Author Archives: Gun Control Debate

In government we trust

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.  Do we understand what it means? .Can we think of an example to show the validity of that understanding?


The founding fathers have to be admired, as politicians they understood only to well what all governments are capable of.  That any government given a free hand without control and monitoring at the lowest level would usurp control.


The constitution was written to affirm the rights citizens deserved and had fought for for so long.  To safeguard as much as possible but realising that governments would still find ways of circumventing any law or restrictions to afford as a last resort the ability to reject governments anti-social objectives.


The Constitutions second amendment serves to legally restrict government and as a reminder to citizens of the duty they have.  It affirms the right to arms suitable for their defence that is an expression of the natural right of self defence.  It condones absolutely no infringement under any circumstances.


The founding fathers were under no illusion any Constitution or Constitutions clause served as protection or that a legal approach was the only approach.  Clearly it was realised that citizens served as the protection who if need be must have the ability to resist any government attempts to remove their rights.  The rights are what need citizens protection, not the Constitution or any other law.


Yet today we have the common misconceptions that governments are benign and there to serve us.  That government will do this without oversight, control or any checks.  Citizens must trust government who will do them no harm or wrong.


There are more than 20,000 firearm laws despite the Constitutions emphatic “shall not be infringed”.  What were citizens thinking of when each of these were introduced?  What persuade  citizens that their duty to protect their rights was not required?  What persuaded citizens that they were helpless and unable to object?  What persuaded citizens that any infringement of their rights  were reasonable and justified?  Why did government feel confident that citizens would accept all these laws and obey them?


Is this an example of what Franklin said?  When we no longer protect our rights and instead accept that our rights may be infringed if we receive safety which is temporary in return?  We bluff ourselves we are protecting the Constitution and we can still own guns so have protected some guns and given little away.  Our safety is still claimed intact, our rights all but forgotten because we think that being allowed to own a firearm by a benevolent government is all we need.


The founding fathers words of advice and warning all but forgotten.  Protect the laws, protect the constitution and your rights are no more.  Are we safe and there is nothing to fear from government?  Can government be trusted?


Funny gun pics

I’ve seen some posts with funny pics of guns, i thought i could post them here.

funny gun pictures

Cell phone gun:

Cell phone gun


funny gun pics

This is actually a real functioning gun that someone created. Called the Liberalator.

gun pics

LOL i love the hair dryer one.

Actual hair dryer:

hairdryer gun

hair dryer

gun pics

picture of a gun

picture of a gun

This picture still makes me laugh everytime I see it!!!
Mexican Navy SEAL team!

picture of a gun

chicks with guns

Bear Handgun Guns In Parks

cat with gun

gun pics

gun pics


This one just became my wallpaper, i cant stop laughing.

gun pics

much humor in waving guns around

this is too funny….when you can’t afford a gun, get one permanently attached!

gun pics

living in peace

We all want to live in peace having the safety and freedom we deserve because anything less is not life but misery and slavery.

We do not choose misery or slavery as a way of life, not under any circumstances because we know that there is no future in it.

Why then do we succumb to con-artists and slick sales of stuff we don’t need or want?  Who has not met the persistent insurance sales person or the opportunity of a life-time holiday plan or time-share scheme?

gun control

Why then do we succumb to bogus promises of peace and safety by con-artists claiming that if we comply with the Firearms Control Act we will be safe and can live in peace?  Why do we believe the exact same people who have made no effort to help those deprived of their safety,  security and firearms, 700,000 of them.  If they did not help those who needed help why is their bad example and useless advice now seen as having any use or value?

It is quite obvious that the firearms control act was not introduced to further firearms ownership.  This is made quite clear by the preamble which clearly states it is intended to drastically reduce firearm ownership.  There is no ambiguity, no mistake and 10 years later this act has make its promoters proud of the results.
50% of firearm owners have by police estimates been removed.  A success that would not have been possible without the help, aid and collaboration of the organisations which had as a first mandate the duty to protect all firearm owners rights.
SAGA(South African Gun owners Association) so embarrassed by this fact has removed the words “protecting your rights” from its advertising and now claims it is a gun safety organisation.  Instead of apologising for the unforgivable delinquency of collecting membership fees under false pretences SAGA boasts of what it has done to collaborate with police and repair and improve a hardly-functional, non implementable millstone around police necks.
1000 police members do nothing but shuffle gun control paperwork each day in a country with an astronomical crime and murder rate.  All SAGA wants is more money spent, more man-hours and more staff to make firearm owners unhappy about delays and arbitrary decisions happy.  Oppressive unjustified gun control laws are embraced, accepted as valid and must be complied with and the only problem SAGA has is administrative delays and bad decisions.

The questions all good citizens should ask is where does it end?  What is the purpose of this act?  Should we become elitists sacrificing and trampling over all others in the belief we will survive because we collaborated and agreed with this law and sacrificed all who opposed?  Where has appeasement and collaboration with oppression and injustice worked to gain anything but scorn, contempt and loss?

When they come for the elitists guns and our safety, security and peace there will be nobody left who will or want to help elitists, cowards and collaborators who have sacrificed all.  Most certainly not from those they have sacrificed, turning their back on others need guarantees that. If you are willing to sacrifice others why would they or anyone else what to help such a person?  Would you help such a person if you were in their place?

Our lives, safety, freedom and future come at a cost.  If we would enjoy them then we have to value and protect those rights from all incursions. We have to take back what we have foolishly given away and make sure we are never again tempted to fall prey to con-artists and slick sales talk

Common Gun Control Arguments and Counter Arguments

The subject of gun control has always created a political and social debate regarding the restriction and availability of guns and firearms. In American politics for instance, gun control has been a controversial issue that has not been easy to manage or control. Research and surveys has proved that majority of Americans agree with the constitutional right to own a gun and some on the other hand also agree with the endorsement and enforcement of stricter gun control laws, thus bring up several gun control arguments.


In the midst of the gun control arguments  and counter arguments, it is important to know what gun control is. Gun control is a law that is used in deciding whether a citizen can own a gun or not. It is a law established to ensure that guns are not owned by criminal minded people but by people who are victims or are helpless against crime. The dilemma of gun control laws is that it can work in both ways; it can make victims helpless and it can turn an innocent harmless individual into a criminal, hence the gun control arguments and counter arguments. Let’s look into some of them.

Those people, who are in support of gun control, say that a gun is meant to kill and the less available it is in the society, the safer the society will be, while those against it say that whether guns are restricted or not, it does not change anything because guns do not kill, people do.

Those in support say that gun control will ensure that guns will not fall into the hands of children and teenagers, while those against it argue that with gun control those children and teenagers will not be able to defend themselves in the face of crime because they are not protected.

The registration of both the guns and the owners is another argument in support of gun control, while those against gun control arguments claim that registration is not necessary because in most of the cases involving guns, the guns are not bought or registered rather they are smuggled in by the acclaimed registered owners.

Despite the fact that it has received nationwide coverage and attention, the debate of gun control has not made headway at the federal level. The truth is the world out there is not safe and being unprotected in a criminal situation is not a good idea.

Arguments for Gun Control and Firearms

Several federal laws have being enacted to promote the regulation of firearms and ammunitions since 1934. Congress is still debating on the efficacy and the constitutionality of these federal laws; this has raised several arguments for gun control and against gun control.

Many a time, crime and morality statistics are used when it comes to dealing with the debates on arguments for gun control. For instance the number of murders committed per year, with a gun, by people within the age range of 14-24 years, increased at a rate of 173% from the year 1985 to the year 1993 and later, it went down by around 47% from the year 1993 to the year 1999.

One of the common arguments for gun control is that it helps to reduce the ability of criminals, juveniles, kidnappers, bandits etc to own or posses a gun, firearms and ammunition. These advocates for gun control argue that the availability of guns can be successfully reduced only by strict federal measures. Some also argue that there should be a registration of all guns and firearms and also the owners.

The two most important federal enactments supporting the arguments for gun control are the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. the 1968 Act prohibits or forbids the inter state sales of guns and mail order sales, it also limits access to new guns, firearms and ammunition weapons and also established licensing requirement and penalties for manufactures, dealers and importers, but the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993 is the law in support of the possession of guns and firearms for the purpose of self defense but only within the environment of the house.

About 30 percent of a typical American household own a gun, this most certainly increases the rate of homicides and suicides in the society. It is not only having a maniac randomly shooting people that is a threat; the fact that there is a gun in a household is also a threat a family member can use it to perpetrate one crime or the other, which is why a lot of people are in support of the implementation of strict federal measures of gun control with penalties if anyone goes against the law. Federal government should insist and ensure that citizens comply with and adhere to those gun control laws, to reduce the rate of gun related deaths and make the society safe for citizens.

Evaluating the Arguments about Gun Control

If we talk in general terms, then gun control is the effort made by governing bodies or state authoritarians to restrict or keep a check on the production, manufacturing, sale, purchase and usage of arms and ammunitions to ensure law and order and safety of the people. This is one issue in American politics which has always been debated on arguments about gun control, and always has been in the lime light.

Previously, possessing a gun use to be a part of American heritage reflecting their culture and also became style statement for the Americans. Their inclination with this culture reflected in their movies, television, music and various other creative forms such as art. Many films were based upon the theme of the so called ‘gun culture’. A good number of people in the US have seen the destruction and been victims of the crimes that happened by the abuse of fire-arms. Hence, they have been supporting the laws corresponding to the arguments about gun control and have been insisting the government to enforce them more strictly to lessen the chances of gun going into the hands of wrong people or children or young adults, so that the innocent people do not have to bear the brunt of fire-arms. Another important one of the arguments about gun control is that it will reduce the number of suicides.

On the contrary, there is a segment of population that does not believe in Government imposing laws over acquisition of gun. What they believe is that these rules will make an impact on the good citizens of the country who abide by law, but will not make any difference or exert pressure on the criminals.

No one should be de barred from owning arms for their self defense which is a constitutional right of the citizens .The crux of the story is, the legislations are not going to lessen the crime rate in any way. They also justify themselves by giving a counter arguments about gun control. Their own safety comes at stake when the laws prohibit themselves to own a gun. In their opinion, this will increase the rate of crime as guns will not be available and people will be inclined to indulge in illegal practices like smuggling or importing arms through illegitimate means. However, the enactment of these legislations depends on the political party in power, their affiliations, their collective ideas, standards of morality and experiences and sometimes for personal interest.

Gun Control Legislation- How people are embracing them

In the general terminology, ‘gun control‘ means the efforts of the government or the authoritarian body to keep a check on the selling-purchasing and using of the guns by the citizens within their jurisdiction area. The gun control legislation in one area is usually different from other. They encompass the sale, purchase, ownership, usage and the distribution. The examples of such laws are the Gun Control act which was passed in the year 1968 and National Firearms Act passed in 1934.

gun control legislation

A man named Richard Hofstadter had introduced a term ‘gun culture’ inAmerica, seeing the nation’s interest and inclination for fire-arms. To own a gun for self defense used to be a part of American traditions. This is still followed as a tenet in some parts, especially in the southern and western regions. It became a style statement among the people and its popularity made it films, music, television, museums etc. Hunting, an eminent sport in the US, also realizes the importance of gun.

Gun politics in the US has been in the lime light as it was one of the most controversial issues in the political history of America. For the past many years, the power holders in US have been debating over devising the gun control legislation availability of the fire arms and means to restrict them. This is the government’s duty to check the crime, maintain law and order and ensuring the safety and well being of its citizens.

The honorable Supreme Court of the USestablished the second amendments which protect the right of the individual to poses an ammunition for the purpose of self defense against foreign enemies, but it is a must to re affirm to use it within the boundaries of gun control legislation. The repeated rounds of polling stated revealed that a portion of the people believe that the laws give them the right to own a gun for their own protection, while the others wanted the laws at present to be more stringent and strict, which can avert the possible abuse of fire-arms. Not even half of the population supports the fact that the gun control legislation is effective enough to reduce violence in US. In the year 2k9, a significant percentage of people had voted to completely ban the use of firearms in the country. If the statistical facts are to be believed, then US tops the list of nations where people because of crimes with firearms.