We, as Americans, demand the right to live free from gun violence. Historic disinvestment in communities and unregulated access to guns equals more gun deaths. It’s really that simple.
Lauren Footman
Director of Outreach and Equity at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,
Via email on July 6, 2021
[Apparently Footman is unaware of a well known truth:
Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible—and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken
Modified from the original in his 1920 collection of essays called “Prejudices: Second Series”.
She is also flat out wrong about there being the possibility of a right “to live free of gun violence.”
It comes as no surprise to find an anti-gun advocate expressing ignorance and falsehoods. It’s part of their culture.
Respond and prepare appropriately.—Joe]
“Historic disinvestment in communities”
What does this even mean?
“ Director of Outreach and Equity”
Sounds very Red to me.
The very definition of a Piss Ant.
Jeff B.
And of course the claim that “unregulated access to guns equals more gun deaths” is well documented to be false; the exact opposite is true.
“More guns, less crime”
The only time in human history where people came close to her ideal of living “free of gun violence” is when authoritarian governments seized all personally owned weapons and maintained “order” with the threat of extreme violence against an unarmed populace. (insert Franklin quote on freedom and security here.)
“historic disinvestment in communities” – is probably a factor, but not the way she may think it is. Back in the day, when local cops walked a beat in the inner city, “community policing” was a thing and the bad apples could be observed and removed from the barrel. With the militarization of the police in the 80’s and onward, there was much less emphasis on the cop being a friendly face. Now the pendulum has swung so far that some (not me) think that defunding the police is the only way to rein them back in.
Combine that with the lefty policies of rampant welfare babies and the destruction of the nuclear family, and that’s another factor in the increase in crime. Crime is the issue – not “gun violence.” Are battered women, mugged families, and drugged out homeless somehow less important than crimes where a gun was used?
Call it what it is. You know, the same reason people move away for “good schools” and such, until they’re commuting for hours from where their work is located.
The same reason things like this happen:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/youth-baseball-coach-fatally-shot-minnesota-highway-after-traffic-altercation-n1273296
And, no, that “one friend” actually isn’t.
I demand the right to not be killed or injured in a car crash.
I demand the right to jump off a mountain and land unharmed in the valley.
I demand the right to eat whatever I want, refuse to exercise, yet remain healthy, trim and attractive.
I demand the right to breathe underwater.
This is fun. What other completely ridiculous and irrational “rights” can we dream up? Apparently, if we demand them, they will be granted by some benevolent all-powerful being called “government”.
Thanks Sailor. You stole my thunder!
I love the way communist preach to the simple minded. She’s right. But as everyone is pointing out. Getting rid of guns will only stop GUN deaths. (I’m pretty sure getting dead from gun shot involved a gun, right?)
But that’s not stopping deaths now is it? I was just reading how Herod, upon finding himself mocked by the wise man seeking Jesus. Sent his troops to murder every child in Bethlehem. Two years old and under. And they did.
Do you think Ms. Footman would understand that order would have been carried out if Herod’s soldier’s had swords or not? Probably not. She’s just paid to be a short bus driver. But the David Chipman’s of the world will always be with us. As will the Los Zetas.
If only the mothers of Bethlehem had AR-15s and Glock 19s?
“Blessed are the peacemakers”. Was Jesus thinking of Sam Colt when he said that? Could be.
Sam Colt was thinking of Jesus, I bet.
Jesus has only this to say, to his disciples, about the keeping and bearing of arms;
“He that hath not a sword, let him sell his garment and buy one, for it is written [of the Messiah, in Scripture], He shall be reckoned among the transgressors.”
One of his disciples, Simon Peter, had used a sword (note again that some of Christ’s disciples were carrying) to lop an ear off a servant of the officers of the chief priests and Pharisees who was attempting to arrest Jesus. Jesus then said to Simon Peter;
“Put thy sword into the sheath: the cup that my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” And he healed the man’s ear. There are several accounts of this, and so the exact wording is different in the different accounts, and the others leave out the healing, but the story is the same. At least one account has a version of, “He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword” and so we must be careful and thoughtful, and reference several other Scriptures, in trying to understand what that means. For sure, and at the least, it can be taken to mean that if you make a living committing armed offenses then you’re going to be trouble!
And so that all requires some detailed un-packing. Another thing is for sure, Christ did not discourage his disciples from carrying. He actually encouraged them to carry, but the purpose He gave was for the fulfillment of earlier prophesy which says that the Messiah and His followers would be considered, falsely, as outlaws (“transgressors”).
(Sound familiar? It should)
When the one guy cut an ear off a man that was arresting Jesus, he was told, essentially, to “holster that thing”. It should be noted that Jesus did NOT say, “How dare you!– Break thing in two, toss it in the ditch, and don’t let me see you carrying again!”
There are parables in which it is said that before a robber can rob a man’s house he must first bind him, else the man kill him or some such. It was certainly not even remotely about “sword control”, but about the process of one being compromised before he can be overcome entirely.
And who is it today that wants us compromised? Well, it’s the same old power-hungry tyrannical system as we’ve had to deal with throughout history. And who has recently written, in an official document, ex chathedra,that your property isn’t really your property, but must be considered the property of all, and that if a man be in need he is well within his right to take it from you, even by force? Answer; the pope (see Fratelli Tutti). And the world’s politicians visit him, and kneel before him, and kiss the filthy ring on his filthy hand!
In total contrast, the Ten Commandments include;
Thou shalt not steal.
and
Thou shalt not covet…
We’ve already unpacked the entire, rather verbose, Tenth commandment and considered all its implications for our world today, and, like always, the Roman system directly opposes each and every clause!
And by the way, stealing and coveting would include stealing and coveting (wanting to take, in whole or in part) another man’s guns. So there! If you’re anti gun rights then you stand in opposition to the law of God. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!
And yet, “…all the world wondered after the beast.”
As Rolf Nelson describes in “Heretics of St. Possenti”, the phrase “He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword” is a bit ambiguous in English translation, but not in the original Greek. There, the word forms use make it explicit that “lives by” means “regularly uses” or “uses all the time” — not “uses once”.
In other words, this isn’t a warning to people who are prepared to use weapons in self defense; it is only a warning to people who use their weapons as a way of life, such as violent criminals.
Lyle,
How do you know Jesus wasn’t thinking of Sam Colt? (Heavenly humor, anyone?)
And Matthew doesn’t say; Live by the sword, and die by the sword. (Parable for future generations.)
In context of not wanting a sword fight and arrest of his disciples he told EVERONE present. “Put up again thy sword. For all that take the sword will perish by it.” (That was Jesus telling everyone in ear-shot that night to comm-the- F–k down.)
It was his hour. Not some donnybrook between his half drunk fisherman and the palace guard.
There’s a lot of revelation here;
“Historic disinvestment in communities and unregulated access to guns equals more gun deaths.”
First, the masks are now off, for any who wish to see. Joe has been talking about “the masks coming off” for some years, and now we’ve arrived at that point. To wit;
The conflation of “historic disinvestment in communities” (read correctly as “not enough coercive redistribution”) with “unregulated access to guns” (read properly as “any access to guns, by regular citizens”) resulting in “more gun deaths” says a very great deal.
First it says we’re dealing with a full-on communist, or as I’ve demonstrated, a Roman.
Next, the assertion, that access to guns is unregulated, is a flat-out lie. There are man thousands of gun laws, such that it long ago became very difficult to own a gun at all, and to practice with it enough to become and then remain proficient with it, without running afoul of some law or other at some point.
Thirdly, the assertion that a combination of insufficient coercion in the world, coupled with widespread gun ownership would lead to “more gun deaths” is so twisted and convoluted that I have to say, it is an extremely artful deception, even IF you recognize the blatant lies it contains!
“Historic disinvestment in communities and unregulated access to guns equals more gun deaths.”
Let’s fix that, so that it reflects the truth;
“Historic brainwashing of certain, targeted communities, such that they end up thinking of themselves as hopeless victims, coupled with limited access to guns, equals more violence in general, and thus more violent deaths.”
Of course it always must be pointed out that not every “gun death” is felonious, that some “gun deaths” are necessary to prevent the loss of more innocent lives. It’s called self defense, and the defense of others, and unfortunately that will sometimes include the “gun death” of a violent perpetrator.
Likewise, we are forced to keep pointing out that not all violent and felonious deaths are “gun deaths” and that therefore even the total elimination of all guns everywhere (it’ll never happen) would still leave people being threatened, lorded over, violently attacked, and injured and killed, BUT without the best means of defending themselves.
And of course, lastly, it doesn’t matter what you think (or it’s not supposed to matter) because the constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So go away and join some gang in Somalia, or where ever, if you hate the American system of liberty so much. There are plenty of less free countries from which to choose. In fact the world is like a buffet; any sort of tryanny your heart desires can be yours. Just find it and go there, and don’t come back until you’ve repented from your evil ways!
I demand the right to walk around without pants.
(What? It’s as meaningful as the garbage that dribbled out of Lauren’s mouth.)
In a sane world idiots like this were institutionalized for their safety and the safety of society. In modern Clown World they are not only allowed to roam freely they
are given salaries and “make do” jobs where they are allowed to interfere with
the correct and proper functioning of society. Which begs the question…who is actually the crazier…..people like this touting their insanity or the rest of us that
ALLOW IT.