Oh, my God, where to start on this one...
First things first: appointing Joe Biden to be in charge of a committee to study "gun violence" in America and actually expecting him to be fair and unbiased is like buying a lottery ticket and actually expecting to win - and then being surprised when you don't. What did you expect, really? NObama's chief Court Jester has made his feelings on gun control very plain from Day One, and to expect him to recommend anything except more useless gun control laws is nothing short of stupid. Not ludicrous, not foolish, but STUPID. NObama would have served the purpose much better if he'd appointed a moderate to head the committee or, better yet, if he'd appointed two people to co-chair the committee one from each side of the issue - with the Court Jester NOT being one of them. THAT would have been the smart thing to do. But then again, NObama hasn't been doing very many smart things these days, has he?
And were we really surprised when the Court Jester had the "Brady Bunch" in his office first, instead of, oh, I don't know, the NRA? It's human instinct to want to talk to those of the same opinion first, but it sure doesn't say anything for being fair and unbiased, does it? If he wanted to be seen as fair and unbiased, then he should have had the NRA in his office first. That would have done wonders for his credibility with me, and while I realize I'm only one person, I'm quite sure there are legions more out there who feel the same way I do on that point.
Then again, the Court Jester doesn't seem to be concerned about being fair and unbiased - he's already come to his conclusions as to what he thinks needs to be done, and he's also already decided how he and NObama are going to do it. Why else would he announce after the first day's meetings that the use of an Executive Order to establish tighter gun control was "on the table?" He tried to cover his ass by adding that "legislation would be needed" to back it up, but the damage has already been done. As I'm typing this, the Republicans in Congress and the citizens of the nation are lining up and screaming their heads off about this blatant intent to bypass the Congress and the Constitution and rule by "executive decree." Considering the number of Executive Orders that NObama has issued in the past four years - more than the previous FOUR presidents combined, by the way - I'm not at all surprised that he'd stoop to this tactic.
For those of you who voted for this asshat last November, congratulations - you've elected the first DICTATOR in our nation's history. I hope you're proud of yourselves.
As I said in the title of this entry, this whole committee thing by NObama and the Court Jester is nothing but a sham. It's a facade, a fake, a dog and pony show to give people the impression that they actually give a damn about saving lives and that they really want to hear ALL suggestions on how to solve the problem of gun violence in America. If they were really serious about it, then they would have taken Ted Nugent up on his offer to sit on the committee with the Court Jester - but as far as I know, Uncle Ted isn't included. That tells you something right there. (Nugent, by the way, wrote a letter to Biden and then published it on his web site in which he offers his services. If you haven't read it, you really should.)
No, the Court Jester and NObama don't really give a damn about saving lives. What they REALLY want is to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the United States, and to do that, of course, they have to repeal the Second Amendment. The establishment of yet more useless gun control laws in the face of reams of documentation that proves gun control laws in general - and the Brady Bill in particular - don't work is just the first step, as I said in a post last week. Their ultimate goal is the repeal of the Second Amendment, and they'll do anything, both legal and illegal, to accomplish that goal.
And in the mean time they're going to pass up the opportunity to address and possibly solve - or at least drastically reduce - the real cause of gun violence in America. Guns are not the cause, they're the tool. The cause is mental illness, and the programs in our country to recognize and treat mental illness are sadly lacking. We have the opportunity as a nation to take some definitive actions that will absolutely reduce gun violence in our nation, but focusing on and banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns is no more the answer than banning cars is the answer to drunk driving, and for the life of me I just don't understand why the libtards and the Demoncrats don't understand this!
For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely concerned about the future of our great nation. I'm a student of history, and one of the things I've studied is how the great dictators in the past have come to power, and in every instance - every single one - the very first thing they did to secure their power was to disarm the people. As the old saying goes, "An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject," and it seems apparent to me that NObama is intent on making all of us his subjects. He envisions a socialist society where the government takes care of everybody - whether they want to be take care of or not - and provides everybody what HE thinks they need. Of course, the flip side is also true in that if HE thinks we don't need it, then he either deprives us of it or takes it away.
And the sad thing is that there are enough people out there who think that the total loss of their freedom as a citizen is a fair price to pay for being "taken care of." Why else would they have elected this charlatan twice?
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."
I've long said, and said it proudly, that I'm a "Sheepdog." If you've read my blog then you know what I'm talking about; if not, then do a search for that term in my blog and read what I wrote. But over the course of the past few days I've been giving some very serious thought to what's going on in our nation and with the socialist buffoon now occupying the White House, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm no longer just a "Sheepdog."
I'm also a "Three Percenter." (If you don't know what that means, then look it up.)
And I'm damned proud of that, too.
I don't know where all of this is going to take us, so just like the rest of you I'm going to just hold my breath and pray to God that it doesn't all go to hell on us. If NObama tries to "rule by executive decree" then it's going to go South in one hell of a hurry; if not, well, we may just be able to survive NObama's reign of terror intact.
Time will tell.
IHC
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Fact Versus Fantasy: What The Libtards Hope You Don't Know About Gun Control
Now that the topic of gun control is #1 on the White House Hit List - just as I said it would be if NObama was re-elected - I think it's time that we all took a serious look at some of the bullshit that that libtards and Demoncrats are spouting about what a wonderful thing gun control is, and how we'll all be safer when we're disarmed. What follows are the myths and fantasies that the libtards and Demoncrats are saying about gun control and what they would have you believe, and the corresponding facts that prove them to be just that - myths and fantasies. So here they are, in no particular order, although I did try to go from the most prevalent to the most obscure, with one exception.
#1 - More stringent - or just more - gun control laws will decrease gun violence.
This one is wrong on so many planes it's laughable. At present there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide, yet we still have acts of violence being committed with guns. And on top of that, statistics have proven that 94% of the murders committed in the United States are committed with "illegal" guns - that is, guns that have been stolen and are not used by the person who legally purchased it when the crime is committed. And then there's the basic fact of why ANY gun control law has not and will not ever work: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. That's why they're called "criminals." And if you want proof of this, you need look no further than the city of Chicago. Chicago has the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, yet they also have the highest murder rate, the majority of which are committed with - you guessed it - "illegal" guns. The city that was second to this was Washington, D.C. which also had very stringent gun control laws - as in, you couldn't own a handgun at all. D.C. also had the second-highest gun murder rate in the nation, but all that changed last year when the D.C. gun ban was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional.
#2 - Gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.
Not according to the FBI, it won't. After the "Brady Bill" expired, the FBI conducted a study on the effects of gun crimes and violence that the bill had, and they found that the bill made no noticeable difference in the amount of crimes being committed with a gun. And the FBI isn't the only organization to conduct such a study and come up with those results. Georgetown University, Duke University, and the American Medical Association to name a few have also conducted research on the effects of the bill, and none of them was able to prove that the "Brady Bill" had any measureable effect on hangun violence in the United States. The harsh reality that the libtards and Demoncrats don't want to admit is that every single study done on the effect of the "Brady Bill" have ALL failed to show that the bill did any good at all. The studies did show, however, that the Federal government - specifically the Department of Justice - had been what I would call criminally negligent in punishing those who attempted to purchase a handgun in violation of this bill. In the entire time the bill was in effect from 1994 until 2004, more than 700,000 applications were denied yet only six thousand offenders were prosecuted! And of those prosecutions, less than a handful resulted in jail time.
The question now is, why should a criminal fear or obey a law that they know won’t be enforced? Simple answer: they won’t.
#3 - Banning "assault rifles" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.
For openers, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." This is a term that was invented by the liberal media because it sounded scary and would intimidate the weak and faint of heart, and they were right. There is NO weapon in the United States military arsenal that is officially classified as an "assault rifle."
And once again, the FBI says that this isn't true. The fact is that approximately 1% of gun crimes committed in the United States involve the use of a so-called "assault rifle," with the weapon of choice being an automatic pistol. The liberal news media incorrectly reported that an AR-15-type rifle was used during the shootings in Connecticut, but the investigation has shown that while an AR-15 style rifle was found in the killer's car, the actual shooting was done with two 9mm automatic pistols. (Did I mention that all three guns were STOLEN from the killer's mother after he murdered her?)
#4 - Banning "high capacity" magazines will reduce the number of people killed in a mass shooting.
Uh, no. All a high-capacity magazine does is keep you from having to change magazines more often. The simple solution: carry more magazines or, better, yet, carry more than one gun. And for those of you out there who are foolish and/or stupid enough to think that you have enough time to attack and disarm a shooter while he's changing magazines, keep in mind that it only takes 3 to 4 seconds to change magazines. Are you willing to bet your life that you can carry out your plan in that amount of time?
#5 - Less guns mean less crime.
Again, not according to the FBI. Statistics have shown - and continue to show - that the exact opposite is true. Less guns actually means more crime. Florida was the first state to adopt a "must issue" concealed carry permit law, meaning that you no longer had to prove to a judge or anyone else why you should be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Once you applied for the permit, the local government was compelled to issue you the permit. Once this law took effect, two things happened: concealed weaons permits skyrocketed, and the numbers of violent crimes being committed plunged. And since that time a total of 39 states have adopted "must issue" laws, and in every state violent crimes have dropped. It seems that criminals don't like to get shot, either.
And if you need still more proof that less guns means more crime, take a look at the violent crime statistics for England and Australia. Both of these nations have abolished the private ownership of firearms, and in both nations violent crimes have skyrocketed.
#6 - There's nothing wrong with "common sense" and/or "responsible" gun laws.
Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that "common sense" has proven lately to be anything but common. What one person may consider to be "common sense" may not be such to another. The same is true for the term "responsible" in that what you may consider "responsible" may not be considered as such by another person, me included. The use of these two phrases by the gun grabbers is nothing but a ploy to get the public to agree with them by making it appear that disagreement with what they propose shows both a lack of common sense and irresponsibility. I, for one, won't fall prey to this tactic.
#7 – “Gun Free Zones” save lives.
No, for one simple reason: the only person in a “gun free zone” that will have a gun will be the shooter. After all, if someone is intent on committing a mass shooting, do you really think he’s going to avoid a “gun free zone” simply because the law says so? Remember what I said about criminals not obeying laws? No, the truth is that a “gun free zone” is going to be the FIRST place the shooter will look for – and that’s where he’ll go, count on it.
And here’s another factoid that the libtards and Demoncrats don’t want you to know: the shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, and Virginia all took place in a “Gun Free Zone.” So if you want irrefutable proof that “Gun Free Zones” don’t work, all you have to do is look at the last FOUR mass shootings.
And I saved the best for last.
#8 - Making all guns illegal will make us safer and/or eliminate gun violence.
This is another one that is wrong on so many planes that it's laugable, and the really sad thing is that there are folks out there who truly believe this. But once again, facts prove that this is nothing but wishful thinking and a myth perpetuated by the libtards, the Demoncrats, and the liberal media. If you want proof of how making something illegal won't keep it from happening, just ask the DEA how their war on drugs is going. Meth, LSD, opium, heroin, marijuana and cocaine are all illegal but we still have a drug problem in America, don't we? And any DEA man you ask will tell you - off the record, of course - that the war on drugs is one we can't win, ever.
Drunk driving is also illegal, yet in this nation more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than are killed with guns, yet you don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars, do you?
Last but not least, look at the City of Chicago again - more proof that making something illegal won't stop the criminal activity that involves that item.
Someone please tell me how taking away my means of self-defense will make me safer, because I still haven’t figured that one out.
I see one hell of a fight coming on Capitol Hill about gun control, and for a lot of us it's going to be a severe case of deja vu. In the 1990s the gun grabbers trotted out John and Sarah Brady to appeal to the emotions of the nation in their drive to get the "Brady Bill" passed, and it worked. Of course, the fact that the President and both houses of Congress were controlled by Demoncrats also played a hell of a big part. But now, in 2013, we have the same thing happening again, only this time it involves former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords was one of the victims of the Arizona shooting two years ago, for those of you who may not remember the name. Yesterday she and her husband announced that they were founding an organization to establish "responsible" gun control laws (there's that word again) and to raise enough money to effectively fight the most powerful and influential pro-gun lobby group on Capitol Hill, namely the National Rifle Association.
So once again we have the victim of a gun crime taking aim not on the person who committed the crime, but on the tool he used. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. After all, when you don't have the facts on your side and you have nothing left to use, the only thing you can possibly do is come up with a way to appeal to the emotional side of the human race and go for the "pity effect." It worked once, and the libtards and Demoncrats are hoping it works again. The one big difference between then and now is that this time, the Republicans control half of Congress, so we won’t get anything shoved down our throats this time like we did in 1994.
I, for one, am going to do my best to make sure we don’t have a repeat of 1994. We can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.
What about you?
IHC
#1 - More stringent - or just more - gun control laws will decrease gun violence.
This one is wrong on so many planes it's laughable. At present there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide, yet we still have acts of violence being committed with guns. And on top of that, statistics have proven that 94% of the murders committed in the United States are committed with "illegal" guns - that is, guns that have been stolen and are not used by the person who legally purchased it when the crime is committed. And then there's the basic fact of why ANY gun control law has not and will not ever work: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. That's why they're called "criminals." And if you want proof of this, you need look no further than the city of Chicago. Chicago has the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, yet they also have the highest murder rate, the majority of which are committed with - you guessed it - "illegal" guns. The city that was second to this was Washington, D.C. which also had very stringent gun control laws - as in, you couldn't own a handgun at all. D.C. also had the second-highest gun murder rate in the nation, but all that changed last year when the D.C. gun ban was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional.
#2 - Gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.
Not according to the FBI, it won't. After the "Brady Bill" expired, the FBI conducted a study on the effects of gun crimes and violence that the bill had, and they found that the bill made no noticeable difference in the amount of crimes being committed with a gun. And the FBI isn't the only organization to conduct such a study and come up with those results. Georgetown University, Duke University, and the American Medical Association to name a few have also conducted research on the effects of the bill, and none of them was able to prove that the "Brady Bill" had any measureable effect on hangun violence in the United States. The harsh reality that the libtards and Demoncrats don't want to admit is that every single study done on the effect of the "Brady Bill" have ALL failed to show that the bill did any good at all. The studies did show, however, that the Federal government - specifically the Department of Justice - had been what I would call criminally negligent in punishing those who attempted to purchase a handgun in violation of this bill. In the entire time the bill was in effect from 1994 until 2004, more than 700,000 applications were denied yet only six thousand offenders were prosecuted! And of those prosecutions, less than a handful resulted in jail time.
The question now is, why should a criminal fear or obey a law that they know won’t be enforced? Simple answer: they won’t.
#3 - Banning "assault rifles" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.
For openers, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." This is a term that was invented by the liberal media because it sounded scary and would intimidate the weak and faint of heart, and they were right. There is NO weapon in the United States military arsenal that is officially classified as an "assault rifle."
And once again, the FBI says that this isn't true. The fact is that approximately 1% of gun crimes committed in the United States involve the use of a so-called "assault rifle," with the weapon of choice being an automatic pistol. The liberal news media incorrectly reported that an AR-15-type rifle was used during the shootings in Connecticut, but the investigation has shown that while an AR-15 style rifle was found in the killer's car, the actual shooting was done with two 9mm automatic pistols. (Did I mention that all three guns were STOLEN from the killer's mother after he murdered her?)
#4 - Banning "high capacity" magazines will reduce the number of people killed in a mass shooting.
Uh, no. All a high-capacity magazine does is keep you from having to change magazines more often. The simple solution: carry more magazines or, better, yet, carry more than one gun. And for those of you out there who are foolish and/or stupid enough to think that you have enough time to attack and disarm a shooter while he's changing magazines, keep in mind that it only takes 3 to 4 seconds to change magazines. Are you willing to bet your life that you can carry out your plan in that amount of time?
#5 - Less guns mean less crime.
Again, not according to the FBI. Statistics have shown - and continue to show - that the exact opposite is true. Less guns actually means more crime. Florida was the first state to adopt a "must issue" concealed carry permit law, meaning that you no longer had to prove to a judge or anyone else why you should be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Once you applied for the permit, the local government was compelled to issue you the permit. Once this law took effect, two things happened: concealed weaons permits skyrocketed, and the numbers of violent crimes being committed plunged. And since that time a total of 39 states have adopted "must issue" laws, and in every state violent crimes have dropped. It seems that criminals don't like to get shot, either.
And if you need still more proof that less guns means more crime, take a look at the violent crime statistics for England and Australia. Both of these nations have abolished the private ownership of firearms, and in both nations violent crimes have skyrocketed.
#6 - There's nothing wrong with "common sense" and/or "responsible" gun laws.
Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that "common sense" has proven lately to be anything but common. What one person may consider to be "common sense" may not be such to another. The same is true for the term "responsible" in that what you may consider "responsible" may not be considered as such by another person, me included. The use of these two phrases by the gun grabbers is nothing but a ploy to get the public to agree with them by making it appear that disagreement with what they propose shows both a lack of common sense and irresponsibility. I, for one, won't fall prey to this tactic.
#7 – “Gun Free Zones” save lives.
No, for one simple reason: the only person in a “gun free zone” that will have a gun will be the shooter. After all, if someone is intent on committing a mass shooting, do you really think he’s going to avoid a “gun free zone” simply because the law says so? Remember what I said about criminals not obeying laws? No, the truth is that a “gun free zone” is going to be the FIRST place the shooter will look for – and that’s where he’ll go, count on it.
And here’s another factoid that the libtards and Demoncrats don’t want you to know: the shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, and Virginia all took place in a “Gun Free Zone.” So if you want irrefutable proof that “Gun Free Zones” don’t work, all you have to do is look at the last FOUR mass shootings.
And I saved the best for last.
#8 - Making all guns illegal will make us safer and/or eliminate gun violence.
This is another one that is wrong on so many planes that it's laugable, and the really sad thing is that there are folks out there who truly believe this. But once again, facts prove that this is nothing but wishful thinking and a myth perpetuated by the libtards, the Demoncrats, and the liberal media. If you want proof of how making something illegal won't keep it from happening, just ask the DEA how their war on drugs is going. Meth, LSD, opium, heroin, marijuana and cocaine are all illegal but we still have a drug problem in America, don't we? And any DEA man you ask will tell you - off the record, of course - that the war on drugs is one we can't win, ever.
Drunk driving is also illegal, yet in this nation more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than are killed with guns, yet you don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars, do you?
Last but not least, look at the City of Chicago again - more proof that making something illegal won't stop the criminal activity that involves that item.
Someone please tell me how taking away my means of self-defense will make me safer, because I still haven’t figured that one out.
I see one hell of a fight coming on Capitol Hill about gun control, and for a lot of us it's going to be a severe case of deja vu. In the 1990s the gun grabbers trotted out John and Sarah Brady to appeal to the emotions of the nation in their drive to get the "Brady Bill" passed, and it worked. Of course, the fact that the President and both houses of Congress were controlled by Demoncrats also played a hell of a big part. But now, in 2013, we have the same thing happening again, only this time it involves former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords was one of the victims of the Arizona shooting two years ago, for those of you who may not remember the name. Yesterday she and her husband announced that they were founding an organization to establish "responsible" gun control laws (there's that word again) and to raise enough money to effectively fight the most powerful and influential pro-gun lobby group on Capitol Hill, namely the National Rifle Association.
So once again we have the victim of a gun crime taking aim not on the person who committed the crime, but on the tool he used. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. After all, when you don't have the facts on your side and you have nothing left to use, the only thing you can possibly do is come up with a way to appeal to the emotional side of the human race and go for the "pity effect." It worked once, and the libtards and Demoncrats are hoping it works again. The one big difference between then and now is that this time, the Republicans control half of Congress, so we won’t get anything shoved down our throats this time like we did in 1994.
I, for one, am going to do my best to make sure we don’t have a repeat of 1994. We can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.
What about you?
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)