Never let it be said that Liberals won’t take advantage of each and every tragedy to push their political agenda (too bad they didn’t push to make communism criminal, as Stalin and Mao murdered tens of millions of people)
Ban killer weapons and do it right now: The logic is simple: New laws will prevent mass murder
I think we already have laws against mass murder. People who break them obviously do not care about The Law.
Newtown. Oak Creek temple. Aurora. Tucson. Fort Hood. Virginia Tech. Columbine. The Long Island Rail Road. The list goes on like the names of battlefields from far-off wars.
But it is the war at home. Mass shootings, year in, year out. Doubt that we are at war? More Americans have been killed in our country within in the last year by guns than all U.S. soldiers killed in all of the years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Want to know who’s to blame? Each and every one of us, gun owners and non-gun owners. Muffled outrage and wringing of hands are not enough.
Personally, I feel no blame. I feel no remorse for sticking up for the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners. None of the gun laws that Liberals are pushing would have stopped this tragedy. We also have laws against blowing up buildings. That did not stop Timothy McVeigh. We have laws against raping women and killing them. That didn’t stop Ted Bundy. We have laws against hijacking airplanes. That didn’t stop the 19 Islamists on 9/11.
Afterwards we can reflect on what else to do. But we owe these 20 precious, dead 5-to-10 year old children the solemn obligation to take serious measures, and swiftly. Why ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines? Not because it will save every last life. Since when is that the standard?
Because it will help. In virtually every single one of the mass shootings in America going back to the McDonald’s slaying in California in 1984, an assault weapon has been used and in every single one, one or multiple large capacity magazines have been used.
The Newtown child-killer may or may not have used handguns, and not an assault weapon, to murder children. But wouldn’t you rather prevent the deaths you can prevent?
Neither handgun used in this tragedy would be covered by any of the legislation that Democrats have proposed. They aren’t assault weapons, and they aren’t high capacity mags. The insane killer did have a .223 Bushmaster, but that was left in the car when he went on his murderous rampage.
The only answer would be to ban all guns. Not just scary looking weapons (many non-scary looking guns with the same caliber are manufactured and used for legitimate hunting purposes) and high cap mags. That’s the only way to be sure. Lock down all the borders to keep guns from coming in to the country.
Want to blame someone? Let’s blame the entertainment industry for using guns on TV and in movies. Let’s blame organizations that use armed security guards in their lobbies (like, say, The NY Times Building (there is no info I can find on the NY Daily News building)). Let’s blame violent video games. Let’s blame politicians who have Secret Service protection which carries weapons, including scary looking sub-machine guns. Let’s blame Democrat voters who refuse to give up their own firearms.
Or, we can blame the unhinged shooters, who apparently want their 15 minutes of fame as they commit mass murder prior to suicide.
If only Liberals showed the same outrage when the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico which resulted in the deaths of over 200 Mexicans and at least 2 US federal agents.
More: Just so Liberals stop whining and deflecting, let it be noted that information that came out after this post was published states that the .223 Bushmaster was the weapon used, not the handguns. Previous reports stated that the Bushmaster was in the killer’s car. (WordPress for Android was cutting off some of the article if I used it to edit)
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Right Teach there is nothing that should be done to prevent this from happening liberals should just accept it along with the rest of the 10000 Americans that are murdered each year.Of course the the deaths caused by Muslims are different
oh and some reports are saying that he DID use an assault type weapon. If that was the case do you think that we should perhaps think os some way of keeping such weapons out of the hands of nut cases?
There are 34,000 people that die in car accidents every year, John. Shouldn’t you be looking to deal with the higher number of deaths first?
As to your point on an “assault type weapon,” that is simply a talking point as people like you look at a weapon and think it is evil because of the way it looks. The Bushmaster .223 (which is the reported weapon) is no different than a lot of other weapons. It just looks different so people have demonized it.
As soon as you liberals and trolls give up your cars and your weapons, then you can come talking and telling others what to do. As I said earlier the right to bear arms is settled law. Deal with it.
[…] huckster by day and pretend pirate by night, wants anyone talking about any kind of gun control to walk the plank Never let it be said that Liberals won’t take advantage of each and every tragedy to push their […]
One news article interviewed teachers, classmates, neighbors etc and most could barely remember this kid shooter. He has been described as a “loner”. He had no significant adults in his life and no solid friendships. Nobody cared for or about him. I think that when the final relationship thread breaks the loner seeks revenge, not fame, in shooting everybody. It takes a special adult that can love the unloveable kid that makes the difference in a loners life. Adults have to take a special interest in the kids around them especially the quiet ones. Making kids feel significant, included and appreciated for themselves will head off the loners before they become dangerous loners. Just my thought, Blick
Sadly no, Cap’n Crunch. From ABC News:
“I believe everybody was hit more than once,” said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut’s Chief Medical Examiner.
He said the bullets were uniquely damaging and that Lanza’s victims died almost immediately.
“The bullets are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in,” Carver said. He described the wounds as a “very devastating set of injuries.”
Two handguns were also found at the scene, but Carver described the Bushmaster as the killer’s primary weapon. A fourth weapon was found nearby. The weapons discovered at the school apparently belonged to a family member, possibly his mother, according to authorities.
The weapons that police recovered from the scene included a Glock 9-mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9-mm handgun and a Bushmaster rifle. Police also found .223 shell casings. Lanza was wearing a bullet-proof vest. The shooter’s mother, 52-year-old Nancy Lanza, had five weapons registered to her, including a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and a Bushmaster rifle.
—————–
You did say he left the Bushmaster in the car, right? I know you won’t correct your pull-it-out-of-yer-a$$ fabrication, so I’ve decided to help the low-information readers who might actually believe your horseradish.
You did say he left the Bushmaster in the car, right? I know you won’t correct your pull-it-out-of-yer-a$$ fabrication, so I’ve decided to help the low-information readers who might actually believe your horseradish.
To be fair, the original reports were the rifle was found in the trunk of Lanza’s car.
From ABC News:
6:25 p.m.: Nancy Lanza, mother of gunman Adam Lanza, was found dead in her Connecticut home. The 20-year-old man, shot her in the face, authorities told ABC News. Following the murder of his mother, Lanza, carrying at least two semi-automatic pistols and an automatic rifle, drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where his mother worked. There he killed 20 children and six adults. Lanza was found dead in the school with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The rifle was found in his car, authorities said.
I can only only go by info reported in the news, bubble, which at the time says that the Bushmaster was found in the car.
And, to be clear, I don’t have a prob with an assault weapons ban, nor on mags over 12
So the author knows his post is incorrect, and that the killer did most of his work with his Bushmaster, not his handguns. But does the author have the decency to correct his post? Of course he doesn’t. Coward.
Yawn. I’m not particularly surprised that a liberal coming from Sadly, No fails reading comprehension, avoids the central points of the posts, and goes personal. Crawl back to Momma’s basement, little moonbat.
Saying something doesn’t make it so, Blackbumfluff.
You’re right. People break laws all the time. Why bother with them? SCRAP ALL LAWS! Hardcore Libertarianism!
Cars: created solely to kill and maim, with no other purpose whatsoever. OH WAI
Well Guitar carver We are looking at deaths by car. We have had many Federal laws mandating safer cars and we got them, although some complained and whined but now we have safer cars and highway deaths are down comnsiderably. But maybe you mean that we should model gun control like we do on vehicles. That I think would be a good idea. Federal standards for new manufacturing. Titles, registration, and of course liability insurabce in case the gun has an accident or is used improperly or is stolen. And licensing of different types in order to use different types pf guns, just like we do with vehicles. I think comparing the 2 things would really help.
The number of accidents per mile is up though John. So “safer cars” hasn’t changed people’s driving habits at all. All it has done is give them a false sense of security. That’s the point. You want to take away a person’s right to defend themselves in order to give them a false sense of security.
Deaths per capita by guns is far down on the list of causes of deaths and yet you want to go after them.
Why?
Owning a gun is a right. It is not even a privilege as driving a car. What gives you, or anyone, the ability to deprive people from legal possession of a weapon?
The worst shootings in American history happened in “gun free zones.” Your whole premise is so flawed it is beyond comprehension.
Beyond your comprehension. Us multi-celled organisms can cope just fine.
Let us know when you plan on adding something meaningful to the conversation other than childish comments.
wow teach, brought out John’s relatives, eh? And not one of them can create a clear and cogent thought.
And teach, by advocating the banning of “assault weapons”, are you advocating the banning of knives, bats, prybars, shotguns, handguns, fists?
Or, should we ban just the “ugly” guns? Can’t a cute pink gun also kill people?
And why limit clips to under 15? With ammo vests and training, a person can switch out a clip often times just as fast as it takes to reload after each shell.
Taking guns out of everyone’s hands, allows the shooters all the time in the world to replace clip after clip after clip – even if 2 rounds. Heck, if no one had a gun, a 410 single-shot shotgun would do just as much damage.
Hey I know, lets ban all calibers above .10mm. Hmmm… sucks to be a home owner when a burglar busts in wearing heavy leather. No more deer (heck, squirrel) hunting.
Will do. You gigantic anus.
You do have to be psychotic to believe that owning a deadly weapon is a right. And presumably that medical treatment is not.
I take it then that you don’t own any knives. Or mirrors. Or glass tables. or live on a second story or higher. Or own ladders. Or drive a car. Or own large farm animals. Or work outside of a cubicle. Or work outside your home. Walk down the street. Have electricity in your home. Have natural gas\propane in your home. Have a natural gas\propane water heater. Operate a home pressure cooker. Have a bathtub or shower. Own a straight razor. Own a cat.
“…..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The difference is, of course, that the right to keep a gun is a personnel right that resides with the individual. “Medical treatment” requires the services of another person which in effect makes them a slave to another individual.
Doctors do take an oath to help people, but once again that is a personnel choice of the doctor.
Why does anyone have the ability to demand services be provided by another person?
As usual, all we see from leftists is a shallow thought pattern.
You always leave out the well regulated militia part, but your gun fondlers’ “rights” only work it you pretend it’s not there.
Nope. We, our nation, our people, are defined by that statement. You can’t have a well armed populace without arms.
Hmmm.. gun fondler? Shall we discuss your fetishes then?
And, I’m glad that you point to yourself in declaring that you don’t believe in the rights outlined in the quaint Bill of Rights. For, if you don’t believe in one, you don’t believe in any.
Let me ask you, what is your foundation that we are not inherently allowed to own guns? Why do you believe that the 2nd amendment is not a permission handed down by the federal government, when in fact it is a statement by the people telling the government, nay declaring to the government, that we are affirming and loudly protecting these certain rights that they can not ever take away.
That does seem to be the difference here between constitutionalists and those who seek to overturn us (liberals). Constitutionalists see the document as a written permission for a government to be formed and a warning to that formation that we still hold certain inalienable rights that can’t be taken away. Whereas you alien liberals view the Constitution and its other founding documents as the government telling us what we are allowed to do and have. Liberals view it as a negative document in the sense that it is not allowed to express what the government SHOULD give to people.
Am I right, toyboat?
Patently false. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court addressed your point and found it wanting. While the phrase “well regulated militia” is a reason for allowing gun ownership when looked at through the eyes of the government, it is not the only reason for gun ownership such as hunting and self defense. Such reasons were known to the writers of the Constitution yet their focus in the Constitution was to create a document which limited government entanglement in the lives of citizens.
There was no need for the writers to denote any other reason for gun ownership other than that of where the government and the citizen interacted, and that would be in the case of a “militia.”
The writers understood that the rights of people to have weapons for self protection and to provide food in the way of hunting could be regulated by the government in any case.
Therefore, the prefatory clause is not limiting to one singular use of a weapon.
No one has to pretend the statement “well regulated militia” is not in the Second Amendment. People of your ilk have to pretend they understand the meaning when clearly they do not.
What toyboat and his fellow anti-rights people also fail to understand, is the whole context of the 2nd Amendment:
It is clear to anyone, and more importantly to judges through time, that it is the People who are armed, that make up the militia.
Also, for those who fail to learn history, here is a bit. Our history has some basis in English history and our laws in English laws. The English prior to our Independence were “given” the right to own guns. Later, that right was “taken back” by the government. Our forefathers refused to believe that the right to live as one sees fit is something that can be given and taken away by a governmental body. Thus, certain actions allowed by the government were not included in the constitution when it was written. If the ability was not included then the government was not allowed such action.
That legal foundation has withered over the years as judges have put extra meaning in to words that were not intended to be there. Anyway, there were many back in our day that felt that there had to be EXTRA protections written in to the Constitution to protect certain rights that were not specifically outlined. Thus, the Bill of Rights was written and ratified by the colonies to ASSURE that a federal government COULD NOT infringe upon said listed rights.
So, here we are, once again trying to figure out ways to seize guns from people and prevent people from buying and owning guns. And our leaders are discussing ways to accomplish this task. DESPITE THE FACT that they are not given that right\ability in the Constitution and our inalienable right to own “guns” of any sort is SHOVED in to the government’s face and PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of PEOPLE’S RIGHTS.
Hey guys, I have a question: This is in reference to the proposed new ban by Sen Feinstein (brokenforniastan):
Ok, so this would ban ALL guns that would have a detachable magazine. The only guns allowed would have fixed magazines. This would mean only Revolvers would be legal, right?
And for rifles, only guns like the Winchester cowboy style rifle? where cartridges are inserted in to the gun body? And certain Ruger or Merlin .22 LR rifle would still be legal as long as the cartridges are inserted in to the feeder tube under the barrel. Those .22 rifles with detachable magazines would now be banned.
I once had a marlin .22 that had an insertable 8-round magazine that was inserted in to the bottom of the rifle’s body. This way underpowered rifle would now be considered inherently and overly violent?
Gumball,
I am not arguing with you, but that is not what the states ratified.
Some states ratified:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Other states ratified:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Only the Congress approved the version you give.
So the Second Amendment that appears in the Bill of Rights is not that which was ratified by any state. Just one of those little quirks from copying documents as opposed to printing them. :)
That, I don’t know about. However, it does not dilute our argument. In fact the other versions seem to increase the strength of the idea that people have an inherent right to gun ownership, as well as a militia – to the point that an armed militia are on the same par as common people.