Category Archives: Guns and Gun Control

Guns On Campus Logic

I try to think logically. If problem “A” is caused by “B”, and action “C” will produce the desired solution “D” then I do it. Rusty hooks are a problem caused by rain wetting my hooks in the boat locker. Keeping my hooks in waterproof Ziploc bags is the action that prevents rust. It would not be logical to put them in a paper bag.

Getting thrown out of a boat and run over by it, or even left treading water as it idles away, is a problem. Wearing a life jacket with a kill switch is the solution since it stops the engine if you are thrown from the seat. I do not need a law or tournament rule to make me do it. Even though our club tournaments have that life-saving rule, some ignore it.

I tried to find some kind of logic in the Dalton Daily Citizen editorial on the Campus Carry Bill reprinted in the April 12, 2017 Griffin Daily News. They are against allowing 21-year-old law abiding citizens, that have gone through a finger print back ground check, to legally carry guns on college campuses. They say the problem is young people with “raging” hormones that drink and use drugs illegally might cause problems if they have guns.

Those raging hormones or whatever already make them break drug and alcohol laws, and gun laws too. If you are younger than 18, current law says you are not allowed to even own a pistol or have any concealed weapon so the problem is underage students having guns illegally.

Chances are if you can pass a finger print background check you pretty much have you “raging’ hormones under control. So how is not allowing those that are not a problem to carry a legal gun going to affect those that already break laws.

I found it funny that the editorial quoted Governor Deal saying, “From the early days of our nation colleges have been treated as sanctuaries of learning where firearms have not been allowed.” As an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Georgia in 1968, a long time ago but well after the early days of our nation, I kept my 30-30 lever action Marlin and my Remington .22 semiautomatic rifle in my dorm room locker for a year. And both lived by my bed in my fraternity house for a year.

I assure you I had “raging” hormones back then, but even at 18 I never caused a problem with my guns. And even in those latter days of our nation, there were no laws against it. New laws do not keep law-breakers from breaking them. Laws affecting only law-abiding citizens have absolutely no effect on law-breakers.

I found it significant the editorial admitted Georgia is one of only 17 states with a law against guns on campuses. Apparently the other 33 do not have problems, so why are we different? Do Georgia students have more “raging” hormones?

I can find no logic in the Dalton editorial.

What Is the Purpose Of Having Laws?

What is the purpose of having a law? Is it to punish people for doing something most in a society does not condone? Is it to protect some from others? Is it to prevent people from doing something? Or all those things.

Many of our laws are intended to do those things. But do they work? If not enforced they cannot work. And if enough people ignore them they become irrelevant.

The law says the speed limit on Highway 19/41 Bypass is 55 in most areas. If you obey it, you will be passed by almost every other car on the road. And you are very unlikely to be punished unless you speed far above the legal limit. So that law is irrelevant most of the time. People decide to ignore the law since it is not strictly enforced.

What about gun laws? They often are passed over the objections of many in society. They never protect anyone, because anyone willing to shoot another person is not going to obey any gun law because the punishment is much higher for assault or murder. Only law-abiding citizens are affected by gun laws.

Gun laws are often not enforced, especially for the rich or famous. An article in the Griffin Daily News on March 10 told how some rapper named “Waka Flocka Flame” was found not guilty of having a handgun in his carry-on baq at the Atlanta airport. Although law-enforcement tried to enforce the law, a jury found him not guilty after a four day trial.

What do you think would have happened to you or I if we got caught doing that? Waka’s lawyer told the press what happened, according to the article. So if you can afford a high priced lawyer you can often get away with a crime.

Almost every arrest report in the Griffin Daily News, when listing the charges, include “possession of a gun by a felon,” something that has been against the law for years. But do you ever hear of any criminal actually being punished for that crime? That charge is almost always dropped or pleaded away somehow. Why?

When I hear folks calling for new gun laws I can only wonder why. The ones we have are not enforced in many cases, they only affect the law-abiding, and they do nothing to protect society. Maybe before passing new, useless laws, we should try actually enforcing the ones already on the books.

Campus Carry In Georgia

The Georgia Legislature and governor are considering a bill to allow Georgian’s with a Georgia Weapons License to carry their guns on school campuses. This has created an uproar by the anti-gunners.

If you hear someone ranting that it is stupid to allow teenagers to carry guns, especially on school campuses, you can be sure of two things. One, they do not know what they are talking about, or two, they are intentionally misleading you with lies. Or it may be both.

The law is very specific. To “legally” carry a gun on campus you are required to have a Georgia Weapons license. To get one you must be at least 21 years old and go through a fingerprint background check.

Even if you ignore that most people that want to harm others with guns pay no attention to laws and carry a gun wherever they want, it is silly to worry about an adult that has gone through a carful background check.

In addition, I have to laugh about how terrible it is to allow teenagers to carry guns. It seems the US military is fine with 18 and 19-year old’s carrying actual full automatic assault weapons, not the civilian semiautomatic versions of them.

President Elect Trump and TDS

After GW Bush was elected it took about six months for Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) to set in. Then 9/11 slowed it down some but it was full blown by the end of 2001, with liberals blaming him for everything that they did not like and criticizing every move he made. It lasted almost 16 years, until this fall.

With President Elect Trump TDS started as soon as he was nominated. It seemed liberal news media, but I repeat myself, tried to give him a lot of publicity, almost like they wanted him to win the Republican nomination, but as soon as he won enough primary votes to secure the nomination, they went off the deep end.

Kathleen Parker denigrated Trump in every one of her columns published in the Griffin Daily News for months. If she had not hated him so much she would have had nothing to write about. Based on her columns you would think President Elect Trump caused everything from the drought to car wrecks on I-75 from the time he won the nomination.

Her 12/6/16 column topped them all. In it she whined that President Elect Trump “continues to bash media” because he does not trust them to publish the truth. This whining after she bashed him for at least six months. To her, we common people must listen to her and her liberal media folks without questioning them at all.

Last year Parker tried to tell me I should not eat meat. She says it harms animals. I have no problem with someone choosing to not eat meat, more power to them. But they can shut up when they try to tell me I must stop eating meat. Liberals like her are not happy making their own choices, they want to force their choices on everyone else. Parker did admit her son works for PETA, the group that says the life of rat or pig is just as important as the life of a boy.

In that column last week Turner also made a statement typical for her. While defending any outrageous comment in the media as protected by the 1st Amendment, she stated “How long before Trump’s words convince some off-balanced Second Amendment ‘patriot’ to take out a ‘crooked’ media person.”

So according to her the 1st Amendment protects everything she and other media folks say but not what President Elect Trump says, and someone supporting the 2nd Amendment is probably a “off-balanced.” She goes on to say how terrible it is people can share information on social media that is not approved by the national media like her.

There is an old saying “If you are in a hole, stop digging.” It seems folks like her keep getting new shovels. Many of the things pushed by the liberal media and their counterparts at colleges push normal people to vote for candidates like President Elect Trump.

Expect more of the total TDS stuff from them daily.

A good example of the craziness coming from liberal colleges (again I repeat myself) is from groups at Ohio State University. After a refugee, that the US compassionately took in, ran a car through a crowd of students and attacked others with a butcher knife, injuring many, a police officer that happened to be nearby shot and killed him.

Some snowflake group at the college said the officer should not have shot him. I guess they wanted the office to watch the terrorist stab students until he got too tired to resist arrest. Another shovel added to the groups in the hole.

Guns Everywhere and No Problems

Gun deer season opened Saturday in Georgia. If you were out before daylight you saw trucks and SUVs, many pulling trailers with 4-wheelers on them, headed south toward favorite hunting places. Every one of those vehicles had a high powered rifle or shotgun in it. Many were the dreaded “semiautomatic” type. There were guns everywhere and no problems.

There are about 320,000 deer hunters in Georgia. We have a gun season that lasts 85 days. Last year, with all those guns in the woods all those days, there were only 20 accidents involving firearms, and as far as I can tell no one was shot on purpose.

Compare that to Chicago, where guns are pretty much impossible to own legally. If Chicago could go 85 days with only 20 gun accidents, none of them intentional shootings, it would be a miracle.

Guns are not the problem.

As far as the hunting, whiteoak acorns have been falling like rain for the last week. I don’t like that, they started falling a week too soon for me. If they had started falling this weekend the deer would be moving, looking for a place where there were a lot of acorns. By now they have found the motherlode of their favorite food and won’t move far from it.

I have a hillside with a lot of whiteoak trees on it so that is where I hunt when the acorns are falling. Hopefully some deer decided it was a good place to feed and I now have some fresh meat in the freezer.

That is a little unlikely since doe days don’t start where I hunt until November. I prefer shooting does, they are easier to clean and seem to taste a little better, but I will have to wait a couple of weeks for that to be legal.

What Would An Australian Gun Law Do To Me?

My daddy always said “Never elect an honest man, holding an office will just make him a crook.” I guess that influenced me a lot. I often think that anyone wanting to run for office should be automatically disqualified. Why would anyone want to hold an elected office where every voter expects something in payment for their vote, and no matter what you do you are going to have about half the people mad at you all the time.

I am a one issue voter. I will never vote for anyone wanting to pass laws to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights. I have owned guns since I was six years old and got my first BB gun. My guns have provided me untold hours of fun shooting targets, have provided me food all my life and have given me the comfort of knowing I can take care of myself.

None of my guns have ever harmed another person, and they never will unless used to protect myself or someone else. So how does restricting my rights make a difference? If laws kept illegal things out of criminals’ hands, we would have no cocaine or heroin on our streets.

The election this year is a problem. Donald Trump has never been a gun rights person until recently. He says he has changed. Hillary Clinton has been anti-gun all her life. So do I vote for Trump and hope he does what he says about guns, or vote for Hillary and hope she does not do what she says she wants to do. To do that I would have to ignore everything else.

Recently Hillary said she wanted the same kinds of laws in the US that were passed in Australia. There, after a mass shooting in 1996, the government confiscated all semiautomatic rifles, pump and semiautomatic shotguns and almost all pistols. They said they would pay you if you turned in your banned gun by a certain time but after that they would just take it.

In 1988 25 percent of households in Australia had a gun, by 2005 only six percent had one. That is what Hillary wants for us.

Has it made a difference? The murder rate there dropped from 1.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.3 in 2007, a tiny drop of six tenths of one percent. And it has not been a steady drop, in 2002 they had the highest number of murders there in 26 years. But in Australia, just like here, the murder rate had been dropping for years before they confiscated guns.

Some gun banners argue that confiscating guns will reduce mass shootings, like it did in Australia. But in this study – http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Mass_shootings.pdf – the authors found there were so few mass shootings before gun confiscation that no before-and-after study could be done. They did compare New Zealand and Australia, two similar countries with very different gun laws, and found no difference because of the law. So, because of one mass shooting, a country confiscated over 600,000 guns, a high percentage of all guns in the country, and it has had no effect.

If Hillary got her way, the government would confiscate almost all my guns. Four they would take would be the Winchester Model 1893 pump 12 gauge my father inherited from his father and passed on to me, the Ithaca pump goose gun my father-in-law gave to me, the Browning semiautomatic long barreled 12 gauge my daddy shot doves with all his life and the Remington short barreled semiautomatic 12 gauge he shot quail with before passing them on to me. The government taking those guns away from me would really help with crime.

I will never support anyone wanting to follow Australia’s gun ban and confiscation law.

Stupid Claims Made while Blaming Guns for Violence

Here they go again.

It never fails – a gun is used in a high visibility shooting like in Orlando last week, and the democrats and others immediately want to ban guns. I would be more willing to listen to them if they didn’t make silly, inaccurate statements and tell plain flat out lies about guns.

If nothing else, the claims that the killer last week was anything but a terrorists makes those making that claim lose all credibility with me. When they further say something stupid along the lines that automatic weapons should be banned I know they are not rational.

Private ownership of automatic guns has been almost completely banned in the US since June 26, 1934. The federal law that went into effect 82 years ago means, if you want to buy an automatic gun, you have to get a special federal firearms permit for each one you want. And those permits cost $2000 per gun! The law is so restrictive that, even after the FBI investigates you and approves you for a permit, you can not carry that gun across state lines without getting permission each time.

The “gun show loophole” is another myth pushed by the gun banners. It is common to hear something like “If you buy a gun at a gun show you should have to go through the background check.” You do, under current law.

To sell guns you have to possess a federal firearms license (FFL) and run a background check on every sale. Saying the gun show needs to run a background check is like saying a mall should sell you shoes. Just like at a mall, businesses rent spaces and sell their products. So you can buy shoes from a business that sells them in the mall just like you can buy a gun at a gun show from a business that sells them, and they have to run the background check.

How about those “private” sellers or “unlicensed gun dealers” many whine about? An individual can sell a personally owned firearm without a background check at a gun show or anywhere else.

How many guns can an individual sell before they must have an FFL? Federal law makes it a felony to buy even one gun to resell without an FFL. So its pretty hard to get inventory without becoming a felon if you want to become an unlicensed gun dealer.

Facebook as gotten into censorship over this in a big way. Several of my friends and I posted or shared something comparing so called “assault weapons” and hunting guns. It listed all the ways they are the same and the ways they are different. It pointed out the only difference is the way the gun looks. Nothing but a list of facts, but apparently the powers that be at Facebook disliked it and censored it from all our pages.

If you can’t provide facts to back up your opinion, censor the facts that go against your prejudices.

One brain dead congressman claimed the gun used in the killing in Florida could fire 700 rounds per minute. Even if you know nothing about guns you should be able to see how stupid that is. That amounts to almost 12 rounds per second. Any rational thought given to that number shows it is not possible, just another irrational claim to scare people about guns.

All the silly claims about banning guns to protect you and to keep terrorist and criminal from getting them is nothing but an effort to distract you from the real problem. Take the shooting in Orlando. The guy had been checked more than one time by the FBI and cleared and taken off the ‘no fly’ list. The FBi was notified a man was trying to buy level 3 body armor – the highest level “bullet proof” vest civilian can buy, but they didn’t follow up because they said they didn’t have enough information. It turned out to be the mass shooter.

Even if there was some way to stop selling guns some folks imagined to be “semiautomatic assault style weapons,” which means any gun some find objectionable because of their looks, and confiscate the millions already in private ownership, what effect would it have? Those kinds of guns are totally illegal in France. Yet 130 people were killed by terrorist using them last November. The got them into the country and to a concert and other public places in spite of the total ban.

Geraldo Rivera said on the news last Friday that we need to do something about “semi machine guns.” President Obama aaid the terrorists had “a Glock with a lot o clips in it.” With gun banners saying stupid things like that, it makes me totally ignore them since it is so obvious they do not know what they are talking about.

Stupid Common Sense Gun Laws

When I was six years old I had my tonsils taken out. As a present for being such a “big boy” during the surgery I got a BB gun, my first gun of many. I was extremely proud of that gun and it was my constant companion for the next two years, carrying it almost everywhere I went. It was a great way to learn gun safety and prove to my parents I could handle a gun responsibly.

During the next two years I got my second gun, a semiautomatic Remington .22. That rifle had a tubular magazine that held 16 high power Long Rifle bullets. The boxes those bullets came in had the warning “Danger, range one mile” printed on them.

I was not allowed to take that gun out of the house unless an adult was with me. Daddy took me out to shoot it fairly often, and I killed my first squirrel with it when, at eight years old, I saw one in the woods across the road from the house after school one day and got Gladys, our housekeeper, to go out with me since nobody else was at home.

My parents accepted that I had learned gun safety at that point and I was allowed to go out with my gun, only if alone or with an adult, for two more years. At ten years old I was finally allowed to go out with my friends. For years we hunted together during season and carried our rifles every where we went, even when no season was open.

No one gave a second look to three 12 year olds walking into town with our rifles, propping them by the door of Mr. John Harry’s store and going in to buy a coke and pack of crackers for a nickel each and a box of bullets for our rifles. A box of 50 Long Rifle bullets was 62 cents, if I remember right.

The summer I turned 18 I graduated from high school, was accepted at the University of Georgia for that fall, registered for the draft and got a job making roof trusses for a pre fab construction company. One day that summer a few weeks before my 18th birthday I went to buy some .22 bullets at Mr. John Harry’s store and he told me he could not sell them to me since I was not 18 yet.

Although I knew automatic guns and sawed off shot guns were illegal, that was my first run in with so called “common sense gun control laws.” It took five years after President Kennedy was killed with a mail order rifle for congress to “do something” and pass a law that banned mail order sales of guns, as well as sale of rifle ammunition to anyone younger than 18.

That gun control law was supported by the NRA, because it was just the start of the long history of “doing something” that always ended up restricting gun owners rights while doing nothing to have any impact on crime. It sounded somewhat reasonable and didn’t restrict gun owners rights much so it was not opposed. The NRA and I have learned the camel in the tent proverb now and oppose such silly laws since we know if you let a camel get his nose in the tent you will soon be sleeping with a camel.

In the 48 years since that law was passed every time someone uses a gun illegally and makes the news the knee jerk reaction is to “do something” that involves restricting gun owners rights. So now I and many other gun owners oppose all such silly “do something” bills.

Right now the big push is to renew a 1994 law banning some guns because of the way they look. The “assault weapons” ban lasted ten years and was allowed to expire in 2004 because facts showed it had absolutely no effect on gun crime. But now gun banners are trying to bring back such a totally ineffective law.

Rifles of all kinds are hardly ever used in crime. And the way they look had no impact on the way they work. For example, the 1994 law banned the sale of a common gun called an AK 47. So the foreign manufacturers of the AK 47 took the working metal parts of the gun, put them on a different looking wooden stock, and sold it as a MAK 90.

I bought one, mostly out of protest for the stupidity of a law banning guns because of fear. It is fun to shoot, bullets are cheap, and even with a 30 round magazine it has never committed mass murder. I also own an AR 15. It sits quietly in my gun cabinet with its 30 round magazine loaded and attached, and has never jumped out to go shoot somebody. It only comes out to go out to the farm and the only thing it has shot is some paper and a couple of deer.

Another big push is to close a myth, the “gun show loophole.” Since it is a federal felony to sell guns without a FFL unless it is your personal firearm, and any FFL seller must run a background check, there is no loophole.

Expect to hear calls and see childish actions like a sit in shutting down the government because you don’t get your way. Just remember any new law will be as effective in lowering gun crime as the law that stopped me from buying .22 bullets, bullets I had been buying for six or seven years, when I was 17 years old.

Compromise With Gun Banners?

I read the cute little Joseph Cotton editorial on guns in the April 27 Griffin Daily News with bemusement. In it he tried to convince gun owners that those wanting to ban guns are really patriots, just with different views. He even goes so far as to say the 2nd Amendment must be preserved and he wants us to compromise with gun banners.

All he and the other “patriots” on his side want to do is ban a bunch of guns because they don’t like them. He sees no reason he and his fellow “reasonable” gun banners can’t use the power of the government to ban all guns they can classify as “assault weapons” because of the way they look. That’s like banning big soft drinks because you think others should not have them.

I might be more willing to listen to folks like him if they would just pay attention to facts. According to a Congressional Research Service report less than two percent of all crimes were committed by rifles, of which only a small subcategory could be classified as “assault weapons” by anyone’s definition. In 1994 there were an estimated 1.5 million “assault weapons” in civilian hands based on liberal Slate magazine. In the past seven years sales of semiautomatic rifles what the gun banners usually call “assault weapons” have increased dramatically.

In the first four years of the Obama administration there were an estimated 67 million gun sales. And almost every month for the past three years gun sales have set new records. Yet during that same time gun crime had fallen every year.

So if “assault weapons” are almost never used in crime and overall gun crime has decreased while gun sales, including “assault weapons” have increased dramatically, what sense does it make to ban any guns?

For the gun banners, compromise means do it my way. Their goal is incremental gun bans. Its like the old saying about once the camel gets its nose in the tent it won’t be long before you are sleeping with a camel. Banning guns will not affect crime in any way, so why let the camel in the tent?

Hillary Lying About Guns

Politicians don’t tell the truth. Its just the way of politics to tell people what you think they want to hear. Exaggerations, misleading statements and similar things are the rule. But sometimes politicians tell such blatant lies it is hard to understand how anyone can listen to them.

Hillary Clinton is constantly telling lies about gun laws, the gun business and why you and I own guns, all the time trying to make it harder for us to own a gun while she is hiding behind armed guards. The current lie of the day is that gun manufacturers and sellers are not liable for their product the same way other business are for their product.

The stated goal of the anti-gun groups is to put gun manufactures and retailers out of business by suing them when a gun is used in a crime. That is like Rosie O’Donnell suing spoon manufacturers because she is fat. Or it is like suing a gas station and Shell oil because someone buys a gallon of gas and uses it to burn down a house.

The law suits got so ridiculous a few years ago that our elected representatives passed a federal law that gun manufacturers and retailers were not liable if their product was misused. That is the way it is with every product made but liberal judges were singling out the gun industry. And they still are doing that, trying to put them out of business.

A state judge in New Jersey ruled last week a suit against Remington could proceed, even though there is federal law against such lawsuits. That lawsuit says Remington should not have made a gun for civilian sales that is a military weapon. Anyone knowing anything about guns knows the multiple fallacies of that claim.

Gun banners can’t get laws passed that they want because there are too many gun owners and other rational people opposing them. So they try to go through the courts to accomplish their goals. They can’t stand the thought of a law abiding citizen having something they personally don’t approve of so they try to ban it for everyone.