M. Jordan: What don't they understand?

I can no longer sit by and read the letters printed in the Sun Journal about gun control.

The underlying message is a plea to government officials to make more laws that tell people how to live. Those people are saying that they can’t make any decisions by themselves. They claim that guns keep killing people and they can’t defend themselves, so please take them all away and all will be well.

I am baffled by people such as Ellen Field (letter, March 28). I cannot understand how blaming the guns for killing people will help at all. What next? Do we ask the government to remove or restrict automobiles because drivers get drunk and kill people?

Field is asking the government to restrict the public. This is a free country. The people who fight and die for this country should be appalled.

I would like to understand which word of the Second Amendment people who want gun control don’t understand: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Restricting access to firearms is definitely infringing on my rights, that much is clear.

Michael Jordan, Auburn

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

FRANK EARLEY's picture

He should have, I wish they did this, why they didn't do that...

A lot of these post's, where people feel that better laws, more laws, or stricter laws, will help fix everything, I feel miss the point. We already have tons of laws. Laws to control handgun use, laws to regulate driving, we have laws up the ying-yang. What is lacking, and what actually is causing people to do things like, shoot themselves in the hand, is not the number of laws. It's the inability of people to obey the laws.
In all my years of driving truck, I have seen some of the dumbest thing you could imagine, on the road. I don't care how many laws you have, how hard you enforce them. How do you define the cause of an accident caused by a guy changing his pants, while driving seventy-five MPH, on the inter state? Could you imagine how thick the Law Books would be if we wrote laws for every stupid thing people do to hurt themselves and others?
Whats lacking in this society is "responsibility". It's one of those things you can't make into law, or regulate. It's in the gene's. As long as we have the "Oh it won't happen to me" attitude. no law is really enforceable. From a very early age, people start trying to get away with something. We all do it, the problem is that those little risks get bigger and bigger. Along with risk taking come,"the failure to contemplate the results of your actions". It's the ones who don't know when to slow down the risky behavior, and consider the consequences, that end up shooting themselves in the hand.
We don't really need new laws, just a little common sense, and to be a little more responsible.......

Jason Theriault's picture

We do have lots of laws...and they work.

Do you hear handguns being discharged inside the city limits? Nope? That because their is a law for that.
Do people drive on the wrong side of the street? No? Because we have laws for that.

We have lots of laws, and for the most part, they work.

Let's stop fooling ourselves, the argument isn't about whether the laws will work, but whether the added hassle is worth it. I think it is, as has been proven around the world, that gun control works.

Your solution is the "do nothing" approach, throwing up your hands and then trying to shift blame unto other things like video games.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

How is this a "do nothing" approach????????

I wasn't really suggesting anything, it was more of an observation. My contention is, that the laws already on the books are fine. I guess it's been a pet peeve of mine for years that people will deliberately do some of the dumbest things. Quite a few of those things result in someone being arrested or worse. I don't mean to single out "gun's" or "driving", but those are two of the most obvious.
When I was driving truck, it was almost as difficult to avoid the idiots out there, than it was just driving the truck. You'll have to admit, when you have some guy driving a two and a half ton car, pissed off at me for some reason, pull in front of my "eighty thousand pound truck",going seventy miles per hour, and slam on the brakes. What exactly is he hoping will happen. This is not a one time incident, this happened all the time. Let's just say that this guy somehow got me to hit him. What is he hoping to accomplish? You have to wonder what part of the brain was this guy using, I say "was" because, in his attempt to upset me, he gets himself smeared all over the highway. Now the million dollar question. What law, present or future, would have prevented this guy from trying to upset me? That's what I mean, the laws are fine, the enforcement is fine, but there are always going to be those few individuals out there who will somehow succeed at skirting all the protections set up to keep them alive. Fortunately most of these people survive with just the indignation of a stint in jail or a fine, but some end up hurting or killing themselves or others. For that reason alone, I won't be letting my guard down anytime soon...........

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Sooooo...

Does this mean you think we should not have any laws at all. Would you agree with that guy who proposed a bill in the Maine legislature that people could stop at red lights only if they thought they needed to? Human nature being what it is no law will obviously fix everything. I think the point of the laws is to make things better. Some people do go through red lights but most people stop for them and making them optional would not, in my opinion, facilitate traffic in Portland on a Friday afternoon. At this point just getting rid of the laws that hinder the authorities from catching the guys that are breaking the law would be an improvement. We also will never be able to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong people" until we know where the guns are. The person most responsible for preventing this is the so called "responsible gun owner" who leaves guns unsecured, uses them recklessly , sells them to criminals to turn a profit and lobbies our legislators in behalf of laws that hinder the authorities.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

My point has nothing to do with "If we had laws"

I don't think you quite get it. It's not whether or not we have laws, it is whether or not people "Obey" the laws. It has nothing to do with enforcement. It is about people who for what ever reason decide to not do the right thing. My example of the guy changing his pants, that happened on the New Jersey Turnpike. The guy rear ended some cars at a toll booth. Now there are literally dozens of laws on the books regarding distracted driving, marked lane violations, speeding. What I'm saying is, all these laws should have prevented this accident from occurring. This guy consciously decided to change his pants behind the wheel of a moving car. If the laws already on the books won't stop this guy, what possible new ones might? If a person lacks responsibility, they are a danger to all of us. Most people grow out of that, it's called adulthood. yet we still have those noticeable few. When you start hearing things like, "oh no one will mind", or "no one will see me", or my favorite, "Everyone else does it". Take cover, there's an accident waiting to happen. I don't think we need more laws, we just need more people to act responsibly.......

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The city mouse and the country mouse

Most guns in this country are located in rural and suburban areas and as a result most gun deaths are the result of suicides, domestic violence and accidents. People do not feel threatened by this because no one expects to have an accident or or to shoot themselves or their family. In the city, when someone sprays 100 bullets in a school, subway car, theater, workplace or mall everyone is threatened because it is random and unavoidable and it creates TERROR even though the statistics on this type of gun death is fairly low. What happened at Newtown and at Columbine is that the terror of the cities came to the suburbs. Every parent now lives with the realization when they put their child on a school bus that they might not come home. These incidents will keep happening until Americans decide they are no more inclined to live with domestic terror than with foreign terror. Sooner or later there will be regulation. I am watching the situation in Texas where white supremacist gangs have declared war on law enforcement. I expect judges and elected officials will be killed next. How will the state of Texas, land of gun supremacy, react when their state looks like Mexico with gangs in charge of the government? Is this what our founding Fathers had in mind when they said they wanted an armed populace be able to overthrow a tyrannical government?

MARK GRAVE's picture

“We also will never be able

“We also will never be able to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong people" until we know where the guns are.”

While what you say on the surface makes sense; however, legislators go too far. Take the recent Senate bill on gun control for example. Under that bill, an individual is not allowed to loan a gun to a relative without it being classified as an illegal transfer unless the owner is physically present.

How in the heck does that keep guns out of the wrong hands, like felons?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Transferring guns

Just because someone is a relative doesn't mean they are competent, responsible or law abiding. If Nancy Lanza, for example, had been required to legally transfer her guns to her son while present , she might not have been shot in the head with her own gun as she came through the door. She might have been able to notice that something was amiss with him that day. To my way of thinking a responsible gun owner would take responsibility for storing their guns in a safe place and would not sell or lend them to anyone who does not pass a background check or whom he suspects might be about to shoot somebody . While I do want to see trafficking laws strenghtened and enforced, I am even more interested in seeing more education programs about gun safety. I think much of the problem is that people just don't think and then accidents happen. Education can do as much to prevent that as legislation..

MARK GRAVE's picture

“If Nancy Lanza, for example,

“If Nancy Lanza, for example, had been required to legally transfer her guns to her son while present , she might not have been shot in the head with her own gun as she came through the door.”

Really, do you know how this sounds? She sure was not absent when the bullet entered her brain. I’m pretty sure she was present.

Neither will the tighter trafficking laws stop straw buyers. A straw buyer simply files off the serial number on the gun, then it is not traceable back to the buyer.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Cars and guns, here we go again.

Michael is making that same old claim about restricting access to firearms would be the same as restricting access to vehicles because they both kill people.
I'll write this one more time for those who, like Michael, are just waking up.
To own and operate a motor vehicle one must first get training on the use of it and the rules of the road and then be tested both in class and on the road. If you pass you get the privilege to possess a drivers license. When you by the vehicle, through a dealership or private sale, it must be registered, licensed , inspected yearly and proof of insurance is required.
To access a firearm you simply buy an Uncle Henry's. Plunk down $100.00 and go on a shooting spree.
NOW CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARS AND GUNS?

Noel Foss's picture

Al;

When was the last time you saw something on the evening news about somebody here in Maine buying a $100 gun from Uncle Henry's and going on a shooting spree?
Now, tell me the last time you saw a news story about someone here in Maine getting arrested for driving drunk? And how many of those well-trained, registered, and insured people were arrested after they'd led the police on a chase and crashed their car?

MARK GRAVE's picture

Man uses car to assult walmart shoppers

San Jose Walmart Attack: Four Injured During Crash, Assault At California Store

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/san-jose-walmart-attack-f_n_299...

AL PELLETIER's picture

And can you imagine

If this idiot had an AR-15 with three thirty round clips instead of the blunt object used in this attack? In this case, even with 70 shoppers in the store, there were no life threatening injuries and this all happened in the same amount of time as the Sandy Hook tragedy with 26 deaths.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Noel

My Uncle Henry comment was an analogy regarding how easy it is to acquire a firearm versus a motor vehicle. And speaking about being well trained, this morning did you read about the idiot who shot himself through the hand while cleaning his .40 Glock? Do you think that with a little formal firearms training he might have learned that he should have cleared his firearm prior to cleaning it?
And I'd like to ask you, if we had ABSOLUTELY NO LAWS regarding rules of the road, regarding speed limits, regarding drinking and driving, regarding proper operation of a motor vehicle, regarding having insurance, regarding auto theft, how much more often would the scenario you presented in your last paragraph happen?
Many laws in this country have been written, not to deprive us of our civil rights, but to protect us from ourselves.

Noel Foss's picture

Sure did.

I even commented on his idiocy. Training aside, if he'd actually read the owner's manual he'd have known the correct procedure for taking the gun down without shooting himself. Just goes to show, you can't account for every moron.
If there were no laws regarding driving, I'm sure that there'd be many more accidents. But that's an irrelevant point, since just like there are already laws regarding cars, trucks, and drivers, there are already laws regarding firearms ownership and use.
Protection from ourselves has been used as an explanation for legislation regarding everything from seat belts and helmets to bans on large sugary drinks and single-use plastic bags. The trick is determining what's necessary and what's not.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Cars come with owners manuals too.

And your right , Noel, none of us can ever account for every moron but laws are written every day by our elected officials, who we assume posses some degree of sanity, to TRY to protect us from the idiots who shoot themselves in the hand, drive a car when drunk and shoot up elementary schools. Our laws are not written by some third world country and then we're told we must enforce them. Our laws are written by us, you and me, through our elected officials.
If an assault weapon with a 30 round clip that can be readily purchased is deemed to be a public hazard by our law makers, then so be it. The idiots will always protest and scream that their freedoms are being trampled on (until their kid is shot dead by one of those idiots with an AR-15)

Noel Foss's picture

facts should rule over emotion when it comes to legislation.

You're making an emotional argument. Legislation should be factual, not emotional. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" you say, that's why we need to get AR-15's off the street! You say that idiots scream and protest, until one of their children is shot by an AR-15.
You need to do some research. They're far more likely to lose one of their children to a handgun, a car, a reaction to a prescription drug, a fist, a blunt instrument, drowning, poisoning, a household accident, or even being killed by a farm animal than they are to lose their kid to somebody with an AR-15. You don't believe me, look up the facts; the CDC and the DOJ post them every year. And they're not groups with an agenda like the NRA or the Brady Campaign.
You've got faith in politicians to make an important decision affecting people's constitutional rights that's not motivated by the polls in their constituency? Good luck with that.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Really Noel?

Suppose you have a 86 nova for sale. someone comes along, plops the cash in your hand, and drives off to the local bar. They go in get drunk and leave the bar. Along the way while runningf a stoplight they T-bone a mini van and kill the parents and two of their children. Oh and you forgot to tell them about all the reasons the nova wouldn't take a sticker. Oh did you ask to see their drivers license? Good thing you didn't, they have been suspended for years because of 9 previous OUI's.

Noel Foss's picture

Actually...

If I was selling an '86 Nova I would have said "the best part is that it doesn't need a sticker if you register it as an antique!" right before I took their money and said "how much do you want me to write the bill of sale out for?"

Still not a good comparison, Noel

The "shooting spree" comment aside, Al is 100% correct. Because of constitutional guarantees, anyone CAN get an Uncle Henry's or go to a gun show and get a gun. Or even 3. Hell, load up the car! No training or proof you actually know how to use the thing required! What happens after is irrelevant, whether it's a shooting spree or they're carefully locked up in the gun safe. The point is that the bar for purchasing a gun is far lower than it is for a motor vehicle.

Noel Foss's picture

I suspect you'll find

that the increased rigmarole for purchasing a vehicle has more to do with taxation than with keeping them out of the "wrong hands"
You don't need a driver's license to purchase a car, or to register it, or to insure it. You just need a license to actually drive it.
So, actually, the bar for purchasing a vehicle is set pretty low. Using it legally is where the regulation comes in.
Keeping with the Uncle Henry's example, I've bought multiple cars from Uncle Henry's before, and nobody's ever asked to see my license. When I've bought guns from Uncle Henry's before, the seller has always asked to see my license.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

I bet you can find

I bet you can find a lot of cars in Uncle Henrys that require nothing but the cash to pay for them. No training or proof you actually know how to use the thing required!

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...