New Debates on Gun Control
The shootings in Aurora Colorado has brought the liberals out in force. As the liberal crap storm for more gun control whips into a feeding frenzy, I see a common pattern, and that is the spread of incorrect information.
One opinion said the AR was designed for killing at close range. In the military trials, bullet performance was judged at 200 meters. How is 200 meters close range?
Another opinion piece said high capacity magazines have no place in hunting. I don’t guess the author has ever seen the videos of people hunting wild hogs from helicopters. I don’t guess the author saw pictures of the LA riots where store owners were protecting their property with semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines.
Here are the facts people:
Gun control does not stop gun violence. Criminals do not care about laws. If criminals cared about laws, there would be no criminals. So how does gun control stop criminals?
Liberals argue that the background check stops criminals from buying guys. If a criminal wants a gun, he will go steal one.
Liberals argue only the police and military should have firearms. And what, turn the U.S. into a police state? Our forefathers wanted to ensure the people have the ability and the right to rise up against the government. If the U.S. government becomes oppressive to the people, the people have the ability to fight back. When a protestor shows up with an AK47, I bet the police will be a a lot less likely to take measures against the crowd.
Liberals argue high capacity magazines have no place in hunting. They are probably right. However, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, its about protecting the people from an oppressive government.
Should the people disarm?
Ask yourself, what would have happened if George Washington laid down his arms?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, the rest of the founding fathers wanted the people to be armed.
There is a good write up on the LATimes website – Despite Colorado theater massacre, a discussion of guns is off limits
Two things I got from the article:
1. Gun control does not stop people who want to inflict violence on others.
2. The most disturbing part of the article is when the author blames paranoid gun enthusiasts for our current gun laws.
I oppose any new gun control law, does that make me a paranoid gun enthusiast? Why do I oppose any new laws, because we already have enough laws on the books.
If the judges and the justice system did their job in taking offenders off the streets, gun violence would drop considerably.
The person accused in the Aurora Colorado came out of nowhere. No criminal record, nothing that made him stand out from anyone else. It is impossible to stop that kind of person. If that type of person can not get ahold of a firearm, they will build a bomb. Anyone remember the Oklahoma city bombing?
Just as the authorities were unable to stop Timothy McVeigh from bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, it is also impossible to stop a lone shooter.
Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 people and did not use a single firearm. Why doesn’t society call for the restriction of knives to stop people like Jeffrey Dahmer?
Ted Bundy killed at least 30 people. One of the victims was beat with a metal rod. Do you realize how easy it is to find a metal rod? But nobody is calling for the restriction of rods.
Should The Government Disarm?
Adolf Hitler used poisonous gas to murder at least 7 million Jews.
The U.S. military murdered tens of thousands of native Americans.
President oabama murdered Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) with a drone.
Nidal Hasan has been accused of shooting fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.
The U.S. government dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan killing tens of thousands of men, women and children.
Kent State the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed students. How would things have turned out if the students at Kent State would have been armed? Would the National Guard have been trigger happy if the students could have returned fire?
U.S. military drone killed 26 civilians. Why aren’t people demanding drones by outlawed?
Just think of the lives that would be saved if we took weapons away from the military. If anyone needs to disarm, it is the military and the police.
Misinformation Spread By The Media
The New York Times has an opinion piece that is full of errors – 6,000 bullets
Renewing the assault rifle ban would NOT have prevented the shooter from buying an AR15. There are tens of thousands of ARs on the market, you think a law is going to make those rifles disappear?
So what if nobody is monitoring ammunition sales over the internet? Do you want to live in a nanny state where everything you do is monitored by the government?
I quote from the above linked article:
Mitt Romney banned assault weapons as governor of Massachusetts and undoubtedly saved many lives, but now he opposes all gun control measures. He never repeats what he said in 2004 when he signed the ban:
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he said. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
It is true that the AR15/M16 were designed for war, they have purposes in time of peace as well. For example, the AR15 rifle is being used to control the wild hog populations in south Texas.
The second amendment is not about hunting, its about the citizens being able to protect themselves from an overzealous government.
If the military and police can have M16 style weapons, then so should the citizens.
How many times have the police fired on armed protestors? Not too many. An armed citizen keeps the government in check.
Treat Gun Crimes Like Other Crimes
Here is a novel idea, lets make the people who commit gun crimes responsible for their actions? Just like society would with drinking and driving, rape, or any other crime.
How many people are killing in drinking and driving accidents? But nobody is talking about banning alcohol or vehicles. Well, society did ban alcohol for a little while and we know how well that worked out.
Here is another novel idea, make the local prosecuting attorney and judge responsible for repeat offenders that get reduced prison terms. Someone is convicted of a gun crime, spends a couple of months in prison, gets out and commits another crime, the judge and prosecuting attorney should be held responsible. They knew the person had a history of violence, but let the person get off with a reduced sentence.
Society needs to hold to people who commit the crimes responsible for their actions. If you can do the crime, then you can do the time.
If someone commits a crime with a firearm, they are a menace to society and should be held accountable for their actions.
Blaming an inanimate object for a crime is a ludicrous idea. The people who call for gun control have no concept of the long term impact of what they ask for.
If you want an example of what gun control does, look at Washington D.C.. D.C. has very strict gun laws and a high crime rate. How does that work out?