Okay, from CNN, this total rant done by Alex Jones, supposedly addressing why he wanted to deport Piers Morgan back to the UK, turned into quite an exchange.  I did notice he never really answered the question about deporting Piers Morgan. *** It seemed to show there is a big gun fetish here in the United States.  Well, I know some on the Vine have written about this fetish.  But, I ask all to read and watch from the link and judge.  Or, roll on the floor laughing. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/piers-morgan-guns-debate/index.html

So, who won?  Do I need to ask?  How about the state of the debate on gun control?  Is Pier Morgan right?  Again, do I need to ask?  The interchange left me speechless that a person would demonstrate such violent speech.  We should be a country who publicly shuns violence.  And for the most part, with my many years of experience most people do unless they are scared.  This concept fear permeates through like a virus infecting a culture and ushering in dark days.  The best thing is that the fear is spotted and not covered up.  This is what Piers Morgan could only achieve. 

Now a guy has "fact checked" the exchange.  From conservative website,

http://townhall.com/video/local-tv-anchor-fact-checks-piers-morgans-gun-control-claims

So, please, watch and see how the fact check is blatantly misdirected, warped, and pure junk.  The point of Piers Morgan was completely misunderstood.  The quote that 'heart' matters just illustrates how these people, even on the local news, just do not understand things.  To equate deaths to overall crime is irresponsible.  In that, one is promoting violence without even understanding a deeper thread from the issue.  It brings out a false achievement that can only be marked by more deaths.  For example, the newsman did not look at the even higher total crime rate for the United States.  Sure, the crime rate dropped but, oh boy, it is still quite high.  Still he focused only for the UK.  So, I decided to check things out.  Am I without a brain?  I see the following which, too me, is drastically bigger than the ones the newsman used for the UK.   Okay, so, I neglected to take into consideration the population of the countries.  So, the US has about (using 2011 figures) 312 million; and the UK has about 63 million.  The ration is about 5 to 1 for population; therefore one needs to multiply the UK numbers (The most violent country in Europe.) by 5.  One is looking at a comparison of 6 and 5 digits for the US and 4 and 3 digits for the UK.  I find myself scratching my head; could they be doing something right? Well, here are the figures which one should see a gross disparity.

In 2011, the FBI  estimates 1,203,564 violent crimes.  Of property crimes, the FBI estimates 9,063,173. 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

The point is that having firearms does not work.  The reason is because crime is a social problem for which firearms have no effect.  The fact checker did make a correct statement about heart.  The gun advocates have gotten rather fanatical.  They seem panicked and fail badly at logically arguing the issue.  The emotion should be on the side of doing what is right.  And, what is right is by working at the problem of crime on a social level.  Education. Education. Education.  Knowing how is most of the battle (If there is one.). Having a brain will give someone a much better way to defend oneself.  With death out in our streets, can not we side with some sanity which fanaticism does not afford?

You be the judge,

I have to add to this page a good retort to the total rant from the gun fanatics.  It comes from Jon Stewart and cannot be said any better and funnier.  But, in all seriousness it does come down to the fact that these gun fanatics are scared that they will lose their guns.  That is the only thing that will trump the moral or ethical correctness of getting rid of guns-- even though they do not work at reducing crime.   Anyway, Jon Stewart articulates the situation very well.  Yes, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with now. 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/09/jon-stewart-mocks-alex-jones-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=2fbb4edf27-1_9_121_9_2013&utm_medium=email

Yes, as I say, you be the judge.  I am now not advocating for the re-write of the 2nd Amendment.  That would be excellent.  Instead, I focus on those weapons that have escaped the spirit of that Amendment and is getting us into all this trouble. These weapons are modern firearms which have become unique as weapons.  But, evidently, guns serve as a security blanket so certain people feel safe.  Most people claim that the weapons are necessary and they are not afraid to using them.  I am sorry, but I cannot buy that?  To me, this indicates a mental issue.  And, in that light, it seems to be a national security problem that needs to be dealt with soon. 

What ever the case, this is what I propose:

• The banning of any weapon with an automatic fire action.  The banning of any weapon designated as military-- that is given to the military to use by Congress.  Semi-automatic pistols must have an external safety switch like the Beretta.  A rifle must be bolt action. And a shotgun must be pump action.  (Note, I do permit semi-automatic pistols.) Antique weapons shall be either rendered inoperative or fit the regulations.
• The banning of fragmenting rounds, phosphate rounds, explosive rounds for the public to use.  Special rounds can be used by states for police purposes not for citizen use.  Large volumes of ammunition cannot be sold.  The ammunition must be sold in packages less than 100 and one must only purchase 100 or less at a time.  Only using a firearm at a registered range can excuse the limit.
• All firearms must be limited to ten rounds for pistols or handguns, five rounds for rifles and shotguns.  (I am open to having 19 or less rounds for handguns if the handgun has a manual action.) The exception can be for states to arm police.  If police find these high capacity arms or magazines, then they should just confiscate the weapon and destroy it. 
• For people to have any weapon, they must take a firearm usage class before they take sole possession of the weapon.  If for any reason, the instructor feels the person is not of sound mind, then the person does not get the firearm and a notation gets into a file plus the individual gets referred to mental health.  Perhaps one needs to get cleared by a mental health professional before they purchase a firearm.  People in the military and police get interviewed this way.
• The sale of firearms need to be sold in a store only selling firearms.  This will create a more conducive atmosphere for the control of the sale.  And, these locations must provide the training.  Yes, this will cut out Walmart, outfitters, and hardware stores.
• The transport of firearms need to be done in a strict basis.  The firearm must be unloaded with a red or yellow lock that blocks the site of the weapon. 
• Firearms and Ammunition needs to be open for state or local taxation with proceeds going to help health care. 
• An intense public education effort needs to be funded.  And those who commit crimes with firearms need to be locked away.  I am for the death penalty for those who are incorrigible and kill without compunction.  We cannot hesitate here.
• The robust data base including everyone's information who decide to own firearms or who prove to not be worthy to carry them.  The people who run this data base must be enthusiastic stewards and understand the importance of the data base.  Everyone who takes possession of a firearm needs to be logged.  And, the firearm needs to be unmodified.
• Not adhering to these rules will mean very harsh penalties as a good felony.  The felony should be considered a violent offense putting the individual away for a long time.  If a firearm kills someone in a crime, then the firearm dealer needs to be shut down.
• Constant buy back programs need to be funded.  Perhaps there needs to be more money given to have cops get rid of a person's arsenal.  The gun control plan needs to have rewards.    

        I know that my list is optimistic.  And, wow, I am hash.  But, I am again sorry; but, this is a matter of life or death of innocent lives. I throw out two more big things which are close to dreams of mine.  We have got to get rid of conceal and carry because that does not work (Look above.).  We just are not the Wild West anymore with a desire to be even more civilized.  Actually, the preferred thing is to get rid of handgun ownership. But, look up at my list.  To be effective, most of those things need to be done.

         Oh, and I never talked about the almost 300 million weapons out there.  Yes, they need to diminish quickly so as to get rid of the convenient dispensing of death.  But, I did not say any weapons will be confiscated.  And, as long as a person is good, then they can hunt and target shoot until they die. And the NRA needs to change to help with the sportsman's aspect of owning a firearm.  The hope is that gradually, over tenacious work, the high number will drop significantly. 

        The thing that needs to get into the heads of the gun fanatics is that guns for defense does not work.  The reason is simple-- killing is wrong for ANY reason.  Another reason why gun use is wrong for civilian defense is that action beats reaction which is why the best defense is armor, vigilance, some training, and a sharp mind.  

        Incidentally, the White House petition to send Piers Morgan back home to the UK was answered.  Basically, the position of the President was to protect another amendment which these fanatics have used to the utmost inefficiency but never-the-less swear to also protect-- the 1st Amendment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/white-house-piers-morgan-petition_n_2441667.html

        See, this is what sanity gets a person.  It gives a person clarity of thought.  Perhaps all these fanatics, all fanatics need to learn Taoist points.  The belief stresses harmony, the intermingling of energy for all things, and there exists a sanctification of all life.  Key to this debate is the three virtues which are lacking with any fanatic:  Compassion or kindness, moderation or restraint, and humility.  But, more importantly is the belief that every action does have a equal and opposite reaction.  A practitioner of Taoism would be very disciplined.  And would strive to develop martial arts which are most preferred to use of any weapon.  I give these links:

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/Chinese_Customs/taoism.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~koivanov/taoism.htm  Why not be optimistic instead of pessimistic?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/religious_1.shtml 

Taoism is not just Chinese; although, this would be something from the Chinese we perhaps might want to explore and learn from them.  It actually, IMO, can be intertwined with Christianity very well.  Especially, providing an alternative for the nasty direction of the fanatic; and, the gun advocate in the United States has become a fanatic.  I hope many see this as a call for change which is what my column is about.  This area is one area that is overdue for change before more people die.