Confiscating Guns Won’t Work But Let’s Do It Anyway
Oct 5, 2015 Second Amendment
I have ranted about gun control for a long time partly because I live in the oppressive state of Maryland but mostly because I believe in individual freedom and that includes the freedom to keep and bear arms. This freedom was so important that our Founders protected (not granted) the right in the Constitution.
I have no problem with people who do not like firearms or who do not want to own them. They are free to choose those actions just as I am free to choose otherwise.
That is where the problem lies. Those who do not like guns blame them for all the bad things that happen with them. They then use their blame of guns to push an agenda that includes disarming America.
Some of these people are actually foolish enough to believe it will make a difference. Those in power know it won’t but they do not care because their goal is to control people and they can only truly control people once they have been disarmed.
Study after study using the government’s own numbers shows that even though we have more guns than ever before violent crime is way down. It has been shown time and again that the most violent places where the gun crimes occur are places with the strictest gun control laws and in places where people are free to carry firearms it is relatively safe.
These facts are indisputable but facts never get in the way of a good cause where the liberals are concerned. They want control and they need to take the guns to get it so that is what they are going to do.
Or try anyway…
There are far too many tragic shootings and something has to be done about it. What needs to be done is vastly different from what Barack Obama and the rest of the tyrants will tell you. They say that we need common sense gun laws even though all the gun laws we now have did not help and those they propose would do nothing to stop the bad people from doing bad things.
What needs to be done is to immediately get rid of all gun laws in each state. People who are not otherwise prohibited and who pass the background check to purchase a firearm will be allowed to carry it openly or concealed anywhere they want (private businesses could still ban them on their properties as could homeowners). This will allow people to protect themselves from those hell bent on doing harm.
The left wants a complete gun confiscation. They want to make America a gun free zone. This thinking ignores the fact that these mass shootings take place at locations that are designated as gun free. The criminals pick these places exactly for that reason. They know that law abiding people will not be armed there and that they will have a target rich environment.
[note]The left’s idea of a gun free America is not really gun free. They want it gun free with regard to private citizens. Agents of the government (and no doubt special people) will still have guns and be allowed to carry them. It is amazing that these people are the first to attack police officers when they use firearms in the line of duty as trigger happy but want them to be the only ones to have firearms.[/note]
The left holds Australia up as the model we should emulate but as they announced their praise for that nation someone there shot and killed an employee of the police. How could that happen in a place where guns are banned?
The left explains gun confiscation like this:
They turn to [Columbia University psychiatrist] Appelbaum again who is ready to endorse the Australian approach with one caveat–he wants to be sure everyone knows that we should still expect to see mass shootings. Appelbaum said, “I don’t think anyone could say honestly that if we tighten up on the availability of guns and the ease of purchasing them, and reduce the number of weapons that are largely produced to kill large numbers of people, that the problem will go away completely.” He added, “Some people who will be able to get their hands on guns and be able to do horrible things with them” no matter what actions are taken. [emphasis mine] Breitbart
This line of thinking demonstrates a few things. One is that even with a complete confiscation and ban people will get guns and use them to murder people. So it demonstrates that even a total ban will not work.
It also shows what freedom lovers have been saying all along and that is criminals do not obey the law and gun control does not affect them. The only people harmed by gun control are the law abiding people who will not use firearms illegally in the first place.
Only in liberal land could a solution to a perceived issue be proposed that will not solve the perceived problem and then be touted as a great idea.
Of course if the real goal is to disarm law abiding citizens so they cannot defend against tyranny then the plan makes perfect sense.
At least until they actually try it…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: australia, gun control, lies, mass shootings, Obama, tyranny
Make No Mistake, Obama Wants To Confiscate Firearms
Jun 11, 2014 Second Amendment
Barack Obama will tell you he supports the Second Amendment and he will tell you he does not want to confiscate your firearms but he is a liar. Barack Obama is lying about firearms related incidents by telling people that these incidents are off the chart. Well they are but they are off the bottom of the chart. The number of firearms related incidents is down and are now at their lowest in over 20 years.
[note]Obama says he wants common sense laws for gun control. He wants what he thinks is common sense to be imposed on a constitutionally protected right. Interestingly, he is against any restrictions on abortions. It is all about control.[/note]
Even Washington DC has seen a decrease in murders by firearm.
Interestingly, these numbers are down despite the huge increase in firearms ownership and the large stockpiling of ammunition. These numbers are down even though many states are shall issue states and some do not require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed. These numbers are all going down.
Except in places like Chicago where gun control is alive and well. In that city people are murdered with firearms all the time. They are murdered with firearms that they are not allowed to have.
How could that possibly happen and how could places where the Second Amendment is not infringed upon have lower firearms related incidents? How could DC have a drop in firearms related murders?
More guns equal less crime. Criminals do not want to try bad things in places where someone else might have a firearm and might actually use it. In DC the Heller decision seems to have given criminals pause.
The availability of firearms in free (or freer) places keeps crime down.
It is not gun control and it is not any kind of scheme where people are restricted as these schemes always lead to more firearms related crime. Once again, look at Chicago (and for that matter any place run by liberals where gun control exists) and you will see what happens.
Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Barack Obama is upset that Congress will not work on gun control measures so he has decided that he will do all that he can through executive action. Obama will circumvent Congress and the Constitution in order to infringe on a constitutionally protected right.
And his actions will not involve registration and background schemes. No, Obama will look for a way to ban and confiscate firearms. He has already given support for that kind of law.
Obama praised Australia’s gun laws that took effect after a mass shooting. Australia banned most types of firearms and confiscated them. There are still plenty of firearms related incidents in Australia (how can that happen when gun have been banned and confiscated) but that is beside the point. Obama praised Australia’s gun law and part of that process was the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Obama would love nothing more than to confiscate all firearms but not because he thinks that will make us safer (people are not safer in so called no gun countries). He wants to confiscate guns because they are the means to resist tyranny.
Obama knows that he could not push too far (though the compliant media and testicle lacking Congress let him get away with too much) so long as people have the means to fight back. The standoff at the Bundy Ranch showed what well armed people can do to tyrants from the government.
The article in National Review is spot on when it indicates that Obama cannot praise the Australian Law without praising the mass confiscation program.
Obama envies the Australian government because it confiscated firearms. He wishes he could do the same and might just try some variant via executive action.
We need Congress to reel Obama in and stop him from his lawless acts. He is far more dangerous to this country than citizens with firearms.
Citizens who, by the way, will never allow their firearms to be confiscated…
Tags: abortion, australia, confiscation, gun control, lies, Obama
A Song For All The Gun Grabbers Out There
Jan 23, 2014 Second Amendment
This song is to the point and it asks the question; “Who the hell gave you the right to take my guns from me?” In America the Second Amendment is there to protect a preexisting right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. It is not about the military (addressed elsewhere in the Constitution) and it is not about hunting (not addressed at all). The reality is the Founders fought a bloody war against the ruling nation to gain independence. That ruling nation was oppressive and even tried to take away firearms, an act that was not well received.
We fought to gain our freedom and now we must continue to fight to protect our freedom. Ronald Reagan said Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
That generation is now and we are in real danger of losing freedom (much of it has been lost already). Listen to the song and think about the law abiding who do no wrong and would never use a firearm to hurt someone without just cause. And then think of criminals who do not obey the law and ask yourself if any gun law will stop them.
You know the answer.
Well, who the hell gave you the right?
Here is an example of tyranny.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: america, australia, constitution, criminals, gun control, Second Amendment
What If They Boycotted Something Else?
Aug 21, 2013 Commentary, Second Amendment
Christopher Lane of Australia was attending college in the US and played baseball on his college team. He had just returned from his home country a few days ago and was murdered when three teens who claimed they were bored decided to shoot him. Lane was out jogging when the three wannabe thugs followed him in a car and shot him in the back.
The murder happened in Oklahoma.
This is a tragedy and I can’t even begin to imagine how his family is affected by this. They sent a loved one to the US a few days ago and now he is gone, senselessly murdered by thugs with alleged ties to a gang.
The incident has the anti gun nuts up in arms. Brit twit Piers Morgan says that America’s gun crisis has become the world’s problem.
Former deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer said that Australian tourists should stay away from America to protest a need for stricter gun control.
These fellows come from nations that have taken guns from people and now their citizens are at the mercy of criminals. Gun murders have not stopped in their home nations and no gun law would have prevented Lane’s murder.
You see, none of the people who have been arrested are allowed to own a handgun. How did they get one? The same way people who get the banned substance Heroin do, they obtained it illegally. No law will keep people from getting what they want. One only needs to look at prohibition in the US to see that people who wanted alcohol, an illegal and banned item, got it. Criminals do not obey the law. That is exactly why there are people in the UK and Australia who are shot with guns even though they have extreme gun control.
There is not a gun problem in America; there is a societal and criminal problem. One of the suspects in the Lane murder was on probation and there are indications that all of them had a criminal history.
The crimes committed with guns are almost exclusively done by people who have obtained them illegally. The only thing gun laws do is impose restrictions on those who follow the law in the first place. The liberal system of justice that lets criminals go free is at fault as is the mindset that portrays people as victims who are not responsible for their actions.
Perhaps if we spent as much time going after criminals as we do going after guns we would have some meaningful progress in the murders of people by guns. Keep in mind, more people die in car accidents and from tobacco use than from guns but we concentrate on gun control because it is about controlling people.
In New York a few days ago a cab whose driver was full of road rage jumped a curb and hit a woman amputating her leg. The woman was visiting the US from the UK. Would it make sense for UK officials to advise their citizens not to visit the US until road rage is controlled or until cab drivers are held accountable?
But something deeper needs to be investigated. Two of the three suspects in this case were black and a large number of violent crimes are committed by black people (particularly against other blacks). How would anyone react if the former deputy PM of Australia had advised citizens to avoid the US until it got its black people under control?
This is an important question because we have the gun being blamed for the crime. We hear people calling for all kinds of actions against the gun. A broad generalization is being made and all legal gun owners are being lumped in with the small fraction of people who use illegal guns in an illegal way. If they are free to do this and if it makes logical sense to the gun grabbers then why can’t we simply look at the demographics of 66% of the people involved in this crime and indict an entire class of people for what happened. It works like this:
Gun used in crime means all guns (and gun owners) bad so ban all guns.
Blacks committed murder so all blacks are bad so ban all blacks.
The second statement makes little sense to anyone and is readily rejected but gun grabbers who see the absurdity in it will fail to see the same absurdity in the first sentence.
Guns do not commit crimes. People commit crimes and in this case the gun was the object used to do so. We do not ban knives, baseball bats, cars, sulfuric acid and rope when they are used to commit murder. We recognize that all these items have a purpose and that they can be used to murder. Guns have a purpose and they can be used to murder. We should not ban them just because a small number of people use them illegally (which would not stop even with a complete ban).
The Second Amendment protects a right and that right should not be infringed upon because some people do bad things. Criminals do bad things all the time and yet we don’t condone violating their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights.
When we rationalize infringing on rights because it makes us safer or keeps bad people from being bad (which never happens) we have given up freedom. Freedom comes with risks and the proper way to mitigate those risks is to hold people accountable.
Bored thug gang banger wannabes do not represent the whole of America and their acts should not dictate gun policy in America.
The Constitution should be the only governing document.
Period.
Boycotting America because a criminal uses a gun to murder an Australian makes as much sense as boycotting Australia because a Great White shark ate an American.
We can no more control a determined criminal than we can a shark…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: absurdity, australia, baseball, gun control, murder, oklahoma