The Flawed Premise of Gun Control

My Recent Posts

Have you ever thought about the underlying theme of gun control?  

 

"It's too easy to get a gun."

 

Exactly what does that mean?  Simply "getting a gun" is a harmless action.  What one does after they obtain it is what matters.  Since we can't control what someone does with a firearm after they obtain it, we simply prevent them from getting one in the first place, or so the idea goes.

 

There are a couple of big problems with this premise.  First of all, we have this little thing called due process.  In a free society, we simply do not deny someone their rights based on what they "might do."  You can spin it any way you like, that is simply not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to function.  Our founders would roll over in their graves at such a suggestion.

 

Secondly, if you take the "solution" to its logical conclusion, we must make it impossible for everyone to get a gun so nobody can misuse it.  There is simply no other conclusion to which you can arrive.  Preventing someone from purchasing a firearm based on suspicion of future behavior is a fool's errand.  The only way for it to be effective is to apply it to everyone.

 

So, when someone says, "Nobody wants to take your guns", what they really mean is, "We want to make it impossible to ever get one in the first place."

 

 

Comments

John Minehan Added Dec 23, 2018 - 9:17am
On one hand, we make (I think valid) arguments about things like the NYS "Safe Act" . . . but then we notice that NYS has not had a mass casualty event where a shooter used a magazine-feed, semiautomatic rifle.
 
Is that simply a statistical anomaly?  Possibly.
 
Is the Safe Act an imposition on the Constitutional rights of every New Yorker?  Possibly.
 
Is, however, the Safe Act and appropriate and measured way to limit the harm from a foreseeable cause?  Also, possibly . . . .   
Jim Stoner Added Dec 23, 2018 - 9:36am
Not impossible, but not so easy, especially those gun products designed for mass killing.  A gun is a product, but it is not chewing gum.  It is a dangerous product, by design.  The public has an interest in knowing that people who buy them know how to use them and are not likely to use them to commit public mayhem.  That's all. 
Paul Sanders Added Dec 23, 2018 - 10:51am
Jim Mineham,
 
"Is that simply a statistical anomaly?  Possibly."
 
A lot of states without those same controls have also not have mass shootings.  Correlation does not equal causation.  Again, it is not the access to the weapon, it is the intentional misuse of it that is the problem.  Why is this so difficult?
 
Jim Stoner,
 
"The public has an interest in knowing that people who buy them know how to use them and are not likely to use them to commit public mayhem."
 
That's the entire point of the article, Jim.  We can't predict someone's future actions.  This is not rocket science.
 
 
John Minehan Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:35am
"A lot of states without those same controls have also not have mass shootings.  Correlation does not equal causation.  Again, it is not the access to the weapon, it is the intentional misuse of it that is the problem.  Why is this so difficult?"
 
Thus, you agree that this could be either a statistical anomaly . . . or not.
 
It would then be interesting to see if this changes over time or if states that adopted laws similar to the Safe Act had a consistent reduction in Mass Casualty events (especially if there were prior events in-state). 
Autumn Cote Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:39am
Paul,
 
There are two things I need to inform you of:
 
1) We have two nasty bugs affecting the site. The first is that the publish icon does appears to do nothing when you click it but it actually works.   So please click the submit button only once and then sort the articles by submission date and you'll see your article.  The second is that I can't delete articles.  You can put articles on draft, this serves nearly same purpose as deleting them. 
 
2) Unless you comment on the work of others, it's against the rules to post articles here.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 23, 2018 - 12:24pm
John Mineham,
 
No, I do not agree that it could be a statistical anomaly.
It is ridiculous to assume that gun controls that simply make it "more difficult" to purchase a gun are deterring those who are determined to misuse them from acquiring one.  
 
Again, if you are going to deter people from misusing firearms, you have to apply it to everyone.  People who are determined to commit a crime are not going to be deterred by a law that prohibits them from acquiring the method of committing it.  That is asinine.  Laws cannot discriminate intent.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 23, 2018 - 12:25pm
Autumn,
 
I have commented on other articles.  I'm not aware there is a frequency requirement.
John Minehan Added Dec 23, 2018 - 1:51pm
"That is asinine.  Laws cannot discriminate intent."
 
"Intent" may not be framed at the time of purchase; but opportunity is limited if that purchase is not made.
 
Further, "[c]orrelation does not equal causation" implies that you think the fact that NYS has not had a mass casualty event since the Safe Act passed IS a "statistical anomaly," rather than a directly dependent effect. 
 
I don't know.
 
If the trend towards states that do not allow people to use 20-30 round magazines NOT having mass casualty events involving magazine-feed semi- automatic shoulder weapons continues, there may be some merit to it.
 
The question then might be, do these incidents continue in places that do not have laws like the Safe Act?   
 
Do A Deal Added Dec 23, 2018 - 3:03pm
 
RE: "... First of all, we have this little thing called due process. In a free society, we simply do not deny someone their rights based on what they "might do." ... ..."
• Exactly. An we can have "due process" to apply reasonable gun regulation to reduce the number of guns in private hands and regulate who can have them. If it involves a Constitutional amendment, so be it.
RE: "... if you take the "solution" to its logical conclusion, we must make it impossible for everyone to get a gun so nobody can misuse it. ... ..."
• This is nonsense. You can take anything to a nonsense strawman land and call it a logical conclusion.
• The rest of the industrialized/developed world has some form of reasonable gun control and don't suffer from the mayhem that the US does. We're number 1 1 1 1 1 !!!!
Paul Sanders Added Dec 23, 2018 - 5:26pm
Do A Deal,
 
"Exactly. An we can have "due process" to apply reasonable gun regulation to reduce the number of guns in private hands and regulate who can have them. If it involves a Constitutional amendment, so be it."
 
You clearly do not understand what due process means.
 
"• This is nonsense. You can take anything to a nonsense strawman land and call it a logical conclusion."
 
The logical conclusion to preventing people from misusing a product by denying them access to it is to apply it to everyone.  Only applying it subjectively with an arbitrary standard to some people is going to fail.  Calling it "nonsense" is cognitive dissonance.  Again, you can't predict someone's future actions.
 
The rest of the industrialized/developed world has some form of reasonable gun control and don't suffer from the mayhem that the US does. We're number 1 1 1 1 1 !!!!
 
We are not even close to being number one in homicides.  I'm not interested in your cherry picking of data to "prove" your argument
 
 
 
 
 
Autumn Cote Added Dec 23, 2018 - 9:43pm
I see no comments by you on anyone else's article.  I should also let you know that if you did comment on the work of others, I would do everything in my power to bring more attention to your work.  
Ward Tipton Added Dec 23, 2018 - 11:45pm
Shall Not Be Infringed ... seems pretty simple to understand. 
Paul Sanders Added Dec 24, 2018 - 7:50am
Autumn,
 
I commented on "Gun Control Legislation and Historical Facts Ignored", "Democrats Want to Nuke Gun Owners", "Fuck everybody", and "Gun violence between the USA and all the other developed modern democracies."
 
In all fairness, this is only the second article I posted.  The first was by you from a post you read on a comment I made on another news site and I gave you permission to post it and to add me as a member.
 
I don't really appreciate being accused of violating the rules.  For quite some time, my computer had a glitch that would not allow me to sign into my account, so there was a long period of no activity from me.
 
I respectfully ask that you refrain from scolding me just because you are the moderator.  This site means nothing to me personally, so I don't care if you choose to ban me.  I can't "like" a comment, I can't edit a comment, and I can't directly "reply" to a specific poster.

There are much better forums, so do what you wish.  Remember, you reached out to me, I never asked to be a member of this site.  I gathered that you were looking to expand your site and bring more popularity to it. 
 
There is nothing wrong with that, but personally, it appears to me that you enjoy "putting people in their place."  I have zero tolerance for bullies so maybe it is time for me to move on, unless you are willing to offer an apology.
 
 
 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:32am
Autumn is just reminding you of the rules. We all get it from time to time. Sometimes, even when the authors have deleted our comments. 
 
Autumn is pretty square ... and dare I say, even fair about enforcement ... none of us are above the occasional reminder, just the way it happens here. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:32am
PS Welcome to the site ... and I will make this my last post til someone else posts, lest I get dinged for more than two comments in a row ... though occasionally August will allow that to slide if the comments are an extended and verbose, singular response.
Jim Stoner Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:54am
Oh, I think there are several recent American mass killers who could easily have been identified as such, before the fact, if anyone were attempting to do so.  We are not mind-readers; it would be based on behaviors.   It's almost like we shouldn't ban things like bump stocks and large ammunition magazines, because trying to get them shows you to be a disturbed person with bad intentions.  
Welcome to the site. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:01am
If being a psychopath or sociopath were illegal behavior, we could easily lock up most of the government officials. 
Autumn Cote Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:10am
Paul,
I apologize for my second message to you, as it came after you wrote a couple sentences to someone else.  As for this website, if you can name another website where you can publish articles and have those articles read and commented upon (by people outside your social network) I’d love to know what it is.  Until then, I think there are a lot of good reasons to be using Writer Beat over your other options.  However, the only reason this platform works is because people here read and comment upon the work of others.  To the extent an author only uses this platform to publish articles, I consider those authors selfish and not helpful to the cause of growing this site.  Hence the reason I occasionally need to make my presence known.  Wouldn’t you agree that the only reason you published your second article is because you received comment activity on the first?
C. S. Added Dec 24, 2018 - 4:07pm
John Minehan
 
I just want to leave a reminder that mass-casualty shooting events are themselves statistical anomalies, so it's impossible to say with any certainty that the NYS "SAFE Act" has had any effect whatsoever at preventing or limiting such events.
 
However, I would also point out that Illinois generally (and Chicago/Cook County specifically) has enacted nearly every law on any "gun control wish list", but Chicago still has 500+ murders every year, mostly using firearms.
 
California similarly has nearly every item on the "gun control wish list" - and indeed has been ranked #1 by the Brady Campaign (now "Everytown for Gun Safety") for a long time, including post-NY-"SAFE-Act" years - and yet the state has seen several high-profile mass-casualty shootings in recent years.
 
Alternatively, Wyoming is listed near the bottom of  Brady/Everytown's rankings, has relatively lax gun laws ... and has reported zero mass-casualty shootings in recent history.
 
Are these three other data points also statistical anomalies? Or does the extreme rarity of the events make it difficult to answer either way?
 
The essential problem with drawing conclusions based on this specific subset of rare tragic events is that the body of evidence is so small and the factors leading up to them so wildly-varied, that no solid conclusions that could lead to prevention are possible. But in the blind rush to "do something" we (as a society) can inflict much harm on our fellow citizens' lives and well-beings.
 
I have my own opinions on the topic, of course, but my main point at the moment was up in the first paragraph: We can't reasonably conclude that New York State reporting no mass-casualty shootings since enacting the "SAFE Act" is a statistical anomaly, because such events are anomalies themselves.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 24, 2018 - 4:13pm
It has never been about gun control. It has always been about people control. 
John Minehan Added Dec 24, 2018 - 5:10pm
"However, I would also point out that Illinois generally (and Chicago/Cook County specifically) has enacted nearly every law on any "gun control wish list", but Chicago still has 500+ murders every year, mostly using firearms."
 
Almost all of which are NOT mass-casualty events.
 
"Alternatively, Wyoming is listed near the bottom of  Brady/Everytown's rankings, has relatively lax gun laws ... and has reported zero mass-casualty shootings in recent history."
 
Wyoming is also sparsely populated and presents a "target-poor environment" for these kinds of events.
 
"The essential problem with drawing conclusions based on this specific subset of rare tragic events is that the body of evidence is so small and the factors leading up to them so wildly-varied, that no solid conclusions that could lead to prevention are possible."
 
But the events themselves are somewhat similar and all, except for the VPI & SU event and the Charleston AME Church shootings, involve shoulder-fired, magazine fed, semi-automatic shoulder arms.  (Even the Texas Tower sniper used an M-1 Carbine.)
 
I still suggest that if this has a positive effect in NYS (and other states with similar laws, especially ones with prior shootings) then that would be fairly solid evidence, if not conclusive.
   
C. S. Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:16pm
John Minehan
 
"I still suggest that if this has a positive effect in NYS (and other states with similar laws, especially ones with prior shootings) then that would be fairly solid evidence, if not conclusive."
 
But that's what I'm saying: mass-shootings were extremely rare before the new laws, and continue to be extremely rare after the new laws. The only evidence-based conclusion is, "Mass shootings are extremely rare."
 
California, again, has tightened its gun control laws continuously over the past several decades, and push harder for more after each mass shooting. Yet, mass shootings have still happened in recent years, even with strict (and strictly-enforced) gun laws.
 
We can look at Connecticut, too. Home of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Before SH, they had fairly tight gun laws. After SH, they banned "assault weapons", but the compliance rate has been pitifully low (nobody knows for sure, but estimates are between 5% and 10% surrendered theirs). And there hasn't been a mass shooting in Connecticut since. Do we credit the new laws, even given the low compliance rate? Or was it such a rare occurrence already that there's no conclusion?
 
All these examples are anecdotal, and as any statistician will tell you, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" But like I said above, the body of evidence - the "sample set", if you will - is so small we can argue that it's ALL anecdotal. It might work some places and not work other places. It might have zero effect in still others. But there's not enough evidence to conclude either way.
 
(It's been pointed out on this thread, "Correlation is not causation..." but what's missing is the second half of that quote: "... but you cannot have causation without correlation." The anecdotal information we have is all over the map. No identifiable correlation. That's not to say for certain it can't or doesn't work. Just that we can't conclude either way based on the evidence.)
Paul Sanders Added Dec 24, 2018 - 8:17pm
Autumn,
 
Apology accepted.  Perhaps I overreacted. 
Autumn Cote Added Dec 24, 2018 - 9:30pm
Good to read we're on good terms.  So why did you disengage from the discussion in this article's comment thread?  Another thing I look for when I decide which articles to promote, is authors that remain engaged in their own comment threads.  
Cullen Kehoe Added Dec 25, 2018 - 4:10am
Obama's idea (which was shot down by the Republian Congress) to create a federal database of guns would have been a step in the right direction. Many inner city bad neighborhoods in the U.S. are war zones. Where are these guys getting their weapons????
 
The arguments laid out in the post in a vacuum might make some sense. But nearly every other country with a lower murder rate and stricter gun laws is a proving ground that proves that this is one way to address the problem. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 25, 2018 - 4:36am
"Obama's idea (which was shot down by the Republian Congress) to create a federal database of guns would have been a step in the right direction."
 
Until someone like the New York Times or other ... cannot remember who it was ... publishes a complete list of the firearms owners, including their name and addresses ... there is also historical precedent wherein this has been used to disarm the population, see France at the opening of the German invasion ... while a radical example perhaps, there was a time when it did happen and it may happen again. Red Flag Laws have been shown to be prone to abuse wherein an "informant" or "concerned citizen" can retain complete anonymity when reporting that a gun owner on the list is a threat in their "opinion" and police are sent to the home to remove their firearms ... see modern day Maryland for this. This further opens doors like those in the "War on Drugs" where the cops can claim there was a Confidential Informant or CI when in fact there had never even been one, though in this case any non-existent complainant would replace the CI. Then there is the case where if an individual wishes to purchase a firearm, they must now provide their Username and Password for all of their social media accounts ... again in New York ... would you be willing to do all of that for permission to drive? What if you had posted a meme about excessive drinking and were subsequently denied a driver license? It opens the door for far too much potential for abuse by a government that has proven time and again it is not adverse to being abusive when it is politically expedient ... or even when government agents merely screw the pooch. 
Paul Sanders Added Dec 25, 2018 - 6:25am
Autumn,
 
I have a lot of other commitments, so I did not "disengage."  I simply did not have the time to return to my article and reply to all of the comments.
 
Please do not judge me.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 25, 2018 - 6:37am
Cullen,
 
That is patently absurd.  A federal database?  Again, you are going down the road of trying to legislate who has the firearms.  That does nothing to prevent the behavior of people who have them.  Why are you determined to chill the rights of people based on what they "might do"?  For crying out loud, does the concept of freedom completely elude you?  Besides, how does knowing who has firearms prevent them from misusing them?
 
"But nearly every other country with a lower murder rate and stricter gun laws is a proving ground that proves that this is one way to address the problem."
 
Correlation does not equal causation.  I am frankly sick of the lies.  Russia has extremely strict gun control laws and a homicide rate well over double that of ours.  How do you reconcile that?
 
Gun control advocates have a gross misunderstanding of human nature.  People don't just commit murder because they can or because they have access to a particular method with which do it.  Murder is a deliberate and a moral choice.  Firearms don't "make" people do anything.  It's like trying to claim a man commits rape just because he has a penis.  Absurd, right?  Of course, but no more than trying to claim that people kill just because they have a gun.  The cognitive dissonance of people who promote this flawed and asinine philosophy is astounding.
 
 
 
 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 25, 2018 - 8:24am
Gun control MIGHT stop some shootings that are impulsive.  If a gun is laying about, and someone is drunk or angered they may pick up a gun and harm someone, where if the gun wasnt laying about they would vent their anger in another way.  Still this would be a very small number of shootings.
 
However, gun control wont do ANYTHING for the mass shootings  we see.  These are planned events.  People dont just decide to shoot up a school one minute, and drive to a school the next.  From the evidence they leave behind the shooters have been thinking of this for some time.  That time gives them plenty of time to get the gun of their choice. 
 
We live in a country where we are given the right to bear arms.  With that comes a certain number of accidents, and yes gun crimes and murder.  It is just like driving cars produces a certain number of lethal accidents on the highway.  We are not out trying to eliminate cars from the highway because 30K people are killed in them each year.  We understand this is part of the price we pay for having cars.  The same goes with guns.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 25, 2018 - 8:32am
 That's why people should be evaluated before any gun purchase to assure public safety, while law enforcement has to protect us with guns.  Stay safe!
Paul Sanders Added Dec 25, 2018 - 8:42am
Bill Kamps,
 
Excellent points.  Freedom does not come without risk.  We take risks all the time and think nothing of it.  For some reason, gun ownership comes with a requirement of perfection.  If only one is misused, in the minds of some, that is justification to remove the right from everyone.  We simply cannot be trusted with freedom, they opine.  I would submit that if freedom is too frightening for them, the United States is not the place for them to live.
 
Dino,
 
I can't decide whether your post was sincere or extreme facetiousness.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 25, 2018 - 8:44am
"That's why people should be evaluated before any gun purchase to assure public safety, while law enforcement has to protect us with guns.  Stay safe!"
 
Have you ever exhibited strong emotional reactions to outside stimuli? Gotten mad at the guy who cut you off, or the lady who has her kid waiting in line who keeps the entire line waiting while she continues her shopping? The schoolyard bully? 
 
If you have ever exhibited strong "emotional reactions", according the DSM ... latest version, you have exhibited symptoms of a mental and/or an emotional disorder. I revert to my question about the driver license. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:06am
Freedom does not come without risk.
 
Exactly.  We need look no further than Venezuela to see what could happen in a country where the people have no weapons.  We see people in the media wonder how conditions in Venezuela can be allowed to occur.  How can there be stores with no food, and hospitals with no medicine?  It is because the leaders of the country have stolen the ballot box, and the people have no weapons.  What are they supposed to do, challenge the government with steak knives?  
 
Countries like Cuba and Soviet Russia kept control because the people had no weapons.  It would have been impossible otherwise. Even with the people unarmed the governments feared the people and used every means to spy on them.  Impossible if the people had weapons.
 
We were not given the right the bear arms so we all could go skeet shooting.  We were given the right because that limits the tyranny  that the government can foist on the citizens.  That right is an insurance policy against the unthinkable happening.  The unthinkable can happen.  It has happened many times in many places during the history of the US.  Venezuela today is very different from the Venezuela of 25 years ago.  It is just a recent example.
 
Of course we dont like everything our government does.  But unlike Soviet Russia and Venezuela, our stores have food and goods, our hospitals have medicine, and our gas stations have gasoline.  We are not living in a failed economy propped up with fear and threats.
Bill Kamps Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:11am
That's why people should be evaluated before any gun purchase to assure public safety,
 
Not really possible in a practical sense.  Nothing we can do can ASSURE public safety with guns, any  more than we can stop people from dying on our freeways. 
 
Have you ever exhibited strong emotional reactions to outside stimuli?
 
Ward, yes.  It is impossible to predict who might become violent given a set of circumstances.  Using these predictive devices to stop a person from buying a gun is nonsense, and just another attempt to weaken our rights. 
 
 
Paul Sanders Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:45am
Bill Kamps,
 
"It is impossible to predict who might become violent given a set of circumstances.  Using these predictive devices to stop a person from buying a gun is nonsense, and just another attempt to weaken our rights."
 
Great point.  I would take it a step further.  If someone is too violent to have a gun, why stop there?  Why not prohibit them from having a knife, tire iron, etc.?  There was just a knife attack in China where 5 were killed and 21 injured.  Why is it that we pretend violence can only be committed if one has a firearm?
Ward Tipton Added Dec 25, 2018 - 9:50am
You know, now that you mention it, cars are pretty dangerous, as are baseball bats and even those scary black screwdrivers. (I think people that believe those black assault weapons are scary looking are all racists) 
 
Technology will allow for many people to work from home. I think only government agents are competent and capable enough to operate motor vehicles. We should just nationalize all vehicles and any non-essential on-site personnel should be forced to work from home. Grocery orders will be made by people to the relevant government agencies, and the government shall approve and/or change those purchase orders as necessary ... all for the health and safety of the citizens mind you ... and that way the citizenry can remain safely at home at all times. If it saves even one life, it is worth it! 
 
There has got to be an article in that, if not a book or movie about our dystopian workers paradise ... oh wait. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 25, 2018 - 10:15am
Ward, what we dont see looked at is the psychological response to violent incidents.  
 
For example, it is ok for 30K people to die a year in car wrecks because generally they die 1-3 at a time.  However, if 30K people a year died in plane crashes in the US, or even 2K, we would  ground all the planes until planes were safer. 
 
We feel a need to stop the mass gun killings, but we are more likely to die from a lightening strike than from a mass gun shooting. 
 
It is a big country of 300 million people, and people die from various causes every day.
 
Part of it is the media, but part of it also is a scariness factor.  Remember the scare with Ebola a few years ago.  I dont think more than two people died in the US, and yet we were wiping planes down with bleach, even though the virus could not be transmitted through surface contact. One hundred people die from the flu every day, imagine if one hundred people died from Ebola, in a month.  The county would be shut  down.
 
Ten people dying in a gun shooting is far more likely to get people upset, then ten different incidents where one person dies.
 
The media instead of fanning the flames of hysteria, should be putting these things in context and telling us how these things are not so unusual and scary as they seem.
Eric D Beyer Added Dec 25, 2018 - 10:16am
Why all the worry about gun control in the USA? We have armed most of the world with M-16 rifles, fully auto(select-fire) at the expense of the citizens of the US. Why arm the rest of the world and restrict arms to ourselves? Mass shootings? We are a country that destroys schools, hospitals, and religious gatherings with bombs, bullets, and hired mercenaries from the USA. People who advocate gun control without stopping our export of death are very mixed up people.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 26, 2018 - 8:52am
Eric D Beyer, your mixed up on their motive.  The firs rule for all those that want a tyrannical  government is 'take the guns away from the people'. 
FacePalm Added Dec 26, 2018 - 12:12pm
Bill Kamps-
Most of your points, i agree with, however, when you write this:
 
We live in a country where we are given the right to bear arms.
...i have a little bit of a problem.
So i have this question:  Who or what gives us this right?
Do A Deal Added Dec 26, 2018 - 2:12pm
Autumn:  Paul is a bit of a snowflake as alot of conservatives are.  But he brings ups a couple of good points: 
 
"I can't "like" a comment, I can't edit a comment, and I can't directly "reply" to a specific poster."
 
Are you planning on adding this functionality to the blog?  I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel and this could help in this endeavor.
 
FacePalm Added Dec 26, 2018 - 2:50pm
Do A Deal-
Autumn addressed this very point relatively recently; she shared parts of a convo with a software company who wanted 10's of thousands to fix the current issues, much less address new ones...so, no.  i could be mistaken, but i think it was on "The Beat Goes On 29," which you could find by either scrolling down or by visiting her profile and checking the "comments" section to find a link
 
There are workarounds for most issues.  If you want to "like" a comment, it's easy enough; write to that one and express appreciation.
 
So although this site has it's limitations, i'm most grateful for the lack of arbitrary deletion.  Try to speak your mind or truth at a site like Mediaite, for example, and watch your efforts be summarily terminated, no explanation, no apologies...moreso if you find yourself on the Right side of the political spectrum, or dare express any anti-leftist points.
Bill Kamps Added Dec 26, 2018 - 4:56pm
So i have this question:  Who or what gives us this right?
 
The Constitution gives us that right.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  quoting from the 2nd Amendment.
 
 
FacePalm Added Dec 26, 2018 - 8:48pm
Bill Kamps-
Ah!
You suffer from a common misapprehension concerning the Constitution.  It was written and ratified to prevent gov't actors from infringing upon rights already given by our Creator, or to use their language, "Nature and Nature's God." 
The Constitution never gave a thing to anyone; never has, never will.
Our Rights come from our Creator, and no man, no body of men, and no piece of paper.  These Rights long preceded the Constitution, and will long outlast it.  The fact that our Rights have a Divine source is indeed what makes them "unalienable."
This guy makes the point better than i:
"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."
-- Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author
 
Now, what is needed is an effective way of holding our sworn public servants to account for their lack of fidelity to the instrument they freely swore oaths of fealty to, or as Jefferson put it:
 
"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson
Source: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388
Bill Kamps Added Dec 27, 2018 - 7:07am
 It was written and ratified to prevent gov't actors from infringing upon rights already given by our Creator, or to use their language, "Nature and Nature's God." 
 
These rights were the founders interpretation of the rights they believed they have.  They say they were God given, but no where in religious texts is the right to bear arms enumerated.  From a legal point of view, the Constitution gives us these rights, whether inspired by religion, or by the dreams of our founders.
 
Since you are a religious person, you can ascribe anything you get, as being emanating  from your God. 
 
What about later Amendments, did the Creator give us new rights?
 
No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited
 
Did I say otherwise?  I agree.
 
You suffer from a common misapprehension concerning the Constitution.
 
I QUOTED the  Constitution and where it gives us the right to bear arms.  Show  me the quote that says I am wrong?   Any judge or legal scholar will agree with me. 
 
You as a religious person can give your religion the credit for whatever you wish. 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 27, 2018 - 8:38am
Both the Federalist and the Anti Federalist Papers give us indication of the notion of inherent rights ... rights why any man possesses, by his mere existence. Among these are the right to defend ourselves, to have our own homes and lands etc. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 27, 2018 - 9:13am
Ward, that is true.  However, what allows us to exercise rights, as opposed to them lacking in China for example, is the Constitution. 
 
We can parse words that God gave us these rights.  But plenty of places dont believe in God, and do those people have the same rights? Atheists, etc?  most people would say you dont have to be a Christian to have these rights. 
 
So yes there is the idea, that just by being alive we have certain rights.  But in the history even of religion, that is a pretty new idea, much less the history of man.  Christianity existed for at least 1200 years before the idea that humans have rights first surfaced formally in the Magna Carta.  Ask the average man on the street in the year 1000, and they would be pretty sure they have no rights, other than to do what the King told them to do.
 
The Creator may have "given" us these rights, but it took men to write them down, and create laws that attempted to allow us to exercise these rights.  The Creator alone, did a pretty poor job of giving people the ability to exercise their rights, especially since the Creator is said to be all powerful.
 
Even today, we dont have world wide acceptance of these rights, at least not all of them, not even in Western more or less Democratic societies.
 
So I dont think it is a stretch to say the the Constitution gives us these rights.  Certainly it is what allows us to exercise these rights.  The people in the UK may have a God given right to bear arms, but their government has not seen fit to allow them to exercise this right.  Then again maybe God didnt give us the right to bear arms, I dont recall any of that being in the Bible, so where did that come from?  
Ward Tipton Added Dec 27, 2018 - 9:29am
What allows me to exercise my rights is a much more simple matter of self-preservation. While I see what you are saying and follow your reasoning, it is dangerous in my opinion to state that the Constitution ... effectively the government ... grants us anything ... as whatever they grant they have both the power and authority to take away. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 27, 2018 - 10:19am
effectively the government ... grants us anything ... as whatever they grant they have both the power and authority to take away. 
 
Exactamundo!  Governments DO have the ability to take rights away or not grant them in the first place.  Talk to people in China, Russia, Venezuela, even Turkey, and see how well their "God given rights" are working for them.  People who exercise the rights we take for granted can easily wind up in jail.
 
Thankfully our Constitution gives us the ability to exercise these rights, and a 2nd Amendment that will make it difficult for the government to take away these rights.  But make no mistake, governments around the world have taken away citizen's  rights many times during the life of our Constitution.  Russia, Cuba, Syria, China, Venezuela, Germany, Italy, Japan, and more, have had rights taken away during the lifetime of our Constitution. 
 
Having rights that a government doesnt allow one to exercise is not much different from not having the rights in the  first place.  It just becomes semantics at that point.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 27, 2018 - 11:05am
"Exactamundo!  Governments DO have the ability to take rights away or not grant them in the first place."
 
Legally, but not lawfully. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 27, 2018 - 11:19am
Maybe, maybe not.  For example, you are implying that because other countries, like Europe, dont have the same right to bear arms, that their government is not lawful or not acting lawfully.  We dont know if the the right to bear arms that we have, is what the Creator had in mind, it is just what our founders put in our Constitution. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 27, 2018 - 11:36am
Bill K, Dec 27, 2018 - 7:07amThe old testament if full of bearing arms. The promise land was taken by force of arms from a citizen army.  No King existed for hundreds of years in the promise land and no national army existed.  So the citizens were expected to have arms to defend the promise land.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 27, 2018 - 11:37am
We are given ample evidence in the Bible that a man who does not provide for his family is worse than a non-believer. I believe that among the provisions, is protecting their lives. Who gives the lion a right to kill its prey? Who gives its prey the right to escape? There is again, ample evidence in the documentation of the founders and framers that the right to bear arms is for a host of reasons. As for the thoughts of the Creator, if he were small enough for us to understand, he would not be big enough to be God. 
Bill Kamps Added Dec 27, 2018 - 5:28pm
Ward, sure.  I dont really disagree with you, but at the same time I think you are being a bit intentionally obtuse.  Whatever the Bible says, and I admittedly am not an expert, how rights have been defined even within the Western Democracies vary not because of religion, but because of government and the constitutions of those governments.
 
All I am really saying is that we are fortunate that in the US, the Constitution allows us the rights that it does, and that in many other countries including Western Democracies, they are not defined the same.  Now you can say that the Creator gives us the right to bear arms, but if you were living in Europe and nearly every other country, you could not legally exercise this right.  In the US you can, and I think that is important. You may disagree about that. 
 
Obviously, to me it is less important where this right comes from, but it is important we are allowed to exercise this  right.  The 2nd Amendment is great insurance against the unthinkable happening in the US, and the unthinkable has happened pretty often in other countries. 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 28, 2018 - 2:55am
"Ward, sure.  I dont really disagree with you, but at the same time I think you are being a bit intentionally obtuse."
 
Perhaps, but only due to my personal experience with the government, fighting them as it were, against injustices committed against me and mine, and seeing first hand the relevance of things like the difference between Lawful and Legal ... and having judges pointing out that indeed the Constitution holds no sway ... and neither does the truth, in a court of "law" ... what the government proves is right by force, not by anything remotely resembling natural law. I was arrested six times, held for 48 hours without charges, taken 24 hours more to process out ... without the benefit of a cell or a cot by the way, but in a plastic chair ... with only one showing up on my NCIC ... the cessation of my legal fiction while traveling ... yeah, obtuse fits, but my actions are generally in response to obtuse actions ... often criminal in nature, performed against me by the "People" ... also known as the "State". 

Words have specific definitions and meaning for a reason, and this is greatly enhanced in matters of law. 
 
Besides, I prefer "Anal Retentive" rather than being merely "obtuse" ... thank you. 
 
In accordance with the fourteenth amendment, you are a US Citizen ... a federal citizen. As such, you have no constitutional rights, but rather you enjoy "privileges" under the fourteenth amendment that are contracted out with the government, thus your need for a license for the "privilege" of being able to feed your family ... though the list is expansive covering every aspect of your life that they can.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 29, 2018 - 7:32am
I've been enjoying the banter about "natural" rights.  Think of it this way.  If Congress passed a law banning free speech and the President signed it, would you still have the natural right to speak freely without repercussion?  Of course you would.  The new law would simply be a prohibition from exercising that right.  An infringement, if you will.
 
The same logic applies then to firearms.  Any government legislation prohibiting the possession of firearms is simply denying you the exercise of the natural right of self protection.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 29, 2018 - 10:04am
Which is why they have nailed us down with the fourteenth amendment and federal districts. US Citizens "enjoy privileges" not rights. 
Paul Sanders Added Dec 29, 2018 - 10:41am
Ward, the Bill of Rights enumerates rights, not privileges.  The fourteenth amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 29, 2018 - 10:57am
Nope, but read it carefully, and if you live in any federal district, you are a US Citizen and not a denizen of your independent but sovereign commonwealth and as such, you have privileges, not rights. 
 
Ward Tipton Added Dec 29, 2018 - 10:58am
Do you have a US passport? Did you check the box that said you are a US Citizen? 
Eric D Beyer Added Dec 29, 2018 - 2:01pm
The Constitution does not give us rights. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the government can do.
Paul Sanders Added Dec 29, 2018 - 2:03pm
Eric,
 
Precisely correct.
Ward Tipton Added Dec 30, 2018 - 12:37am
I wholly agree. The constitution does not grant me any right to defend myself or my family, neither does it grant me a right to support or even to feed my family, though these are still privileges that I must now contract with the federal government to actively engage in. These are rights that are inherent to any flesh and blood man or woman, why then must it be contracted through the feds, bringing them in as a third party to all of my actions including my birth and my marriage?