Its such an odd twist, absurd,
Answering gun violence with more guns.
Inconceivable, arming teachers in the classroom,
Firearms on college campus’,
Lines, long and winding for munitions,
A run on guns built for a single purpose…
To kill! The prey, not pheasant or mallard…
But people!
Radical outbursts of infringement ravage the land
While cooler heads say no in retort.
Jack-booted thugs do not knock at your door,
Confiscating what is yours.
An instrument of deaths existence
Does not grant license to possess.
Shall RPG, bazooka or grenade launcher be permitted?
Logic to the logical says a resounding no!
I ask you– where does this stop,
When does this madness stop?
Have we not lost enough treasured children,
Have we not seen the senseless acts of violence,
Families and lives destroyed.
This is not the wild west, Tombstone, The Ok Corral,
Time has come to let the gunslinger rest.
This is the twenty-first century for God’s sake,
…Not 1776.
~~ D. R. DiFrancesco ~~
Dom DiFrancesco 
It’s a good subject to take a powerful stance or stand on. I agree, that many of the guns in question such as assault weapons, are not made for hunting nor self-defense but for massacres and times of war.I’m not sure where peoples heads are at the moment, on this issue. I agree that more guns do not equal less killing, that is for sure. I liked your poem alot.Thanks for sharing it with us.
Thank you for taking the time to read my poem and comment on it. I am buy no means against the right of American citizens to own guns as I happen to own a couple, but there is absolutely no justification for owning military / assault weapons in my opinion. These type of weapons have been banned before and I see no logical reason why they shouldn’t be banned again as their soul purpose it to kill people. Yes, the NRA will claim you can target shoot with them, but that is a pretty lame defense. Anyway, this was just one man’s opinion. Thanks again for letting me rant. :)
You wrote:
“Answering gun violence with more guns.”
You are absolutely right! I can’t understand it at all. WHY did we build so many guns to defeat the Nazis in WWII? It was absurd. Everyone knows that you can’ answer Nazi violence with more guns!
And:
“Inconceivable, arming teachers in the classroom,…”
Again, couldn’t agree more. It would be absurd to show our children that we want to protect them. They might want grow up and join the NRA! Absurd, our children shouldn’t have an example of adults willing to protect them from violence.
And:
“A run on guns built for a single purpose… To kill!
Man, right on! According to Dr. Gary Kleck Americans use firearms over 2 million times a year in self defense and in the vast majority of cases no shots are fired. The misunderstood criminal decides to go somewhere else rather than face a crazed home defender with a gun! But since guns are rarely used to kill in these instances, then of course those guns are designed to kill, not save lives.
I hope you don’t think what you wrote was some kind of poetry or whatever?
lwk
You are entitled to your opinion and also I’d like to thank you for making my point for me. People that believe like you do are on the fringe and are the reason I wrote this peace. Thank you for your nice comment and have a pleasant day. By the way try commenting with a little less animosity next time. :)
blackandwrite wrote:
“People that believe like you do are on the fringe…”
If people who believe in an innate and absolute right to self defense are such a “fringe,” why hasn’t the 2nd Amendment been repealed already? Maybe part of the problem is that you are incapable of seeing, or understanding any view other than your own?
Did you know that DHS contracted to buy 1.6 _billion_ rounds of 40S&W hollowpoint ammunition last year? You suppose they plan to blow all of that away in training exercises and simulations? I think that is more small arms ammunition than the Marines have used in Afghanistan in the last couple years. It is enough ammo to kill every man, woman, child, and illegal alien in the U.S. a couple times over.
And:
” I’d like to thank you for making my point for me.”
I think you must be living in an illusionary universe.
And:
“try commenting with a little less animosity next time.”
You might consider the possibility that there is some internal projection in how you see what others say and do. You do seem – based on your “poem” – to be very much afraid of people who think and react differently than yourself.
I wrote an article on my blog, “Who Needs An Assault Rifle.” An AR-15 carbine is possibly the best weapon available for home defense (and one of the safest – meaning least likely to hurt someone who don’t intend to hurt). Easiest to fire accurately. Etc. Etc. You would have to read my article for all the details.
We have an absolute right to own these weapons with 30 round magazines. The police want them for exactly the same reason that many civilians want them. They are good for self defense.
Most people own guns for the purpose of self defense and _scaring_ away the bad guys if they need to. You don’t have a right to judge whether they need to. Guns are not, as you and many say, only designed to kill.
There are many levels of design and intent. Yes, they engineered to be able to kill, but at a higher level the ability to kill is the ability to save lives. As I mentioned earlier, Americans use guns a lot of times every year to save lives, and that includes the life of the bad guy who is scared away by an armed individual he intended to victimize.
That is one reason why I got a permit to carry a concealed handgun. I am, and people like me are, the modern embodiment of the 2nd Amendment. And it is a very rapidly expanding segment of society as at least 40 states have provisions for “shall issue” concealed carry.
Some say the number of gun owners is decreasing due to less hunters. What they may not notice is the rapidly expanding number of people getting concealed carry permits, and just weapons for home defense.
We will see who is the “fringe” in a while.
Oh, and by the way, my wife is a teacher of very young children in a public school in Texas and is waiting to see if Texas will push hard to allow concealed carry in schools. We already have several school districts doing that – one for a couple years – without the least problem.
People who get these licenses have proven to be some of the safest and most law abiding citizens. They certainly can’t do much worse than police officers who in armed confrontations regularly miss their target completely with over 90% of every round they fire. In NYC recently cops started shooting at a suspect in public and wounded eight people standing near or behind the suspect.
lwk
Well LWK, it looks like you and I will have to agree to disagree.
I have been and currently remain a gun owner and have been one for almost 40 years. I have complete confidence that I can sufficiently protect my home with either my pistol or shotgun. without the need for an assault weapon. That of course is my personal opinion.
I don’t believe that just because military style assault weapons like the AR-15 are available that private citizens need to or should be permitted to own them. Again, just this man’s opinion.
With regard to the second amendment, I don’t believe that it should be repealed, but I do firmly believe that it is up to level of interpretation. It was written at a time when militias were regularly called upon to defend this fledgling nation, this, no matter how much some may hate our President, is not a reality today. We have a full time professional army (this includes all branches of service) which is in place for our nations protection. I am a very proud parent of an army infantry man who has just returned from Afghanistan.
That being said, the second amendment reads:
“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.”
My interpretation of the amendment clearly states that with regard to maintaining a militia, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I believe that as American citizens, we do have the right to own guns, however I also believe that it is irresponsible to think that this should include virtually any gun that is produced. As I have said, I disagree with the ownership of assault weapons such as the AR-15. I also realize that there are many that will continue to disagree with this view and that is fine, it is their right.
Although you may have examples of teachers armed within their schools, I think that any widespread use of this practice will result in negative issues. I still think that having trained police officers in the school, if one feels that it is necessary, is the safer and more responsible action to take rather than arming a teacher who should be focused on the education of our children. Again, these are my opinions.
As far as your comment about me appearing, “to be very much afraid of people who think and react differently than yourself.”, that couldn’t be further from the truth. I had no illusion when I wrote the poem that everyone in this country would agree with my view, nor did I expect them too. I just considered the tone of your original comment to be immediately adversarial, sarcastic and overly aggressive because you believe differently than I do. Every time I’ve gotten into a discussion about anything having to do with guns with another gun owner, there always seems to be aggression on their part when I say that I don’t believe that assault weapons are necessary or should be permitted.
If I read more into the tone of your comment than you intended I apologize. The bottom line is that I am not afraid of presenting my opinion, as I’m certain you aren’t either, nor am I afraid of alternate views. I do, however have a problem with not being able to have a civil conversation about one another’s differences.
In the end, this poem did produce the desired result. It raised the hair on some peoples back while getting positive reviews from others.
I do appreciate and respect your view although you and I will continue to disagree. Be well.
Dom
blackandwrite says:
“I have complete confidence that I can sufficiently protect my home with either my pistol or shotgun. without the need for an assault weapon. That of course is my personal opinion.”
You absolutely have right to your opinion as to what _you_ choose to defend yourself with. Of course an AR-15 is technically not an assault weapon. It is not capable of fully automatic fire which is one of the primary technical features of true assault weapons.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that fires one of the _least_ powerful centerfire rifle cartridges in existence. It is not legal to hunt deer with the .223 in mqny states because it is not considered powerful enough. Nevertheless, it is more powerful than almost all handgun cartridges (at least that most people would own for home defense).
With frangible bullets from Winchester at over 3100 fps there is little chance of penetrating flimsy walls in house or apartments today, but that same bullet will definitely stop a violent attacker at close range better than a 9mm handgun cartridge.
And:
“With regard to the second amendment … I do firmly believe that it is up to level of interpretation.”
The Supreme Court recently looked at the history and the facts and determined that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right and did not depend on service in a militia (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
And:
“[the 2nd Amendment] was written at a time when militias were regularly called upon to defend this fledgling nation, this, … is not a reality today. We have a full time professional army (this includes all branches of service) which is in place for our nations protection.”
If you read the Federalist Papers you will find that an armed citizenry was intended by the Founders to be a counterbalance (of power) to a professional army. Now how that would really work out today is anyone’s guess. The militia in the Revolutionary War had good days, and some really bad days.
But if you read the Federalist Papers you will learn beyond any doubt that the Founders fully intended for “the people” to be armed with military weapons that could be used against the government if it became tyrannical. Could “the people” today oppose the government in the fashion the Founders envisioned? Almost certainly not. Could they be a huge impediment to tyranny? Possibly – it’s anyone’s guess how that would work.
If we really followed the full intent of the 2nd Amendment then people could own fully automatic machines guns and rocket propelled grenades. But that stuff was dealt with by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Some people today in some states – Texas is one of them – can legally own _registered_ fully automatic machine guns but those registered guns never are used in crime (they are way too expensive, maybe $20K for a worn out M16).
But one fact is absolutely certain. Dictatorships universally disarm anyone they think is not 200% loyal to them. Disarmament has lead to millions and millions of people being victimized by government in the 20th century – the list of genocides is long and gruesome.
And:
“I am a very proud parent of an army infantry man who has just returned from Afghanistan.”
My younger son is a machine guner in the Marines and I served in Vietnam, more than one tour too.
And:
“My interpretation of the amendment clearly states that with regard to maintaining a militia, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Again, in the Supreme Court case I cited above the right to keep and bear arms is _not_ dependent on a militia. I read an article some years ago by probably one of the most foremost experts on the English language and he analyzed the language of the amendment. According to him the part about a “militia” is explanatory of intent, but in no way limits the right recognized by the 2nd Amendment. Apparently the Supreme Court agreed with that view.
And:
“I believe that as American citizens, we do have the right to own guns, however I also believe that it is irresponsible to think that this should include virtually any gun that is produced.”
Probaby the proper “line in the sand” is the NFA of 1934 which made a distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons. So it is not the case that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted as it would have been in 1789. Also explosive devices are largely prohibited. During the time the 2nd was written citizens could, and did own canons and large caches of explosives (black powder is a powerful explosive).
And:
“I disagree with the ownership of assault weapons such as the AR-15.”
Technically it is not an assault weapon. It is not a machine gun. It is a semi-automatic weapon that bears a strong cosmetic resemblance to a real assault weapon, like both of our sons use or have used. The current Feinstein “Assault Weapon” is a political term with no solid definition. To prove that consider that Feinstein’s bill has to _name_ many guns by name because her analysts cannot come up with a definition in principle of what they mean by “assault weapon” other than “it looks like a scary military weapon.”
And:
:Although you may have examples of teachers armed within their schools, I think that any widespread use of this practice will result in negative issues.”
This is exactly what people said when the concealed carry movement started in Flordia in the late 1980s. They said “blood will run in the street” and people will be getting into gunfights over traffic accidents. But now over 20 years later and 40 states allowing broad concealed carry that has not happened.
I know that it is easy to imagine it happening. But let me give you a little insight into what it is like to carry a real gun in public. You always feel the weight of that gun even though no one knows you have it. It acts as a weight on your tongue and actions that makes you think very carefully about what you do and say. You go out of your way to be polite, and to not cause a confrontation. I think a fair number of people I know who carry feel that weight too. It is a sobering responsibility.
And:
“I still think that having trained police officers in the school, if one feels that it is necessary, is the safer and more responsible action to take rather than arming a teacher who should be focused on the education of our children.”
The problem with police officers in schools is that people know who they are and that they are armed. Like in public the bad guys go out of their way to avoid them. And they are expensive and people don’t like paying taxes to support them.
On the other hand allowing a teacher to qualify for and get a concealed carry license costs the district nothing. It is of course not mandatory – no one is forced to get one if they don’t want to. But at that point the bad guy has no idea who is armed and who is not, who represents a threat to him, and who does not.
Additionally I think it would be a good idea to put a stout steel gun cabinet in the principals office with a couple of AR-15s with loaded magazines. Give access to the principal, secretraties, whomever is in that area. Give those people some real training on how to use them. Maybe a qualified police officer checks and maintains them every 6 months or so. Basically _advertise_ to the bad guys that they will be met with serious armed force if they attempt to attack our kids.
Imagine if that principal at Newtown who died trying to attack the gunman unarmed had instead had a loaded AR-15 in her hands. I don’t think we would have had any dead kids at all. Fundamentally these guys are all cowards. They want to make a statement then commit suicide. What they _really_ don’t want is someone else to kill them. Almost always when met with armed resistance they commit suicide (or surrender).
And:
“I just considered the tone of your original comment to be immediately adversarial, sarcastic and overly aggressive because you believe differently than I do.”
It was definitely meant to be sarcasatic. Sorry, I am not always perfect in my communication skills.
And:
“Every time I’ve gotten into a discussion about anything having to do with guns with another gun owner, there always seems to be aggression on their part when I say that I don’t believe that assault weapons are necessary or should be permitted.”
I am over 62 years old. I have spent most of my adult life experiencing one threat after another on my basic right to own weapons, and to defend myself and those close to me. Imagine that for most of your life there was serious, and powerful attempts to take away your right to free speech – over and over again. You might feel a little aggressive to. For most of my adult life I have been attacked as some sort of Neanderthal for my views on weapons. So yea, a lot of us are pretty sensitive on the issue.
And:
“I will continue to disagree.”
I don’t mind disagreement but I hope that people will become more knowledgable. As a father of three children I can’t think of too many things that made me sicker and more outraged that Newtown. I don’t think very many gun laws could have prevented that, especially “Gun Free School Zones” that basically advertised to a sick kid that this was the place for him to make a statement. Basically it said to him here is a place where no one can oppose you for a few minutes while you make your statement.
The thing would like to have looked at is a possible relation between psychotropic drugs given to young kids, especially young boys for things like ADHD and depression that may result in “frontal lobe damage” (a term I heard doctors use) that may have something to do with creating these kind of killers like Lanza. Maybe he was a victim too?
When I was a kid we had lots of guns. My neighbor might have a loaded M1 Garand battle rifle (more powerful than an assault rifle) in his closet, or a fully loaded M1 carbine with a 20 round magazine. My first school in the country a kid might bring a .22 rifle to school and keep it there until he went home. Maybe he would do a little hunting on the way home contributing to his family’s dinner that night.
But we didn’t have these school shootings like today, and we didn’t have “Gun Free School Zones.”
Sorry for the long reply, and the sarcasm. Sometimes it just comes out. :)
lwk
I have to say that I appreciated the information in your reply and I can certainly appreciate your position. As far as the sarcasm, I don’t hold grudges, I’ve done it myself many times. It just comes out sometimes while discussing things we are passionate about.
In the end, I have to say the exchange has been a pleasure. :)
Dom