Jump to content
6Gunner

Asymmetrical Warfare And The Lie Of Gun Control

Recommended Posts

It has become clear that there is no possible way to have a rational discussion about guns anymore; and that is a very bad thing.

 

Unfortunately, those who advocate for gun control are clearly disinterested in honest debate, as they have actively poisoned the discussion going back many years. It is impossible to try to inject facts or logic into a discussion where the other side immediately goes to ad-hominem attacks, personal insults, and over-the-top hyperbole, and shouts down their opposition rather than give them any kind of space to inject some rationality into the discourse. In the end, the people who believe in the right to bear arms are forced to respond in kind… and the gun controllers immediately use that as an example of how "unstable, unreasonable, and extreme" the gun rights people are. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the gun ban movement are nothing short of extreme.

 

Well, I personally am through with being reasonable. The facts are on my side, and I’m going to be digging in my heels and refusing to accept the boorish and insulting behavior of the other side. You want to take my rights away from me, and I will not tolerate that any more than I would tolerate any of my inalienable rights being abridged or infringed. I’m not going to be forgiving when a gun control advocate doesn’t even know the basic terminology of that

Well...I give you credit for writing a lengthy original ...if rather familiar in content...piece. Usually...the Gun Cult misinformed just leap to the lies,paranoid delusions and threats...then go from their to full on crazy rage.

 

You at least waited a few paragraphs before you advocated treason and terrorism and threw out 99% of ther US Consitution on behalf of a few ambiguous sentances in it. If you don't ACCEPT the US Constitution as a WHOLE...how do you hold sacred a small fragment that...you chose to misinterpret?

 

If ..ever...you study the WHOLE of the constitution you will find that at various levels Govt enacts LAWS..that the courts,especially the SUPREME COURT...shall fill in the gaps and based on precedent and MANY factors...say what in fact is MEANT by ANY of it. Cow Towns in the wild west....enacted gun control because hired gunslingers and drunken cowboys....were a danger. In the prohibition era....Gangsters with Tommy Guns were almost a theme. Clyde Barrow used a full auto BAR. Those guns got OUTLAWED way back before you were born and still are. We had the assault rifle ban. Several states still enforce...CONSTIUTIONALLY....a very similar law. Nation wide....every gun dealer with a real store...does the background check process and MANY criminals,certified insane folks...are denied a purchase. SOME states...on their own..closed the rather huge loopholes. So many states have loopholes so EASY that a PROVEN dangerous person...can cross the state line and buy. Meanwhile... a NUT can have mom buy him a Bushmaster. A FOOL can brag about his AR -15 and ammo...he has unlocked, a criminal...can have his girl friend buy him a gun. So...yeah...you WANT the F U C K U P s to get plenty of firepower. The "law abiding Citizen" is no more effected by ANY proposal than he is by the MOTOR VEHICLE laws....actually...a lot LESS. Cars ain't designed to KILL. They TRY to design them to NOT kill.

 

In 1780....a bow and arrow.....had a better rate of fire than any gun,and almost as nmuch range and accuracy as most. One bad guy with a muzzle loader...was not even what was the FOCUS of the 2nd. Out in the country..out on the frontiers...people had guns to fend off indians, outlaws,bears...etc. They hunted for food. In writing the Bill.... some farmer having a gun...was considered too OBVIOUS to consider.

 

The term "Men at arms" ment a group and the actual TEXT of the 2nd....seemed to refer to "Bear Arms as more a group than some lone guy hunting deer off in the boonies. A dozen guys...a hundred..with their muzzle loaders could DO something. The Brits were hip to that as were the founders.

 

However........as guns EVOLVED...the Supreme COURT...did...over centuries...define and evolve the 2nd. It now is more than it WAS...while not some ABSOLUTE liscence to allow anyone to use any gun anyplace for any purpose. That...would resemble a Somalia like anarchy. Maybe YOU think that's SWEET. Mostly...we don't.

 

Much of today's ideas of GUN CONTROL.... really launched after Reagan and Brady were shot. Since we have about 300 MILLION FCKIN' guns...and we kill 30,000 Americans per year with them....it's a LAME CLAIM to say "they are taking away ALL of our guns" It is...a LIE. If you repeat the LIE a lot...it don't become TRUE.

 

I guess when AMERICA elected a BLACK GUY....some bigots scraped the flag decal off the pickup and decided Uncle Sam was the ENEMY. I doubt that the average veteran agrees. What the Aryan Brotherhood advocates....ain't most of us...even if we happen to be in Prison. Law officers....tend to have a respect for the LAW. Maybe a few will join a mob...but...not a lot. Show me some cause everyone SUPPORTS...votes for...marches for...because until they do that..damn few DIE for some bullS H I T lost crusade.

 

F U C K I N G ...background checks to stop felons, nutcases...from getting guns to shoot kids in QUANTITY? Is THAT your glorious cause? I guess it is. So.... Here comes the NAME CALLING PART.....you earned it. You are a PUPPET.....you are too LAZY to even read the case law in this stuff. You blindly buy CRAP that manipulative LIARS feed you. That...sir...is a FAIL.

 

Who do you want to SHOOT? Why? look in the mirror...what has happened? were you always paranoid? Naive? violent? a sociopath? Look closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one of you anti-gunners is a liar and a shill for the anti-freedom propaganda of the gun haters. You spew all kinds of drivel that is based in the disproven ravings of the Brady Bunch and the VPC and the outright lies of the lamestream media. Worse, the majority of you are nothing but twisted internet trolls who revel in insults and derogatory comments.

 

Nope, you are NOT worth my time. I'll be spending very little time on this forum in the future, just so you know, because I have so many better things to do with my time... like train and prep for the future.

 

Final word: Gun control has NEVER made anyone any safer. It is a totalitarian policy that only cowardly sheep would support. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is in no way dependent upon militia service for its existence. There are literally MILLIONS of people in this country who will not accept restrictions upon their rights, and you idiots have insulted them and belittled them, and called for their imprisonment. Lock and load, morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final word: Gun control has NEVER made anyone any safer. It is a totalitarian policy that only cowardly sheep would support.

How soon you forget (or block out) what you've just read. LOLOLOL. Reality is not on your side.

 

BTW, I showed your screed to some Aussie friends of mine and for some strange reason they resent being called "cowardly sheep" so they want to have a word with you (i.e. - kick your stupid butt).

 

"Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

 

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How soon you forget (or block out) what you've just read. LOLOLOL. Reality is not on your side.

 

Actually, it is. Not that a moron like you would ever acknowledge that.

 

BTW, I showed your screed to some Aussie friends of mine and for some strange reason they resent being called "cowardly sheep" so they want to have a word with you (i.e. - kick your stupid butt).

 

They're welcome to try. motherfucker. They're apt to get a great big fucking surprise.

 

"Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

 

Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that the violent crime rate overall has gone sky high, dipshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love how idiots like you try to twist things. It only shows your desperation. The people you cite are already banned from owning guns. They CAN'T buy them legally. The laws you talk about do NOTHING to prevent criminals from getting guns;

ROTFLMAO.....too funny....this silly retard actually believes that background checks have nothing to do with preventing criminals from getting guns.....he says that there are already laws to prevent criminals from buying guns but manages to ignore the fact that without background checks to identify the criminals, those laws don't work....such a confused, brainwashed little retard....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bull. I spent time in law-enforcement, and in two separate training classes I got to talk to police officers from Australia, who griped about the difficulties they were having dealing with the upsurge in violent crimes such as home invasion after the bans, and also who complained how the government was putting forth cooked statistics to try and "prove" the gun ban was a good idea. The media, who support the disarmament agenda, are only too happy to put forth the false numbers that support the narrative they want to present. I'm not the one putting forth lies, jackass, that's your job.

O lord, more deranged conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....yeah. Of course your biases and superstitions keep you from being able to comprehend that fact.

 

 

 

 

LOL. Your fantasy life and delusions could easily get you killed.

 

 

Stop sticking your own comments inside other people's quotes, retard.

 

You have no idea what "gun restrictions" I personally "espouse", nitwit, because I never spelled them out.

 

Your gun nut myths about the success of Australia's gun control measures are as crackpot and fallacious as the rest of your drivel. Of course, you have to believe in your myths or the success of the Australian experiment would undermine most of the idiotic arguments gun nuts in America have for opposing any kind of sensible measures like background checks or restrictions on type of weapons, magazine size, unlicensed sales, etc.

 

Gun Control in Australia

FactCheck.org

May 11, 2009

 

Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

 

A: This Gun History Lesson is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

 

FULL QUESTION

Is this true??

 

A little Gun History Lesson

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

 

 

FULL ANSWER

The e-mail says that "t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, its been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

 

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

 

homicides_australia_chart.jpg

 

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. Thats a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

 

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

 

So theres no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument weve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.

 

The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little.

 

Historical Humbug

 

The e-mails historical information is not much better. One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Armys Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.

 

American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.

 

Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.

 

(Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japans WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his countrys leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.)

 

Update, May 11: We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans (1993)" and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (1981)." He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

 

In an exchange of e-mails he said:

 

 

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

 

As for the other claims, we talked to Dr. Robert Spitzer, a political science professor and the author of "The Politics of Gun Control" and two other books on gun control legislation. Spitzer called the e-mail "a cartoonish view of the complex events" regarding the rise of Nazi Germany, the Cambodian mass killings and the other events that the anonymous author attributes to gun laws. "The people who write these things dont know comparative politics, they dont know international relations, they havent studied war," Spitzer told us.

 

We have no doubt that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesnt mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that theres any causation involved. And that rule would apply to anyone making an argument completely counter to that of our e-mail author, as well. Simply saying "Australian law reform reduced gun fatalities," if all you know is that deaths dropped after 1996, would be post hoc ergo propter hoc, too.

 

In summary, this authors claims are simplistic, fallacious and unsupported by historical or current evidence.

Jess Henig

 

Sources

Chapman, S. et al. "Australias 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings." Injury Prevention. 6 Nov. 2006.

Mouzos, Jenny and Catherine Rushforth. "Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001." Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Nov. 2003.

Lee, Wang-Sheng and Sandy Suardi. "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths." Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Aug 2008.

Williams, Daniel. "Australias Gun Laws: Little Effect." Time. 1 May 2008.

Dearden, Jack and Warwick Jones. "Homicide in Australia: 200607 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report." Australian Institute of Criminology. 2008.

Australian Institute of Criminology. "Australian Crime: Facts and Figures." 2009.

United States Army Center for Military History. American Military History, Volume II. 2005.

 

(Copyright and Use of Our Articles: Original FactCheck.org articles, Special Reports and Ask FactCheck items may be reprinted or distributed, without charge, and in any media. We ask that the editorial integrity of the article be preserved. We prefer that you copy and distribute the entire, original work without editing, but you may distribute an excerpt. If you distribute an excerpt, you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message or otherwise misrepresent the facts or opinions expressed. We also ask that credit be given to the author and to FactCheck.org, and that Editor@FactCheck.org be notified of the re-publication or distribution. In addition, when any article (including Special Reports, Ask FactCheck items and other material) or excerpt thereof is posted electronically, a hyperlink to FactCheck.org should be prominently displayed at the beginning of the republished work. You will be able to identify original FactCheck.org material by its byline and/or the copyright notice.)

And what about oyher crime rates? you guys are like that idiot piers morgan. "gun related deaths are down" and thats the only justification they use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you really think criminals and terrorists are going to go through any venue that requires them to undergo a background check? Nope. They won't.

 

Oh, and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution made it clear they thought the American people should have access to the same small arms as any soldier. I.E. "military type assault rifles" and appropriate magazines. Also, even when such magazines were banned - from 1994 to 2004 - criminals in the U.S. were regularly arrested in possession of magazines marked "Military/LE Only" on them. When you're a criminal you're not going to worry about the laws you break. The only people affected by gun control such as people like you espouse are law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

 

 

Thank you. For your comment and for (I suspect) your service.

Once again ( getting weary of posting these facts ), 90+ % of all shootings across the USA are committed by criminals in possession of illegally purchased - illegally owned - unregistered handguns ( almost always .38 cal & 9mm ); and I'd feel comfortable saying 95+ %

 

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

 

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

 

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

 

“This is my eye-witness account. Kitty Werthmann - Survivor of Hitler's Germany

 

Final word: Gun control has NEVER made anyone any safer. It is a totalitarian policy that only cowardly sheep would support. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is in no way dependent upon militia service for its existence. There are literally MILLIONS of people in this country who will not accept restrictions upon their rights, and you idiots have insulted them and belittled them, and called for their imprisonment. Lock and load, morons.

Sorry, your incorrect; gun control made certain people much safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROTFLMAO.....too funny....this silly retard actually believes that background checks have nothing to do with preventing criminals from getting guns.....he says that there are already laws to prevent criminals from buying guns but manages to ignore the fact that without background checks to identify the criminals, those laws don't work....such a confused, brainwashed little retard...

 

O lord, more deranged conspiracy theories.

 

You can call me a "retard" all you want but the real retard is you. CRIMINALS DON'T GET THEIR GUNS THROUGH VENUES THAT REQUIRE THEM TO UNDERGO A BACKGROUND CHECK. They go through the Black Market, they "borrow" the gun from their accomplices in crime, they steal them. The nonsense crap spewed by the gun banners like you that they buy them off the internet or from gun shows and would be stopped by ever more draconian restrictions or expanded background checks is nothing but boiled bullshit.

 

"O lord, more deranged conspiracy theories."

 

Give me a break. Totalitarian scum like you always want to pretend that the truth is somehow a "conspiracy theory". The media has been blatant about their lies regarding firearms, and the instances of governmental agencies posting cooked numbers to push an agenda are legion

 

 

Sorry, your incorrect; gun control made certain people much safer.

 

Yeah; the criminals and the dictators of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

 


 


OK, we know gun control works well when brow beating the non criminal; that's a given. How goes it with he felons who obtain their unregistered firearms on the street - illegally?

 

 

 


 


Not to get off track; but my cousin just bought an original MP 43 Sturmgewehr What a beautifully made rifle. Absolutely no doubt, the design of the AK was stolen from this design.mp44-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F U C K I N G ...background checks to stop felons, nutcases...from getting guns to shoot kids in QUANTITY? Is THAT your glorious cause? I guess it is.

No, it isn't, and it's been stated so repeatedly. Let me ask you something. If you had every background check you could think of, would that have stopped Lanza from walking in there and killing those kids?

 

So.... Here comes the NAME CALLING PART.....you earned it. You are a PUPPET.....you are too LAZY to even read the case law in this stuff. You blindly buy CRAP that manipulative LIARS feed you. That...sir...is a FAIL.

The FAIL is that you have provided no facts that support any new laws that will indeed stop the killings. The puppet is you, sir, because you don't need facts - you need what people like Obama, Feinstein, and Biden tell you.

 

 

Who do you want to SHOOT? Why? look in the mirror...what has happened? were you always paranoid? Naive? violent? a sociopath? Look closer.

Ah, yes the ol' "paranoid" meme. We have people in our administation and congress making overt attempts at controlling the 2nd Amendment to its own pleasure. It is the duty of every citizen of this country to stand up to that kind of control. Until any of you, including the administration and congress, can give us hard, true evidence that further gun control is a solution to the killings, then there is no other way to see all this than as a means of keeping the citizen at arm's length, at the very least. No way do we put up with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one of you anti-gunners is a liar and a shill for the anti-freedom propaganda of the gun haters. You spew all kinds of drivel that is based in the disproven ravings of the Brady Bunch and the VPC and the outright lies of the lamestream media. Worse, the majority of you are nothing but twisted internet trolls who revel in insults and derogatory comments.

 

Nope, you are NOT worth my time. I'll be spending very little time on this forum in the future, just so you know, because I have so many better things to do with my time... like train and prep for the future.

 

Final word: Gun control has NEVER made anyone any safer. It is a totalitarian policy that only cowardly sheep would support. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is in no way dependent upon militia service for its existence. There are literally MILLIONS of people in this country who will not accept restrictions upon their rights, and you idiots have insulted them and belittled them, and called for their imprisonment. Lock and load, morons.

But we are worth each other's time, so I don't want you out of here if you can possibly help it. Something you left out, btw:

 

The gun grabbers insult, mock, and distort our solution(s) to the killings like Newtown. That, in itself, makes them suspect as to intent, which rates far above the ignorance and "sheeple" things we discuss. A workable solution would put them to shame and they simply don't want to hear about it. And no matter how much we point out the error of the ways of further gun laws, they persist in demanding them. That tells me they really do have little to no care about the kids that were killed and are just using them for an opportunity to wreak havoc on lawful gunowners who are guilty of nothing besides owning guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Final word: Gun control has NEVER made anyone any safer.

 

from post 24

 

Q: Why did Virginia pass their "One-Handgun-Per-Month" law?

 

A: Virginia had become the "firearms supermarket" for the East Coast. Virginia gun dealers were found to

supply more than 40% of guns seized in crime in New York City. Virginia's leaders did not want the distinction

of being the nation's number one source of guns used in crime. Their reputation as the supplier of crime guns

in America was seen as an economic issue that was hurting the state's business development.

 

 

Q: Has the law worked?

 

A: Yes. Virginia's law has greatly disrupted the gun trafficking pattern from Virginia to states in the northeastern

United States. For guns purchased after implementation of the new law that were recovered in the Northeast,

Virginia's share fell by 54% - to 16% of all guns traced back to the Southeast. Even more dramatically, the

percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers fell by 61% for guns recovered in New York, 67% for

guns recovered in Massachusetts, and 38% for guns recovered in New Jersey. Further, according to law

enforcement officials in Virginia, straw purchases of handguns that had made that state the "firearms

supermarket" dropped sharply after the law was passed.

 

 

 

The gun grabbers insult, mock, and distort our solution(s) to the killings like Newtown.

 

Just as pro-gunners insult, mock, and distort solutions they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

from post 24

 

Q: Why did Virginia pass their "One-Handgun-Per-Month" law?

 

A: Virginia had become the "firearms supermarket" for the East Coast. Virginia gun dealers were found to

supply more than 40% of guns seized in crime in New York City. Virginia's leaders did not want the distinction

of being the nation's number one source of guns used in crime. Their reputation as the supplier of crime guns

in America was seen as an economic issue that was hurting the state's business development.

 

 

Q: Has the law worked?

 

A: Yes. Virginia's law has greatly disrupted the gun trafficking pattern from Virginia to states in the northeastern

United States. For guns purchased after implementation of the new law that were recovered in the Northeast,

Virginia's share fell by 54% - to 16% of all guns traced back to the Southeast. Even more dramatically, the

percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers fell by 61% for guns recovered in New York, 67% for

guns recovered in Massachusetts, and 38% for guns recovered in New Jersey. Further, according to law

enforcement officials in Virginia, straw purchases of handguns that had made that state the "firearms

supermarket" dropped sharply after the law was passed.

 

 

Just as pro-gunners insult, mock, and distort solutions they don't like.

The natural progression of the gun control advocates' arguments is that only banning all firearms in the hands of civilians will eradicate all violence with guns by civilians.

 

 

The argument that someone can buy a gun for someone else or guns can be brought in from other states goes to my contention. If there are only 5 or 10 deaths caused by the use of firearms the arguments will be the same as they are today. I wish gun control advocates would lay all their cards on the table and just once admit it. It is an incremental agenda and careful observation and common sense reveals it.

 

Evidenced by the three pages of gun-grabber quotes posted a while back on this forum and the history of panoply of proposed legislation.

 

And as far as the denial that the grabbers do not want to confiscate guns -- well just look at the CT law which I have already elucidated several times on this forum.

 

Whew! This all gets very tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of our frothing-at-the-mouth gun loonies have the courage to watch this to the end and actually learn something? Our nation could learn about civility from Australia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we are worth each other's time, so I don't want you out of here if you can possibly help it. Something you left out, btw:

 

The gun grabbers insult, mock, and distort our solution(s) to the killings like Newtown. That, in itself, makes them suspect as to intent, which rates far above the ignorance and "sheeple" things we discuss. A workable solution would put them to shame and they simply don't want to hear about it. And no matter how much we point out the error of the ways of further gun laws, they persist in demanding them. That tells me they really do have little to no care about the kids that were killed and are just using them for an opportunity to wreak havoc on lawful gunowners who are guilty of nothing besides owning guns.

 

Thanks, Larry. Well said.

 

 

Just as pro-gunners insult, mock, and distort solutions they don't like.

 

Proposals that actually attack the problem without infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizenry I'm fine with. You mention Virginia; the fact is that Virginia's Project Exile did wonders to reduce violent crime by focusing on the actual problem: the criminals committing the crimes.

 

ANY law that places infringements upon the rights of the law-abiding citizen as a way to combat crime is wrong-headed and, in my humble opinion, unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as pro-gunners insult, mock, and distort solutions they don't like.

There's a big difference here. Not one of you can show any kind of evidence that the new laws being thrust on lawful gun owners will stop the killers from killing. We do, in fact, have evidence that the armed citizenry does indeed stop killers. Leftists mock and scorn that from day one. We have a workable solution to protect our kids, but the left doesn't want to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...