Gun Laws and the US Senate & House of Reps

Gun laws have been talked about since the first current mass shootings, now many years ago, but people keep asking - why hasn't the laws been changed? This is in response to the recent rejection of the US Gun Laws by the US Senate.

I discussed my views on gun control in my last post Gun Laws and Protection of Rights.
One of the many questions always asked to me is "why hasn't the laws been changed? Its crazy over there (meaning the USA)!".  I look at them and tell them its a 3 fold problem:

Fold 1: Laws have been written in such a way that there's so much fluff around them people can't tell what's fluff and the actual problem. Usually this is combined with what the public has been saying even though, most of those who have been commenting, have not done their research - they are repeating what they heard on the news.

Taken from US Congress website

Fold 2: House of Representatives. At first these termed politicians would not even compromise. Now they are compromising but because of Fold 3, the laws or bills have been getting rejected.

Fold 3: US Senate. These people have the same problems as the House of Representatives had - they don't like working with others. They'd rather sit and reject the bills/laws rather than make suggestions as to what it will get passed, so we can all move on.

I have 2 huge problems with Fold 2 & 3 above. First, most of these people have been in there so long, they will have to die in there. According to the list of US Congress who died in office, there have been 19 people who have died while in this office - since 2000. Yep, since 2000. If you look though, those who have died, have been in since the 1970's. Yes, there have been ones that have only been in a few years, but if you even look at the ones who started in the 1990's that is STILL 20 years.

The Amendment of the XXII of the Constitution for Two-Term Limit on Presidency, which was

From National Constitution Center

passed by Congress on March 21, 1947 and ratified on February 27, 1951. Yes, it was as current as that. Keep in mind, however, George Washington was asked to run for a third time as president and refused, so it has been an issue before the above mentioned amendment.

The people I have been talking to are getting to be more convinced there should be term limits for Congress - both the house and Senate. This would limit how many years people could serve in a row and would get rid of the mind set of once they are in, they are there for life. We all want change, but no one is actually doing anything about it. Why?


Its because those who have to write it up and vote for or against the term limits would be the same people who they would directly affect. It would be like accepting a job and then making the decision when or if you are going to loose that job. If you were in this position, what would you vote? I know it would be to keep my job. Somehow, someone will have to make the bold decision to one day bring this forward. Another way would be there to be such a backlash from the public, they bring it to the public for a vote during election time. I believe this way would be fair, but who would be the bold person or group to suggest it? I'm taking a guess - NO ONE.

The second huge problem I have with Fold 2 & 3 above, is how can an organization hold such a grip on the government? How did the NRA get so forceful, it can now influence politics. No one party, whether is political or an organization, should hold the US government to such where it starts to compromise itself. Yes, by listening to the NRA (National Rifle Association) politicians or yet to be politicians are being controlled. Case in point - Donald Trump.

In May 2016, the NRA came out in support for Donald Trump. This is even after Trump voicing his views for years about gun control and has many of his properties that are gun free. Good you say? Remember this is the same man that says ""I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally.

However, as of June 19, 2016, the NRA, and some of its members, have started to have second thoughts about supporting him. CNN reports "Top NRA leaders split Sunday with Trump's earlier position that armed club-goers are a good idea."

Is this just in recent times with the NRA? No, its not. In fact, the NRA is a major influence and has been for years with politics.  Its been very noticeable since the 1968 Gun Control Act. It was here they decided the end game being pursued wasn't "public safety," but public disarmament in the name of safety.  After all, the argument promoted by gun "control" advocates is "more guns = more crime" and "the number of guns is the problem." (Quora article). Even on the NRA Wikipedia page, it states "Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates." My question is this, if the NRA is about safety and protection, then what in the world is it doing influencing legislation?

Besides, is this what the United States forefathers say this is what they had to protect and ensure the US didn't become? Isn't this what the Federalist papers Number 10 about? Doesn't it address the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. (Wikipedia)

James Madison author of Federalist Paper 10 Wikipedia

In fact Madison states "defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".^[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime or religion should be preferred." Isn't this what the NRA is doing?

I think everyone agrees SOMETHING - ANYTHING must be done to control these shootings. Maybe we should restrict them and then let up tiny bit of control? But there's a fear with thinking this way. The US people fear that once a freedom is taken away they won't ever get it back. Dumb? No, I'd say this is realistic. However, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

Part of the federalist papers https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Federalist_(Ford_ed,_1898).djvu&page=132

Gun Laws and Protection of Rights

 When events happen like they did on June 13, 2016, with the Orlando Florida shootings, people start to look at who is to blame. The first reports out included the words such as: religious,  ISIS, Islamic State, terrorist attack, dead, victims and gay. I stood back took a look, flipped the channels and listened to more people and they used the same type of words but the meaning was as clear as those first words.

The next topic to be brought up was who would be to claiming this shooting, how many dead, what exactly happened, and the US gun laws and what type of gun was used. How sad in today's world we immediately want to know the gory details of who did it or who was responsible, how many are deceased, and what type of gun. What about what trauma people are going through, where people can meet up, where people can go for more information, and/or how can we all help or what information is needed. This way we can all do something proactive instead of waiting for the things to come to us.

Since the first reports, the talk has now turned back to the US gun laws and their control. This always seems to get people upset in some respect and mad. Its like watching groups of pitbulls go nuts at each other in a fight.

On the one side we have people who love their guns and will do anything to protect them. They are chanting - We want our Second Amendment right - The Right to Bear Arms. People are saying things like:

Taken from https://twitter.com/hashtag/secondamendment

and then this

Taken from https://twitter.com/hashtag/secondamendment

 What people don't seem to realize is the US has had mass shootings in the United States, which was back in the late 1800s. Yes, 1800's! In other words, these happenings are NOT something new -
they've happening over 200 years now. Remember, the Second Amendment was written in 1791 and has been doing its job. However, and this is a HUGE however, times - like everything else - have changed. Guns back in the late 1700s and up until the past generation - yes, a generation - have been used most of the time pretty responsibly.

"Reprinted from the Boston daily advertiser, June 3, 1887."

What's happened in the last generation and responsibility?
When I grew up, by the time I was 8 years old, I could shoot rifles and handguns and make different types of bullets. It was what I was taught by my father. However, when we did go to shoot, we respected what it meant and how the skill involved and took precautions.

Now people are too busy to be taught on how to shoot properly and all the other responsible things that go along with owning a firearm - making sure no one gets hurt, cleaning, practicing, and on and on it goes. Add this to how people who are currently buying them and they don't know how to store a gun or the ammo that goes along with it. They buy it and then tell everyone they have a gun. A gun is not an accessory - its to be used either in sport or on the very rare occasions to defend yourself or

Taken from http://www.juliegolob.com/the-road-to-responsible-gun-ownership-gunsafety

your family. You shouldn't have to walk around with one strapped to your side either. If you are out and about, there are trained and professional people out there that have them if you need them. For some reason the generation today think they are a fashion accessory or they believe if something happens they have a gun and they can protect themselves. Guess what? More often than not, people will run, hide in a ball or hide behind something more than shoot at someone. Think about it - if you were shopping for food and something happened, you wouldn't be grabbing for your gun, you would be trying to get away from the gun shots.

Ok so you are not buying that one. How about this... if you carried your gun with you and there was a shooter who you didn't see before they started to fire and they got you (whether you are shot or dead) and you couldn't move. What if the shooter's gun jams or they run out of bullets? They will be looking to see who if anyone has a gun they could use. You do and so they pick up the gun and start to kill people - maybe even yourself if they see you are still alive - would you...no could you be able to live with yourself that you brought something with you that can be used to kill others.

Or even how about this... a shooter arrives in the same place and starts to shoot. You have your gun and decide to act and go towards the shooting. When you near, you pull out the gun to be ready to fire. Then you hear someone - probably the shooter?- coming close to you, so you step out and shoot. It wasn't the shooter it was maybe your spouse? Your adult child? A neighbor? Friend? And you've just killed them because you brought a gun into a situation which shouldn't have been there.

Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, which is what everyone has been using to keep your guns. "The right to bear arms".  However, did you know the amendment is more than just to bear arms? This was written back in the late 1700's. They still mainly hunted for their own food back then - they didn't have a grocery store or butcher to go to and had to do it themselves. It makes sense for them to have guns. Now? We take a car ride to get the hunting done.

Taken from http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

Further, back then we had slaves which went out when good ole Abe Lincoln was around. They needed them to "keep them under control" or so the says went. I think its a bunch of hog wash, but back then it was "the done thing" with the slaves - again its been gone for generations.

Taken from http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco29.htm

 To see/read more, see this page.

Again, what else did we commonly have back in the late 1700's? Militia. What I can hear you saying... Militia which is how they put it in the movie "The Patriot" as "Farmers with pitchforks" or in this case guns. They had this so if any army came onto the US land at any point, the people could defend themselves against foreign invaders.

How did we get from foreign invaders to strangers?
This is something I'm still trying to figure out to this day. People are now trying to use this (the second) amendment to have all firearms. They are chanting loud and proud. To me they are just showing their ignorance.

Take From http://books.simonandschuster.com/Enough/Gabrielle-Giffords/9781476750071

Obama, and thus the Democrats, are NOT trying to take your guns and ammo. They are just trying to LIMIT how many people get shot at once. They are still allowing you to have your guns but they are just trying to limit what type of guns are used. This is NOT against any amendment or the US law at all.

The NRA and Republicans are doing the scare tactic of they want to take away your guns - ALL guns. No, you poor, misinformed people, they are not going to take your stupid guns - they are trying to limit how many bullet holes people like this moron in Florida put into civilian bodies.  Instead of listening to what spin doctors tell the public, maybe you should do your research and find out exactly what wording has been used in the amendments and things that have been filed with the Senate and House of Representatives.

Remember Gabrielle Giffords? She was in the government - until another person with a gun shot her in the head. She, like many of us, just want "promoting responsible gun ownership and encouraging lawmakers to find solutions to gun violence" as their website states for the book they wrote. They have also created an organisation called Americans for Responsible Solutions. 

Compromise

Like everything in life, or a marriage, there eventually comes a compromise. Why don't people do or think of this instead of fighting the entire thing? Make suggestions of what they don't like AFTER THEY DO SOME RESEARCH on what has already been said.

Possible options:
Some of my compromises would be something like this below: 

• Make regular mandatory gun safety requirements where people must go to show the responsible gun and ammo handling. 
• Outlaw any multi shot gun above 5 shot per 10 seconds (or something like this). 
• Limit the cartridges to only hold 5 shots, so people can still keep their multi shot guns but can't spend more than 5 shots per go. 
• Limit the cartridges to only hold 5 shots, so people can still keep their multi shot guns but can't spend more than 5 shots per go AND make it harder for the cartridges to be changed, so the innocent people if they are being the target can get away. 
• Maybe some or all of the above?

I'm sure there are many other possible compromises... Can you come up with any?

Now we have the possible compromises, we need to tell someone. What is the sense in coming up with possible compromises if you do not tell the people who make and decide on the laws? Write to
your representatives in the house and senate and give them your detailed compromises to the problem. They might just use them and make this problem we seem to have people talk about every few months.

Am I against guns? No, I'm not. I've used them and believe there is a time and a place for them. What's my view of the second amendment? I believe its there for a reason and it is a living document as such it must be viewed as that. However, to just use a few choice words out of the whole amendment? That's just wrong. I believe people, meaning the public, must education themselves before taking views of certain public persons and making these public persons views theirs. Read upon what they are talking about and just don't take what these public persons views are as correct because generally they spin the information so it fits to what they want everyone else, including corporations and organisations, views and their agendas. Isn't it about time you make your own agenda instead of taking someone else's?