Oh yeah. sorry about that. I'll just explain the clip to you if that's alright.
It was a public service TV ad a little while back where a guy walks in to an office. It implies that he is a depressed employee that either worked there or got fired or something... But you can see that he is very depressed just by looking at his face.
he walks in to the back of the office disregarding people asking him what he's doing with a flint-lock musket rifle and fires at what seems to be his boss. It misses and no one gets shot or hurt despite being only about 20' away because the rifles of the civil war were totally inaccurate. Everyone screams and runs out before he can even load more gunpowder and another musket ball in the rifle.
The point of the video was that everyone talks about how we need gun laws loosened up, but not many people understands that guns are extremely compact now and are also much more accurate and can hold many more rounds of ammo.
My main argument when it comes down to gun control is that I don't believe that they actual need to be tightened or loosened. I go fishing with this guy from the area I am from that owns a gun and is a gunsmith I also know a couple other gunsmiths in the area. Most people when they start up the conversation about gun control is that they start in with extreme view from either the left or right depending what they believe. If anyone wants to really address gun control in America I don't think that this is where they should start the debate. All of a sudden you start to see that over kill on real solutions. I just constantly hear regurgitated arguments that essentially go no where. When I have conversations out fishing with my friend he has some real common sense approaches to correct the actual problem that we face in today's world.
When you take the gun show loop hole for example, this is an area that is being exploited at serious levels and it could be easily addressed that you buy a gun at the expos then get a background check just as you would if you bought one from a reputable dealer and it wouldn't be that difficult to do. The thing is that there is usually always people there that could do the background checks fairly easy for the other people at no cost or very minimal. He goes to gun shows all the time and would never sell a gun to anyone without making sure that they have cleared a background check because those numbers on those guns will go directly back to him if the gun was used in a crime.
As far as private sales it is harder to curtail them types of purchases but I do not think that a law needs to change on that one either. See this isn't happening in a place like the gun show example where there is hundreds of gun sales taking place in one location. Not to mention the guys that are sitting there that have dozens of guns up for sale.
As far as banning assault riffle isn't really a solution either due to tat most of that all has to do with the cosmetic look of the gun. So by changing the shape of gun as far as appearance doesn't really accomplish much either. At the same time you start thinking do you really need a clip that holds 30 and sometimes more rounds than that in these guns. This should be looked at closer to some type of law to tighten this area, but again it needs to be common sense just because they are banned doesn't mean that the disturbed would not be able to still get them, making it harder for legitimate gun owners isn't the solution. There is so many large clips out there already they still would be pretty easy to obtain even if a law was enacted prohibiting them. I really can't say I have a good answer for this one.
I also hear when it comes to the gun control debate that there should be an exemption for law enforcement. Well, yeas and no. I don't mind to see say your police, sheriff, etc dept. to have and in that light maybe to a certain extent they can obtain some for there dept. yet they should be locked away unless they are an absolute in needing them not of every trunk if the squad cars. Also that the law enforcement officer himself may not own anything over and above what a common citizen can own. In other words, as of right now a cop can go buy himself a fully automated weapon for his personal collection. I don't think anyone needs that for their personal collection, that is totally over the top insanity. Again police department owning them I can see, the the the employee, ahhhh no. That would be like sending all our soldiers home with their m4 that is still functionable to being fully automated.
There is many things that could be done in enforcing laws already on the books also. Also carrying a pistol isn't always a bad thing and as common folk they should be able to strap there pistol on their side as they go out hunting or conceal one because they need to drive through bad areas of a city. These generally are not the people you need to worry about anyway. Again a common sense approach to figure out the disturbed from obtaining guns, well if you want to hear some reality of changing that I can shed some light on it at another time, but I will say there is some easy solutions to that without impeding on constitutional rights.
See this is where I my self can get bent out of shape on the debates going on, this how we want to define or redefine what exactly is the constitution saying about firearms. We should never go to extreme to fast when changing interpretation of the constitution and the rights within. As a pointed out earlier that over the top extreme views get thrown out from both sides so nothing gets done in an intellectual matter that makes sense and actually addresses problems. Also like as I stated in a previous post about distracted and drunk drivers in that you have a greater chance of being affected by them then you stand the chance of being affected by gun violence. What national debate is going on over that and that doesn't even have to do with your constitutional rights. It more has to do with people driven around in a something that is over a ton of metal and can have a real life changing impact on you. You don't see that in the news enough because they don't cover all the car accidents that happen everyday across the nation and it actually, in my opinion is the bigger issue.
