Guns, again
Last comment by Bryant 5 months, 1 week ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

I thought the time for gun control debate was after more than twenty innocent five and six year old children were killed in Sandy Hook using a military style assault weapon and a high capacity clip. I was wrong. And after Gabby Giffords was almost killed using a pistol with a high capacity magazine. Wrong again! Our elected representatives were too cowardly to brave the NRA. But, now is the time for reasonable gun control debate. And put down your “pry from my cold, dead fingers” and “only criminals will have guns” and “guns don't kill people” placards. We need to debate reasonable gun limitations. And, as a frame of reference, I am a 66 year old white male born and raised in Georgia. I own guns. I hunt. And I damn sure don't need a 30 round magazine nor a “bump” stock for any legitimate purpose.

The debate is not about ending gun violence. Unless every gun on the planet miraculously disappeared, gun violence will never disappear. The debate is not about confiscating weapons. The debate should be about reducing the capacity for mass killings. Limit magazine capacity for all rifles over .22 caliber to five – outlaw the manufacture, sale, or import of any magazines with a larger capacity, effective immediately. Limit magazine capacity for semi-automatic pistols to ten, immediately. Outlaw bump stocks, effective immediately. That's the easy part. Now for the rest...

There are numerous laws enacted by Congress which hamper local, state, and federal authorities in controlling both individual and gun violence. Under the Tiahrt Amendments (enacted in 2003) to the Gun Control Act of 1968 the ATF can't require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns; records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale; and trace data can't be an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer's license. Additionally, local police may not access ATF's data base unless they are investigating a firearm related crime, significantly hampering local law enforcement in addressing gang violence. Pharmacists selling Sudafed have to maintain better records than gun dealers and have them available for inspection. Better tracking of gun sales is needed.

The background check questionnaire is a comprehensive document. It addresses criminal convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, and other topics which might prohibit a purchase. But, state databases are insufficient, or outdated, or not compatible with the NICS. Most checks through NICS are immediate and a sale is approved. If not approved, the sale cannot be made but the FBI has only three days deny the sale or it is deemed approved. This part costs money. Money to upgrade records, to ensure database compatibility, to hire more FBI investigators to process declined approvals. I'm not even going to mention mental heath as an issue because up until Sunday night, Stephen Paddock was a “normal” person.

We must move past the dichotomy of all or nothing in the gun control debate. No reasonable person has ever mentioned confiscation of firearms as a solution but the memes on Facebook make it appear as a government conspiracy is afoot. And for all of you 2nd Amendment diehards, I leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched...but I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind...We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their...ancestors.” (1816)

Latest Activity: Oct 05, 2017 at 4:44 PM

Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Bryant
Send Bryant a Message
Report Inappropriate Content

Blog has been viewed (949) times.

Ironside commented on Saturday, Oct 07, 2017 at 07:48 AM

Bryant: The largest mass murders in American history have been with bombs and planes. Bombs are outlawed, should we outlaw planes? Thirty round magazines are outlawed. Bump stocks were approved by Obama’s ATF even though it is against the law to modify any weapon to make it automatic. Why did Obama allow bump-stocks to be legal when to do so violated current gun laws? The NRA has called for the banning of bump-stocks. Gun sales by gun dealers are strictly regulated and audited. The Vegas shooter did not have anything in his background to prevent him from purchasing weapons. There is a lot we don’t know yet about him, more time may uncover his motive and other important facts. Let’s wait and see before we go off acting like Chicken Little.

What law or laws would you purpose that would have stopped the Vegas shooter? The quote of Thomas Jefferson is Jefferson explaining that the Constitution can be changed by the American People through Constitutional Amendments. The Constitution is not written in stone. It can be changed and has been many times through Amendments. If the Democrats and their Leftist supporters want changes in our gun laws, thus the 2nd Amendment, offer a Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment. That would trigger a National debate that you are calling for.

One can correctly say that Congress can not write any law affecting the 2nd Amendment. It can only approve a Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment. It is correct to say all gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment.

Finally, as the population grows more people will be identified with mental problems. Add to this illegal drug use, doctors over prescribing medications that can cause changes in mood and rational thinking, together with the explosion of prescribed pain pills and it is no wonder that these mass murderers have mental problems. We closed mental facilities in the 1960’s and there has been a steady increase in these type of killings. We need to have a National debate on mental health issues because, what was done in the 1960’s is not working. Taking the politics out of all of this to find rational solutions is the challenge.

Bryant commented on Sunday, Oct 08, 2017 at 22:27 PM

Ironside, you can Google Bushmaster AR 15 and order 30 round magazines to your heart's content. ATF determined bump stocks were not a firearm but an accessory and not subject to their oversight. I guess you would have preferred President Obama issue an executive order banning them?

The NRA has not called for banning bump stocks merely expressed their willingness to consider the issue, at least according to Chris Cox, NRA Executive Director, this morning.

And, Congress can make laws affecting the 2nd Amendment. Remember the Brady Bill? And your feeble, repetitive attempts to couch all ills as due to "Democrat and leftist" actions is exactly the counterproductive dichotomy I lament.

Ironside commented on Monday, Oct 09, 2017 at 13:46 PM

Bryant: Let’s stop with the Psychobabble used by so many to confuse and mislead people. Let’s instead deal with the law. The law is the only real thing that keeps us from descending into anarchy. President Clinton banded semi-automatic assault rifles including the AR-15. Congress has since removed semi-automatic rifles (AR-15) from being illegal to purchase.

ATF can not approve any item that would allow a semi-automatic weapon to be changed to an automatic weapon. That law was passed in 1932 banning all automatic weapons. The action of the ATF during the Obama Administration was illegal. ATF does not need a new law to ban bump-stocks. It can confiscate all bump-stocks using the 1932 law.

The NRA did signal it’s approval to ban bump-stocks. The NRA has always supported the 1932 law that bans all automatic weapons. The NRA has clarified it’s support to ban bump-stocks once Nancy Pelosi stated that more had to be done than just banning bump-stocks. The NRA stands by it’s statement to ban bump-stocks sense that is what the Vegas shooter used to make his semi-automatic rifles automatic rifles. The NRA will support a ban on bump-stocks if the Democrats will stop any further attempts to pass other laws that would infringe on the rights the American People to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights, but again, Pelosi stated that the Democrats want more gun control laws not just banning Bump-stocks.

The Brady Bill like the 1932 law and all other laws passed by Congress on gun control are not Constitutional. They must be passed as an Amendment to the 2nd Amendment to be Constitutional. The fact that Congress keeps passing laws that violate the Constitution doesn’t make it right or legal. That is why our Founders created a Supreme Court to review the laws passed by Congress because our Founders knew that Congress would try to ignore the Constitution to pass something that was "so called" popular. No one wants to point out the FACT that these Congressional laws are not Constitutional because over 50% of the laws that have been passed by Congress are these type UN-Constitutional Laws. We have been doing it wrong for over a hundred years. This is what is dividing our nation. One side, the Establishment, wants to continue business as usual, all power in the hands of Congress, and the other side wants to go back to the rule of law by following the Constitution that puts all power in the hands of the American People.

Ironside commented on Monday, Oct 09, 2017 at 13:49 PM


Everything you believe should be done about guns including banning them can be done, but only though a Constitutional Amendment. We are a Republic not a Democracy. States have sovereign Powers under the 10th Amendment, and therefore have to approve any changes to our Constitution. That is why a Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress must be ratified by two thirds of the States to become the law of the land. Congress can only pass laws that pertain to the powers lent to the Federal Government by the States. Those powers are enumerated in Article I
section 8 of the Constitution. Any law passed by Congress that does not pertain to Article I section 8 is UN-Constitutional.

Finally, Congress is infested with lawyers who tell us what the law is, because they write the law, and only they are wise enough to explain the law. Trump is not a lawyer he is a businessman who has had to fight the lawyers laws that are designed to hurt honest business and protect the well connected (Today’s Ruling Class)including businesses that seek special favors from the Swamp Politicians in return for campaign contributions. Trump has had to deal with the swamp’s corruption that hurts honest businesses, while running his business, and is why he ran for President, to drain the Swamp.

Our Founding Fathers set up our government to protect Capitalism because it protects the Prosperity of the American People through jobs. Their vision was that the business of America was BUSINESS not government. We need to reset our priorities back to the business of the nation, which is HONEST BUSINESS free of the Swamp and it’s corruption and lack of respect for the rule of law and our Constitution.

Bryant commented on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 15:23 PM

Ironside, I will comment on your post one last time and after that you can keep your ill-formed opinions regarding Constitutional law to your self or others who buy it... "Psychobabble"? I believe my post speaks for itself with no intention to mislead or confuse.

If Clinton banned semiautomatic AR 15 rifles, why can I still purchase one? With a 30 round clip?

I'm sure ATF would appreciate your insight into why they can ban bump stocks since they have already determined they can't.

And the Brady Bill and all other laws concerning the regulation of firearms ARE Constitutional since they have not been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. You do not need a Constitutional amendment to create laws within the purview of the Constitution. The end!

And our Constitution and government were not created to protect capitalism. It was created to protect the rights of individuals (as long as you were a white, land owning male) and ensure representative government of, for and by the people.

And Trump is a harebrained, thinskinned, egotist with no depth and no appreciation for the issues facing this country. If he meant to drain the swamp, why did he bring so many alligators and snakes with him to the White House? A man who demeans his Cabinet members. Who demeans people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. And who picks fights with experienced, respected members of Congress (most of whom I disagree with on social issues but respect with regard to national security and international relations).

You want to debate issues, fine. Bring it on. Let's have some numbers, some facts, some basis. But not your own psychobabble.

Ironside commented on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 08:21 AM

Bryant: Further discussion requires knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

spellbound commented on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 14:55 PM

I have enjoyed this thread, but would like to translate the previous post: "I know you are, but what am I?" The previous post has nothing in it that responds to the post above it, and is therefore rendered void and without meaning. If there is an argument to present, do so and resist the temptation to put forth what appears to be an ad hominem attack. Responses could be to (1)explain your position on the Brady Bill (my take: if something has not been judged unconstitutional, it is constitutional) (2) explain why you have chosen your position on the purpose of the U.S. Constitution.

Ironside commented on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 23:22 PM

Spellbound: Further discussion requires knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The Brady Bill changes the 2nd Amendment. Congress can not pass a law that changes the 2nd Amendment or any Amendment. Congress can only pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd Amendment, then send it to the States for ratification. That was not done with the Brady Bill. It is UN-Constitutional. It must be a Constitutional Amendment to be legal. But, again Further discussion requires knowledge of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Bryant commented on Thursday, Oct 12, 2017 at 16:48 PM

Spellbound, thanks but you and I are obviously woefully ignorant since we disagree with Ironside. Alas.

Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Bryant
Donate Wisely
February 21, 2018
I recently received a solicitation for the "2018 Statesboro Area Appeal" "The Hospice Support Fund". As a fan and supporter of our local hospice, I read the appeal closely. First I will congratulate the parent organization, The New Hope Foundation, for the honesty of their appeal. While slightly misleading by ...
Read More »
Nothing changes, yet
February 19, 2018
I originally posted this February 13, 2017. Today, February 18, 2018, nothing has changed. Our Senators remain tongue tied and Mr. Allen crows about actions which will increase our already crushing debt and endanger the health of rural Georgians. Our President remains a liar, concerned more with the failure of ...
Read More »
Financial quid pro quo?
January 25, 2018
The following is from International Business Times ( If you believe Trump is looking out for the masses I encourage you to read this. Deutsch Bank was one of many players in the financial meltdown in 2008. And all you folks who complained why no one went to jail or ...
Read More »
Guns again, again
November 08, 2017
In case you missed it the first time: Texas, dead church goers, 30 round magazines, failure to report to FBI, and the beat goes on... I thought the time for gun control debate was after more than twenty innocent five and six year old children were killed in Sandy Hook ...
Read More »
President Pinocchio
February 13, 2017
The following was sent to both Senators and Congressman Allen. I am extremely concerned about the current President's callous disregard for the separate but equal parts of our government. His crude, insulting comments about judges and members of the Congress who dare to disagree with him, not to mention members ...
Read More »
[View More Blogs...]

Powered by
Morris Technology