|
||
The Gun Lobby's Rhetoric Has Consequences
In Pittsburgh on Saturday, three police officers were murdered, reportedly by an assault-weapon wielding man shooting 'hundreds of shots' who apparently believed the gun lobby propaganda that an 'Obama gun ban' would lead to his 'rights being infringed upon.'
This was just a day after 13 were gunned down in Binghamton, New York by a murderer who reportedly 'hated America and talked about assassinating the President' while his former co-workers felt that someday he might 'come in mad one day and shoot people.' These shootings were preceded by a month of shootings including eight shot dead in a North Carolina nursing home, five in a Santa Clara, California shooting, four police officers in Oakland and ten people in Alabama.
After each horrific shooting, some leaders in Washington have said the solution is to do nothing, simply continue to enforce the existing laws, just as we have been doing. The gun lobby, meanwhile, calls for weakening our already paltry laws to get more guns to more people in more places. It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government. It is time for the gun industry to stop capitalizing on those ginned-up fears to spread weapons of war among the public.
The gun lobby's rhetoric has consequences. We have seen how profound those consequences can be.
We have a gun crisis in America. As important as the economic crisis is, the right to be safe at home and work and play needs at least as much attention from our policymakers as the right to economic security. It is time for leaders in Washington to drop empty platitudes after each horrific shooting, and instead do what they're paid to do: show backbone, and enact reasonable laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
At the very least, require Brady background checks for all gun sales; restrict military-style assault weapons to the military and law enforcement and help law enforcement crack down on corrupt gun sellers.
What we're doing now is not working.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bandofotters states: "I've always wondered how repealing the Second Amendment would eradicate an inalienable right. Wouldn't it still exist, by definition of inalienable, even after any repeal just like the right to Privacy now exists?"
You may be conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The Declaration speaks on inalienable rights, which the signers believed had been violated by the British Crown. It lists these rights, but did not "constitute" them. The "Creator," did. (Please let's not get sidetracked with a theological discussion about what the Framers did or did not mean by "creator"). The Declaration is NOT a bedrock document with regard to the establishment of the government of the United States, nor is it a bedrock document with regard to the laws promulgated by the government, at any level, in the United States. But the Constitution is such a bedrock document. Hence, Bandofotters, if through the process spelled out in the Constitution the 2nd Amendment was repealed or modified, you, like every other citizen or resident of the United States, would have to abide by the new terms, if any. If the 2nd Amendment was repealed entirely and private ownership of firearms was prohibited, I think the only legal appeal might be on "ex post facto" and due compensation grounds So,to answer a part of your rhetorical question: you would not have an inalienable right to own firearms.
It's time for the government to take their nose out of our guns. Guns are a right - not a privelege granted by government. It is a right - that you are born with, to own guns, and defend yourself - especially against any government that is tyrranical. We need our guns. Not today? Maybe tomorrow. As soon as we give them all up is when we will need them the most. Fascism is dependant on disarming the populous.
Way too absolutist for me, adamx. I agree 110% with the Brady Campaign's emphasis on "compromise."
And yet they don't compromise at all.
What compromises would you be willing to make?
When the gun control advocates talk of compromise, it's always their opponents they are referring too, not themselves.
I find it rich that a person who thinks "compromise" means bringing the very laws that got thrown out in Heller nationwide claims to support compromise. Kelli--the only laws you will accept dictate defacto civilian disarmament (which is NOT A FRIGGING COMPROMISE)
"I agree 110% with the Brady Campaign's emphasis on "compromise.""
Cool. I want you to give me all your money.
No?
How about a compromise?
The Brady Campaign's emphasis on "compromise" is a sham. They aren't interested in compromising about anything. How can they be when they have continually supported, and continually solicited contributions to uphold, every gun ban that ever existed? And they do this, all the while saying that they are not out to ban guns, which goes beyond disingenuous.
Every time we make a concession, the BC wants more. Now, Helmke is saying that the BC's #1 and #6 states don't have enough gun laws. I can't wait to hear what their next proposed "compromise" is.
The BC will be calling for "compromise" until the entire population is disarmed.
I think you meant 'dependent' on disarming the 'populace.' And 'tyrannical.'
What, exactly, do you think we are going to need to do? Pile cars in the street and defend ourselves from federal troops? Please elaborate on the scenario you foresee, and specifically how we could get there from here.
Do you understand how un-American that sounds? We had a revolution to establish the rule of law. We established a Constitution to place power in the hands of the voters. Sure, the founding fathers said that the people retain the right to throw off oppresive government. But it is inherently unpatriotic and un-American to suggest that the Constitution will fail to operate, and that our government built on the rule of law and checks and balances is inherently unstable enough to fail and create chaos and anarchy in the streets.
It's always a rude shock to hear such sentiments expressed by flag-waving conservatives who carry a copy of the Constitution in their pocket. How can your commitment to the grand experiment that is the USA really be, if you anticipate that in your lifetime it will crumble into anarchy?
The 2nd amendment is there for self defense as well as community defense (as was proven in Koreatown during the 1992 Rodney King riots
Thank you Spelling Police.
"But it is inherently unpatriotic and un-American to suggest that the Constitution will fail to operate, and that our government built on the rule of law and checks and balances is inherently unstable enough to fail"
Nobody is suggesting that the constitution will fail. But it is "inherently unpatriotic" to deny citizens the means to throw off an illegal, tyrannical government, in case it does. It's ONE of the reasons the 2nd Amendment exists.
"It's always a rude shock to hear such sentiments expressed by flag-waving conservatives who carry a copy of the Constitution in their pocket."
Well, you anti-2nd Amendment types are always rudely shocked about something. You'd be very rudely shocked if you read what some of the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject. And you automatically assume that AdamX is a conservative, which is a mistake. I'm not a conservative (many of us here are quite liberal), and I agree with AdamX. Fascism is indeed dependant on disarming the population. How do you think the Nazis got away with what they got away with?
"How can your commitment to the grand experiment that is the USA really be, if you anticipate that in your lifetime it will crumble into anarchy?"
Nonsense. He didn't anticipate any such thing would happen in his lifetime. "Tommorrow " is meant figuratively. AdamX does sound commited to defending the Constitution if it should ever become necessary.
How commited are you?
hunt49-
Apprehension and unpatriotic are not synonymous.
However, ignorance and naivety are.
Has it not occured to the gun dealers that their sales go up when Dems are elected? Supporting GOP candidates may feed your pro-gun soul, but it's Dems in office that feed your kids by sparking fear-based gun purchases. Ironic, no?
You're pretty much wrong with the Dem/GOP paradigm of the gun issue. Many, many Dems are pro-gun and many Repubs are anti-gun. The author of this blog, Paul Helmke--a Republican, is Exhibit A in the destruction of your argument.
Try again.
I was talking with my good friend and firearm dealer about this a few weeks ago. His business has seen a large spike since Obama's election. His reaction was to say that he would much rather have the long term of businesses security and steady product sales from having pro-gun politicians in office than to make large short term profits. He, like many dealers I've met, care more about firearms rights (and other Constitutional rights) than getting rich off his business.
The people who are doing this are just panicking the nuts.
Funny thing was during the Assault weapon ban you could still buy them. How it works is when the ban goes into effect teh gun shops can not buy any weapons from over seas. What they did was mad an investment and bought tons of assault weapons, after the ban the dealers can only sell weapons already in the country that have manufacture dates before the law was passed.
When the ban is passed what happens, well first off just like when it was done the first time no one showed up at anyone’s homes asking for assault weapons. No one had their guns taken away. The price automatically jumps to double to triple what it was before the ban. Before the Clinton ban I could buy an SKS rifle for 90 bucks after the ban the cost went to 250 bucks haven’t priced on now but I would wager it went back down after the ban.
All this the government is going to take you guns crap is a sales promotion to sell more guns and it is working gun sales are the highest they have ever been.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Yep, just sales promotion.
And just like when Clinton did it they will still be for sale in the gun shops and no one will show up at your home to “take yourguns”.
Go to any gun show and all you here over and over is they are coming for your guns vote for X.
Like I said this is just gun sales promotions.
When the Assault weapon ban is reinstated it will be just like old times. The shops will still be selling preban rifles but at higher prices.
No ATF and black helicopters showed up to take anything during the ban.
Just more hysteria drummed up by the right about nothing.
Perhaps gun and ammo sales are going through the roof because when the first AWB went into effect many people assumed that Assault Weapons were machine guns and did not care about it. That is until they went to the store to buy a gun only to find out the AWBs were not machine guns but popular civilian arms that they could no longer purchase.
Since the calls for a new AWB include a much broader definition of Assault Weapon many people are making their purchases now while they still can.
Don't blame the NRA or the "Gun Lobby." Blame yourselves. Gun control supporters are the ones scaring everyone with your ban this, ban that attitude.
Wrong just wrong. I already stated how the gun shops continued to sell Assualt rifles and no such thing happened to simi auto hunting rifles.
You guys are just as bad as the they are going to take .... wait you are the they are going to take your guns crowd.
I am a gun control supporter, no one who has mental problems should own guns, no one with a violent history should have guns, and no one with gang affiliations should have guns, but after that it is all good with me.
I'm not saying that I like the ban I'm saying it is a paper dragon. No guns were taken up and gun shops could still sell not only assault rifles but hicap clips as long as they were made before the ban was written into law.
It isn't us who are screaming something that isn't so. The ban did not take away any guns nor did it 100% stop the sell of assault rifles.
I know because I bought plenty of guns (assault rifles as well as hicap clips) during the first ban. I personally don't care if you cant walk through your own home because it is stacked to the ceiling with what ever gun you think you need.
What I don’t like is the BS “they are going to take your guns” hysteria.
"Perhaps gun and ammo sales are going through the roof because when the first AWB went into effect many people assumed that Assault Weapons were machine guns and did not care about it. That is until they went to the store to buy a gun only to find out the AWBs were not machine guns but popular civilian arms that they could no longer purchase."
Very, very true.
"How it works is when the ban goes into effect teh gun shops can not buy any weapons from over seas. "
They also could not be made in the US.
"When the ban is passed what happens, well first off just like when it was done the first time no one showed up at anyone"s homes asking for assault weapons."
Actually they did in California after their state passed a similar law.
I have a question for the anti gunners.
We have over 270 million guns in America owned by about 80 million people. If you got your way, how would you get all of these guns?
Ask nicely?
You might study what the Bush administration launched with warrantless wiretapping coupled with the intent of its Gonzales/Lautenberg Bill. Lay it beside what went on in 1930s Germany and I think you will see the road map start to unfold.
"Bush did it" **skritch**"Cheney did it"**skritch**"Palin is gonna do it"**skritch
It's Bush's Fault! *skritch* It's Bush's Fault! *skritch* It's Bush's Fault! *skritch*
Bush did it *skritch* Bush did it *skritch Bush did it *skritch*
And the broken record is back on.
Toonadude: "You might study what the Bush administration launched with warrantless wiretapping coupled with the intent of its Gonzales/Lautenberg Bill."
So the Feds will now listen in to everyone's phone calls, and anyone who admits to owning a gun will be placed on a terrorist watch list? 80 million people?
It's hard to imagine in a nation of 300M people, where 80M own guns,
(and 220M don't), how the government could ever get the 80M to disarm.
Maybe the 220M will take to the streets? Maybe if we ever get a chance
to re-do the Constitution, and the 80M happen to be home polishing
their weapons, we can delete the 2nd Amendment. Til then, stay low,
keep moving, and hope for the best. Or, shoot first, ask questions after.
Don't forget that a huge chunk of that 220 million are women and children.
So, don't lead them as much.
"It's hard to imagine in a nation of 300M people, where 80M own guns,
(and 220M don't),"
80,000,000 milion gun-owners represents roughly half the adult population. We don't want to count the kiddies as people who do not own guns. They're not supposed to own guns.
Has it ever occurred to you that many of the people who don't own guns still support second amendment rights?
Just because you are not practicing your rights at this very moment doesn't mean you oppose them.
I'm not a journalist, but I support freedom of the press as much as anyone who works for the media.
You might find the same goes for some people who do not own guns in regard to the second amendment.
I'm an avid gun owner in New Jersey. We have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I don't mind the background checks. I don't mind waiting. I don't mind paying reasonable fees. I wouldn't mind tougher oversight at gun shows. I would very much mind if all semi-automatic weapons were classified as "assault". There are many valid reasons to own a semi for hunting, target shooting, or home defense. An outright ban would clearly infringe on the 2nd amendment. The Constitution isn’t a popularity contest. Others (like Dick Cheney or President Bush) found aspects of the Constitution inconvenient. The rules I’ve included are common sense, and they’ve been proven to work. Any new laws should also pass the common sense and effectiveness tests – not just be feel good measures that don’t actually make us safer.
Reasonable fees to you might be more than others can afford therefore imposing a fee would be an infringement upon their rights. This is not unlike a poll tax.
Not quite. Consider it more like a fee for motor vehicle registration. Or renewing your driver's license. Or getting a passport.
zpolitics: I like your reasoned stance to this issue. Good form, sir.
Next question is--is it only people like George Soros that will be able to afford the fees, or will the average guard/7-11 clerk be able to do so?
Your attitude to guns is not at issue (NJ's gun laws are not that different than Italy's, where lots of people have shotguns). The problem is handguns and assault rifles.
Quite frankly, the 2nd amendment is archic and empty - we have a standing army and the path to overturning a government is via bombs not bullets. Some people need handguns and assault rifles - the vast majority of us do not.
Cam--the ARs, AKs, and SKSs available in gunshops are semiauto ONLY--so sorry to say the full autos you carried and faced on active duty ARE not the guns Paul is trying to scare you about. As far as people not needing ARs, SKSs, mini14s etc--tell that to the people who used them to protect Koreatown during the Rodney King riots here in Los Angeles.
"and assault rifles"
Assault rifles are extremely strictly controlled by the federal government and are used in less tha 0.1% of all crimes. You can't just walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle like you can a shotgun.
We are a nation of over 300 million people and as tragic as it is, some will abuse their rights, hurt themselves or kill. We can't stop this. .
As for our government enforcing the existing laws, they don't. We've all seen the numbers about all of the gun sales that have been blocked due to the background checks but that's basically a catch and release program. Actually that's wrong, It's a check and release program since those that are turned down for trying to purchase a gun are rarely arrested even if the purchaser is a felon.
Guns occupy an odd place in our culture and psyche. When some child pornography ring gets busted no one says, "We need to stop the manufacturers from flooding the market with computers." No one says, "People can use computers at libraries and Kinko's. No one needs one in the home."
The same is true about cars. After some idiot plows through a crowd of people there are no call for a ban on personal ownership of autos.
On the other hand there is a a constant and predictable cry for more gun laws after every shooting.
One last thing, how dare the gun lobby inform the public of the Obama administration's wish to bring back the Assault Weapon ban! Don't they realize that citizens should not be informed of government plans? What are we anyway......a democracy or something?
computers are not manufactured for the purpose of showing porn. Cars are not manufactured for the purpose of running down pedestrians. Guns are manufactured to kill - be it animals or human. So drawing parallels between them is misleading.
The gun lobby really taints their message when they use false propaganda (click the 'Obama Gun Ban' link in the first paragraph of the article.)
Yeah, and the anti-gunners aren't tainting their message? Including 24 year old gang bangers as "The Children(tm)" when ranting about child gun deaths, proposing bans for weapons which have "scary" cosmetic features, manipulating statistics to cause a big stir about Mexico's violence, claiming that gun control has worked in the past??
the door swings BOTH ways.....
If guns are only made to kill--all of mine are defective--unless of course you define punching holes in paper, plastic jugs or cans "killing"
toddag: "Guns are manufactured to kill - be it animals or human."
Error # 1: There are numerous guns manufactured for other purposes -- Walther 22 short target pistols, 34" Perazzi trap guns, etc.
Error #2: Guns manufactured to kill animals are a LEGITIMATE and LEGAL purpose -- like driving a car. Guns used for murder are an ILLEGIMATE and ILLEGAL purpose -- as is running down pedestrians. So a hunting gun used for murder is quite analogous to a car used to run down pedestrians -- your claim otherwise is BOGUS.
You have no idea what false propaganda is. Spend some time on the BC's website. It's unbelievable.
"Cars are not manufactured for the purpose of running down pedestrians. "
And yet more people are killed with cars than with firearms. Pretty sad.
"Guns are manufactured to kill "
Then 99.999% of them are malfunctioning.
All of you anti-2nd Amendment wingnuts should emmigrate to England.
Guns are banned, pocket knives are banned, swords are banned, they are trying to ban large cooking knives and 'hoodies'.
They have security cameras all over English cities, so the gangbangers took to wearing hooded sweatshirts and jackets to defeat the cameras.
The English have all kinds of 'feel good laws' . So, despite the fact that the violent crime rate in England took off after they banned guns in 1997, and it has remained at a much higher level than it was before '97, at least you'll all 'feel good'.
If you look closely, you'll find that no one is asking for a repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd characterize the so-called 'anti-gun' advocates as people who are in favor of stricter regulations on the licensing and purchase of firearms, not altogether bans on gun ownership. That's a big difference. If you look at the issue from that perspective, there may be some common ground to be found between gun control and gun advocate groups.
You'ld be wrong. The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, a huge media source, has called for the repeal of the 2A.
Flexo--some like jimtom are after improved regulations--but others like Paul Helmke, Doug Pennington, Dennis Hennigan and Kellidancer will be satisfied with nothing less than complete disarmament of civilians
No one is asking for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
Have you never read the comments on this column or other gun related Huffpost column?
There are plenty of people calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment or proposing a run around the Constitution with schemes such as banning ammo but allowing gun ownership. The ammo ban is just one example. Washington, DC essentially had a ban on the 2nd Amendment and this ban was supported by many politiicians (the entire Obama administration) and every anti gun group out there. Include the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc) in that list.
If you look closely, you'll find that someone is proposing a deletion of the 2nd Amendment just a few comments above your statement.
Then please define for me the phrase "shall not be infringed"
So the NRA solution si what, get every man woman and child armed to the teeth and then we can all live like it's the "wild wild west" again. Personally I don't get the attraction of guns, the are made to kill and while safty may be a concern prompting the purchase of one, I still don't see the need for "semi-automatic" protection.
Prsonally I say, let anybody that wants one get a gun, as long as they register it and wait a few day to pick it up, then once you have your guns, if you do anything other than use it for protection or target shooting, you get to go to jail for 25 years, that should be long enough to keep the rest of us safe for a little while.
"So the NRA solution si what, get every man woman and child armed to the teeth and then we can all live like it's the "wild wild west" again."
Wow. A strawman and a hypothetical all in one sentence withouth an ounce of substantiation.
Nice!
Yet registration is not required by criminals as per the Supreme Court. It has also been used for confiscation.
You're OK w/ that?
Sorry to tell you--but the "wild west" had less crime than the "gun free havens" of DC, Chicago, and Los angeles
"So the NRA solution si what, get every man woman and child armed to the teeth and then we can all live like it's the "wild wild west" again."
I don't belong to the NRA, but they have never, to my knowledge, advocated arming every man woman and child.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that concealed carry HAS been allowed in 48 states forever. We are still waiting for one of these "wild west shootouts" that the BC warns of constantly.
You seem like a reasonable person. Don't swallow the hype.
"then once you have your guns, if you do anything other than use it for protection or target shooting, you get to go to jail for 25 years,"
Thank you. This is what we've been saying all along. Sadly however, the anti-2nd Amendment crowd seems to be more concerned with prison overcrowding, than they are about public safety. When we suggest tougher penalties fro violent criminals, they call us "draconian".
What the purpose of waiting a few days to pick up a gun?
The average amount of time between when a gun is purchased and when it is used in a crime is 12 months.
"Guns are banned, pocket knives are banned, swords are banned, they are trying to ban large cooking knives and 'hoodies'. "
You forgot big sticks. They actually arrested a man for carrying walking stick.
as a gun owner and a woman who carries a gun regularly i can assure you the first issue is if some one wants to kill someone they can do it, and the police are only there to investigate the aftermath. it is entirely in each and every ones own have to defend themselves. you are all weak. stand up for your right of life and the pursuit thereof. on the second isuue of amendments,
"the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government" thomas jefferson.
"democracy is to wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" benjamin franklin
dont you people see it works both ways if you give up your only protection no matter how civilized you will be oppressed, ask hitler thats how he gained power.
The gun you carry is useless in most circumstances and provocative in some. A gun is a nice thing to have when you have the drop on someone and you are prepared to shoot. That's why an armed aggressor always has the edge.
I speak as a former special forces soldier who has operated in some of the most violent parts of the world. I knew many people who had their guns taken away from them at gun- and knife-point.
So don't make the mistake of thinking your gun protects you. You protect you.
You protect yourself by electing people who build your society, who keep your police well-trained and effective, who invest in social infrastructure. Let that go and you soon find yourself a society where everyone is armed and has a personal agenda.
Have a gun by all means. It's fun to shoot at targets and you never know, you might actually save your life with it (provided you have plenty of warning and your attacker is incompetent), but please, don't think of it as a substitute for a functional society.
Cam--most criminals ARE incompetent
"I knew many people who had their guns taken away from them at gun- and knife-point."
No you don't.
Thank you for saying this, cam & I think you're absolutely right: Having access to guns is not a substitute for a functional and safer society!
Fantastically articulated, Cam - thank you.
It's a bigger picture issue, part of the "Me" focus of our society rather than a "We" focus. Too many in the US spend time fretting about (and arming for) the day they'll have to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, rather than working to create a better, more functional society so they wouldn't have to worry about it.
Government study:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property"
Self defense with firearms is the most effective defense in the world and it happenends a lot more then you might think.
No one is saying gun ownership solves all problems, but it certainly a good thing to have in a time of need.
From Gallup:
In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week’s gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.
Separately, the October Crime survey found just under half of Americans, 49%, wanting the laws covering the sale of firearms to be made stricter than they are now. This is the lowest percentage favoring stricter gun laws in Gallup trends since the question was first asked in 1990. While only 8% say gun laws should be made less strict, 41% say they should remain as they are now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx
Nice regurgitation. Is a point forthcoming?
It shows that public opinion reflects the knowledge that people intent on committing crimes by definition do not obey laws. Therefore more laws are not going to make any difference. Why is this so difficult for gun-ophobes to understand?
Maybe that the constant stream of misinformation and hysteria promoted by the media and Brady Campaign isn't working anymore.
Do these polls differentiate between people who don't own guns and people who do?
If they don't then it would be rather like asking a random sample of people whether they favor Catholicism or another religion and assuming the answers held any sway over Catholics.
Private possession of guns for "protection" are a symptom of a dysfunctional society. Either it's police are ineffective or it is delusional.
In places like Los Angeles, DC and CHicago--the police are certainly ineffective or haven't you noticed that
Yes, they do. Read the links.
Police are not responsible for the protection of individuals. This is long held decisions by the courts.
"Private possession of guns for "protection" are a symptom of a dysfunctional society. Either it's police are ineffective or it is delusional."
Or maybe it's a symptom of society where people want to be responsible for their own safety and not die while waiting for the police to show up.
Unfortunately it's going to take a lot more than this for some people to get the message that what we're doing now just isn't working.
Maybe, when some of these wingnuts lose someone close to them, they'll start to get it. I would then like to be the first to say, "well, your mother's/father's/brother's/sister's etc. murderer was only exercising their 2nd Amendment rights!" Mean, I know, but this is what you're dealing with and the only way to get through.
So you want more murders and violent crime in order to push your personal agenda?
Murder is not a 2A right. It is a crime. To wish crime, especially murder, on people is atrocious and psychopathic. You need to check yourself into counseling.
She isn't wishing for more murder and violent crime. These things are a too common occurence;she notes that when people are personally involved their opinions may change.
You managed to completely miss Elle's valid point, dmeadows.
"Maybe, when some of these wingnuts lose someone close to them,"..........it will most likely be to a violent, repeat offender who was paroled because the poor babay was in an overcrowded prison.
When one of YOU champions of hysterical, anti-rights propaganda loses someone close to you to such a person, maybe you'll begin to get it.
Read some facts, some statistics, do some math, and think for yourselves.
OK, Vespy, here's some thinkin'. If we stopped putting people in prison on mandatory sentences for minimal drug possession, there'd be room to keep the nasty violent felons. The facts and statistics and math all back this up. That's why the prisons are overcrowded. You poor babay!
Elle1019: "Maybe, when some of these wingnuts lose someone close to them, they'll start to get it."
Elle is right! Both of Suzanna Hupp's parents were murdered in a shooting rampage, and Suzanna Hupp has been crusading for the right to self-defense ever since. Yes, Suzanna Hupp "gets it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
Elle, change the record....it's skipping.......
If I have to hear one more time how "Obama caused the gun owners to run out and buy more ammo and guns" one more time I'm going to puke.
When will Americans take responsibility for the dumb ass things they do? Those morons bought guns and ammo because Fox news told them to.
The majority of those whack jobs don't have enough brain cells to understand real policy from hysterical propaganda and are running around like a toothless Chicken Little. Chicken Little with an AK 47, that is.
Disgusting.
Purchases of guns and ammunition are at high levels correlating with the Obama administration taking power.
Saying it's not so until you are blue in the face doesn't make it not so. Same as saying restricting guns reduces crime until you're blue in the face doesn't make it so.
Actually, you're wrong. Restricting guns does reduce crime.
You're conflating two statements and attributing the same truth value to both because they have the same structure.
Be careful, if you do this a lot they'll probably take your gun away.
liviapeacock: If I have to hear one more time how "Obama caused the gun owners to run out and buy more ammo and guns" one more time I'm going to puke.
Livia is right! Obama is NOT going to ban ANY guns. Livia, help get that message across to gun control advocates so that they will STOP TRYING to get Obama to ban some guns.
Americans are going out and buying guns and ammo because they have no trust in our President. Gun owners know his history and don't believe and election year speech claiming to favor gun ownership trumps years of anti gun votes and speeches. If people believed Obama was an honest man and would "Leave guns alone" there would be no huge increase in gun sales.
Foxnews only reported the news on Obama and his plan to bring back the Assault Weapon Ban. They didn't make the news. Blame your President for that.
The truly amusing thing is that anti gun Dems in the House and Senate are running from the gun issue because they still remember the huge turnover 2 years into the Clinton Presidency. Who would have ever thought Pelosi would stop more gun bans from being voted on?
No buying guns doesn't have much to do with trust in the President; otherwise I (ex-military) would have bought some during the Bush administration. The rhetoric from FOX and the hardheaded insistence on free for all on assault weapons are why wingnuts are out buying so many guns. Of course, M Bachmann is calling for her constituents to become armed and dangerous;
"Those morons bought guns and ammo because Fox news told them to."
They went out and bought firearms and ammo because ON THIER WEBSITES, Obama and the DNC said they want to bring back the ill-conceived Assault Weapon Ban. Obama has also said he wants to ban concealed carry, that he would like to ban something he called "ammunition for assault weapons" (what ever the heck that is), and he voted to support an Assault Weapon Ban in his home state which was greatly expanded over the federal AWB.
This is why people are buying guns:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
That's from the White House, not Fox News.
It's Bush's fault.
Suddenly, I've noticed, all these 'bad' gun owners are
trying to put all you 'good' gun aficionados in a bad light.
What is with that?
Maybe what you ought to do is get together, get some
posse's going, and round those bad guys up, send them
off to the hoosegow or string 'em up, in true 'good guy' fashion.
Obviously, we should ALL start packing, but that just isn't practical.
I see the doofus is being a decidedly unfunny snert
No, it was funny. Check your sensor.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
