by Jack Lee
Speaking on the recent flurry of gun-grabber bills that would stomp all over the 2nd amendment, CA Sen. Steinberg echoed the thoughts of VP Joe Biden, when he said if these gun control laws will only save one life it was worth it. Of course that’s completely absurd, if that is the test for the things we do every day, then we should ban space launches, stop driving cars or stop climbing mountains or stop flying planes, or any ban a number of things that result in fatalities every year.
Would you want to live so sheltered that risk is prohibited by law?
California’s gun grabbers have tried to pass twenty or more worthless pieces of gun grabbing legislation just this year and nearly the same last year and the year before. They just keep tightening the nose on gun owners hoping they will surrender to their authority. Never mind the total lack of evidence that any of the gun control laws passed in the last decade have had any impact on gun violence! The democrats don’t care about evidence. They are obsessed with this blind hate for guns because they grew up that way. They don’t have any practical or rational understanding what the 2nd amendment represents and they don’t care. They only know one thing – get rid of all guns and we can all finally live in peace!
Now there’s a fairy tail that only a crazy liberal could believe, but believe it they do! These wacko’s have this blind faith notion that removing legal guns from law abiding owners will somehow end gun violence? This is like their religion - they believe it so deeply! This is why they are on this relentless crusade against guns and they just won’t stop until they have us or we have them, its a fight to the bitter end with these kooks.
Nobody has yet to show any proof that all of the feel-good gun-grabbing legislation will keep CRIMINALS from having guns.
So far, all of this bilge only hurts law-abiding folks.
Memo to CA Lunkhead Legislators: Keep it up and you’ll lose even more businesses that deal with guns or related items to other states. Already happening in CT and CO. . . . . .
I bet if Steinberg were confronted by dope smoking mexican’s armed with F&F weapons, he would have a gun handy to save his worthless #ucking @ass!
The wisdom of Ghandi, the ultimate peace icon, should serve as warning that guns, in the hands of private citizens, are the best defense against tyranny.
One has to conclude the minds are closed!
There is some evidence that states with stricter gun laws have lower gun-violence rates than states with relaxed gun laws:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/12/data-clear-gun-control-works
But this doesn’t hold true for all states, and at a more local level, we have Chicago as a counter-example of a harsh gun-law, high gun-violence city. The author says that’s evidence we need more federal controls. Like 90% of Americans, I think what we need most is an expansion of background checks, so that criminals can no longer purchase guns so easily at gun shows or over the Internet (which statistics show they are doing at an alarming rate). Many would still be able to get guns from other means. Many would not. Straw buying would certainly be deterred, since straw buyers are less likely to put their ass on the line if they have to get a background check.
But this tells us little about whether the new gun regulations will have any positive effect.
“They only know one thing – get rid of all guns and we can all finally live in peace!”
Ah yes, that wonderful liberal utopia where only the police and military have guns. I believe they even made a movie about. Let’s see…what was it called? Oh yeah, “Schindler’s List”.
How about we punish the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens? Make it a federal offence to use a gun, of any kind, while committing a crime and it’s a mandatory minimum of 10 years in a federal prison. Use a knife or other weapon and it’s a mandatory 5-10 years in prison.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out punishing those who commit the crimes is the way to lower gun violence instead of those who have no intentions of breaking the law and use their guns to defend themselves.
Did you hear about the guy in Oregon who was arrested for firing his gun in his house to scare off a felon who was trying to break into his home? The felon was seen leaving the guys house and questioned, but the homeowner was the one arrested and his gun taken away.
Good thing Joe Biden’s wife didn’t take her husband’s advice. It could have landed her in jail too.
Police confiscate gun from homeowner for firing shot at burglar:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/police-confiscate-gun-homeowner-firing-shot-burgla/
Here’s some REALLY good news.
BREAKING NEWS!! Major Democrat Senator Becomes Frederick Douglass Republican during weekend @Large Conference:
Guillory showed up to the @Large Conference this weekend and gave a speech.
With each passing day, I have become disappointed in the Democratic Party. What would be impact on schools due to immigration? One of the biggest disappointment has been breakdown of American families. Their policies have encourage the high teen birthrate, high school drop out rates, high unemployment. Children are encouraged to get the crazy check instead of honkering down to get an education. Minority unemployment is in the stratosphere.
Guillory coined the word “Scaredy Pants Crisis Management.” I want better for my country and Louisiana. We must help America find her path home. The people in this room today seek an alternative and solution to these problems of America. We have received some pretty good deal under the Republican Party. Republicans helped LBJ pass Civil Rights Act over OBJECTION of most Democrats. President Nixon left Vietnam and brought the money home and invested in America, Obama hasn’t done anything like that.
I pledged my dues and I look forward to creating new partnerships in the State of Louisiana. I am of this day joining Frederick Douglass as a Republican.
Read more: http://newsninja2012.com/breaking-news-major-democrat-senator-becomes-frederick-douglass-republican-during-weekend-large-conference-2013-05-31/#ixzz2UvEUIlt0
There is some evidence that states with stricter gun laws have lower gun-violence rates than states with relaxed gun laws: Here again a Liberal view using Liberal stats.
I do not buy into this statement, nor should anyone else, especially using the source linked. The data and mindset of any Bay area anti-gun think tank will never be unbiased on any subject. Recent polls show even the English have had enough of restrictive gun control and would like to see it repealed “The United Kingdom is often held up as a successful example of gun control by the left. (See: Sniveling Piers) But guess what? In a recent poll asking readers what laws they would like to see introduced or changed, 85% of those polled chose “repeal the ban on hand guns and re-open shooting clubs.”(Sorry Piers Morgan)
Armed citizens and fully staffed police departments will always be a deterrent to criminals who do not favor resistance or listen to reason. Today, more than ever because of political intrusion, any type of criminal, fully understands that ‘Gun Free Zones’ are a safe shooting gallery for them, and Sandy Hook incidents will always be the result. However, once criminals have to worry about armed citizens shooting back, and they realize there is no safe place for them to shoot people, less innocent lives will be lost. Gun control isn’t about controlling criminals, it is a Political football, and folks YOU need to wake up and realize we are the muddied field it is being played on, and nothing more. Less legal guns of any style or capacity will never prevent another Sandy Hook, Politicians realize it, but are far more interested in re-election than effective laws that prevent the wrong people from obtaining weapons, why because penalizing legal and responsible civilians is easier to do. Well reasoned laws would require lots of thought and study, and based on past Congresses and laws we all know they do neither. Right now the one effective deterrent to criminals with illegal guns is legally armed civilians that know how to use them and can cause criminals to second guess what the end result to them (criminals) might be. And the basics you need to understand folks, is that a six shot, 22 caliber revolver isn’t a deterrent a better armed criminal with unlimited weapon choices and capacities of any type. As said in a movie once “never take a knife to a gun fight”
Jack, you are being terribly dim. The purpose of any form of travel is not to kill things, it’s to get from here to there, but accidents do happen.
So, to equate traveling and gun ownership is wildly nonsensical … as the only purpose for gun ownership … is … to kill things.
“the only purpose for gun ownership … is … to kill things. Jack, you are being terribly dim.” Libby
Now who’s being dim?
With some respect to the question of Libby in #9. Cars like Guns have a function, cars help us and destroy us as do Guns, Cars benefit us in times of emergencies, as do guns, cars can be used to destroy as well,so do guns. The common denominator is the operator, not the tool, Guns and cars are designed for many purposes, not primarily destruction, yet both are used in such manners. Sometimes on purpose, and some by accident by the operators. Life is not fair, nor is the creative nature of man limited, wake up to the fact both are misused,(Jack Point) both are important to life, protection and benefit man when used properly. We cant seem to stop drunks from driving, and NEVER will penalizing legal gun owners effectively stop criminals from killing. However we still trust sober people and good drivers to use the any of the different tools appropriately, same thing should apply to legal gun ownership and qualified gun owners. So lets stop blaming the tool for the negligence of it operator and like said many times prior, A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll never need one again. Amen
RHT447: “Ah yes, that wonderful liberal utopia where only the police and military have guns. I believe they even made a movie about. Let’s see…what was it called? Oh yeah, “Schindler’s List”.”
This statement is idiotic, for the following reasons:
1) More German citizens had guns under Hitler’s rule than before it. You seem to have fallen for the common conservative claim that “One of the first thing Hitler did was confiscate all the guns.” The exact opposite is true; Hitler actually repealed the strict gun laws that were enacted prior to his reign. Nazi Germany was a very macho culture; taking away people’s guns would not have helped Hitler create the kind of society he wanted.
It is true that the Nazis confiscated guns from the Jews, obviously, but that has no applicability to anything being proposed today.
2) There are many more modern examples of countries where no one but the military and police are allowed to carry guns. Someone already brought up the UK. There’s also Australia, which hasn’t had a mass shooting since. We can weigh the pros and cons of countries with such laws–personally, I think they go too far–but comparing any of them to Nazi Germany is ludicrous. The constant invocations of Hitler that seem to crop up in nearly every policy disccusion these days speak to a sad lack of education about the world outside of the United States.
3) Most American liberals do not favor total bans on handguns. Gabby Giffords and her husband, who are leading the charge on gun control right now, are gun owners and believe in the second amendment.
Harold Ey: “Here again a Liberal view using Liberal stats.
I do not buy into this statement, nor should anyone else, especially using the source linked.”
And yet you offer no data of your own to counter it, nor do you offer any valid criticism of the data. You didn’t even support your assertion that the source is liberally biased. Typical.
Libby: “as the only purpose for gun ownership … is … to kill things.”
I find this statement quite stupid as well, Libby. I have gone shooting many times. I never had the purpose of killing things, and I never have, unless you count a pumpkin. I believe we have a right to use guns for recreational use, I just think that everyone should have to get a background check first. Don’t confirm the stereotypes people here have about gun control adovcates, please. Most of us have no problem with guns, we just want to make sure that they actually end up in the hands of responsible gun owners, and that criminals have a harder time obtaining them. Closing the gun show loophole wouldn’t have punished any law-abiding citizen, it would have only made it harder for people to buy guns illegally.
Harold Ey: “…We cant seem to stop drunks from driving”
Our leftist friends care about stopping drunks from driving…they have no similar antipathy toward drugged driving. They believe Christians should be silenced for expressing an opinion and deem them “dangerous”…at the same time they defend Muslims mass murder in the name of the religion.
Neither reason nor common sense guide progressive thought…dim is their habitat!
The extremists, who seem more and more to be in control of the Democrat Party, will never stop until they get guns completely out of the hands of law abiding citizens and they will use every incident they believe can be exploited to try to claim another restrictive stronghold.
Murder in the streets is a legal criminal issue and tough justice, as Peggy indicated, is the proper response.
Private gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right for the purpose of citizen defense and protection against tyranny. When restrictions become so extreme that they compromise this ability to defend our free nation the purpose is compromised. This is the ultimate goal of radical Democrat gun restricting legislation.
Notice…they never direct their attention to harsher penalties for gun crime…heck they can’t even bring themselves to hold the perpetrators responsible; instead they attempt to blame conservative talk radio, Sarah Palin, or Tea Party organizations.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks the threat of oppression from an extreme administration is both possible and real. The radical plans to fundamentally transform America include the systematic disarming of US citizens.
Don’t listen to what they say…watch what they do.
While gun violence happens in gun friendly states (Arizona being a prime example), a good chunk of it also takes place in areas that restrict gun ownership, like the District of Columbia and Chicago Ill. And due to Federal gun free zones, in Connecticut
So Anti-Gun Laws: Do they Work, not so as proposed and here are my arguments ; gun violence, and how it relates with gun control laws on a state-by-state basis, the answer at first blush seems very LIBERALY simple: More gun laws create less gun violence. However, as any statistician would say, correlation is not causality, and indeed, the correlation is far from exact.
Naturally enough, Chris’s link to a Bay area opinion paper is one of the more charitable groups toward gun control. Ideologically liberal papers like this have simply pounced on the correlation between lax gun laws and increased gun violence to try to prove their points, ignoring the contrary evidence
Constitutional historian Robert Cottrol commented the following: First thing I would have to say is, what you want to consider is not gun control in the abstract, but the question of, ‘Okay, specific measures and what you hope might be accomplished by specific measures, first of all.’ I guess beyond that, I have, I guess, a basic skepticism concerning whether or not gun control legislation is going to make a difference simply because if what we’re most concerned about with gun crime and gun violence, I think, are the actions of people who are regularly engaged in criminal activity of one sort or another. For example, a large amount of gun crime and a large amount of gun homicides are basically being done by people who have regularly engaged in criminal activity like the drug trade, and who have long histories of violence and criminal activity. These are people who are not going to be stopped by various gun control measures.
Cottrol also argued the debate over the efficacy of gun control laws is marred by the intellectual dishonesty of some of those pushing stricter gun control. He cited the example of the creation of “assault weapons” as a distinct category, which he suggested was motivated simply by optics and suggestive correlation.
Other groups, such as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, prefer to simply harp on the large numbers of fatalities that occur each year associated with guns, without taking the deaths prevented through self defense afforded by gun ownership.
Gary Kleck, a Liberal criminologist, quotes ‘one also had to know how many times people used guns for self-defense versus how much they used them in the pursuit of criminal efforts.
So where there is some unbiased input, we have a stronger chance of resolving actual gun misuse by focusing on criminal activity and mental health (very taboo in politics) verse ideological knee jerk bills. Like the rash of same in Calif, mostly from the Bay area Liberals.
Bay area Liberals?, funny coincidence, doubtful!
Tina: “Our leftist friends care about stopping drunks from driving…they have no similar antipathy toward drugged driving. They believe Christians should be silenced for expressing an opinion and deem them “dangerous”…at the same time they defend Muslims mass murder in the name of the religion.”
Tina, you’re making a lot of assertions here and they all seem to be strawman arguments. Why do you say that leftists “have no antipathy toward drugged driving?” Where are you getting this from? Are you making it up?
Similarly, what leftists have you heard “defending Muslims’ mass murder?” How have they silenced Christians?
My observations about leftist thought come from years of watching them jump on causes, as it suits them politically, and then taking the cause to extremes. They always want government to intrude well beyond what belongs, at least in a free country, in the realm of personal responsibility and choice.
Some of the things that have championed are worthy of attention and as such are supported by the majority of people initially. Driving while drunk, for instance, is dangerous, stupid and void of personal restraint. Peer pressure and awareness against driving drunk are welcome changes. Strong legal consequence for driving drunk make sense. Government mandated devices that prevent a car from starting is pushing the envelope…and the movement is still pushing. I don’t know if Judith Lightner, the founder of MADD, belonged to any political party but I don’t think she thought of her cause as political. In fact she left the organization at one point because it had veered from her initial intent.
There has been no similar push regarding driving while drugged…at least to my knowledge.
Leftist anti-smoking zealots have likewise gone too far when they mandate through the force of government that private businesses become no smoking zones or that people cannot smoke in their own homes, cars, or yards. The initial push to hold the tobacco industry to a higher standard became nothing less than a war of harassment and bullying; Alinsky would be so proud. This issue, the environment, name the cause…if it can be used politically the left will jump on it.
The left does not want anything negative said about Muslim terrorists. They insist that criticisms that name our enemy specifically is criticism against all Muslims. This is absurd but it is nonetheless what they do. They are quick to criticize anyone who uses the words Muslim and terrorist in the same sentence. The very leftist A/P has even issued a list of unacceptable terms for journalists in an attempt to silence all references to Muslim terrorism. The President removed all words relating to Muslim terrorism from training manuals and he avoids speaking about the threat they pose honestly. This amounts to defending or excusing Muslim mass murder. If radical Muslims can do no wrong and if we are not to speak ill of them even when it would be accurate to do so, we are condoning what they do by our silence and by our criticism of those who speak out.
The Christian Bible was used as a reader in early American schools. Since the 1960’s radical leftists have pushed through activism and lawsuits to take all references to (Christian) God from the classroom including removing the Pledge of Allegiance and forcing Christian music from performances and celebrations. The left portrays Christianity in a poor light in films, articles, and in schools. Many on the left refuse to admit the founders were greatly influenced by Biblical principles.
But the remarks I made were about the lack of grounding behind leftist positions. They are motivated first and foremost by a desire for power to control. Principles, right and wrong, freedom, or personal responsibility do not matter unless they can be used for power and control.
You are, of course, free to disagree.
They always turn social responsibility issues political and then they push too far.
Tina, in support of your statement, “They always turn social responsibility issues political and then they push too far.” Here is an article from Politico and another about what is happening on FaceBook.
From Politico:
Feds suggest anti-Muslim speech can be punished:
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.
Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” Killian told the newspaper.
While threats directed at individuals or small groups can lead to punishment, First Amendment experts expressed doubt that the government has any power to stop offensive material about Islam from circulating.
“He’s just wrong,” said Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s most respected First Amendment attorneys. “The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion.”
“And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is,” Abrams said.
A conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of using federal law to specifically protect Muslims from criticism.
“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote in a blog post.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/feds-suggest-antimuslim-speech-can-be-punished-165163.html
From FaceBook:
Breitbart – One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened
Wow! Be afraid…be very afraid!
Breitbart – One Voice Silenced, Millions Awakened
Facebook is carrying through on the regime’s new “policy” of not tolerating any social media postings about Muslims…at least not those they consider “anti-Muslim.” We all know what that means…blocking truth and hard news. One of our people (admin/writer) has been sentenced to Facebook “jail” for 12 hours because of a posting about Muslims. Welcome to the new Marxist America, folks. We will keep you posted about any new developments. ~cj
Actually if anything is idiotic (rederring to number 12 post), it starts with a incomplete post about Hitler’s Gun control policies. Hitler made sure guns were available to police, solders and those civilians Hitler trusted to fulfill his plans of Genocide toward Jews, and Hitler first saw to it Jews were striped of gun rights. so why not present it as such?
Additionally the comment about today’s VERY political attempts at gun regulation/control, ‘but that has no applicability to anything being proposed today’.
I do not accept that, nor could I have faith in any political party who’s purpose is to try and revise the 2nd amendment. From the beginning it has served us well, and when left alone will continue to do so!. The Constitution maybe a living and growing entity, but the Constitution is not a toy to be played with just for special interest political purpose.