Who wants guns? Would you trust Astronaut Mark Kelly?

I’ve written several pieces on the 2nd Amendment, and I still believe that the majority of Americans actually have more in common per personal beliefs than the media or either extreme leads people to believe.

These debates, however, have gone from legitimate to fantasyland with Congress and media

Aren’t the primary objectives:  A) to promote safe and responsible usage among law abiding citizens who own or desire to purchase weapons and B) to try and prevent weapons getting into the possession of those who intend to do harm?  One can transpose A and B if desired, but is there any disagreement on C) try to limit the number of people hurt by accidents and D) try to limit the number of crimes committed and people hurt at the hands of others?

One side has every gun getting confiscated and the other has somehow turned guns into living creatures capable of acting on their own.

Historically I will still argue that the ammunition proposals signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and acts signed into law by George H.W. Bush imposed greater restrictions on the majority of safe and responsible gun owners and licensed and legitimate gun dealers than anything actually proposed today.  I’ll even argue that more people probably remember having to make adjustments to their firearm usage with the 1986 legislation than with the 1994 ban.  I’ve yet to have a friend or colleague recall anything special about when that ban ended in 2004, and some of my friends back home in Louisiana seriously have arsenals in their homes.  A few are even considered “lost” and not “found” by their relatives until the closure of the respective hunting season.  To me guns are tools, albeit powerful ones, which can be of great benefit when used properly but cause irreparable damage if used incorrectly or for the wrong purpose.

I’ll be called anti-American in opposition to guns and a mass murderer for this depending on one’s side.

Let me use some dumb and brainless analogies to sum up my opinions about weapons.  I’ve encountered a number of cottonmouths in my life.  If it is only man and cottonmouth, the snake can go about its day and I will mine.  If the snake is in a position to cause me or others near harm, some action is warranted.  I’ve probably used most ordinary farm tools including a pitchfork which admittedly resulted in a good case of cold sweats afterward.  I’ve used a .22, .38, and 9 mm pistols, .22 and .306 rifles, 20 and 12 gauge shotguns, and a Daisy air BB and pellet gun against cottonmouths.  I’ve never needed a Gatling gun, AK-47, 16’’/50 caliber Mark 7, or an atomic bomb to complete the job.  Simply, there is a fine line between too much tool and too little.  Both can be harmful.

Is this really happening?

Whether they believe it or not, many people are too paranoid and have allowed themselves to become brainwashed by both extremes on this issue.  The Constitution shall not be shred.  We are protecting the 2nd Amendment from Obama.  Obama is going to take your guns.  Before cheering on Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and others for their intention to filibuster the upcoming “gun control” legislation on the Senate Floor, have you actually read these “evil” bills.


Seriously, have you looked at S. 179  or the companion H.R. 452 which have been denounced?



How about S. 649 which is the actual filibuster target?


You might not like some or even all aspects of these proposals, but honestly do any of these bills contain provisions that are so anti gun or anti 2nd Amendment that they should not be discussed on the Floors of either Chamber?  Will any of these regulations make everyone safe from guns?  Of course not, but do they forcibly impede your rights either?  I would think that with some changes to wordings, an addition here, a subtraction on this point, and so on would result in a bill that would please responsible gun owners and sellers as well as those who oppose guns for whatever reason.  Still, these bills are so evil because they either take away all guns from “good people” or don’t take away all guns from “bad people.”  They are so evil that our elected representatives cannot even discuss, let alone vote one way or the other on the provisions as written or as amended.  I wonder why, do you?

The Constitution of the United Nations of America?

Another example of this brainwashing is who or what has convinced people that the UN has legal jurisdiction over the United States and its law is superior to the Constitution.  One second someone is shouting that the American government does not have the power to destroy rights granted in the Constitution.  Basically if you remove a number of variables and rare occurrences that position is accurate.   So when and where did the UN gain so much authority over domestic issues in the United States?  Were the attorneys, Dewey, Cheathem, and Howe the negotiators of that accord?

No bread?  Well why don’t they eat cake!

From brainwashing and paranoia to hypocritical, what is the logical reason why many arguing that the 2nd Amendment is being infringed seem happy that a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer stopped Mark Kelly’s attempt to purchase a weapon?


If you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed, do so, but that applies to everyone.  If you want to try to justify the Mark Kelly denial at not applicable because of his purpose actually think about what position you are trying to make credible.  Political ideology aside, when you read the instructions for Form 4473 how can you argue that Mark Kelly was not the buyer?  Giving the weapon as a gift to the Tucson Police Department is a decision and right of Mr. Kelly.  If you want to argue that the dealer is a private businessman and not the government, ask yourself why must government approval take place for a legal sale?  Argue against Kelly and his right to purchase and thus justify every gun dealers’ right to limit the type of weapon you want to purpose for whatever reason they want.

Doubt me?  Well how would you interpret this wording from the actual Form 4473?

“For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment). You are also the

actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party. ACTUAL BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT

the actual buyer of the firearm and must answer “no “ to question 12a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 12a.”

Too much or Not enough…that is the issue

The Hill had this story on NRA opposition:


Some examples of ATF restrictions can be found in this article, but I would recommend reading from any source about ATF restrictions and the Tiahrt Amendments because it seems that many responsible gun owners question the wisdom of both regardless of political spin.


While this source might be considered more partisan by some, the numbers concerning corrupt FFL holders, missing weapons, ATF agent numbers, and the unannounced inspection restrictions can be verified and have been emphasized in various stories on both political sides.


Are apples now called oranges?

Honestly, how much of the debate concerns a realistic possibility that guns will be confiscated from your homes and that you will not be allowed to purchase weapons?  How much of the debate is mainly a political chicken fight and about making money, spreading paranoia, and gaining more clout over the decisions made by the individuals elected to represent “We the People?”



Consider the stance on gun free zones and how it has changed:



Also what about guns shows?  Compare the statements from the Denver transcript above to:


I’m only suggesting a few things which apply to me, and I hope you will consider as well in this debate. Regardless of conditions, let’s show some respect and sympathy for the family and friends of those who have been victims of gun violence whether intentional, at the hands of another, or by a freak accident.  Their sadness remains no matter the cause, and they should neither be vilified nor glorified for their loss.  Few people choose or want to be in that position.

Second, let’s all do some reality checking.  Maybe registries are bad, but how many lists are you on already?  Did you pay cash for that weapon?  Could someone have seen you walking out of the store with it?  Did you post a picture on social media like Facebook or Twitter?  Have you ever filled out a form at some point in your life?

If you own something, it might scare the beet juice out of you to accept this, but somebody else knows directly that you own that thing or enough circumstantial evidence is present that even “Dumb Donald” and “Stupid Sally” can figure it out.  The photo in the newspaper with that 20 point buck with a 40 inch spread, sweet pic of your little sweetheart holding your Bushmaster, or that under the protection of Smith and Wesson bumper sticker and sign on your house just might be more prominent than any freaking database as to what you own.

Third, what in the heck does labeling people Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, conservatives, liberals, or anything else have to do with the issue?   If you own a gun are you the same as everyone else who owns a gun?  What about if you don’t?  If you believe you are then are all gun owners “good guys” or “bad guys?”  Is it only possible to commit a sick, despicable act when you have a weapon?

Last, think about who is profiting over the continuation and escalation of this either/or debate?  What amount of time and attention is being diverted from other matters?

I’ve never been bit by a cottonmouth with my closest escape being the luck of wearing of some steel toed boots and having a little baby snake take on the toes of my left shoe while I cleared a fallen tree from a gravel road with a chainsaw following a Tropical Storm.  Fortunately my shoe did not have to face the beaver test of the McCullough chainsaw as I did an old time Ray Guy hang time impression and a buddy disintegrated the baby fangs with a 20 gauge.  I have, however, been bit by both a chicken snake and a grass snake.  Both times on the hand, and while neither is poisonous the bites are not a pleasant experience.  You might disagree, but whether poisonous or not, this debate has somehow changed from a rope or chain representing ideas into a slithering snake.   Only the conjurors are profiting from our confusion by building distrust, and we should not be supporting that profiteering.


One thought on “Who wants guns? Would you trust Astronaut Mark Kelly?

  1. Pingback: The Unmentioned Precedent Established in the Voting Rights Act Decision of 2013: The Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder case | lablouisianaboy

Comments are closed.