We’ve seen massive decreases in violent crimes over the past two decades, but that hasn’t appeased gun controllers in the slightest. So we know that no matter how low the crime rates drop, no matter what legislation has already been passed, they will always want to further encroach on our 2nd Amendment rights.
This is why we’ve drawn the line in the sand. This is why we don’t want to give up another inch. We know that gun controllers will simply never be satisfied until there are outright bans and confiscations. It will be done piecemeal, using every “mass shooting” as an opportunity, with acknowledgements made the whole way that “this won’t solve the problem, but maybe it will help.” And then, when the problem isn’t completely solved, they will do it again. And again.
Andrew Scott
June 12, 2015
Gun Control Negotiations & the Lack of Compromise Claim
[Scott is correct. But there is more.
When they say “…maybe it will help” I don’t think the politicians believe it anymore than I do. I think they have some other reason for infringing upon this specific enumerated right. And I think they need to be asked, “What’s the real reason you are doing this?” And their response, whether it be silence, excuses, feigned insult, whatever, needs recorded and remembered.
Then, when the time comes, that response should be used as evidence at their trial. The evidence that they knew they were lying and doing something wrong at the time they were doing it will demonstrate premeditation.—Joe]
Agreed.
I don’t like the tone of the quote though. It has that “no matter now low the crime rates get, they’ll still want more restrictions” smell to it. There’s a thick-headedness to that argument.
If we’re going to swallow the bait and the hook, and assume that gun restriction has anything to do with crime, we should at least do so from the proper perspective. For example;
“No matter how high the crime rates get, Progressives will still demand more gun restrictions.”
That statement, though it ignores the one and only real point which is human rights as attached to First Principles, and focuses purely on Second Principles instead, it at least acknowledges the fact that, if there is any relationship between guns and crime rates it is that more restriction leads to more of a crime problem. The law-abiding tend to obey the restrictions, while criminals and tyrants do not. Thus guns restrictions, just like alcohol Prohibition, provide a monopoly. The use and trade of the product is reserved exclusively for law-breakers, and our government enforces that monopoly. There’s hardly any better way to wreck a whole society.
Only after we stop entertaining the ridiculous assertions of the enemy can we defeat it altogether.
No one ever attempts to restrict your rights out of good intentions.
All discussion which assumes any connection between good intentions and rights violations should be outed as fraud right away, before the discussion can go any farther. If you find yourself in a situation where the discussion cannot go any farther, so be it– You’ve kept your foothold in reality even if no one else has, and that a good thing.
Crime appears to be increasing now, so what’s the solution?
Vote for a different brand of politician than you have in the past.
This is the 21st century equivalent of two varieties of socialist totalitarians brawling in the streets. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
The solution to crime?
Here’s a fun little mental exercise, name a time in human history where there was no crime.
All we need to do is find that time and replicate it and we will have a SOLUTION to the problem.
And where are your numbers? According to the FBI, you’re wrong
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final
Here is a link to a story about a woman killed by her pet wolf-dog hybrids that she had raised from puppies and loved very much:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/westmoreland/2006/07/19/Wolf-dogs-killed-owner-autopsy-determines/stories/200607190197
Wolves ( and wolf-dog hybrids ) are social animals that have a very strong instinctive need to “dominate” their fellow pack mates, love makes no difference. Their drive to dominate is so strong that they will kill pack mates ( and humans they view as pack mates ) in order to be the “Alpha” male or female of the group. They just can’t help it.
We humans are also social animals and some of us have such an instinctive desire to dominate our fellow humans that it becomes an all consuming obsession. That why so many people seek high elective office and are willing to sell their souls to achieve that goal.
I suspect that these people instinctively recognize that the RKBA represents a threat to their domination of the rest of us and they seek to disarm us. They then use the arguments that guns cause crime and gun violence not as a true reason for gun control but merely as an excuse.
If this is true then it explains so much of their behavior, such as their abject refusal to accept any true facts that prove that gun control is unfounded and a bad thing. They just don’t care!!!