Grassroots Commentary

Guns

By L.E. Brown, Jr. · Jan. 31, 2013

Poll after poll, scientific or not, suggest that most people are in favor of requiring a background check before an individual can purchase a gun.

However, people aren't being questioned as to their opinion on who should or who should not be able to buy a gun.

What questions need to be asked and answered by background checks and which answers should disqualify a person from owning a gun?

When asked, “Are you in favor of background checks before a person can purchase a gun,” the answer is almost always, “Sure,” because, it is added, criminals and mentally ill people shouldn't own a gun.

But what if people are asked: “Do you think you should have the right to own a gun?” the answer would likely be, “Oh, sure.”

That answer indicates, as recent elections have shown, that greed is a high priority with the majority of American people, that and selfishness. They want things for themselves, but not for their neighbor, or they want to be exempted from certain responsibilities, but they don't think their neighbor should be exempted. They think that guns should be taken away from other people, but not from them.

Several city leaders have said the problem is not enough police and too many criminals with guns. Yet, to them, the answer is tighter control of guns. They want police to be the only allowed to combat criminals.

How can one argue with such idiocy? Even if police were successful in disarming non-criminals, do they believe criminals would all disarm themselves, to make it fair for those they rob, rape or assault?

In Milwaukee, a sheriff has said his departmental budget has been cut so severely that he is advising people to take measures to defend themselves until police can arrive to help.

Wouldn't that be prudent for any citizen in any city?

Logical reasoning may lead one to conclude that if anyone needs to be disarmed it is police themselves. They rarely prevent a crime, they are simply usually the first ones on the scene to observe the post-crime scene in a store after a robbery, or to view the dead body.

One could also argue that it is hypocritical to allow an off-duty policeman to keep a gun in his home to protect his family against intruders, but not allow his 80-year-old neighbor to do the same.

Isn't it also hypocritical for celebrities to opine that there are many sorts of people who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, but not celebrities? Celebrities think themselves in a class, the upper one, which deserves certain privileges that shouldn't be afforded the little people. Most other liberals, including politicians, seem to think the same.

About a week ago I sent my untrustworthy researcher and adviser out to interview a cross section of Americans to learn what people are thinking on the subject of who should own a gun.

This erstwhile journalist, L.L. Pickering, who works out of his home in Outer Walla Walla, North Carolina (about 70 miles northeast of metropolitan Magnolia, from where I write), just submitted a summary of his findings to me.

His findings are mind-boggling.

“First,” LLP said, “450 of the 500 people I talked with think that some people should be barred from owning a gun. But, only four of the 450 think they themselves should be denied gun ownership.”

Then, LLP listed for me the top five reasons given that would make a person ineligible to own a gun:

  1. Has been convicted of a crime, except for thievery, arson or political graft.

  2. Is thought to be a member of a militant, right-wing extremist group, or seems to be thinking of joining one.

  3. Is a Baptist preacher in one of the former eleven Confederate states.

  4. Anyone in a neighborhood who has ever been convicted of vehicular speeding or driving while impaired.

  5. Used car salesmen and late night television comedians.

LLP says he personally thinks that universal background checks would be good, but not if members of Congress are exempt. “Representatives and senators are among the craziest people in the world,” he said.

L.E. Brown, Jr. may be reached at lebrownj@intrstar.net.

Appeal_patriots_day_3
6 Comments

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

There were no background checks for minutemen in the 1770's.You may have been a Tory, a Loyalist, or a Patriot.Make up your mind about where you stand today, and be prepared, like a good boy Scout!

Friday, February 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM

rab in jo,mo said:

Any gun-owner is automatically classified as #2 by the progressive left.

Those pushing for "universal background checks" should be very careful what they wish for as the criteria for these checks may not be to their liking.

Friday, February 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM

wjm in Colorado said:

Background checks already exist, and are a precursor to total registration. Once registration is established, history shows that a totalitarian regime ALWAYS follows up with confiscation. Get em while you can, and prepare for the collapse fellow patriots. They mean to classify us all as Number 2. Join the collective, or be branded as unworthy of arms.

Friday, February 1, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

God forbid cracking down on criminals or the mentally deficient because it might interfere with their Constitutional rights. The ACLU will be quick to step in and defend those rights. However, when it comes to law-abiding citizens, we don't seem to have those same rights because we have guns to protect our families and our selves. Haven't heard anyone from the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment. Typical liberal thinking with no sense of that "fairness" they are always talking about.

Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Gw in Fla said:

Interesting. Appreciation extended to for your effort Mr. L.E. Brown, Jr.

For what benefit may be derived by those seeking actual understanding of the concept implied by the word ‘Rights’, questions as follow:

“If every other person but you suddenly disappeared from the entirely of the planet, what ’Rights’ would you have?”

Would you have the ‘Right’ to ownership of your own body?
Would you have the ’Right’ to the unencumbered benefit of the outcome of your labor through use of your own body?
Would you have the ’Right’ to own property and possessions?
Would you have the ’Right’ to defend your own body, the outcome of your labor, your personal property and possessions?
Would you have the ‘Right’ to possess, to keep on or about your person a Fire-arm?

Sunday, February 3, 2013 at 1:23 PM

fred in oregon said:

Mr. Brown, your article points out the general stupidity of the common man/woman. the constitution permits this because it is part of being free. pity the uninformed,the stupid, the self gratifying politition, the poor and the non-patriot.
staying free always requires self sacrrfice, a willingness to do what most do not want to do or even think of doing.
cops carry guns for one reason, to protect themselves and possibly another person. cops know they keep nobody safe, that MUST be done by the individual. no matter where you live on this planet, that is the only way.
in my career, i was at the right place at the right time only 2 times.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM