For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Categories
Archives
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
I’m glad to see you spreading the thoughts of this head-case. Gun control has nothing to do with only arming those in lock-step with leftist ideology. That is simply crazy talk.
I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on this when you’ve got offspring in harm’s way.
Meanwhile, I wish this guy all the best against Hellfire missiles when the imaginary tyrants turn on him.
everyone hates guns in the hands of someone they disagree with. That’s common sense. It’s not a left or right thing. While a gun won’t shoot down a hell fire missile, I would feel safer knowing I have the ability to own a gun and defend my offspring, than find out I can’t.
I do think the NRA/Gun Lobby is a bit insensitive. But, owning a gun, versus mastering a martial art are the same to me. You do it for self defense/confidence/because you can. I have no right to stop you from learning how to kill me with your bare hands, I have no right to stop you from defending yourself with a gun.
To be clear, I have absolutely zero problem with gun ownership. I have problems with unregulated gun ownership, and I believe additional regulations will reduce (but not eliminate) tragedies, just as traffic laws do.
I see the gun regulation stuff going the way of the drug war.. it’s gonna suck. The problem isn’t regulation, the problem is crazy people. If we can’t take away the desire to kill, people will find other tools to kill. I’m not just talking about the “mentally ill” people. We’re all mentally ill. Most of us just don’t go the way of murder.
The obvious counter is that I’d rather face a guy with an urge to kill who is wielding a hammer (or bag of hammers) than a guy who bought an AR-15 with a 100 round mag at a gun show with no background check.
What I’m against more than anything is the notion that if we can’t solve 100% of the problem we should change nothing.
We’re software developers here. Can we get some love for iterative improvement? :)
Notice that the hypothetical “guy who bought an AR-15 with a 100 round mag at a gun show with no background check” is *not* one of the cases we’ve seen. What we’ve seen most recently is someone who stole a gun from someone who passed a check.
In the interest of conversation, I’d be interested to hear about a real incident where changes to existing law (or a new law) would have prevented or mitigated the incident.
James Holmes purchased his guns for Aurora legally. Perhaps not at a gun show, but over the internet. Word is coming out that he did pass some criminal background checks.
So what’s the answer there? If he hasn’t been able to buy the guns, perhaps he wouldn’t have taken action. He might have obtained them illegally … But, he might not have. Is the dramatically less number of mass shootings prior to 2005′s drop of the assault weapons ban not proof of laws preventing or mitigating such incidents? (I suspect you’ll want to give the credit for the lower number of such incidents during the ban period to some other factor, since crediting the ban can’t be directly proven, and would undermine your position.)
Regarding stolen guns, I was just thinking this morning that the gun owner who failed to secure their firearms (so that they could be stolen) should be charged as accessories to the crimes committed with their guns. Why shouldn’t owners of lethal weapons be required to be careful with them? Isn’t that just common sense?
Today’s Reading Assignment: http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/
Tony, why is it that people assume that anyone who wants additional regulations on what guns can be purchased ALSO wants to COLLECT guns that would have broken that law? I have no interest in that, and don’t see big support behind that notion from anyone.
While we’re on the Second Amendment, why doesn’t anyone on the pro-gun side address the “well organized militia” part? I don’t think Adam Lanza’s mother was drilling on the Newtown parade ground with the rest of the militia.
The as-convenient side-stepping of that part is pretty glaring.
The Clash: Guns of Brixtion
When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
I’ll address the “militia” part.
First, the phrasing in the amendment is “a well-regulated militia.”
As the people of the day understood it, “well-regulated” meant something along the lines of “properly equipped”.
The militia was all able-bodied men. Indeed, current US code states that the irregular militia of the US includes all men between 18 and 45.
Clay Loveless I’m all for additional regulations on firearm ownership. What I’m not happy with is the morons in the House & Senate determining what I can legally own or not own based on bullshit they think is right.And regardless of whatever regulations are in place or put in place the firearms that Adam Lanza used were legally purchased by his mother for HER USE. He didn’t have access to them until HE murdered her and took control over them. So regulations go out the window and don’t apply in that situation.
I will also point out that I spent 10 years in the Military, earned 3 honorable discharges during that time. I also spent close to 3 years as a Police Officer working the Housing Projects. You know what I never found on hundred of drug raids and felony arrests? A criminal with an Assault Rifle.
Paul, I believe this is the definition you’re looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
It goes a bit beyond simply “eqiupped.”
Tony, I agree with you about the general quality of Congress. I don’t like being told what I can and can’t do any more than you do. But I believe we have a responsibility to consider EVERYONE’S safety, not just when it’s convenient or non-offensive to us. I also recognize that doing so may require some compromises on what I personally like versus what I think is right.
Tony, I guess that illustrates that the only people with assault rifles are those who buy them legally for recreation, or those who buy them legally to commit mass killing sprees … ?
Everyone’s safety? More people are killed every year using baseball bats than firearms. Once more, Gun’s don’t kill people, the person holding the gun do. It’s the argument that the spoon is what makes you fat.
Guns are ONLY for violence. Baseball bats, and all the other things that people like to point out are used in homicide all have other uses. The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill other beings (Animals, people, soldiers, whatever.)
Clay Loveless: I’m good with “organized and equipped”, even “disciplined and trained.” The key point, though, is that “regulated” does not mean “government regulations”. It is the people who make up the militia, and the interest of the people being well organized and equipped, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So like I said before — where’s the organization, Paul? Where’s the training? I never said “regulated” meant “government regulated”. I think that the vast majority of gun owners have never had proper training. I realize that you and Tony have had it, as has anyone else with military or police training. But the average gun-owning Joe? I’m skeptical.
Clay Loveless: I could argue that point, but I won’t, because I don’t think it’s relevant. It seems reasonable to think that the Founders, having just fought a war against a government, were very interested in making sure that future citizens would have the same option. The amendment is there to make sure an armed citizenry can forcibly resist any government that has become a tyranny.
Clay Loveless: The organization/discipline/training/etc appear to be left to the people as well.
I get what they were going for, and what they’d just come through. Is it not reasonable to entertain any modification to that, now that we’re over 230 years later?
Clay Loveless The war on drugs and prohibition has worked really really well. Why would a “war on guns” work any better?
I don’t think so; they recognized it as what we would now call a civil right, in the same vein as the right “of the People” to freedom of speech and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. If we don’t entertain modifications to those rights, then perhaps the right to keep and bear arms does not require it either.
Clay: Guns are only used for violence, but violence is often used to deter violence, i.e., the 2 million+ per year uses of fire arms in self defense (yes, including ‘assault’ rifles). Callous as it sounds, the number of mass killings that occur per year is infinitesimal by comparison.