Crime Stats For Piers Morgan and The MSM
Jan 1, 2013 Political
The problem with liberals is that they are too busy misleading people to push an agenda to actually look at and understand the reality of any situation. The media wing of the Democrat party has an agenda and that agenda is to push whatever the overlords in the party want. Gun control is the cause of the day so they will continue to lie about crime in America as compared to other nations like the UK. Here is a video with an analysis of the crime stats.
Keep in mind that the bulk of our violence is in large metropolitan areas. You know, the ones most likely run by Democrats and most likely to have the most stringent gun control laws…
Perhaps the morons like Piers Morgan and Dianne Feinstein can look at the real numbers and then address the problems at the real cause and not the one they have manufactured…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: crime stats, dianne feinstein, gun crime, lies, piers morgan, reality
Piers Morgan, Ungrateful Guest
Dec 31, 2012 Political
Piers Morgan says the Second Amendment does not mean what it says and is ambiguous. Throughout this article I will be posting the words of our Founders so as to make it clear for Mr. Morgan who evidently has trouble understanding the English language. Ironic as that might seem.
[note]” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
— George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380[/note]
Piers Morgan of CNN is a guest in the United States. Let us make no mistake about that up front. He is here because we have been nice enough to allow him to be here. The problem is that Piers is a terrible guest who thinks he has some say in how this country is run. Piers is here and he is making a stink about his incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment and even likens America’s obsession with guns as, in part, due to hatred for the British and the Revolution.
Hey Piers, if we hated the Brits you would not be here making a ton of money and living large. You would still be hacking people’s voice mail in the UK and otherwise invading their private lives to publish trashy news.
But I digress.
Morgan is in a snit because a petition to have him deported at the White House website is up to 90,000 signatures (now over 100k). Morgan says he has been attacked for his position on guns in America and he finds it ironic that he is being attacked for exercising his First Amendment right to which he is entitled as a legal guest here.
[note]”Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution[/note]
I find it ironic that Morgan, who has no say in the matter, is upset about exercising his right to free speech when his exercise of that right was done in support of removing the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, Morgan is upset that people would attack his right but thinks that no one should be upset that he has been attacking their right. Keep in mind, Morgan has no say in the matter. He is a guest.
Let us get into some of the items Morgan posted in his UK Daily Mail piece. He totally misinterprets the Second Amendment. He claims that the Amendment does not allow Americans to have AR 15 type firearms (which he calls assault weapons) and that those weapons are for the military and the police. Morgan is ignorant of the fact that the Second Amendment allows the people to keep the same kinds of arms that would be used by individuals in military service and that hunting and sport shooting have nothing to do with the issue. He poo poos the idea that the 2A is for Americans to defend against its own government should that government become tyrannical. He seems to have missed the history lesson of a tyrannical government that King George ran and the mess that happened when Georgie tried to take our guns.
[note]If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28[/note]
Without our firearms America would still be under British rule and perhaps Piers would be a ruling governor in the colonies. It is also important to note that while Morgan dismisses the idea of Americans maintaining arms to keep its own government in check this government has committed far worse crimes against the people than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. This government makes King George look like a piker.
In any event, Morgan thinks the Second Amendment is unfortunately worded and that it is ambiguous, at best. I submit this Piers, the Second Amendment is pretty clear in that it does not restrict ownership to any type of firearm and it does not restrict to those in the militia. The Constitution starts with the words “We the People” and that phrase means all citizens of this country. In fact, the Declaration of Independence tells us that the government derives its just powers with the consent of the governed and the Constitution lays out that the PEOPLE are in charge. The phrase “the people” is used several times to indicate all citizens of this country. So why would the phrase; “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” mean something else?
It does not and only an idiot would think otherwise.
Morgan claims that 100,000 people are shot in the US each year. This number is misleading and is designed only to make people think these shootings or any associated deaths would not have occurred if we banned guns. First of all, the only way to get to anywhere near 100,000 is to include suicide (successful and not) as well as legal shootings. As far as suicides go there might be fewer suicides by gun if it were harder to get one (it will never be impossible regardless of any ban) but the number of suicides will not go down. In China, a country that would certainly get Morgan’s blessing for gun control, nearly 300,000 people a year commit suicide. If someone wants to die he will find a means to end his life even if he can’t get a gun.
[note]”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). [/note]
A number of shootings are accidental, the number of fatalities low and the number of murders even lower. The number of deaths by firearm is around 31,000. 18,000 are suicides (which would still happen as evidenced by the same numbers pre and post gun ban in the UK and Australia as well as the number in China). The number of homicides includes all (remember, some homicide is ruled justifiable) and even at 11,000 is lower than the number of people who die in drunk driving accidents, baseball bat murders (the most common weapon in the US), and knife murders.
Incidentally, if we were to remove guns from the equations in America and all other nations to which people like Morgan compare we would see that America has more murders with all other types of items that can be used as weapons, items one supposes are as easily available and as prevalent in those other countries (certainly every kitchen in the UK has a knife in it).
I understand that Morgan is a sensationalist type “journalist” (remember, he was a tabloid journalist who did illegal things to get stories) but certainly he does not expect us to believe his claims. His sole experience, a subject he knows a thing or two about, comes from a one time three hour controlled excursion to a range he participated in and a few family and friends who have some kind of firearms experience. Most rural children in the US have more firearms experience (and knowledge) than Piers Morgan. Morgan is lying to people in order to assist Barack Obama and the Democrats in achieving the disarming of Americans and the violation of the US Constitution.
[note]”What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356[/note]
Morgan tells us, in his stiff British style, that we do not cure alcoholism by giving alcoholics more booze or drug addiction by giving addicts more drugs. His connection is that a gun problem (a problem to Morgan and his ilk) should not be fixed by allowing more guns. This is flawed and I would think that an addict and past drug user like Morgan would know better.
You see, no one would give an alcoholic or an addict alcohol or drugs to treat their problems and no one in America would give a mentally ill person a gun. Morgan wants us to believe that since a few people have done terrible things with guns we should ban all guns to solve the problem. In order to make any connection to his alcohol or drug analogy we would need to make all people who do not have alcohol or drug problems stop drinking or using any kind of drug and take sobriety classes. Alcohol is perfectly legal in this country and we do not stop people from drinking it. EVEN ALCOHOLICS AND PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS CAN BUY IT. Yes, alcoholics can get alcohol. We have not banned it but we do go after behavior that is harmful. We go after drunk drivers. We hold alcoholics accountable for things they do while drunk. What we do not do is force every person who does not abuse alcohol to stop using it or to go through treatment.
We tried making alcohol illegal in this nation and plenty of it was produced, sold and consumed, much of it by the politicians and people who worked to get it banned. A ban on alcohol was so ineffective that the Constitution was changed to remove that ban. Certain drugs are illegal to buy, sell or use. Other drugs have specific uses and are well regulated. Every day in this nation people obtain the drugs that are illegal and the drugs that are controlled and they use them. People die every day from using drugs illegally so it is obvious that any kind of ban does not work. In fact, more people die of drug (legal and illicit) and alcohol each year than from gunshots (the list includes all firearms deaths. We know that homicide is fewer than 11,000 of the deaths and suicide the most). Perhaps as a past druggie Morgan should concentrate his efforts on these senseless deaths, death by assault drugs…
[note]”Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
— Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836[/note]
Morgan wants the readers of his piece (aimed at the UK) to think that a ban will solve gun violence. He cites numbers and uses them incorrectly and he omits things that hurt his argument. The reality is Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in this nation and over 500 people have been murdered with guns in that city. In the US the cities with the most stringent gun control laws have the most gun related shootings. Hell, during Ronald Reagan’s terms in office DC had the toughest gun control around and Reagan was shot in that city while surrounded by armed guards. Criminals do not obey the law and people intent on doing something bad will do something bad no matter what.
Mexico has tougher gun laws than the US, the UK, and Australia. The murder rate per 100,000 is extremely high. If gun control is the answer why is Mexico in such trouble (discounting the fact that Barack Obama and Eric Holder illegally shipped firearms there and armed drug cartels). While Morgan likes to say that more guns equals less crime is nonsense one must engage in willful suspension of disbelief to arrive at his conclusion. In places where there are more legally owned guns there is less crime and in places where guns are strictly controlled there is more crime. Morgan also laments that arming teachers and nurses and others is not the answer. We do not have to arm them we only have to allow them to be armed if they so desire. If schools were not designated as gun free and people with legal carry permits could carry their firearms then school shootings would likely not occur. Keep in mind that all the mass shootings since 1950 with the exception of one have taken place where guns are not allowed. The one that took place where they are allowed was in Arizona where Congresswoman Giffords was shot. Her assailant was stopped by a young man who was legally carrying a concealed firearm.
[note]”The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
— Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898][/note]
Let’s face it. Bans do not keep people from getting banned items. Drugs are banned and people get drugs. People under 18 are not allowed to buy tobacco but many people under that age use tobacco (by the way, the number one killer in the US where people are 50 times more likely to die from tobacco related ailments than a gunshot, non tobacco users 5 times more likely) and people under 21 are not allowed to buy alcohol but people under 21 drink everyday. How many of these under aged people die in drunk driving accidents and will Morgan be rallying against alcohol?
The truth of the matter is that even in his beloved UK people have been murdered with guns after guns were banned. The people of the UK are victims to increased crime since they were forced to turn in their firearms. People lie awake at night listening as criminals try their doors to see if they are unlocked. Hot burglaries have increased and there are more crimes because of the gun ban. These are facts that Mr. Morgan can look up. In fact, he could watch this video of his fellow countrymen telling us in the US NOT to let them ban our guns.
[note]”And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
–Samuel Adams[/note]
Piers Morgan has shown that he does not understand the US Constitution or the Second Amendment. More importantly, he has involved himself in an issue that is none of his business. The rules governing this country and the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, are a matter for the citizens of this country. Morgan is a guest and as such should conform to the laws and customs of the host nation.
Think of it this way. If Morgan invited you to live in his house because you were down on your luck he would be allowed to set boundaries and rules. Suppose you smoked tobacco and kept a firearm in your room and ran around in your underwear, all in violation of the rules for living in Morgan’s house. He would be well within his right to evict you and you would have no right to demand that he change his rules to suit your thoughts, beliefs, and desires.
Morgan is doing that to us. He is a guest in our house and yet he is trying to change the rules to suit him.
That is what the petition to deport him is all about. We want to evict him from our house because he does not like to follow the rules and he gets involved in things that are none of his damned business.
Yes, I know Piers Morgan stated in the article that he has children and he is concerned about their safety and if America does not change its gun rules to suit him he might pack up and go home.
First of all, I would like Morgan to tell us where his children go to school. No, for you liberal twits, this is not some way to bring harm to them. I oppose harming children. It is for us to see if Morgan sends his kids to a public school or some elitist private school where guards protect the children, you know like Barack Obama and the DC elite do. If Morgan sends his kids to a school with armed guards or where they are pretty safe he has no grounds upon which to stand.
[note]” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
— Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29[/note]
I would also like to know if Morgan employs a bodyguard and if so, is that guard armed? You see, so many of the elitists tell us that guns are bad and no one needs them but these very people employ armed body guards to protect themselves. They think they are more important than you are. Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and countless other liberal twits employ armed guards to protect them and their families.
I know, Clinton and Obama are US presidents and afforded guards just like Republican presidents. The difference is that Republican presidents did not run around with armed guards while telling you that guns are bad and that you must be disarmed.
If guns do not make us safer than why do so many liberals surround themselves with armed guards.
And if liberals in Hollywood oppose firearms why do so many of them make a fortune using firearms in their films? Maybe liberals in films are responsible for the violence.
America is an armed nation. Our Constitution protects the right (a right that preexisted our Founding) to keep and bear arms. We did not take kindly to the British rulers trying to disarm us in the past and we will not take kindly to our American leaders (who think they are rulers) trying to do so now.
We certainly will not allow a British guest in our country to dictate how we should run things.
So Piers, if you want to leave please be my guest. If you want to stay you are welcome to do so provided you live by our rules.
Got it?
More quotes about gun ownership from the Founders.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: ar 15, bad form, bad statistics, british gun control, guest, gun control, lies, piers morgan
Michael Moore Shows His Ignorance, Again
Dec 27, 2012 Political
Filmmaker Michael Moore is stirring up the ashes of racism and saying that this is the reason we have so many guns in our society. His claim is that most guns are bought by white people who fantasize about shooting an invader and that our image of those invaders is black folks.
Moore further states that the US has never been invaded so we really do not need 300 million guns in our homes. He further states:
“I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse?” Moore said. “Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?” CNS News
As an aside, I could not help but laugh at the donut shop comment since it looks like Moore has been a victim of excessive donut consumption for some time…
First things first. If Moore contends that we have never been invaded so we don’t need guns in our homes I will counter with, the reason we have never been invaded is BECAUSE we have guns in our homes. I think the quote attributed to Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto puts it best; “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
So Michael, perhaps the reason we have never been invaded is because any potential enemy knows he would have to deal with millions of armed citizens.
But the meat of this issue is Moore’s misunderstanding of the reason we own guns and the reason we have a Second Amendment. While we are armed to protect our homeland the reason behind the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the means to fight our own government should it become tyrannical. We used our firearms to fight England when the King became oppressive and did things to us we did not like, one of which was the attempt to take our arms.
[note]This government has done far worse things to us than those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and we fought a revolution over those grievances.[/note]
We are armed so as to keep our government in check. We are armed so we have the means to resist a government that ignores the Constitution and tries to impose its will on us contrary to the tenets of our founding.
Michael, we have a Second Amendment to protect all the other Amendments and to protect ourselves against our own government.
That is why we need to keep and bear arms. It guarantees the security of the free state.
Our Founders felt it was necessary to acknowledge the God given right to keep and bear arms for protection (a right that predated the Constitution as evidenced by the words, “the right”) against our government. Since they were much wiser than Michael Moore will ever be I think I will go with their plan.
This has nothing to do with racism. The mass murder in Newtown involved a white guy and white students. If Moore wants racism then perhaps he should look at the inner cities where blacks are killing blacks each and every day. The racist government has enslaved them in an inner city prison and then taken their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, the innocent become victims of the criminals who don’t obey the law.
Moore admits that laws banning guns will not stop the violence but he wants to take our guns nonetheless. To him it is the right thing to do. Only a liberal idiot would espouse doing something that will not work and say it is the right thing to do. Like Obama and his idea of taxing the rich. It won’t fix anything but it makes him feel good because that is the “right thing to do.”
Obama is protected by people with guns. Moore uses an armed guard (who was arrested for illegally carrying his firearm in New York) and people like Dianne Feinstein have or had carry permits all the while working to disarm the rest of us.
We put armed people at banks to guard our money but we make our schools gun free zones and do not allow people there to be armed for the protection of our kids.
Unless, of course, your child has the last name Obama.
The government in charge of us tried to take our firearms once before. We all know how that worked out. Does this government really want to ignore the Constitution and try to disarm us? Is it ready for a backlash that it cannot possibly control?
Time will tell but my money is on the people.
From our cold dead hands…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: armed guards, constitution, gun control, hypocrites, idiot, lies, michael moore, Obama, racism, rights, Second Amendment
Politics By Turbo-Tax Timmy
Dec 27, 2012 Political
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is now playing politics with the debt ceiling in a move that is designed to scare politicians into acting on the so called fiscal cliff. Geithner, a confirmed TAX CHEAT, previously told us that the government would not hit the debt ceiling until sometime late in the first quarter of 2013. Now he is saying that we will hit that ceiling on 31 December of this year.
How convenient that the new ceiling date is the exact same date that will ring in the cuts in government and the tax increases to the people that were all agreed upon by those in Congress. Yes, it is important to remember that Congress came up with the cuts and the tax increases as part of the last fiscal deal. These people all agreed that if they could not come to terms then these cuts and tax increases were acceptable. Now they are running around as if the end of the world is at hand and this is all a bad thing.
THEY GAVE IT TO US AND THEY AGREED TO IT.
The facts are the facts and it is very clear that these people were all OK with the consequences if they could not come to terms. Now they have to live with what they agreed to when they were all rushing to make it home for Christmas two years ago. Their last minute haggling and game playing is now coming back to bite them in their ample rear ends. As Obama’s favorite Pastor might say, their chickens are coming home to roost.
Good, let the Bush tax cuts expire so that everyone can feel the pain. Let the cuts to government take place so people will see the mess created by those who are supposed to be leading us. Let it all come crashing down and let them suffer the consequences of their actions. And let those who voted these morons back in office suffer the consequences of their votes.
Elections have consequences and everyone should suffer them.
But, for Geithner to come out and claim the debt ceiling will be reached by Monday is nothing more than political theater and is designed to take away a bargaining chip Republicans have. This is why Geithner and his boss want the debt limit to be controlled by the White House and not Congress. These people want the ability to spend without limits and they do not want to have to ask Congress for more borrowing capacity.
They want total control and they know that the debt ceiling is a bargaining chip for Republicans to use in an effort to curb spending.
Will this work or will it backfire? If I were the Speaker I would call Barack Obama and lay out all MY terms for the budget. I would say we will have no tax increases and present a list of things that will be cut. I will remind him that the country will default in a few short days as determined by his Treasury Secretary and I will demand that he submit to ALL of my conditions. He will not like it but the bargaining chip that was further down the road is now, according to Geithner, a few days away.
I think it gives Boehner and the Republicans a stronger hand though I doubt Geithner planned for that. I think he was trying to pressure the right to give in to avoid default and to present Obama and his Democrats with a gift. I think this was a poor calculation by Geithner provided Boehner has the testicular fortitude to stand tough.
Hell, Boehner should go for broke and demand that the tax system be completely rewritten to impose a flat tax on all income and that includes the 47% of wage earners who pay NO federal taxes. Note to the left, this is federal income. Other taxes are not in question here.
The tax cheat Treasury Secretary is not interested in doing his job. He is interested in playing politics with the financial well being of the country. He is a shill for Obama and that is all this cretin is.
If he were any good at his job and we were really going to hit the debt ceiling on Monday wouldn’t he know that before today?
America is tired of the games. We are tired of last minute deals that screw us while keeping the morons in DC in power. We are tired of incompetent people running things. We are tired of this mess that both parties are responsible for.
It is time for the people in DC to do their jobs and quit playing games. We have plenty of income (and would have a lot more if unemployment was not so high) to run things but spending is out of control.
Now is the time Boehner. Stand tough and demand spending cuts and a revamped tax code that imposes a flat tax on all income from all wage earners.
Geithner unwittingly gave you a big hammer.
USE IT.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boehner, debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, lies, Obama, tax cheat, timm geithner
Obama Is Right But Has Wrong Path Forward
Dec 17, 2012 Political
Last night Barack Obama was at a memorial for the victims of the tragic shooting in Connecticut. He pointed out that this is the fourth time since he took office that we have gotten together to mourn people murdered in mass shootings and that we cannot tolerate it any longer. He is correct but his path forward will be the wrong one.
Yes, there have been a number of mass shootings but those are way down compared to the past. The largest mass murder in a school happened decades ago and did not involve a gun and while one mass shooting is one too many the reality is that they happen less frequently.
Obama will push for gun control and his media wing is already screaming about confiscation as a means to end the violence. The first reality is that attempting to confiscate the firearms of millions of people who have NEVER used them illegally will most certainly increase violence because a civil war will ensue.
Obama is right in saying we cannot tolerate this any longer. What we cannot tolerate are the liberal policies that make people targets. Gun control does not stop gun violence because criminals do not obey the law. They will get guns like they do now. Criminals are not legally allowed to buy or own guns but they get them just like people buy and use cocaine and heroin every day. The only people who obey the law are the law abiding who, once they comply, become targets (or easy prey) for those who refuse to obey.
All schools in the US are gun free zones. It is illegal to take guns on school property so how do these murderers get guns there? They do not obey the law, it is that simple. The only thing that making an area gun free does is advertise to murderers that they will have free reign in an area and will be unopposed should they decide to shoot people.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control. If we were able to confiscate every firearm in this country and no one could ever own one the bad guys would still get them. Even if we could prove that people absolutely turned in all their firearms and could buy no new ones Barack Obama would still be surrounded by armed people. The politicians calling for gun control and confiscation would still have armed guards protecting them. Why? They know that gun control will not stop bad people from getting guns. They know that the gun is not the problem, the breakdown of society and liberal policies that prevent people from protecting themselves are the issues at hand.
One only needs to look to Chicago to see that gun control does not work. Guns are banned there and hundreds of people are murdered with guns each and every day. How can this be?
But Obama is still correct, we cannot let this continue. So I will help him stop the violence. If you want to prevent these kinds of tragedies remove the gun free designation of schools. Remove the prohibition on guns in the public places where they are banned. Allow law abiding citizens who want to carry firearms carry them in malls, and churches, and schools. Allow teachers with carry permits to carry their guns at school. Very few murderers will venture into an area that has armed people who will shoot them. This is why most mass shootings take place in areas where guns are prohibited. The murderers KNOW that it is unlikely anyone will be armed and able to resist.
If the principal of this school had a gun and knew how to use it the murderer would have been stopped. The principal had to charge the shooter with no protection and she ended up dead. If she had the time to charge him she had the time to retrieve a gun and shoot him.
We need an armed citizenry because there is evil in the world and evil cares not about laws or signs. Evil only cares about doing evil things.
Another thing we can do is pass a law that every citizen must buy a handgun. Whether or not they carry it will be up to them but all those eligible (non felons, etc) will be required to buy a handgun. Then, criminals will know that everyone has a gun but will not know who is actually carrying one. This should be easy and liberals absolutely cannot object. You see, crime affects interstate commerce so Congress can force people to buy a gun. Obamacare made that clear. So long as we call the fine for not buying a gun a tax we can do it and there is nothing they can do to stop it. And why would they want to when it will stop the violence?
I am sure this will fall on deaf ears (or literally on eyes unwilling to see) because the anti gun zealots are hell bent on controlling people. They will fail to see that more guns equals less crime and we will be force fed gun control propaganda by people like Chuck Schumer, an anti gun Senator who has a rare conceal carry permit in New York. We will hear from those who hate guns telling us how they are dangerous and that they are not good for anything all while enjoying the protection of armed people.
And we will have to listen to lectures from Barack Obama about gun control. Yes, we will be lectured about guns by the guy who illegally provided thousands of them to drug cartels who then used them to mass murder hundreds of Mexicans.
And we will be lectured about mass murders by a government that murdered a lot of people, children included, in Waco Texas.
If this man had waited until recess and driven his car over all the kids as they played on the playground we would not have calls to ban cars. More people are killed in drunken driving accidents each year than are murdered by guns and we are not calling for a ban on cars or alcohol. Drunk drivers are punished, not the millions of people who own cars and drive them responsibly. Tobacco is responsible for more deaths each year than guns are but government will not ban tobacco because it produces a lot of revenue in taxes. Abortion murders more children each year than guns but liberals work hard to make that practice even easier.
Banning anything will not stop people from obtaining it. Alcohol was illegal in this country and people still drank it. Cocaine and heroin are illegal and people still use it.
It is illegal for criminals to buy or own guns but they still get them and will regardless of how strict any ban might be.
The murder of so many beautiful and innocent children is tragic and my heart aches for the families who lost loved ones. But I am not willing to give up my liberty for the perception of security because one is never secure when one relinquishes liberty.
One becomes enslaved and that is never a secure position to be in.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: connecticut, gun control, innocents, lies, Obama