The question of whether more gun control laws should be enacted is a highly debated and controversial issue in the United States. Those in favor of additional gun control measures argue that they are necessary to reduce the number of gun-related deaths and mass shootings, while those opposed to such measures maintain that they would infringe upon their Second Amendment rights and would not be effective in reducing gun violence.

Advocates of more gun control laws point to the high levels of gun violence in the United States compared to other developed countries, which they attribute in part to the relative ease of obtaining firearms in the US. They argue that stricter regulations, such as universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and a limit on the number of firearms an individual can purchase, would help to reduce the number of deaths caused by guns.

Opponents of stricter gun control laws, however, argue that the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that any attempt to restrict access to firearms would be a violation of this right. They also argue that strict gun control measures would not effectively reduce gun violence, as criminals would still be able to obtain firearms illegally.

Despite the ongoing debate, it is clear that reducing gun violence should be a priority for all Americans. One potential solution to this issue could be a focus on enforcing existing laws, improving background check processes, and implementing targeted interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of gun violence. Additionally, many experts believe that addressing the underlying social and psychological factors that contribute to gun violence, such as poverty, mental illness, and access to firearms, is key to reducing the number of gun-related deaths.

Ultimately, the question of whether more gun control laws should be enacted is a complex and emotional issue, with valid arguments on both sides. It is up to lawmakers and the American people to engage in a productive and respectful dialogue to find a solution that protects public safety while also respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Gun buyback programs are initiatives in which the government or a local organization offers to buy firearms from individuals, typically with no questions asked. The goal of these programs is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation, particularly those that are illegal or unused.

The efficacy of gun buyback programs has been a subject of much debate. Proponents argue that these programs can help reduce gun violence by removing firearms from circulation that could be used in crimes, accidentally discharged, or otherwise pose a risk. They argue that even if the guns collected are not the ones typically used in crimes, reducing the overall number of firearms in circulation can still have a positive impact on public safety.

Critics, however, argue that the firearms purchased in these programs are often old or in poor condition and are unlikely to be used in crimes. They also argue that these programs do not address the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness, poverty, and social inequalities.

Additionally, the impact of gun buyback programs on reducing gun violence can be difficult to measure, as they are typically short-term initiatives and their effects can be hard to quantify. The level of funding, community participation, and the specific implementation of the program can also impact its effectiveness.

In conclusion, while gun buyback programs can be seen as a step towards reducing gun violence, it is important to understand their limitations and address the underlying causes of gun violence in a comprehensive and effective manner.

The effectiveness of gun control as a measure to reduce gun violence is a highly debated topic, with different perspectives and evidence suggesting both positive and negative outcomes.

Proponents of gun control argue that stricter regulations on firearms can reduce access to firearms by dangerous individuals, leading to lower rates of gun violence. Studies have shown that countries with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun deaths compared to countries with more permissive gun laws.

On the other hand, opponents of gun control argue that it is not the presence of firearms that causes gun violence, but rather factors such as mental illness and a lack of enforcement of existing laws. They argue that stricter gun control measures do not effectively address these root causes of gun violence and can even make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to access firearms for self-defense.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of gun control as a measure to reduce gun violence is a complex issue that depends on many factors, including the specific regulations in place and their enforcement, the cultural and social factors contributing to gun violence, and the availability of alternative means of violence.

How important is the right to arms? The first thing the NP government
did was deny blacks the right to firearm ownership for good reason. The
NP did not want to face armed angry blacks. Governments throughout the
world have done the same for the same reason. They do not want to face
angry armed citizens.

 

The one thing 15 years of studying gun control has taught me is that
firearm owners are on the losing side, yet somehow have not woken up to
that fact and bothered to ask why. Nowhere in the world are there less
restrictive laws than there were 50 years ago. An undeniable fact. Not
one single firearm organisation in the world is in the least concerned
or interested in the safety, security and freedom of citizens including
its own members and potential members.

 

I have seen many say join us, do that but not one say lets examine why
we fail and fail we and they have many, many times. Others say well so
and so are the experts do what they say. How’s that plan working so far
assuming you know what this undisclosed plan is? History proves it is
not working and you cannot argue against verifiable history.

 

Can one sum up firearm organisations strategy or “plan” in a few words.
They fight by proxy sending in the lawyers to fight for them and give up
when the lawyers lose. Then they make excuses and lie indoctrinating
members, supporters and firearm owners with “we did the best we could
and failed, accept this law and be happy, we can still own guns”. They
go back to sleep and wait for gun controls next move. It’s a
generalisation but how close is it? What is the result of this giving up
on the right to arms?

 

We ignore or don’t comprehend a right is not divisible or negotiable.
You cannot give away parts, some, bits, this, that or anything and still
have or value that right. We see ourselves or others impacted by theses
laws, some denied by expense, difficulty or inconvenience but denied.
Others will suffer the crime increase criminals given defenceless
victims take advantage of.

 

What is the value of our right to freedom, safety and life when it has
no value to the organisations we trust and then give our rights away? It
makes no difference if we are lucky enough to become an elitist and
still own some kind of firearm. We see others sacrificed and suffer and
know we stand alone. There is little or no value to those rights, less
than the valve caps on our vehicle tyres. A thief stealing our tyre
valve caps would be immediately opposed and apprehended. Our rights are
stolen from under our noses and we are to busy, don’t have time, have to
go shopping, don’t know what to do and 10,000 other excuses.

 

A right no matter how small a part that is abandoned without a fight
impacts on citizens in one way or the other. Removing rights, adding
cost or adding difficulty making firearm ownership that of the elitist
all serve to remove or limit who has those rights.

 

What is a right worth that is given to only a few or even some? These
few are survivors in self preservation mode who will sacrifice others to
remain an elitist.

 

Those impacted suffer unjustifiably and without comment or help from the
organisations or the elitists not wanting to spoil their chances of
continuing to own a firearm. The same organisations were supposed to
protect our rights and support us in our hour of need. Nobody mistakes
such sacrifice of members, supporters and potential supporters for
anything other than cowardice and abandonment when opposition and
fighting for those rights is the best option. No right has ever been
saved, returned or asserted by surrender, collaboration or appeasement.

 

No firearm organisation has a mandate or permission to reduce membership
or the pool of potential members. No firearm organisation has a mandate
or permission to deliberately endanger the public and their own claims
make them both aware and complicit of doing that.

 

Anyone who observes this abdication and dereliction of duty who is not
blinded by faith and belief will be disappointed, disillusioned and have
no faith they will receive any different treatment when it is their
turn. That has been true of every loss or step of loss of rights.

 

It can be truly said the worst enemy of the right to life, safety,
security and freedom is not gun control or rust, it is firearm
organisations who refuse to protect those rights they claim are valuable
and dear to them. Firearm organisations who indoctrinate and mislead
firearm owners to believe there is nothing they can do but accept
injustice and oppression without their influence and cowardice things
may well be different.

 

Would the ANC ever have collaborated with the NP on apartheid laws, it
would have been suicide for the rights the ANC protected and blacks
would still be under the NP jackboot. Our rights to life, safety,
security and freedom are no different. They do and always have depended
on arms ownership.

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?