Monday, December 17, 2012

The Angle That The Gun Grabbers Are Taking

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

The gun grabbers know that they can't ban guns altogether (at least not now).

So what's the angle that's emerging?

See if you can spot it:

First of all, concerning the above tweets, I guess "weapons of war" are acceptable as long as they're for war....How about ending war and empire?

Also, the idea of Mr. Eyewitness To Power, David Gergen, telling you what you need to protect your family should give make you cringe.

But let's get past the accepted barbarism of war, and the bootlicking of Gergen.

What if assault weapons are banned by the government? Will that get them off the streets?

Are drugs banned? Are they on the streets?

Any high school kid can get drugs. Yet they're illegal.

Why should we expect anything different with a ban on assault weapons?

Since assault weapons will be on the streets regardless of their legality, why embolden the criminals who will inevitably have them? Why give them an edge over their victims?

The idea should be to remove any edge that a criminal can have. A criminal must know that his target, or anyone in the vicinity, could be armed to the teeth.

No advantage to the criminal, supplied by the government.

Now, I know that the idea of government (the pinnacle of peace in our society) actually giving criminals an edge may come as a surprise to some people.

I point those individuals to the story about the The Scorpion and The Frog.

Never trust what the scorpion says.

It's his nature to sting you.


  1. This is the perfect moment to revisit what all of these people said about the scandal regarding ATF gun running program "Fast and Furious."

  2. The issue with drugs is one I have brought up with friends suddenly clamoring for gun control. I did not use drugs in school in part because I knew they were illegal. That never stopped many of my otherwise upstanding citizen friends. So why do these same people believe that making guns illegal will make gun acquisition any more difficult for maliciously-minded people than substances such as mushrooms and marijuana were for them?
    Besides, in terms of efficiency, driving by classrooms and throwing IEDs into windows would have killed many more people.
    In fact the deadliest school attack in the US was made with dynamite and other explosives.
    With the theater shootings, imagine if they had teamed up to throw home-made dynamite sticks in the theater and run out. Many more deaths.
    Speaking of theaters, is Hollywood next on losing Constitutional rights? If the 2nd goes, how long can Hollywood still glamorize gun use in movies? The 1st Amendment will be right behind the 2nd in the dustbin of history.

  3. Assault rifles are illegal in Mexico, I believe. Tell the anti-gun people to go move there so they can feel safer.

    I was listening to National Propaganda (or Pinko) Radio (NPR) today to see what they were saying.

    One was "People say more people need to carry guns, but if everyone had guns, everyone would be shot." Tell that to the Swiss. I have spent many days at gun ranges in my city/state. Everyone there I do not know. Some of them are morons. They do not do checks to see if you can legally own a gun. I have never heard of anyone ever getting shot there. The safety officers are pretty good at watching out for morons. Why no murders? Everyone has guns.

    They also say assault rifles have no use for hunting (which is false). The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The supreme court has acknowledged this before. The second amendment is there to protect your right to defend yourself and others from threats, both foreign and domestic including and most importantly from the government. In a supreme court case in the 1920's or so(give or take a decade), a man appealed a sentence for having a sawed of shotgun saying it was a right protected by second amendment. They said the second amendment only protects your right to own "militarily useful" weapons and at that time there was no military use for sawed off shotguns so the conviction stuck (these days it is obvious that there is a military use for sawed-off's; breaching doors). If anyone can tell me which case this was, I would be grateful.

    Aside from all of this, there is a minority of people wanting to succeed from the union. If a ban on assault rifles happens, this may become a much larger group. At the very least, nullification would be necessary.

    1. Yes! My gun range is the same! Not a SIngle murder in numerous decades, yet there are some serious amounts of high capacity weaponry there along with many idiots and morons too boot. Brilliant!
      Too bad anti-gunners use feelings to think with.

      "People say more people need to carry guns, but if everyone had guns, everyone would be shot."

      Well, there might be situations where a Person just might Want To convey that message:

      I saw a recent photo online of an angry looking instant flash mob of about 2,000 big-city People that had descended upon a small american town, overwhelming the local police by far, and basically took over the area due to the size of the crowd. I could be off either way on the number, but the crowd seemed Huge.

      Now this group wasn't hostile, or desperate, or anything else as far as I recall,... but if they had been,... and these politicians had limited the residents to single shots or something... well, I'd feel sorry for the families in the town,... or worse,... out in the rural areas.

      The crowd might not even have to drive in from out of the area, you might just have a couple thousand right down the road from you?

      ... Could you imagine what it would be like if 1,000 angry hungry FSA People showed up at your doorstep? Hey, they just "ran out of gas" and they're Not afraid of a shotgun,... do you have anything they'd want?
      Or maybe the action is across your street at the manager's house that didn't pay it's workers so now they're here, as happened in argentina not too long ago, and maybe they walked up the block on the way to the house and ransacked a few houses along the way, again, as happened in argentina. Except here, I'm just guessing, it could be the house of the city council members across the street from you after they voted to stiff the city workers? Or some such.

      I'll bet these high-rolling politicians haven't got that anywhere near where they are, and they're rich enough to afford a nice big security fence ten feet tall.

      Screw the rest of us, they got theirs. Is that what they're saying? Cause that's all I'm hearing.

      ... And just nevermind the Giant list of murderous rampages caused by People on prescribed anti-depressants.... Just look the other way, the anti-depressants are Not the spark. ... And Up is Down? Psft.

      I don't mean to cause fear, it's just facts of life to be prepared for. It's why I buy insurance,... well, when I'm not forced to.

      And then, too, there's what Chuck Woolery said about the need to own self-defense weapons:

      - IndividualAudienceMember

    2. I forgot to add, my gun range, up until last year, Never had a single 'range master' around. It was just The People.

      See also:
      If Two Men Go Into the Woods Without a Police Officer, How Many Will Come Out Alive?

      - IndividualAudienceMember

  4. Here's how you can make a leftist's head spin:

    Ask them if they think it's bad -- outrageous and immoral -- when men use firearms to intimidate and threaten other human beings. "Well, duh," will be the response.

    Then ask them how gun control will be implemented by the state. Ask them if it will involve men with firearms intimidating and threatening other human beings.

    This is the part where they'll start flailing with some point about "democracy" or whatnot. But just stick to your... guns. Ask them straight up: "So is it right, or is it wrong, to intimidate and threaten human beings with firearms?"

    Just drive home the point: The state is FORCE. To advocate "gun control" is to advocate controlling people with guns. Period.

    And that's what it boils down to: The American leftist/progressive wants his guns, via his proxy the state -- indeed, he insists that his guns be actively used to intimidate and threaten. He just doesn't want his political opponent to possess any.

    The leftist wants to be armed, and his opponents to be disarmed. It's that simple.

    1. Exactly. The mind of the religious leftist (who worships and ascribes magical powers to SWAT teams) is a totalitarian mind. Libertarians believe average people can be trusted with guns. Such an idea drives "progressives" positively berserk. I'm convinced that this attitude is also behind the universal refusal of religious leftists to even consider the concept of economic calculation because they cannot bear to think about average people being allowed to set their own prices without the guiding hand and gun of Big Brother. It is too horrifying to even consider a situation where religious leftists would be precluded from messing about in such a vast area of society.

  5. Why doesn't anyone mention on TV the minuscule number of murders committed annually with rifles? Don't 600 people die each week in car accidents?

    These damned "progressives" sure came out of the woodwork quickly like a school of piranha, didn't they?

  6. I haven't followed the massacre too closely, but wasn't it committed using standard-issue semi-automatic handguns? Either they don't know, or they know and don't care, or they have expanded the term "assault weapon" to include any type of gun (perhaps even the long-exempted antique-style muskets).

  7. "...forbidding private citizens to own guns while allowing police and soldiers to carry them is a violation of moral equality – a reserving of weapons to the powerful while denying them to the powerless." ~Seen and Unseen

    If the powerful and the criminal (there is a lot of overlap in those groups) can obtain them, then everyone must be allowed to obtain them.

  8. Questions I like to ask statists. Where was the media uproar about Waco where children were gassed and then burnt alive? Where was the constant coverage and pictures of the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children we killed with sanctions? Why no comment on the hypocrisy of Obama who has the blood of countless children on his hands? And Clinton, Bush2, and Obama are still out free. How about some abortion control which has taken the lives of millions the past decade?

  9. This is all about divide and conquer. None of it is relevant. They polarize the population by defining the argument based on what the powers that be would like the outcome to be.

    The reality is this all boils down to the state taking away personal liberty in order to further grow the state. State control has taken away the ability of self defense in certain areas, is it any wonder that is where the murders happen?

    Also, Chris, you bring up a salient point. What about what the state does in war? Don't we murder innocent children doing that? Why is there no call to ban the military?

    Again, this is all deflection of a much bigger issue: The state vs. the individual.

  10. Someone should do a youtube vid with the old "I learned to do drugs by watching you, dad" commercial and show the mass shooters targeting civilians and then show the Obama drone strike victims.