English Paper -feedback
This is a discussion on English Paper -feedback within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; hey fellow forum lurkers,
Im writing an english paper and i was looking for some feedback on my thought train(not grammer as its a first ...
Post By gasmitty
February 14th, 2013 10:17 PM
English Paper -feedback
hey fellow forum lurkers,
Im writing an english paper and i was looking for some feedback on my thought train(not grammer as its a first draft:P) any insight from active/retired LEOs, gun enthusiasts, etc.. being as most of you have way more experiance then me and have been around long enough to see some trending. without further delay-
Disarming the citizens of The United States of America
There are countless tales of gun violence in America, and so as not to detract from the tragedies, I will not name any individual one, being as they affected everyone on different levels. Gun violence is loosely defined as; any crime perpetuated by a criminal using a firearm, either directly or indirectly. Shooting, threats, intimidation are just a few of the tools a criminal has at his disposal when they wield a firearm. Many individuals believe that we should ban guns completely; some feel that more restrictions on weapon configuration and capacity should be imposed, and some feel that the current laws are adequate and just require more judicious enforcement and just about all stances in between. They are all valid opinions stemming from their own beliefs, backgrounds and monetary sponsors.
The truth of the matter is that statistically speaking, there isn’t a gun problem. According to Cenus.gov in 2010 the population of the great US of A was 308,745,538. Wow, that’s a lot of people, and how many violent gun related deaths (no suicides) in the same year? 11,078. Now, a little napkin math tells us that is .0035880% of the US population. Yep, barely registers on the calculator. But, the anti-gun activists would make you feel guilty for the violence perpetrated by others, spouting, “If it could save just one life, it would be worth it” 32,367 deaths by motor vehicle, and the one that everyone knows, cigarettes! A whopping 443,000, annually. So, why don’t we see more legislation on smokes? Where in the Constitution, does it state specifically that I have a right to smoke my lungs black? Therefore becoming a drain on the healthcare system that would otherwise go to unpreventable illness, but I don’t begrudge smokers, I don’t care what others do or don’t do so long as it doesn’t hurt me or mine. I find that a lot of politicians and societal figures look to the Constitution as a set of guidelines rather than black and white, standing firm on some principals and ignoring others on the grounds that they are not relevant to today’s times. Now I do concede that a lot of what’s written is vague but I believe that was the authors’ intent, accounting for social and technological evolution, but that the original idea must remain.
A lot of arguments can be made about public safety, keeping the peace, yadiyada, that if no one had guns, no one would die from them. Well, that statement is just ignorant and I don’t believe that the anti-gun activists could possibly believe it either, rather they are more likely aiming for a reduction in gun crime by blanketing everything, instead of attacking the problem more directly. Should every law abiding citizen be able to own and carry a gun if they so choose? Absolutely. Should there be a restriction on configuration, capacity and caliber? Absolutely not. If I feel safe carrying an UZI when I go grocery shopping, that should be my prerogative, not someone else’s, who would feel uncomfortable standing next to me while I buy my milk and eggs. I grew up not knowing anything about guns, other than what I saw in movies, and I played cops and robbers, I shot at bad guys, I shot at good guys, I planted “explosives” in my wooden fort, and as I grew up, I didn’t have thoughts of mass homicide or terrorism. Looking back I wish I would have had a role model, to teach me about guns and their role in society, so I would have had a come to my conclusion about guns sooner, guns need to be become a social norm, where Hollywood won’t sensationalize them and political figures won’t damn them. They are a tool, meant to defend one’s life, loved ones and property. For the sportsman hunting in the woods, and the target shooter laying waste to the paper bulls-eye, for the Soldier defending our freedoms abroad. They are a tool, but being over geared in defense is not a bad thing. If an individual entered your home with intent to harm or to thieve, would you want to stop them cold with a machine gun using either threat or actual use of force? Personally I would re-think my life plan if I entered a home and the owner came out of a bedroom pointing a UZI at me.
If every American had a gun on them or readily available, can you honestly sit there and say that mass shootings would occur less or more? Would violent criminals brandishing guns to hold up a bank or convenience store think twice, knowing that ANYBODY could have a gun on them, and wouldn’t think twice about giving you a lethal dose of hot lead when you reached for that cash bag? It has been said that an armed society is a polite society. If the government doesn’t want you to have weapons and doesn’t lay down its own then it becomes a dictatorship. Where that same government would lead you to believe that it knows what’s best for its citizens and that not using force to impose its will is somehow better than the third world dictator.
If the American people were disarmed, then there would be nothing to stop the government from becoming “for the people” to just “ruling the people”. The government does things all the time that the populace doesn’t agree to, but being a “civil” society we abide the law. With the disarming of the American people, those checks are gone and those that we put in power to govern the society, would have carte blanch. Oh we can ***** and moan, but when it comes down to it, if we were in the streets protesting some injustice, they can come in and stop us by force on grounds of disturbing the peace and with us having no means to fight back, we would go quietly either on our feet or carried. Now, not everyone will give up their guns, I’ve heard things like “they can take them from my cold dead hands” or “you better bring enough body bags for all of us” and to some extent that will be that case. Patriots to the cause would die before they had their rights stripped from them, just as our forefathers did before us, when they founded this great nation. But time will pass and eventually the firearms will be collected, not all at once, but over a generation or two and then there will be no means of effective resistance.
So, what do we as a people, the common man, have to stop or start change in our system? Can we write letters, make phone calls, yep, but it can only go so far, receiving “canned” responses, the higher the political ladder you climb, the more detached from the people you serve you become. Elected officials, in theory should represent the will of the people but in reality they represent the elite. Now, I know what you’re thinking, but if you think about it, money wins elections, it gets you out there glad handing, it gets your face on commercials, it lets the people see you. But that money is contributed by individuals who want that person in power and if you don’t concede, they pull their money and no money, no face time, no face time, no election. Party politics is another issue all together. Our government has devolved into a two party system and being as it is, nothing can get better. The two party system forces us to side with ideals and policies that might not align with our own, to avoid “siding” with someone who is way off base with you. We as a people have to get back to a time were we took care of ourselves and our loved ones, where parents taught their children to survive and contribute rather than consume. The government’s programs on welfare, unemployment etc., only serves to perpetuate dependency on the system, forcing us to need them, not them needing us.
Background checks - Ok, I’ve never been in the clink, assaulted anyone, robbed a bank. I pay my bills and pay my taxes and support the local community, why do I have to submit my information to the system, letting the government know that I want a gun, to be able to purchase one? I’m a good guy and I want to shoot, have the ability to defend myself and my family from a threat. The guy down the street has been in and out of jail, deals drugs, and doesn’t clean his yard. But this guy knows a guy who can get me a “heater” tomorrow. ***. The system doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So why is it in place, skirting the edge of directly violating the second amendment to keep guns from law abiding citizens?
Automatic weapons- less dangerous then they want you to believe. Spraying bullets is inaccurate at best, but you cant buy one made after 1986, and even they are expensive. One could do more damage with a pipe bomb, made of ingredients you can get at Lowe’s and Cabelas, for about twenty bucks.
Magazine capacity- should not matter, the 1911 that holds 8 or the 5.56 that holds 29, if the weapons platform can accommodate a higher mag cap, then by all means you should be able to use it, that’s like saying your car has air-conditioning but the Freon in it is melting the ice caps so you only get twenty minutes a day, lest you kill us all with global warming.
The government is approaching a point where it is attempting to prevent “it could happen” scenarios and by that way of thinking, eventually, men with the guns will be stopping you and asking you for your papers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and with the proposed legislation, we are taking the first step. The politicians pushing these outrageous gun control plans have no intention of actually getting them passed, but rather when they get the proposed re-writes the will become more palatable to the gun rights activists, thus the first step. The first grain. The first drop in the bucket of developing a totalitarian government. Like the old story of how to boil a frog, just dropping a frog in boiling water will result in him jumping out, but, if you put the frog in cool water, then slowly turn up the heat, bit by bit, the frog won’t notice and sure enough, he’ll boil, not knowing anything’s wrong .
-Concerned Citizen #42
Last edited by ZOMBIEvs42; February 15th, 2013 at 05:05 PM.
February 15th, 2013 12:29 AM
Too hard to read as is. Paragraphs, maybe?
NRA Endowment Member
February 15th, 2013 02:56 PM
Ill fix it, the copy paste function failed me yet again!
February 15th, 2013 03:19 PM
Also, remember the basic rules of an essay:
1. Introductory paragraph with thesis statement (tell them what you're going to tell them)
2. Paragraphs defending your thesis statement (you've got that down pretty good)
3. Closing paragraph, re-stating your thesis statement and summing up what you told them.
US Air Force, 1986 - 2007
"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George Mason
February 15th, 2013 05:07 PM
lol, its not being very cooperative
Originally Posted by gasmitty
February 15th, 2013 05:09 PM
absolutley, if needs some rearragement and rewrite, additions and such, its due in about a month, so i have time to shape and perfect.
Originally Posted by mano3
Search tags for this page
whats a good thesis statement on concealed weapons
Click on a term to search for related topics.