How Will More Gun Laws Help?
Aug 7, 2012 Political
This nation has tens of thousands of guns laws on the books and those laws have made no difference in gun crimes. Unless, of course, those laws are ones that allow freer expression of Second Amendment rights. Places with laws allowing carry of firearms have lower crime. Places like Chicago and DC, where the gun laws are the strictest, have out of control crime.
After the Aurora CO theater shootings the liberals were screaming for more gun laws. Mind you, these well intentioned liberals only want common sense gun laws and not anything that would infringe on your rights (nod, nod, wink, wink).
Faced with the reality that the theater was a no gun zone which means that a rule was in place to keep guns out, the liberals had to think of some other reason to enact these sensible laws. The shooter did not follow the rule about taking a gun in the theater (but everyone else did much to their detriment) so banning guns won’t fly. Hmm, the guy bought thousands of rounds over the internet so maybe we need to ban that. Upchuck Schumer of New York is trying that but it must be a bad idea because it was slipped into another bill. The guy used fewer than one hundred rounds so it matters not how many he bought over the Internet, he could have bought a hundred at a Wal Mart on the way to the theater.
Wait now, the libs are pointing out that the shooter had a mental health issue and that a more extensive background check could solve the problem.
Hell, the recent shooting at the Sikh Temple involved a whack job skinhead so a better background check might have kept him in check as well.
Really? Let us see. There is a report that the psychiatrist treating the Aurora shooter reported him to campus police.
There is a report that federal law enforcement had the Sikh shooter on its radar but did not deem him a threat.
So what we have are two police agencies that were aware of the potential for disaster from two people who ended up being mass murderers and those police agencies did absolutely nothing to prevent the massacres from happening.
How in the name of all that is good would a more stringent background check have prevented any of this if the police already knew about the potential problems but did not act?
In fact, the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords had been in trouble with the law and was known to have issues but the law enforcement agency in the area swept that away because his mother worked there.
So tell me again how more government involvement will curb the killings?
It won’t. The government has been more and more involved in the effort to disarm us for a long time and in all the places where government has successfully infringed on our rights the number of gun crimes has gone up. The aforementioned Chicago and DC are prime examples. New York is another.
Guns are banned in Chicago and severely restricted in DC and New York (ironically, Chuck Schumer has a carry permit for New York) and look at the carnage. Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan.
We do not need more gun laws. We need the laws we have enforced and we need those entrusted to uphold the law to act when they have credible reports that someone is evil.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: ammo, aurora, chuck schumer, gun control, lies, mental health, police, sikh temple
Aurora Shooter Did Not Get The Memo
Jul 23, 2012 Commentary, Second Amendment
An Occupy anarchist named James Holmes busted into a theater in Aurora Colorado during a midnight screening of the new Batman movie and shot dozens of people. When he was done there were 12 dead and many more wounded. Among the dead are young children.
As with any mass murder involving a firearm the left wing went into hyper drive in an effort to blame right wing talk and to ban guns. Twitter was all atwitter as left wing moonbats blamed Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the right wing and talk radio while politicians stumbled all over themselves to declare we need more gun control.
The shooter turned out to be an occupy anarchist type who is a registered Democrat and who reportedly voted for Obama. Does this mean that Obama and the left wing are responsible for what happened?
Of course not. There is only one person responsible for this, and that would be the shooter.
Unless, of course, we find out that Eric Holder and Barack Obama supplied him with guns ala Fast and Furious so that they could push forward with their gun ban agenda.
But I digress.
I want to know how this could have happened. The movie theater was a gun free zone which means even though Colorado citizens are issued concealed carry permits they are not allowed to carry those firearms in that theater. Cinemark Holdings does not allow firearms in its theaters so no guns are allowed.
So I must ask; how did the shooter get a gun into the theater? The rules are pretty clear, no firearms and yet Holmes was able to enter with firearms.
Oh, that’s right, he ignored the rules. This is why all the calls for more gun control are way off base. The people who will do these kinds of things will not obey the rules. If gun control worked then Chicago would not have hundreds of murders by firearms. That city has twice as many as Phoenix and people in Phoenix are free to carry firearms (and it is my understanding they don’t need a permit from the government to do so).
If one person in the theater had a firearm the outcome might have been different. I know that we cannot tell what might have been but at least there would have been a fighting chance.
People like Nancy Pelosi will tell you that if another person had a gun it would have resulted in a shootout and more people would have been injured. Let me translate that for you:
A good guy with a gun is a danger so when a bad guy shoots you should just die in a bloodbath because otherwise others might get hurt too.
Ask any person who survived that ordeal and I bet you will hear that they would rather have had a fighting chance. They would have been happy if someone would have shot at the bad guy. It beats getting shot like sitting ducks.
I wonder what advice Pelosi would give to people who might get raped…
If more people with guns would end in a shootout and more people would be hurt then Nancy thinks, by extension, that you should accept your fate and get murdered. With this in mind perhaps we need to end the Secret Service or police protection for Pelosi and Obama and all the others who think they are more important than the rest of us.
If some shooter pops up and the hundreds of armed guards that protect these people respond there will be a bloodbath and more people will get hurt or killed. It is best to disarm the guards and if a shooter pops up the politicians will just have to hope for the best.
It is always easy for those who are surrounded by armed guards to tell the rest of us how safe we are and what we need for protection.
Our Founders ensured the Second Amendment was in place so that the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms would not be infringed.
The incident in Aurora demonstrates that we need more armed citizens and not fewer. The rules there were clear, no guns, and yet guns were used to cause death and destruction.
No gun ban, no law, no method of infringing including the complete ban on all guns would ever stop this kind of thing from happening.
Bad people will always get what they want because they do not care about the law.
If laws banning things actually worked there would be no cocaine or heroin users in this country.
It is time to stop the nonsense of trying to ban guns and trying to blame every act of violence on the right.
As an afterthought, how many DUIs are there in this country each year (whether they result in death or not)? Do politicians try to ban driver’s licenses or alcohol because of the DUIs?
Then why ban guns because of murder? As far as I know murder is against the law. In other words, murder is banned in this country and yet people still murder.
I read somewhere this weekend that after an incident like the one in Aurora they always want to take guns away from the people who had nothing to do with it.
That is true because gun control is not about guns it is about control. The government wants to control the people and it can do so much more easily by taking away their arms.
Incidents like the Aurora shootings are just a means to accomplish the goal of total control. It is a convenient excuse for the left and keeps them from having to commit crimes to get what they want.
The shootings are not a tragedy they were mass murder and my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims. They deserved better than to be the victims of a senseless act by a deranged person.
And they deserved to be in a safe environment instead of a free fire zone of a no guns theater. Perhaps people should avoid businesses that do not allow citizens to exercise their right to carry a firearm.
[note]Signs at businesses where firearms are not allowed should read “No Firearms on Premises (Except Criminals)”.[/note]
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: aurora, gun control, james holmes, lies, murder, Second Amendment