Take ALL the Guns!* (*But only from law-abiding citizens protecting their families and property)

I don't need a gun, but at this point that is my choice.  I live in a large metropolis where police are only seconds away (an NYPD precinct is less than 5 blocks away). At one time I lived in a small town--in a rural area--where the police were 10, 15, 30 minutes away.  I needed a gun to protect my family and guests in my home for which I was responsible.  What about those that live in a border community where it's dangerous to walk your property at night?  I would be especially troubled and would want a firearm in my home or on my person. Here's a difference: my firearm (like my friends' and families') is obtained legally and responsibly. I follow the law.  I don't mind getting my weapon(s) licensed.  I don't mind taking a certification or safety training course.  After all I license my car, I have insurance, and I pay my taxes.

As of today, their are multiple supply lines for illegal weapons that are unimpeded.  The border is not secured and the flow of illegal firearms, drugs, and dangerous elements continues into and out of this country. But yet enforcing borders, isn't part of this conversation.  Those speaking for gun bans are those who don't give two thoughts about securing the influx of illegal weapons and contraband across porous borders.  They only seem to want to take away the legal right to have protection.  They want to leave open the illegal weapon traffic-ways and close off the legal purchase of guns used by law abiding citizens for protection and sporting.  These advocates overwhelmingly live in larger cities, like I do, with adequate and speedy protection from local law enforcement.  For the most part, we have a highly trained and deployed army (in our case, the NYPD) for our protection. But what about the rest of America? In some areas of rural America (where I came from), there is a single deputy and one State Trooper per 50 square miles.  There were nights when an alarm would go off at my business, and the Deputy Sheriff or State Trooper would arrive 30-45 minutes after I did.  

More gun laws are not going to help this situation. It will only leave a large part of the responsible American population reliant again on government.  It will leave them reliant on local authorities that may or may not be able to respond quickly to the real dangers that affect those who living in small towns and rural communities.  

There seems to be a common factor with all of these horrific and senseless acts of school violence.  It is that these young men are having societal issues that may be exacerbated by mental illness.  The weapon is the means and the medium.  It is not the cause.  If they don't use a gun, they use a knife.  If they don't use a knife, they will use a car, or a poison, or a baseball bat.  What is next, Nerf only baseball bats in our schools and MLB?  Knives banned in all kitchens across the country?  Pest control companies that only employee cats?  

I am not advocating the rescinding of gun laws.  I think it is good that you have to have a license to drive a car.  I think it is good that some substances are limited and tracked (explosives, poisons, and controlled prescription medications). Should there be controls?  You bet - but within the guidelines of the Constitution.  Should some of these high-volume clips and assault weapons be readily available?  I don't think so, but that is my opinion and should be addressed by state and local legislators, Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States.  I think that we can make some common sense laws without stripping away rights of protection.

But until ban advocates get serious about how guns are controlled in every aspect--especially at the border, and until they are serious about taking them out of the hands of criminals--a ban does only one thing: they disarm the responsible populous and leave illegal weapons in the hands of criminals.  They limit protected and legal sporting.  They give confidence to the heinous, and throw out the last line of defense of the lawful.

It's time to look at the cause instead of the means.  It's time to have a safety net for our mentally ill.  For our sons, brothers, cousins, nephews and friends.  For the boy who isn't able to understand the difference between social and anti-social behavior.  Help for the mom and dad that don't know how to help their troubled son.  This is only going to get worse and more frequent.  Not because of the availability of guns--but because these diseases are becoming more common and less is being done to help them.  We have runs for Cancer, relays for Cystic Fibrosis, and telethons for Muscular Dystrophy.  Where is the help for Eric and Dylan?  Where is the help for Adam and his mom?

I read the following over the weekend and it made a profound impact of my thoughts on this topic.  It is from the "Anarchist Soccer Mom" blog and has made the rounds on Gawker, Huffington Post, and other outlets.  Please take the time to read this mom's story…  In some circles the title has been printed as "I am Adam Lanza's Mother." 

Thinking the Unthinkable  http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

The Re-Segregation of a People

The purpose of this site is not to be politically correct. The purpose of this blog is to convey my views and what I think many other people are feeling as well. If you don't like what you read, you are welcome to comment or to go to another site. In the interest of full disclosure and so you know what my perspective is based on, the following is some information about me. I'm a 30ish Protestant white male in middle America. First and foremost I am American. My heritage is predominately English (caucasian) with German, Scottish, and Cherokee Indian thrown in for good measure. I was taught that there is no differences between skin color. I was raised to believe that your standing as a person was measured on your actions, not on your race. The below thoughts are meant to be sincere and honest.

The civil rights leaders of the 1960's did amazing things for their people. People like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and others led a generation of Black Americans into their own and stopped unjust segregation in schools and universities, on buses, restrooms, and drinking fountains. Even after the 1960's, reforms continued addressing workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, and other important issues. There is still more to do for civil rights, but not at the expense of the black community.

My opinion: Civil rights leaders, specifically in the African American Community, promote segregation among its own people in order to make themselves more relevant and more powerful in society. In my opinion these leaders are hurting the community more than they are helping. Their efforts are doing nothing more than re-segregating the people that their predecessors freed.

The purpose of Civil Rights Leaders and their movements are to secure rights for people who are not able to secure rights for themselves. Civil rights leaders today are taking advantage of these communities. A large part of the goal of the 1960's was to show America that Black=White. At that point in this nation's history, equality was a very important point to make. For the most part, Americans understand that. There are those that never will, but no amount of protesting and marching is going to change that. What can change it? A more positive and diverse representation of the African American community.

“True equality” is not what makes America great. Just think how life would be if “true equality” were to become a reality. Everyone would drive the same car, live in the same house, dress the same, work the same, have the same intelligence, etc. True equality is not what we should strive for. We should strive for an end to discrimination--the end to judging the quality of a person simply on perceived physical attributes and characteristics that can't be chosen.

Discrimination separates people based on these physical characteristics, giving someone power over them. Racial discrimination is no longer only committed by people of another race. It can be done my members of one's own race as well. Using one's own people to further advance a political agenda, or to gain personal power, is discrimination. The only thing that men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Malik Shabazz get from representing Black Americans is power, clout, and money. Instead of promoting Black=White, they are promoting Black=Black and re-segregating the black community. To let one of these men represent you, one only need have a single qualification: the color of one’s skin. Is that not a new form of discrimination?

What is it that makes a society great? For the United States it is a celebration of our differences. It is knowing that some are business leaders, some are teachers, some are artists, and others are humanitarians. Some work hard in factories, others work in offices, others work in fields, and still others work in countless other positions all contributing to what makes this nation great. We have people who have immigrated to the United States from all over the world, mixing cultures, ideas, and religions. But instead of celebrating those differences, civil rights leaders are segregating and homogenizing their communities into a political power structure that is elevating them and doing a great disservice to their people.

Some black civil rights leaders welcome people from all walks of life including felons, murderers, gang-bangers, and drug pushers. As long as they are African Americans, anyone can be a member of Jesse Jackson's or Al Sharpton's constituencies. There is one exception (and it is a big one): You must side with them politically. Jackson, Sharpton, Kweisi Mfume, Spike Lee, Harry Belafonte and other African American self-proclaimed civil rights leaders have made awful comments about black men and women that disagree with them. These men and women (even those in power) are minimized and ridiculed. They are called names like "Uncle Tom['s]" (as Spike Lee said about Clarence Thomas), or compared to a plantation slave (as Belafonte implied about Colin Powell). Do these civil rights leaders sound like they are uniting mankind? Is it right to attack or question a person’s race because you don’t agree with them? This is called discrimination.

The message by these leaders is loud and clear to the black community: If you do not agree with your black leaders, then you are not black. And if you are not black, then you have nothing. To a community that has been taught (brain-washed) by its leaders that being black is the only thing that defines them, this is a very difficult and unfair situation to deal with.

Jesse Jackson rushed to the aid (with cameras and microphones) of a young lady in Durham, NC who had allegedly been raped. Why did he rush to her side? She accused 3 white, wealthy students of the crime, and this event could be used to further segregate the African American community. Jesse Jackson cared more that the victim was a black women victimized by white men, than he cared about the truth. While I feel very sorry for this troubled young woman, I don’t feel sorry for her because she is black. I feel sorry for her because she is troubled. On that day or at a previously time in her life, something awful happened to her. For that, and that alone, she deserved sympathy. According to national statistics 200,000 women were raped last year. Where was Jesse Jackson after any of those women were raped? Of those 200,000, 13% of them were African American women (2000 National Crime Victimization Study). Of women that are raped, 80-90% of them are raped by a person of their racial background (US Dept. of Justice, 1994). Does Jesse Jackson not care about them? As with any other politician, they only care about what will give them power. If they don't need you, they don't care about you.

There is one thing that I hope that any African American person gets from reading this: Be proud that you are African American. But please know that there is more to you than just your skin color. If you want to be defined by your race, then Jesse Jackson is the man to follow. If you want to be defined by who you are as a person and what you accomplish, then find another man, or a women, or lead people yourself. Your community continues to be segregated by men that call themselves your leaders. While I consider segregation a crime, segregation by someone you trust is worse.

MR