an attempt to craft a civil society built on the advancement of individuals within a free and open nation.

But at what point do we opt for bull headed objection to this debate over guns at the expense of accepting this hard fact: We’re in the last days, our culture is eroding as are our traditional safe havens and comfort zones, therefore we must adapt accordingly.

You know me by what I’ve written here on Redstate, if it were up to me everyone would have access to any kind of firearm they want, given the world was still like it was when my mother and father were young. I have no delusions about gun control absolutism, I don’t believe for one second banning all guns would miraculously solve America’s violent outburst. Remember, their our people in control of their weapon of choice from the gun to the pipe bomb, the butcher knife, even their family car. And in control of the person wielding the weapon is a demonic force unseen by the natural line of sight.

Is God exercising judgement on America? My friends I believe so, but by who’s provocation? Certainly not his. For God doesn’t simply punish for the sake of punishment, God preaches warning and he loves, but like your Earthly father he disciplines those whom he loves. America needs to change before it’s too late; and conservatives need to lead and be the parents once again.

We used to be the ones standing up for reason, for accountability, the adults in the room. We were the fathers who got the kids in line but now we’ve become a movement so singular and so shallow in our focus that we’ve let the issues of the day pass us by.

People use to listen to us and what we had to say because we actually had something to say once upon a time. On this very issue of guns and gun control if we as the party and the movement of 2nd amendment rights stand up and offer a new solution, I have no doubt folks will ready their ears and will listen to what we have to say.

We’re the only ones that can make this argument because we’re the ones who know ins and outs. We’re the hunters, the first line of security at home, we’re the police officers, and the soldiers. Conservatives are the only ones who can bring some clarity and common sense to the issue of guns and gun culture in America. We owe it to our families and the next generation to finally say: “You know what, let’s have this conversation for the sake of those who will inherit the country long after the Lord calls us home”.

How is it that conservatives have always considered themselves the guardians of the culture and yet we’ve been so unwilling to have serious discussions about the culture. Could you imagine what this country would be like if conservatives weren’t around? If we weren’t fighting the hard battles for the sake of the future? I’ve always said conservatism and Christianity has kept America from the brink of complete social and political destruction. But where did the bold conservative warriors go?

It’s like, I mean did we just give up? Are we now just a bunch of angry people looking to score payback instead of swallowing our pride and reclaiming the chair at the head of the table?

I think conservatives can make a lot more sense of the structural problems going on in the public school system and with the access to firearms. Instead of being for or against one, maybe we can mold our views that better account for reality while at the same time protecting the foundation of the 2nd amendment.

These would be a good place to start:

Federal Ban of Assault Weapons

Increase the mandatory sentence for illegal gun carriers from 5 years to 15 years, 25 years for those who have past gun related and or a violent criminal record.

Repealing the Gun Free Schools Act

Increase Security, trained and permitted to use Police standard firearms

More importantly, end the idea that gun free zones are mutually exclusive to violence and crime free zones

Now some of you might look at this and say I’m anti-2nd Amendment, that’s crazy talk. I’m not anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, or against your right to protect yourself. I’m anti-stubborn, anti-reason, and anti-common sense. And let me be clear, the gun control advocates ought not be so quick to exploit mass shooting tragedies for the sake of their own political agenda. Some of the most uneducated people when it comes to guns are at the head of these anti-gun agencies and it just shows you have much their ignorance and political bias controls their approach to the issue.

It’s time to be the responsible ones again my conservative brothers and sisters. If we aren’t then who will be?

 

 

COMMENTS

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    I agree. I support the second amendment to a point. I don’t believe it is reasonable in today’s society to keep allowing anybody to have a gun. We should always support the right to own weapons, but there have to be certain limits.

    • DerKrieger

      How would you identify those that might, MIGHT, perpetrate a horrific crime like this? Would potential gun owners be subject to psych exams prior to being allowed to make a purchase? The Left talks about gun control but what measures other than outright banning and confiscation could possibly prevent something like this? We already know criminal gun use won’t be deterred.

      • doright

        You make good points here- a big part of the problem is the culture, one that encourages all manner of societal dysfunction.
        ABC News reports that neighbors of the shooter thought his behavior recently had been odd. Nowadays, such observations can’t be acted upon because of “rights” determined in courts since the 1960s regarding mental illness.
        Perhaps those rulings and laws which derived from them should be revisited to see how they contribute to extreme behavior.
        What doesn’t need to happen is to try and limit the rights of the normal citizenry because of the actions of a few- actions on which there are often indications of potential trouble ahead.

    • kipling

      Who decides who gets to carry a gun and who does not?

    • plumely

      I guess I would want you to define “anybody”. In other words, who should we allow to have a gun and not have one. Maybe I’m echoing stuff that’s already been said but I think it is very hard to pick and choose who gets to have a gun beyond the obvious people. Also what I think is lost on a lot of people is that the Second Amendment is there to protect us from tyranny from the government. Meaning that it is harder for the government to oppress its people if they are armed. And I understand that in today’s society the government would outgun us if that became an issue. But the founding fathers came up with the Second Amendment to give us at least a fighting chance. To severely limit the Second Amendment means that you do not fear an out-of-control government that might be upon us someday. If you have no such fear can you please tell me why it is that that wouldn’t be a reality at some point?

    • Tbone

      Time to rethink the First Amendment like in jerking your tongue out by the root so you can’t say what your idiot, ignorant brain is thinking.

  • streiff

    what is an assault weapon? http://archive.redstate.com/story/2005/2/26/174049/601

    • DerKrieger

      Exactly. I have an AR-15. It LOOKS a lot like the M-16 I carried in the Navy but functionally it is no different than a rifle I might use to hunt deer, i.e it only fires one shot per trigger pull. Should it be banned? If so, then what about a deer rifle?

      • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

        Here’s my thoughts: According to news reports, this shooter had like 4 WEAPONS! Some murderers even have 6-7 guns…why should any responsible human being need 6-7 different guns?

        I believe anybody should be allowed to have a (1-2) weapons. 1-2 weapons are enough to defend yourself. 1-2 weapons will give you a nice hunting day (who brings 4-5 guns hunting)???

        If you have 1 assault weapon, that would probably be fine. But NOBODY NEEDS 4-5 ASSAULT WEAPONS! Let’s be real and reasonable. Limits are needed on the number that you can have in your possession.

        • avgjo

          Why, because you say so?
          And mass murders occur all over the world. I remember some years ago, some POS in China murdered a bunch of young schoolkids with a knife.
          Put a gun on a table, loaded, and you can leave it there a lifetime and it won’t do a thing. Until someone picks it up.

        • Mike Ferguson

          Why do you have more than one car? No responsible human needs more than one car. So lets make people that like to fix up old beaters get rid of those old beaters, cause they don’t need them?

          Wait, no one needs more than one butcher knife, we should limit those as well. Oh, and computers.

          Why do I have more than 2 guns? I enjoy shooting for fun, I enjoy the precision it takes, the self control it takes to make the shot. Who are you to tell me which different or how many different calibers I can use for that purpose.

          Also, I don’t think you have a clue what constitutes an “assault weapon”. People these days want to put the term “assault weapon” or “tactical style” to any firearm that looks different than an standard cowboy rifle. An “assault weapon” is a fully automatic or burst fire weapon. Even at that I have some bad news for you, I am a military trained marksman, I can do far more damage firing on single shot than you could ever do going full auto. So basically you don’t know what you are talking about.

          All that aside, why should I have more than one or 2 guns? Because it is my RIGHT to have them and I spend my money on what I darned well please and you have no right to say a darned thing about it. Hows that strike you?

        • DerKrieger

          Do you mean a single shot rifle that looks like an “assault weapon”? Appearance is the only difference.

        • norris

          The number of guns has nothing to do with the crime it’s much easier to reload than carry 5 rifles.

        • PowerToThePeople

          I have many times more than 6 or 7 guns. I have a couple Barretts with my favorite being the M107, I have some semi assault weapons, long guns, handguns, etc and mine have never been involved in a murder.

          The reality that you seem to miss is this, take my guns away, they will still exist. Criminals will always have them, someone who wants to kill someone will find a way to get them, and take all guns away and mass murders will still happen, killings will still happen, and the only thing that will change is that the law abiding citizen will be in more danger.

          You really need to rethink your position and actually deal with reality. The crap you are spewing on this issue is bogus and not dealing in reality.

        • streiff

          I have 5 shotguns, a rifle and three pistols. What is your point… if you can make it WITHOUT USING ALL CAPS!!1!11!!!

          • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

            Sorry about the caps thing…I’m just really sad about this tragedy. I want to find a way to stop it. I wish there was some kind of device that could just figure out if a person was responsible or irresponsible with guns.

            It’s really heartbreaking and my prayers are with the families. We can deal with the gun issue later…I suggest we all agree to pray for the families who have lost loved ones, families who won’t have kids on Christmas Day. :( (I can only imagine what a terrible Christmas it will be).

        • commonsenseobserver

          Given the wide variety of guns, all this does is, essentially, nothing.

  • kipling

    Guns are simply tools. The problem is not in the regulations governing the tools. The problem is in a culture that promotes death and acts of violence. The problem is how we view our fellow man and the fact that we value life so cheap. The problem is that we refuse to call evil, evil.

  • Mike Ferguson

    Agree with Streiff, what is an “Assault Weapon”? Also, what is a “Police Standard Firearm”? I have a Glock 22 .40cal, is that a police standard firearm?

    Also, to spoasteph97, Where do we draw the line at who can and can’t purchase, possess a gun? Where do we find the angles that will decide this for us? Because every time we limit the rights of any one individual we are all damaged.

    I agree that there are certain people who should not own firearms. Felons for instance, but wait they aren’t supposed to have firearms anyway so I do agree with you for that much. Persons who have made a choice to commit a felonious crime with the full knowledge that should they be caught they will lose some of the rights and privileges that others enjoy limit themselves, what you are talking about it limiting by law.

    Lets take it a step farther, I have heard that the “Mentally Ill” shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. So what does that mean? I have ADHD, technically according to medical diagnostic’s I am mentally ill, should I be excluded? I am almost 40 years old and have been a responsible gun owner since I was given my first shotgun at age 12 or 13. Someone with simple depression, just a little depressed, not suicidal, should they be excluded? What about a combat vet who has mild PTSD? He is technically mentally ill even if he only has nightmares. Do you see where this leads?

    The same can be said for weapons of a certain “style”, which is what most people consider to be “assault weapons”. No pistol grips or Bi-pods? How about scopes over a certain magnification?

    Who gets to make those decisions? I don’t think you understand the slope you are looking at or how slippery it can become.

    I know you make your suggestions in good faith, but in the end, in my humble opinion, what you have done is to blame the tool for the actions of its user and suggested limiting the rights of individuals.

    I have a better idea. Lets actually punish the people that misuse these tools instead of giving them so many excuses of why they shouldn’t be blamed for the crimes that they have committed.

    Thanks and God Bless
    Mike

    • Rich

      Good points on the complexity of any regulations or restrictions, but I doubt that punishment for misuse was a particularly effective deterrent given the 27th victim of this incident was the shooter by his own weapon.

      • Mike Ferguson

        I don’t consider him a “victim” more like self imposed justice. No deterrents don’t affect the truly crazy and evil, but its not like laws and regulations deter them either.

  • Viet71

    Guns aren’t the problem. Mental illness is.

    You want to limit handgun ownership? Fine. It’s easy enough to turn a shotgun, pump or semi-auto, into a sawed-off massacre machine.

    This country needs on many levels to come to grips with mental illness. Simply saying we need more gun control ignores the problem.

    • timmcg

      Here is the rub.

      In countries where there aren’t as many guns, this stuff can happen. It just doesn’t happen nearly as much.

      This time last year, I was in England. There was a stabbing and killing at a mall. Single victim. When I saw it on the news, I didn’t think much. In America, we get numb to big city violence.

      But in England, it was a huge story. It was talked about non-stop. I couldn’t believe that a single murder of a unknown person could shock a city like London. However, it did.

      I’m not saying British gun laws are the aswer, just that things are really different.

      PS: My brother-in-law lives inn London and goes shooting nearly every weekend. So its not like you can’t have a gun over there.

    • ww2nd95

      I agree 100%. Guns are a tool used by someone for whatever reason they deem. Guns specifically are not the problem. However.. I do have a problem with clips that hold 30 rounds+, to me that makes no since as to why an ordinary citizen should have one. And I can also go buy a 50 caliber rifle from Barrett if I want to drop the $$.. I mean for what reason does a citizen need one of those? And gun shows are another problem. The fact that someone can go to a gun show and buy whatever weapons are being sold, with no background check, no record of sales to me is crazy. I think that needs to be reassessed.

      I’m all for people having the right to own guns and protect themselves, but sometimes I think some of the weaponry citizens are legally allowed to own is a little to much. Handguns are fine, shotguns, and hunting rifles are fine, but beyond that, I don’t see a point for normal, everyday citizens to have anything beyond.

      • streiff

        who are you to decide what I need? Really. Is that the standard?

        • timmcg

          Well, we ok with deciding other limits.

          Like beer, ok. Heroin, too far.
          Exotic dancing, ok. Prostitution, too far.
          Premarital sex between 20 year olds, ok. 14, too far.
          Semi-automatic, ok. RPG, too far.
          65 mph, ok. 130, too far.

          • commonsenseobserver

            How the heck is that even comparable??!!!

          • Bill S

            For some reason, you keep pinging the troll-dar. Think about that.

          • streiff

            I just checked my copy of the Constitution and found, much to my surprise, I’ve never exercised my right to use heroin and **** a 14 year old. I feel cheated. Thanks for the help.

        • ww2nd95

          The Govt decides/mandates what we need on many levels, a lot of which I fundamentally disagree with. But to ask who am I to judge what you need opens up many other things the Govt deems we need and don’t need. I’m not advocating any kind of strict gun law, but common sense is needed in some cases.

        • timmcg

          40 annual gun murders in the uk. Many gang on gang.
          14,000 gun murders in the us.

          • Mike Ferguson

            While that statistic seems very intimidating, why don’t you put up the difference in population and give a statistic that takes the population differences into account, otherwise your statistic is nothing more than a scare tactic.

  • kybo

    Choosing which guns are, and are not, permissable is self-defeating. Every gun is dangerous, just as every car, knife, baseball bat, and flammable or explosive material when handled by a person intent on using it for a nefarious purpose. You can regulate who does or does not get access to a certain type of gun, but household chemicals and be just as lethal, if not moreso, and are readily available at any supermarket without any identification. The only difference between a gun and a bomb is the amount of technical knowledge one needs to use it. One well-trained armed security guard, or simply an armed bystander, can stop a man that pulls out a gun. No one can stop a bomb that detonates without anyone ever knowing they were even in danger. A person who is committed to carrying out an attack like the one today will carry it out by whatever means they can. If they can’t use a gun, they’ll simply find a recipe on the internet to make a bomb, or load a truck with flammable materials and crash it into their target, as happens in the Middle-East.
    What we need to be concerned with is what is happening with people in society that is causing them to snap like this. There is no law that any government can pass that will regulate a person becoming so desperate or enraged that they commit themselves to taking as many lives as they can en route to taking their own life, or living on to immortalize themselves in what they’ve done.

  • DerKrieger

    Neil Cavuto made an interesting observation; most of these recent mass shooters have been relatively young. How many have been influenced and numbed by the violence in video games, movies, and television? The Left will want to blame guns. We need to push back and blame the culture.

  • doright

    Just how many consitutional rights would you modify or simply surrender because of the actions of a minuscule minority?

    • timmcg

      To save little kids from being murdered?

      I’m now willing to sacrifice some of my freedom, can’t speak for you

      • Vengent

        Principles of freedom are just as important during the hard times as the easy times. Freedom is Freedom.

      • streiff

        no one is forcing you to either own a gun or kill little kids.

  • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

    I really don’t know…I’ve probably made some of my conservative friends on this website angry about my thoughts on gun rights. All I want is a solution, all I want is for no more kids to be killed, all I want is for murderers to go away and for innocent people not to die.

    I don’t want to live in a society where I have to walk around with an armed rifle just to go to Wal-mart. I don’t want to have to go to the beach with an armed rifle just to protect myself. I don’t want to have to build a wall around my house and never leave because I’m afraid I’m going to get killed. I’m open to any ideas…HOW DO WE CONSERVATIVES SOLVE THIS PROBLEM???

    • plumely

      I think today was probably not the best day to politicize this event. I’m in a keep beating this drum… Direct your anger at the person who massacred all those children. According to current sources his name was Adam Lanza.

      • http://llphsecondrevolution.wordpress.com/ spoasteph97

        Agree. I will pray for the families of the victims. (The person who committed the massacre is dead by the way…it isn’t like he’s going to care if you’re angry at him). I’m a strong fiscal pro-life conservative. I want to find a way to save as many lives as possible. If we can do it without taking away gun rights…so much the better! But let’s forget about guns for today and pray for these families who will have a terrible Christmas.

  • http://www.bohnetlaw.com rightappeal

    Besides the functional similarity between an “assault rifle” and a deer rifle, neither is necessary for close range killing. The advantage of any rifle is accuracy at long distances – an advantage that is completely mooted in an enclosed room. Shotguns and pistols would actually be more useful for mass killing at close range.

  • skorrent1

    Gee, Ghostly TJ, I’m still waiting for the “conversation” we were supposed to have regarding “race” in this country. Now you want more “conversation”? Unless there is agreement on some basic facts relevent to the subject, conversation is useless. Is it true that “more guns mean less crime”, or does the availability of guns encourage crime? Is it true that most mass murders occur in “gun-free zones”? If so, what does that mean? Do decorative features like handles and bayonet lugs make a weapon more dangerous? Does a noise suppressor make a weapon unacceptably dangerous, or does it permit more familiarity and practice with less disturbance to non-shooters? With the ratio of firearms to citizens fast approaching 1.0 is there any feasible means to implement “gun control”? Can there be any serious talk of “gun control” without triggering a “cold dead fingers” rush to obtain what might soon be unavailable? If you can get the Brady folks and the NRA to agree on the answers to any of these questions,, I’d be surprised.

  • http://www.fuckobama.org/ revprez

    20 children and 8 of their minders died today because someone can’t get it through his head that the unarmed can’t shoot back.

  • californiasquish

    I am of two minds and a broken heart on this one.

    Every American has the right to own a gun. It’s part of our culture. It’s enshrined right in the founding documents.

    On the other hand, I had to work a lot harder to get a drivers license than I did to shoot a gun. That felt a little backward to me.

    I have no idea what the answer is, but I’m glad we talking about it. And I agree with the OP, I’d love to see sensible ideas come form the right on this one. There must be ways to make it harder for nutballs to arm themselves without weakening the second amendment.

    • commonsenseobserver

      There is. It’s called being tough on crime.

      • ww2nd95

        I don’t know if bringing harsher sentences is necessarily the answer. I mean for a crime such as this.. there is no stopping it. The guy was willing to die in order to kill some kids and his mother.It’s horrible, but with someone of that mind set/mental instability, there is little anyone can do, other then catch it early on before it happens.

        Personally I think there needs to be more guidance counselors or someone in schools who are trained to see things like this before they occur. Now this guy was 20 and obviously out of school, but I’m willing to bet that during his HS school years, he had some issues that someone with a trained eye could have seen, that maybe parents/teachers did not notice, and he could have been helped before this happened. I think mental problems are a forgotten issue in this country that need to be seriously addressed, because that’s the only way to curb violence like this.

        I saw a post about arming teachers… Well that’s not going to happen, because I’m willing to bet most teachers would be against that idea anyway, and who knows how they would react in a situation where an armed/prepared to die individual walks into their classroom, even if they are well trained with how to use the gun. And I’m not interested in turning schools into armed compounds either, with heavily armed guards walking around and metal detectors, because that’s when we truly start losing our freedoms.

        Mental healthcare needs some serious focus. If we can stop these guys before they lose it completely, we can do some good and help prevent future incidents like this.

    • streiff

      driver’s license isn’t a right. You probably worked a lot harder learning to drive than you did learning to go to church or post on a political blog or avoiding being arbitrarily arrested by the police.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The only one with a decent chance of passing is increasing penalties, which most people should support.

    Enforce the law on the books, don’t make new ones unnecessarily. Senseless violence is senseless violence, and it cannot be stopped by restricting Second Amendment rights arbitrarily. There must be a coordinated approach to preserve the gains made in reducing gun violence, and a key part of that is protecting the right to self-defense for responsible, ordinary people.

  • Tbone

    Ya know tjghost, you should change your name because every time I read your crap it is obvious that you would be better described as HowdyDoodysghost.