GUN BAN 2013: Childish Nonsense

By Berkley R. Bruce

I suppose by now anyone interested has at least had a glimpse of Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed firearms ban. Obviously, written by the simple-minded for the supposedly simpler-minded. It looks more like it was hastily crafted by Anthony Fremont from the "It's a Good Life" Twilight Zone episode. Anthony, portrayed by Billy Mumy, is a six-year-old boy with special powers who holds a small Ohio town hostage by banning or destroying anything or anyone he thinks is bad. He controls everyone in town with the threat of wishing them into the "cornfield" never to be seen again. All the adults must constantly tell Anthony what "good" things he does, even though they live in misery and fear. I guess now we know how the episode would've gone if little Anthony had gotten hold of Dad's CDNN catalog. Apparently, Anthony, I mean Senator Feinstein thinks that firearms (even though she owns one and has a carry permit) and The 2nd Amendment are very bad things and she doesn't like them at all.

It's All About The Furniture

One can certainly see that not a lot of work or research went into drafting this bill. It is clearly written from what someone thinks they know, and that's never a good thing. Someone took a catalog and decided that anything black, uses a magazine, has a pistol grip or a thumbhole stock is bad? Just further proof of how intelligent one doesn't have to be to become a lawmaker in this country. These so-called "very bad guns" are simply semi-automatics with teched-out, polymer furniture. The AK-47, which often has wooden furniture got thrown in because they are popular and they do use a magazine and some have thumbholestocks. Semi-auto pistols use magazines too, they are on the list as well. Perhaps, we should really throw them for a loop and let them know that some bolt-action rifles have thumbholes too. Ok, maybe we better not. Don't want to throw too much at such small minds all at once. They can't even seem to process what ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means. It DOES NOT mean only the arms someone else likes the look of or the ones that only hold a certain amount of rounds, it means any arms. 

In the following photo, which is the "very bad gun"? 

http://www.promagindustries.com/

Answer: Neither. They are the same rifle with different furniture. It didn't gain any "special powers" with the furniture change.

Terminology

Shakespeare, said it best...."A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Personally, I think that we in the firearms community need to refrain from using terms like "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle". It confuses the uninitiated and causes panic and fear of something that is simply a firearm by any other name. Lets look at the definitions of assault.

as·sault [uh-sawlt] noun 1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition. 2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner. 3. Military . the stage of close combat in an attack. 4. Rape . verb (used with object) 5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

Therefore, any rifle can become an "assault rifle" if used to assault someone. Anything else used as a weapon to assault someone becomes an "assault weapon". Recently, here in Las Vegas, two people were bludgeoned to death with a hammer. Better rush out to the hardware store and get an overpriced "assault hammer" before they get banned. On the flip side of that, we can forget about the media and others seeking to demonize gun owners using an alternative terminology. Since any news about assault anything gets attention and sells like hotcakes. It would really be great if they would spend more time on the "Assault People" behind the firearms. In my 30+ years of firearms handling experience, I have yet to see any firearm do anything without the will and intention of a human somewhere behind it. Anything, firearm or otherwise in the hands of an "assault person" instantly becomes an "assault _____ fill in the blank".

We The People

 If this bill passes and our Second Amendment rights are further diminished or done away with, it will be the first of many to fall in a vicious "domino effect". We The People, must remind those in Washington with the childlike minds and the special powers, that those powers were granted by us. We are always to have a say in the decision-making and law-making process. We shall not live in misery and fear, forced to smile and say how great it is that someone controls every aspect of our lives. The Second Amendment exists to prevent this from occurring. 

The phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" certainly applies to the current situation. Gun owners come from various backgrounds, religious and political affiliations. We do have our differences, but we must stick together and stick to our guns, literally and figuratively. If we do not, freedom and those who love it , will be banished to the "cornfield" never to be seen again.

MENTAL ILLNESS: The REAL Elephant In The Room.

By Berkley R. Bruce

  After every mass shooting the government, the media and almost everyone else uneducated and miseducated about almost everything, are quick to point to firearms as the root of the problem. The recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT has proven to be more of the same, again they miss the boat. They totally refuse to examine or even talk about the true main causes of these incidents. No one wants to address the proverbial elephant in the room, mental illness. They won't even look at him just standing right there. The lampshade and tablecloth make for a poor disguise. I'm not a mental health expert and don't claim to be. I am simply a realist. Gun control will not solve the problem. That's like treating someone for the flu when they have a broken leg.

Let's put the blame where it really belongs for a change. The healthcare system as a whole in this country is abominable and getting worse. The mental health system is already worse and guess what, it's not getting any better. A good deal of the blame for all these things belongs to....*drum roll*, the pharmaceutical industry. They have essentially turned every other part of healthcare into an industry. With commercials showing people jogging and smiling to a soundtrack of cheesy background music. They may as well be selling a soft drink. All this joy and good happyness stuff distracts you while a narrator lists the possible side-effects. These side-effects are often times worse than the disease it's meant to treat. Ever try reading the really small print at the bottom of the screen? Heart attack and stroke from an allergy pill? Doctors no longer care for or about patients, they're glorified snake-oil salesmen and drug pushers. Their offices are usually just a continuation of the cheesy commercials. Treatment for anything now basically means a pill for your ills, and you're on your way. 

The pharmaceutical industry certainly would have us believe that there is indeed a pill for every ill. Present day treatment basically equates to giving a mentally unstable person a bunch of expensive pills which probably don't work anyway and expecting them to take them on schedule. Many times, no one monitors them to see how well, or if it's working or even if they're being taken. They would have us believe that someone who is dangerously mentally ill is safe to walk the streets by simply taking a few pills. Safe to return to home, work or school...seriously? They would have relatives of dangerously mentally ill people believe that they can be safely kept at home. "I can handle him/her as long as they're on their meds" or "They would never hurt me." Famous last words if there ever were any.

Not so long ago mentally ill people were institutionalized in asylums. I know that word is no longer PC, and most of these places were no walk in the park, and many were poorly run. Patients did however, receive treatment and medication. Most of all they were kept out of society and monitored. 

Sometime in the 70s or 80s someone figured this wasn't very profitable, and it was cheaper to let these people run free and give them pills through insurance or other programs which did not require housing or simply keep sending them from place to place. Many budget cuts and facility closures later more and more faith was put into the pharmaceutical industry. This method also proved cheaper for the insurance industry. Long-term medication is much cheaper than long-term inpatient care. By the 90s it was treat'em and street'em, literally. Cheaper is not always a bargain. It was also around this time that most major cities began to see an influx of mostly mentally ill homeless people. Such people left to their own devices tend to self-medicate with street drugs or not at all. 

This began a new traditional dance. The mentally unstable person gets picked up, held for evaluation, given medication and put on a bus to another city to start the dance all over again. These factors still continue today creating problems for law enforcement, emergency rooms, court systems and community services everywhere. Don't believe me? Go visit a Greyhound bus terminal in almost any major city early in the morning. All those people that talk to themselves and walk leashes with no dog didn't just randomly get on the same bus. 

Not all mentally ill people are destined to become active shooters or axe murderers. The ones who are violent or that are more likely to be, should have a place to go and receive care and be kept off the streets indefinitely. As I said before the word asylum is no longer PC. Give them a kinder, gentler name if you like. Whatever you call them its time to bring them back. Learn from the mistakes of the past and make the necessary improvements. Would this solve all the problems? No. However, you will find this to be a much more effective and logical solution than more gun control.

Guns have always been around, and the mentally ill have always been around. The main difference between then and now is how society deals with the latter.