The gun control circus

Gun control foibles

Gun control failure 

Gun control failed in Newtown, CT

Connecticut has the fourth most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. So why didn't that protect the children at Sandy Hook? Could it be that criminals break laws? After all, breaking laws is kind of in the job description for criminals. If somebody is planning on committing mass murder and then suicide I think they aren't going to worry too much about the firearms laws they will be breaking. Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, yet this happened. Lawful gun ownership is practically nonexistent in the UK, but gun crime increased by 35% last year. They didn't just have gun control laws, they confiscated almost every legally owned gun in the country. Now, the law-abiding are defenseless and the criminals can still get guns. Being a communist paradise, the Peoples Republic of China naturally doesn't trust it's citizens with any private ownership of firearms. That doesn't stop the crazy and evil from killing. In the last two years, 20 children and adults have been killed and over 50 wounded by mass slashing attacks at schools. Hutu militia massacred 500,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsi in Rwanda, mostly with the 581,000 machetes imported from the communist worker's paradise of Communist China. Not many guns, but a whole lotta cuttin' goin' on.
We must accept the fact that evil exists and we must always be prepared to confront it. The right to defend one's life and freedom cannot be taken from the individual. That is why the Second Amendment exists.

Another death in the gun control capitol of America

In the city with some of the strictest gun control laws......

It is obvious that gun control laws do nothing to prevent crime. Why do politicians continue to blame the tools of violence and not the people who cause it? Oh, that's right; blaming the tool is easy and they can campaign on 'doing something' about crime, when, in reality, they have done nothing. The problem is that really doing something about crime requires actually being honest about who is committing the crime and then dealing with those people. Liberals hate personal responsibility, especially when it comes to minorities. They would rather blame a weapon and then crow about how they are tough on crime. We are not going to have our rights restricted because the left will not deal with their problems.

Could we save more lives if we ban something other than guns?

There are approximately 245,000,000 cars and trucks in the United States. The estimated number of privately owned firearms in the U/S. is somewhere between 200-300 million. Even though there are as many, or more, weapons in the US, more than twice as many people die in traffic accidents as are killed with firearms. Should we ban cars? No; of course not. Cars are useful tools and we accept the death rate associated with their use. Guns are also useful tools. When used lawfully, they account for very few deaths. The vast majority of firearms-related deaths are caused when guns are used in the commission of a criminal act. The gun isn't causing the problem, the criminal is. Deal with the real problems before you attempt to limit the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.

CalGuns response to San Francisco

Most gun control laws are not well-researched or written by those who are intimately familiar with firearms. They are usually fundamentally flawed and cannot accomplish their stated purpose. No attempt is made to work with firearms manufacturers, gun owners or firearms advocacy organizations to craft a law that will actually result in a reduction in crime, while not infringing on the rights of citizens. Quite the opposite; these laws are punitive acts of political reprisal. This is why these laws are so often overturned. States and local municipalities spend millions every year defending ill-conceived and poorly written gun control laws in court. These politicians are wasting taxpayer money. The problem is that they don't care. They don't give a rat's ass if the laws do anything to reduce crime. This is just about disarming legal gun owners. They see us as a threat. They are more afraid of citizens legally exercising their constitutional right to bear arms than they are of criminals. These politicians should be thrown out of office for deliberately writing legislation that violates the Constitution.

Senators try to outlaw guns that have been illegal since 1968

The best evidence yet that gun control laws are meaningless PR gestures that allow politicians to claim they are 'doing something' about crime. They don't even know what the hell is in these bills they are proposing. Stupid fraking idiots. Maybe we should have Congress pass a law that prevents people who are too stupid to work the McDonald's drive-through window from serving in elected office.

It's for the children

Obama uses children as props in call for gun control

The president used children as props in the announcement of his attack on the Second Amendment. Basically, he is standing on the graves of dead children to advance a pre-existing political agenda. He said; "If there's even one life that can be saved then we have an obligation to try." This comes from a man who voted four times in the Illinois state legislature to allow doctors to kill babies that survived botched abortions. The brave State Senator Obama showed his political courage by voting 'present' one third of the time, but he sure as hell cast a vote when it came to killing babies that survived abortions. Compare and contrast that to his statement today. He voted four times for killing babies because abortion on demand is a sacrament in the Church of Liberalism. Gun control is also part of the dogma of liberalism. This is not about the children; they are just props to be used to manipulate public emotion. This is about the government expanding it's power at the expense of your liberty.

WaPo injects race into the gun control debate

Yeeeaahhh! They really don't want to go there. I know it's easy to throw race into every debate. Your opponent is immediately on the defensive and you don't have to worry about facts and logic from that point on. It is the most common tactic of the Left. But in this case, the facts are exactly the opposite of the claim. African -Americans represent just 15% of the population, yet commit nearly half the murders in the country and are victims in nearly half the murders. Nearly half the prison population is black. So I think you can throw that Op-Ed in the toilet where it belongs. The fact is that black communities have suffered greatly from crime and they have also been victims of the most restrictive gun control regulations. Blacks live in some of the most violent areas of our cities, but politicians have consistently ignored the real issues and, instead, focused on meaningless PR gestures. They pretend that gun control and gun buy-back programs are doing something about crime, when, in fact, they are worse than useless. Gun control laws have NEVER succeeded in reducing gun-related crime. They only render the law-abiding defenseless in the face of armed criminals. The black community has been victimized by this cruel joke for too long. Let people in the most crime-prone areas defend themselves.

A plea from Connecticut

This is where we are heading. Politicians are using the bodies of little children to achieve their goal of disarming American citizens. It is unconstitutional, immoral, disgusting and it will not reduce violent crime in any way, shape, manner or form. What it will do is make criminals out of the law-abiding, who just want to preserve their rights.
As laws like this are passed, law abiding Americans will be faced with a decision: give up your right to defend yourself, your family, property and liberty, or resist. This will not end well. Do we really want armed American citizens forced to fight the government to maintain their rights, or should we tell the politicians that they are violating the Constitution and it is they who must back down?

The real cause of mass shootings - the mentally ill

Back in 1955 there were 550,000 mentally ill persons institutionalized in the United States. Today there are 40,000. Even though the population has increased by 140 million in that time, 510,000 fewer mentally ill are institutionalized. So where are all the mentally ill? In our neighborhoods and on the streets. 30%-50% of the homeless are mentally ill. How did this happen? The ACLU and other liberal organizations fought tooth and nail to end the institutionalization of the mentally ill. Over the last 50 years, thousands of laws have been passed that prohibit the institutionalization or medication of mentally ill. In most cases it is difficult or impossible for mental health professionals to force violent mentally ill individuals to take medications. Institutionalizing violent mentally ill persons has been made extremely difficult and takes time-consuming court proceedings.
Millions of children are drugged at the first sign of behavioral problems. They do not learn to socialize and properly interact with others. Instead, they are just given a pill. So what do you think happens when those children, who have not been taught to deal with the emotional turmoil of life, become adults? What happens when they stop taking their medications and they have to face the sometimes difficult reality of adulthood? You don't have to guess. The evidence is out there. Gun bans are a cheap, easy gimmick that allow people to pretend they have done something about violence. We have REAL cultural problems in this country that need REAL, DIFFICULT solutions. It is time that we start dealing with the cultural rot that has led us to this point.

All about the 2nd Amendment

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington

Mark Steyn on guns

Gun Control and the Paradox of Liberty

I Will Not Be Intimidated

Guns Are Designed to Kill

A World Without Guns

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment

Erick Erickson cuts right to the heart of the matter. Despite everything that you will hear from Obama, the Democrats and the news media that they aren't trying to take guns away from hunters, that is a red herring meant to change the debate from their attempts to violate the letter and the intent of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is about free people having the right to defend their freedoms. Armed citizens can defend their liberties when their government turns to tyranny. Unarmed, they are just subjects; living at the mercy of those who have power. Liberals fear armed citizens, because armed citizens are the only thing that stands between them and the power they crave. That is why they want you to be disarmed. If mass murder bothered liberals so much, they would have impeached Obama for Fast and Furious. This is about power and who wields it. Our country has lived by the rule of law for over two hundred years because the elected leaders knew that armed citizens could hold them to account if they strayed from the Constitution. This current crop of elected officials seems to want to change that.

Best Argument For Gun Control

I'm a proud member of the NRA and, as such, I feel threatened by the statements of this so called journalist. I believe he is inciting violence against legal gun owners. I think he has gone beyond the limits allowed by the First Amendment. That's OK with me. He can exercise or even exceed his First Amendment rights and I can exercise my Second Amendment rights to defend myself. We'll see who is left standing to report on the outcome.
Just in case there is any question; the founding fathers intended that the Second Amendment be the guarantee that all the other amendments in the Bill of Right's would never be abrogated. That much is made clear in the Federalist Papers, the speeches and writings of the men who wrote the Constitution. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the right to use muskets for hunting; it is the final insurance policy for individual liberty. It provides the people with the means to defend their liberty in the event of foreign invasion or if the government exceeds it's constitutional authority. They made that perfectly clear.

Sam Colt and the Law of Self-Preservation

"It is said that the 2nd Amendment follows hard upon the 1st so as to serve as its bodyguard -- providing the added incentive of coercive force by a wary citizenry to guarantee that those initial cherished liberties, expounded by our Founders, did not go the way of the 10th Amendment."

The out of control stupid that is Sheila Jackson Lee

This idiot is a national embarrassment. Don't blame those who commit the majority of murders in this country......blame the tools that they use. That is stupidity beyond the call of congressional duty.

The slippery slope

Rep. Jan Schakowsky says assault weapon ban is just the beginning

Those of us who argue forcefully against any limitations on our Second Amendment rights are often told that we are fear mongering. We are told; "Nobody wants to take your guns away; we just want to get rid of those assault weapons." When we point out that demonizing and then banning one type of weapon is just part of an incremental attempt to ban all weapons, we are told that we are being paranoid. We are not paranoid and we are not being unreasonable when we refuse to bargain away our rights. The entire history of liberalism over the last century has been one of incremental assaults on American values and institutions. In every arena the strategy has been the same. Small issues are isolated, emotional appeals overwhelm facts and reason, the opposition is marginalized and demonized and then a little bit of our freedom is lost. This happens every day all across our land. The Left is willing to take small victories in their long march towards their goals. It is time that we stand firm and fight this incremental assault on our liberty. The Second Amendment says that our "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is an unequivocal statement. It doesn't mean that the government can ban those weapons it feels are evil, threatening or scary-looking. It means that the government shall not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.....simple as that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that individual citizens have the means with which to fight to keep the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The founding fathers understood that the people should not be dependent on the government to grant their freedoms. They knew that any rights guaranteed by government could also be taken away by that same government. The right to bear arms is the final insurance that the government does not have the ability to take away our rights. That is not just my opinion. That is the well-documented intent of those who wrote the Constitution. It is not surprising that the notion of an armed citizenry that has the ability to stand up to a tyrannical government is such a problem for liberals. They believe wholeheartedly in the primacy of the government. They think the government (when controlled by them) knows best and should be allowed to make your decisions for you. An armed American is an obstacle to their socialist vision of the future. They fear armed Americans and will do whatever they have to do to disarm them. And that includes shamelessly using the deaths of innocent children as a PR tool to achieve their aims. They just want the so-called assault weapons today, but they will be back for handguns tomorrow. After that it will be something else and then another thing; up until the point that we have the right to keep and bear arms but their will be no arms to bear. We will wind up like England and Australia, where their guns were confiscated in the name of safety and violence prevention, but who now have more violence (including 'gun crime') than ever. The only difference is that the people in those countries no longer have the means to defend themselves. And just so it's perfectly clear; if you can't defend yourself from a criminal, good luck in defending yourself against a tyrannical government. Once you give up that right, you will never get it back.
American Thinker - Universal background checks

The liberals have always used an incremental approach to achieve their objectives. Gun control is no different. NO UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.


Data doesn't support anti-gun zealots rhetoric


We've heard lots of hysteria lately, claiming that guns are the cause of our crime problems. In the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, those who seek to disarm Americans immediately ramped up their rhetoric and called for immediate action. What they want is for people to react emotionally;not a reasoned response, driven by examination of the facts. Well, the facts are out there and they don't support the anti-gun activists. But that won't matter. As Congress, state legislatures and city councils come back into session in the next few weeks we will see any number of grandstanding politicians attempt to advance their cause using the dead children of Sandy Hook as props. This sick and depraved act of political theater is played out after every high-profile shooting. Those who seek to disarm Americans don't have facts or logic on their side so, instead, they use emotion to pass legislation that, otherwise, would never have a chance.


Post gun ban increases in violent crime plague UK and Australia

This is what happens when laws based on emotion, not facts and reason, are passed in response to tragic events


A cautionary tale for those seeking gun bans

The law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head again. Why is it that laws passed by liberals always seem to produce effects opposite to those intended, or other problems that they never anticipated? It is because liberals act on emotion, not facts and logic. They often have nefarious purposes that they dare not disclose when legislation is being debated. It's no surprise that the results of their legislation are not what they stated or intended.



British doctors call for kitchen knife ban to prevent stabbings

This is where the willful ignorance and idiocy of liberalism leads. They got practically all privately owned firearms banned in the UK, but the funny thing is that people still commit violent crimes. People still get shot, stabbed and beaten; the only difference now is that they have no means to defend themselves. So what is the liberal response when gun bans failed to prevent crime? Well, of course, they want to ban chef's knives. And what will they want banned after all the kitchen knives are gone and people still get shot, stabbed and beaten? Prisons have an absolute bans on all objects that can be used as weapons, yet that doesn't stop prisoners from creating weapons to shoot, stab, slash and beat other prisoners.

By any objective standard, gun bans have been absolute failures at bringing about reductions in violent crimes. By definition, criminals break laws. Why would somebody intent on murder worry about breaking a misdemeanor/minor felony firearms law. The only impact of such laws is to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right of self defense. Those who seek to ban guns know this, yet they persist in their attempts to disarm the citizenry. Why? What is their motivation? Obviously it is not to protect the law-abiding. Free men have the right to defend themselves. The founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that the citizens would be able to defend themselves against any threat; foreign or domestic. They knew that an armed populace would be able to defend against foreign invasion or a government that would no longer respect the rights of the citizens. That is at the heart of the issue. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. The Second Amendment is the ultimate insurance policy granted to the citizens to protect them from a government that oversteps it's authority.