Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

The NRA’s greatest lie is its talking point that gun violence prevention laws in America are a “slippery slope” that will eventually lead to total confiscation of privately held firearms. What an absurdity that is today — 43 years after the signing of the 1968 Gun Control Act — as demented individuals like Jared Loughner and Nidal Malik Hasan continue to legally buy guns and carry them in our communities.

The reality is that the slippery slope has been running in the opposite direction the entire time — toward a future where even the most violent and deranged individuals can legally buy guns, legally carry them on the street, and legally bring them into churches, schools, daycare centers, public transportation, government buildings and the rest of our most sensitive public spaces.

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The Real Slippery Slope of Gun Laws
November 16, 2011
[The government has NO business trying to prevent “gun violence”. If there isn’t a victim or imminent danger of permanent injury or death to an innocent person or serious property damage then the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms must be given precedence. This point is probably the most important one we should be making. It strikes at the very core of the “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” and the nearly all of the arguments of people like Horwitz want to make.

If Horwitz believes that since 1968 “the slippery slope has been running in the opposite direction the entire time” then he has crap for brains, he is lying, or he is so ignorant that he missed out on the following major gun bans (does not include hundreds of increased restrictions, registrations, and lawsuits):

  • 1976: Washington D.C. bans handguns and all other firearms must be rendered inoperable.
  • 1981: Morton Grove Illinois bans the sale, transportation, and ownership of handguns.
  • 1982: Chicago bans new registration of handguns.
  • 1982: Evanston, Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1984: Oak Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1986: Sales of new machine guns banned nationwide.
  • 1989: Highland Park Illinois bans handguns.
  • 1989: California bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1991: New Jersey bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1991: New York City bans “assault weapons” and gun registration lists were used by police to go door-to-door to confiscate them.
  • 1992: Chicago bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1993: Connecticut bans “assault weapons”.
  • 1994: Sales of new “Assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned nationwide.
  • 2000: New York state bans “assault weapons”.
  • 2004: Massachusetts (Mitt Romney, as governor, signed the bill into law) bans “assault weapons”.
  • 2005: New Orleans sends the police and the National Guard door to door to confiscate all firearms in the wake of hurricane Katrina.

And that doesn’t even include the U.S. politicians who said they were trying to ban firearms in the mid 1990s.

So which is it Josh? Are you ignorant, lying, and/or have crap for brains?—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

  1. Furthermore, as gun ownership including concealed carry have been on the increase, violent crime has been on in decline.

    That must really irritate the anti rights movement– Reality is the enemy of leftist ideology. Reality and human rights.

  2. Not to mention the assault weapon ban in my lovely home state of New York that didn’t sunset even after the federal one did.

  3. Did you listen to the GOP debates on National Security tonight? What you posted here: “The government has NO business trying to prevent “gun violence”. If there isn’t a victim or imminent danger of permanent injury or death to an innocent person or serious property damage then the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms must be given precedence,” makes me think of the exchange between Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul over the Patriot Act and Timothy McVeigh.

    This is from the AP story on the debates tonight:
    Only Rep. Paul among the eight presidential hopefuls dissented, arguing that the law is “unpatriotic because it undermines our liberties.”

    Gingrich jumped at that. “That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans,” the former House speaker said. “I don’t want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we’re sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.”

    So, who is right? Is it better to prevent things or just to deal with the consequences later?

  4. Ubu, if you’ve ever watched “The Siege,” that is the end result of your “prevention.”

  5. Anti I need to watch “The Siege” again, I’ve been wanting to re-watch it since September 11th and just haven’t got around to it.

    Ubu needs to grow up and actually discuss the issues here, otherwise she’s just trolling. She leaves some good points and arguments, but never has anything to say when the great harms of the government she seems to have infinite trust of are exposed.

    You like to tread the fine line of offering a useful voice of opposition, and just wasting thinking people’s time.

  6. Ubu, you’re playing the same game as mikeyB whose endgame is to ban all guns from private ownership.

  7. Anti — I would never want to ban guns since that would deprive people who actually need guns from having them.

    Weer’d — so you can’t see the hypocrisy in all this? We should try to prevent the Timothy McVeighs but we can’t possibly try to prevent the Jared Loughners?

    Only Ron Paul is consistent in his positions but his consistency makes him look weak.

  8. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…” Federalist No. 45

    The benefit of limiting Government from doing harm far outweighs the harm of having it obstructed from doing so-called good.

    While “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” not everything can be prevented. The price of trying to prevent everything is just too high. It stunts growth–in the large scale of society and the small scale of the person. It erodes Freedom and Liberty.

    ubu52 asks “So, who is right?” Paul or Gingrich? To a point, both. Paul was correct when he said the Patriot Act “…undermines our liberties” and Gingrich put his head up his ass when he said “That’s the whole point”.

    However, Gingrich was correct when he said “…you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you.” The thing about that is we don’t need the Patriot Act to enable that, there’s already other laws on the books that cover it.

    A line from Cool Hand Luke comes to mind:
    Guard Captain: You gonna get used to wearin’ them chains afer a while, Luke. Don’t you never stop listenin’ to them clinking. ‘Cause they gonna remind you of what I been saying. For your own good.
    Luke: Wish you’d stop bein’ so good to me, Cap’n.

  9. @Aaron, Sorry about that. I knew about it but ran into some difficulty finding the details and forgot to get back to it. It’s fixed now.

    @ubu52, I don’t have a TV and can’t remember the last time I watched a political debate.

    I don’t have a problem with investigating tips and court ordered “wire taps” on valid probable cause. I have a problem with regulation, registration, and banning of products which are used legally far more than they are used in the commission of a crime.

    In regards to the likes of Timothy McVeigh there will always be some that get through the cracks. It’s the price we pay for living in a free society. If you don’t want to pay that price then live someplace like Cuba or North Korea. They don’t have problems like that.

  10. ubu, all you do is that you enable the antigunners to take more and more of our freedom away from us, bit by bit.

  11. ubu, Timothy McVeigh sure did kill a lot of people in Oklahoma City with a gun. Terrible tragedy and it should of course justify all the gun control you can think up … oh, wait. Guns? McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel.

    Ban those.

    Good lord, what passes for logic in your world, ubu? If you applied even the tiniest bit of thinking, you’d have spotted how silly your comment was.

Comments are closed.