Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."




The most often heard argument in the ongoing gun-control debate is whether or not gun control prevents gun crime. Gun-control advocates believe it does. Second Amendment advocates argue that it doesn’t. A more cogent question when it comes to gun-control, however, is who do you trust?  (Read the full column at EWRosss.com)


Filed under: Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses

  1. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    It is not a good idea to trust anyone who advocates “gun control”.

    By David Allison

  2. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    This so-called “Gun control” is a joke. It is nothing but a first step in Obama’s plan to take our guns away. He and Clinton are advocates of the gun control the U.N. is pushing. If we need to discuss gun control (again, which is a joke) I don’t trust:

    McCain (RINO)

    The list of liberal dems (and RINOs) goes on and on. They are not addressing the problem of our kids being attached. They actually think that putting a sign up that says No-Gun zone promotes safety – idiots.

    By Michael Talley

  3. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    That’s nonsense Allison. I trust my range-master implicitly. Always seems to point me in the right direction.

    By Bob Schecter

  4. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    The most dangerous aspect of the gun control agenda is it ultimately criminalises the legal ownership of guns, making law abiding citizens more prone to being victims of gun violence. This is more than a discussion about “safety”. It is really about individual liberty.

    Our Founding Fathers understood that the 2nd Amendement was vital in the defense of liberty and freedom.

    By Vasili Liarakos

  5. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Looking at who benefits from passing laws to restrict inanimate objects that are neither good or bad, safe or dangerous without human intervention, it is clear to me that any attempt to prevent an act through legislation is misguided at best. Even supports on the hill admit that their legislation will not prevent crime. How long has it been illegal to murder, robe, or rape? Has that fact changed anything? I do not trust the government to be responsible in any way. I certainly do not believe they should be telling citizens what and how many guns, magazines, or bullets a person should own. It is none of the governments’ or anyone elses business. If I choose to own 1 or 100 guns it is no more anyone’s business than if I were to choose 1 or 100 golf clubs. Either item can be used for good or evil depending on whose hand the item is in and that person’s motivation.

    There is only one true gun control: a tight grip with one or more hands pointed at the intended direction controlled by a person who understands what they are about to do. Any other definition is people control.

    By Steven Perry

  6. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    It is a well-proven fact that the anti-gun establishment is dead wrong on this issue.

    Case in point: Kennesaw, GA (1992) saw crime filtering out of Atlanta into their city. The locals passed an “open-carry/mandatory owndership” ordinance. As a result, they have not had a murder in their city in 25 years. Everyone their openly carries whatever firearm they wish…YES, even an AR-15. Criminals do not attack people who are ready for them. They attack the weak and helpless….such as liberals.

    Everywhere liberals rule over Americans (NYC, Chicago, California, etc.) with over-taxation, overbearing gun control, and overbearing 16-ounce laws, they are upside down in welfare, unemployment is rampant, crime is completely destroying their areas, and there is no hope for the people.

    I propose that we create a law that states if any Democrat weighs over 16 ounces that they are not allowed to run for office.

    I would trust a Republican pointing a gun at me before I’ll ever trust a Democrat for any reason.

    By Joseph Price

  7. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    I trust nobody. History has proven that “gun control” translates to “people control”. Even VP Biden admitted (on a hot camera/mike that they know gun control doesn’t work. A review of the last 20+ active/mass shooters has revealed they were either on, or recently on, medications for mental health issues…new FDA warning (instead of “may cause suicidal thoughts”) how about “May cause homicidal thoughts or actions”…

    By Michael E. Homer

  8. Bob says:

    Our government has given us many reasons to not trust it. Our president has balked on enough campaign promises to make skeptics out of us. The socialistic approach to health care, practically punishing those that have financially played by the rules, and now has folks on pins and needles worrying about cuts in medicare and social security to fund a government sponsored health care program that 70 plus percent of polled americans did not want. One has to ask theirselves if they feel comfortable enough to put our second amendment rights totally in the hands of the current administration. Nobody in their right mind would argue against a sensible approach to gun ownership and the safety of our citizens. We are all shocked and deeply saddened over the recent tradgities that have happened. The government just keeps insisting that the emphasis be on the control of guns, instead of the contol of “who” wants to own them!
    Giving up our rights is certainly a lot eaiser than trying to get them back.

  9. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    If “gun control” worked Chicago and Washington DC would be models for the nation.

    I have seen no legislation, from either party, that would have done or will do anything to prevent the tragedies cited as the reason we need more gun control.

    The ultimate goal of the gun control crowd is the elimination of private gun ownership.

    Who do I trust? It is easier to say who I do NOT trust. That answer to that is “Politicians”.

    By Don Coatney

  10. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Schectetr, I guess we can make an exception for range-masters and forward observers.

    By David Allison

  11. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Ed, that is a very ambiguous question that you are asking. The NRA you to buy guns and arm everybody. Some people advocate that they should be as well armed as Law Enforcement or the Military. Others support Universal background checks, or Assault Weapons ban, or limiting the size of the clip.

    By Larry Barton

  12. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    The only question I have is: “Does it really matter who you trust on gun control laws, if the laws will not get enforced, anyway?”
    Liberalism by nature and definition cares little about enforcement, and a lot about subjective interpretations of rules, laws, and policies. These slippery-sloped rabbit trails of ideas in how to control misfortunes where guns were involved will, by no means, have any effect on the end game of this debate. That is why the current administration is adamant in exploiting the Newtown victims families emotionally charged pleas, and not answering the logical, historical facts of the debate.

    Conservatism by nature and definition is a strict adherence to the rules, laws, and policies.

    This debate is showing the many ‘loop holes’ in politically charged interpretations of our nations Constitution and it’s devolved policies at the local level; along with the exposure that laws DO NOT prevent crimes. Over the years, America has become emotional and soft over enforcing laws and policies, that criminals choose to use guns, because it’s faster and easier to get away with the crime, and in the end, they know that the enforcement of the laws and policies are not severe or rarely enforced, anyway.

    The biggest tragedy that has happened from America’s gun debate is the exposure of politicians who are utterly moronic and myopic in scope. With Representatives and Senators like Pelosi, Rangel, and Reid making absurd claims that do more exposing the idiocy of their constituents who vote them in, rather the necessary fixing of broken policies; how can we believe that any solution will be an effective one?

    So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what new laws they bring about, there will be little to no ‘change’ in the outcome they wish. Only more and more deliberations as to who can do what in a relative, subjectively interpretive law nation as America.
    The biggest concern people should have is how far will the government go into the lives of people to deem them ‘mentally stable?’ This is subtle encroachment at it’s finest. If you think it’s bad now, wait until they start keeping guns from veterans, and taking guns from veterans because of PTSD.

    By David Pegg

  13. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens and restrict affirmed Constitutional freedoms. I trust the Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment specifically.

    By Michael R. Grimler

  14. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Trust absolutely no one either! Senator Graham gets a “NO VOTE” during the upcoming election as well!

    By Metro Boone

  15. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Ronald is right!!!!!! The good people as you have over and over heard simply don’t go around commiting crimes. But there will be a time when those that have demanded gun control will again see those criminals that did not turn in their guns and help will too minutes away to help them. “Guns keep Criminals away”.

    By Chess Neff

  16. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Here is how I would re-phrase the second amendment in modern terms sort of in reverse. No government agency, employee or jurisdiction has the right to posses ANY weapon that they deny to any citizen not convicted of a crime, with their boundaries except when called forth to defend the nation against invasion, rebellion, and violence by Congress or Legislative action as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, item 10 through 16 and Article IV section 4. If the citizens can not have more than 10 round magazines or automatic weapons neither can police, sheriffs, SWAT teams, FBI, border patrol, Secret Service agents, private security forces, foreign agents, or any others. An allowance would be made for for storage and training at forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards as provided in Article I section 8, item 17. But once the weapon is brought onto private property it violates the 3rd amendment.

    By Jerald Miller

  17. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Its already begun ………

    By Marty Farrell

  18. Tim Carey says:

    The only people that are against comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases are: 1) the criminals that buy guns through straw buyers or in the parking lots at gun shows to terrorize urban neighborhoods; 2) the gun manufacturers that do not want to lose this important market segment; and 3) the paranoid anti-government people that think that Randy Weaver was a hero…

  19. Bill Jordan says:

    This is a very concise and accurate assessment of the gun control issue. All the bills and debate, most of it absolutely ludicrous and meaningless, miss the essential point that its about control of the populace, not protection of school children.

    Travel through Israel sometimes to get an idea of how to protect schoolchildren…even in a heavily threatened and militarized state, school administrators, guards and teachers have ready and safe access to weapons.

    To Mr. Carey I’d also point out It is a good indication of the law of unintended consequences–how will a private seller that wants to sell a ‘legal’ hunting or target firearm to a friend, colleague or neighbor (which is how I buy and sell most of my guns) perform this background check?

    Probably by a bureaucratic, inefficient and expensive process that bloats the government ranks even more. If the government gets into the gun confiscation business, they’ve just created criminals out of 40, 000, 000 previously law-abiding citizens.

    Love your country, but question–and mistrust–your government. They want two things: to stay in office and control your lives.

  20. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Well Jerald, they can’t obey the simple phrase “Shall not be infringed”. I doubt they are going to abide by something more restrictive.

    By Roger Bradley

  21. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    I trust no one! I am perfectly capable to reading and understanding the Second Amendment without any assistance from the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President! I put them to task if and when any or all of them decide to attempt withhold my right to Bear Arms! I allow you to define the word task as used!

    By Roy Wilt

  22. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Barbara Feinstein is already labeling Veteran’s as “potential terrorists” because of PTSD and trying to pass legislation preventing veterans from owning firearms. The key word in Ed’s paragraph is “Control” – that is what its all about!

    By James del Rio Sr.

  23. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    The biggest issue I see coming out of this new proposed gun control is the subtle way that government is trying to interpret motivation. As Steve eluded to, it seems as if representatives, senators, and the administration are trying to answer ‘why someone would want own so many guns?’ This totters dangerously close on wanting to regulate one’s motivation in owning guns, not allowing one’s freedom in owning their own guns. Which, in return, threatens a person’s fundamental freedom to think.
    Will it get to the point where a person will be prosecuted for thinking a certain thought?

    By David Pegg

  24. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    The “Thought Police” are alive and well and the answer to your question is YES. That’s why it is all about CONTROL, they want it and you have it.

    By James del Rio Sr.

  25. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    I don’t trust anyone who buys into conspiracy theories with a gun and would like to see everything possible to keep those people from getting their hands on one. If you are too delusional to understand that 9/11 was not an inside job or that this recent Boston Bombing isn’t a false flag, you need not own a gun.

    By Mark Caddo

  26. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    The person I would trust would surely not be a politician. There was 14 people stabbed at a Texas College and yesterday bombing supposedly in trash containers. Do we ban knives and trash containers. Yesterday just proves if our enemies want to get to us they can and laws will not affect this.

    By Don Birdsong

  27. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    As I recall from many years of police work and also from law school, stabbing people and setting off bombs to harm people are against the law. So, if you follow the logic of those in favor of gun control, stabbings and bombings should not happen. The flaw in the argument is that we are dealing with the mentally ill, sociopaths (maybe no different than mentally ill), and criminals. Those people tend to disregard the rules that the rest of us follow. I really think that we have enough laws and restrictions in place already. Let’s work on enforcing some of them.

    By the way, I side with those of you that say that we should NEVER trust a politician.

    By John P. Hebb, Esq.

  28. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    I trust no-one that claims they are for “reasonable gun control;” as if we were in some sort of vacuum in which firearms are unregulated and freely available to all.

    I trust no-one that claims they “support the Second Amendment – but…”

    I don’t trust Fudds who babble about how “no-one needs a machine gun to hunt.”

    I don’t trust the media at all.

    That leaves those who grasp the concept and purpose of the Second Amendment: Its role as the ultimate safeguard of our freedom.

    By Keith Langer

    • Tim Carey says:

      Respectfully to all.

      I stand by my comments. Nothing that has been posted here has countered them at all, namely that, the people that oppose universal background checks fall into three categories: 1) criminals, 2) the people that sell criminal guns; and 3) people that oppose the US Government and think Randy Weaver is an American hero.

      In fact, the posts have reinforced my view, especially item 3).

      30,000 people were killed by guns last year in the US. Most of those people acquired their weapons through markets unregulated by background checks (gun shows, private sales).

      For those of you posting here that “most” of the guns you buy and sell are on the private market, are you comfortable selling weapons and ammunition to criminals and convicted felons?

      Tim Carey

  29. Bill Jordan says:

    Don’t think I’ve ever sold one to a criminal or convicted felon, Tim…I’ve sold them to people I’ve known for years and soldiered with during my 32 years in the Army.

    Also, being a long-time resident of Idaho part time you couldn’t have picked a worse case of government malfeasance, incompetence and recklessness as an example than Randy Weaver and the Ruby Ridge incident in north Idaho–where a ‘government’ sniper shot through a doorway and killed an infant in a woman’s arms in that cabin.

    I believe Randy Weaver was later awarded over a million dollars in damages from the US Government and his case was dismissed.

    Why don’t you get a better example of government competence, like the attack on the Branch Davidian compound. Lot’s of collateral damage there.

  30. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    Ed, Re: . A more cogent question when it comes to gun-control, however, is who do you trust?”. I think who do you believe is more relevant.

    ‘Trust’ implies that there should be a lack trust depending on the source of the control.
    As in many saying if they allow gun control ‘what other constitutional right will THEY go after?’.

    OR is it levels of trust depending who’s controls are used. Requiring background checks on ALL Private Sales may have prevented the under age kids of the Columbine masacre from purchasing the 3 guns from a private seller at a gun show.

    Universal background checks may also have prevented incidents where the shooters had a history of domestic violence or mental illness that resulted in hospitalization.

    By Daniel L

  31. Frank Watson says:

    I appreciate this column for it’s balance and it’s identification of the problems of uncompromising stances on both Left and Right. For my part, I live in Indiana, a carry state, but find that even here I sometimes have to choose between leaving my firearm at home or breaking the law. When I go to another state the laws differ so much that my rights to carry are definitely compromised by the impossibility of knowing and obeying the different laws. I would be for a national carry law that would give me the same rights in all states. As it is I prefer not to travel as much as I might otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: