PDA

View Full Version : The ban "thirst" will never be quenched...


drkphibr
12-23-2012, 10:15 AM
I find it so sad what happened to all those kids/adults recently, but I find it just as sad our Fed/state government is so blatantly using the incident as a means to push a political agenda. No a single child was buried before the politicians were dusting off their previously defeated proposed legislation and resubmitting it.

More laws, banning this or that type/style of weapon will make absolutely ZERO difference to bad/sick people who want to do evil. Simply put, where there is a will, there is a way. When you take away all the guns, the evil still exists. Guns are not evil, evil is evil. Guns are simply a tool and when you take that tool away, another tool will be used in its place. When you ban a specific type of weapon that is currently labeled "assault weapon", a new weapon will assume that label and the "ban pursuit" will continue forward.

Guns are illegal in Mexico. Look at who is doing all the killing....the bad guys.
Guns are illegal in Australia, look at the INCREDIBLE spike in crimes (and violent crimes) since.
In China they use knives now. 22 young students were stabbed two weeks ago by a 36 year old man.

Evil will find a means. Banning guns = a giant "gun free zone" sticker that tells bad guys they will have no resistance in carrying out their plans.

Our politicians only want to paint one side of the story. NO one is talking about the Portland mall shooter that was confronted by 22 yr old Nick Meli (had a legal CCW, but was visiting and didn't know the mall was "gun free zone") and as he pointed his gun directly at the shooter, the shooter took his life. Nick ENDED the violence and what could have been a much larger mass killing with a GUN. The media buried the story and it can only be found locally. A bad guy with a gun can only be stopped by a good guy with a gun.

Had the Sandy Hook Principal had pepper spray (or bear spray - long spray distance) with her, I'm sure with a face full of pepper spray Adam would have been less effective or possibly even incapacitated enough to subdue. She gave her life charging at him, unfortunately she had nothing to confront him with.

Whatever ban or restriction or new laws are passed will only impact law abiding citizens. The government's thirst for gun reduction will not end with the evil black rifle. Once they are gone, it will be the next firearm in line that is deemed "assault weapon". What makes a rifle an "assault" rile. ANY weapon can be an "assault weapon" when used to attack. An "assault knife" as used in China on those 22 children. An "assault bat" is the most common (according to the CDC). A car, depending on how it's used, can be a death machine. Prelim CDC numbers for 2011 have transportation related deaths at 122,777. No one is calling for the banning of cars and forcing us to use public transportation.

There is talk in NY of "confiscation" cloaked as a "forced buyback". Ummm, that is extortion. So one guy gets a DUI, and the rest of us have to give up our cars. All of these politicians extolling gun restrictions either have CCWs or are protected 7x24 by armed security. The rest of us don't have that luxury. Take that away from a politician (look at DiFi's 1995 comments on CCW and how "pro" she was at the time) and see how the tune changes.

I was at a lunch this week and someone made the comment "why does anyone need that type of weapon?"

Why does anyone need a 500 horse power car that can go 125MPH over the legal speed limit?
Why does anyone need their own jet when they can fly commercial?
Why does anyone need a 10,000 sq. ft. home when a 1,500 sq. ft. home will suffice?
Why does the US need nuclear weapons when we have other weapons capable of extreme destruction?

Why? Because this is America and we are a country of FREE citizens to live, act and defend ourselves how we please as long as it's legal. A better question to ask is "why not?" Since when do I have to provide justification for ANYTHING that is legal for me to do or own?

I also hear that the 2nd Amendment wasn't intended to cover the weapons we now have. The 2A wasn't written to cover a specific type of technology, it covers a right. Are comments written online (i.e., the Internet) covered by 1A's freedom of speech? I'm sure the founding fathers didn't foresee the Internet, but they did put a FRAMEWORK together that would cover our advances as a society so the Constitution/Bill of Rights would apply to the then present time as well as the future.

Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely...we're watching it happen more and more everyday.

cdtx2001
12-23-2012, 10:29 AM
What, are you surprised by all this?

Eric Holder already said "Never let a good crisis go to waste"

vorra65
12-23-2012, 11:20 AM
#4-this

Perfect explanation-

Why as a country, do we need to arm ourselves as well if not better than possible invaders or adversary's of the US?

The same logic applies-we as citizens (law abiding) deserve the right to be prepared to defend ourselves against any and all potential foes.

Mexico has turned into a killing field, and to own a weapon to defend yourself and your family is a punishable offense.

billmaykafer
12-23-2012, 11:24 AM
luke 22:36

mt4design
12-23-2012, 11:57 AM
I've been thinking about something related to your post OP.

Murder.

It is the first law necessary to deter violence against any other human being, and yet, laws to deter such acts have not yet stopped some from committing the act of killing another.

If our laws, and our courts, and our police cannot stop a person from committing such a heinous act against another with any manner of means in doing so, then how will a ban on weapons stop murder?

Our existing law has not stopped the lawless from stealing away our children and murdering them.

The .16 oz soda and an over reaching government.

One mayor decides that he will stop obesity by pushing an end to any sugar filled drink over .16 oz. Isn't that a clear violation of person's inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and any number of other rights?

Yet, we have an over reaching government where the power which was once derived from the consent of the governed has become a system where the government now tells it's people how they must live, what they can eat, etc.

Incremental infringement upon Liberty.

We are seeing it daily through the acts of a twisted and broken legal system and a corrupt government which seeks to rule over us rather than take to heart the words and clear intent behind the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

Indeed, some politicians and judges have specifically stated that our founding documents are flawed and an inconvenience.

That line of reason has now lead to serious infringement upon every right which should be inalienable from life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness, to property, search and seizure, privacy, speech, religious freedom, and more.

These infringements also have resulted in lawless acts by our own government either by intentionally not enforcing law or by simply circumventing law.

In other words, our own government is acting in a lawless manner.

They kill without trial, using drones to kill our own people. They listen in on private conversations or steal personal data without legal cause or permission. They steal property or illegally pressure citizens without cause or court permission.

I applaud your wisdom OP and I stand with you.

Without the Second, we will lose all other rights.

Mike

three dogs
12-23-2012, 12:03 PM
The why is easy. Every time you see, here, smell 'liberal', replace it in your mind with 'liberator'.

mt4design
12-23-2012, 12:11 PM
The why is easy. Every time you see, here, smell 'liberal', replace it in your mind with 'liberator'.

Ah.

They want to liberate me from my desire to think, or to be independent, or to choose not to conform to the will of the mob.

They want to liberate me from being an individual and push me to become a willing citizen who steps in line with their every desire.

You are absolutely right. Thanks.

Mike