The passage of this bill conveys a special message. It tells me that these Democrat politicians are more concerned with the lives of convicted felons who used a gun in the commission of their crime than they are about law abiding gun owners who are guilty of nothing more than the unspeakable act of merely owning a gun. There really is no other way to logically interpret this. To them, law abiding gun owners are bad, but using a gun in the commission of a felony is acceptable.
The insanity in this state has reached previously unfathomable levels, and it shows no signs of reversing course.
Don’t you ever give up your guns. If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.
De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.
What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.
While Krauthammer is thinking things through better than most anti-gun people he isn’t thinking far enough ahead. If crime is very low then anti-gun people will have no justification for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. You see a hint of that awareness already with anti-gun people attempting to use suicides as justification to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]
The polls don’t measure the passion for voting on the gun issue. Someone might think a gun ban is a good idea but give up on that issue in favor of a promise of lower taxes.
A legislator might be inclined to vote for “smart guns” then have it explained that it cannot possibly achieve the claimed benefits.
A majority of the public might like the idea of a gun ban and confiscation but the legislators know confiscation cannot work without violation of the 4th Amendment even if there might be a path past the 2nd Amendment.
We do not have a system of simple majority rule. There also exist minority rights that is upheld, to a least a certain extent, by the judicial, legislative, and the executive branches of government. Polls do not measure the strength of this type of opposition.
Polls also indicate one of the most popular parts of ObamaCare is the elimination of restrictions regarding preexisting conditions. But things like someone buying insurance while on a stretcher after an auto accident in the emergency room (it used to happen in Washington State) prove the folly of government attempting to change the laws of economics or human nature.
Democrats should just keep on polling … and loosing.—Joe]
I’ve worked with and trained with law enforcement officers from all over the world (including British LEO’s), and inevitably we have discussed the realities of criminal violence in our respective jurisdictions and shared our exasperation with just how… misguided… most private citizens are regarding the realities of crime. A lot of people state they “never felt the need” to worry about their own protection or security, and sure, the odds that you’ll ever be accosted – even in the most crime-ridden societies – are relatively low. BUT… even the safest societies still have crime. Even the safest societies still have innocent people who get brutalized and murdered by criminals… and a lot of the victims of violent crime would NOT have been victimized if only they had taken even the most rudimentary steps to protect themselves.
6Gunner April 27, 2017 Posted to the thread Gun control in the UK [Self defense is more than just possessing a firearm and knowing when and how to use it. It requires awareness of your surroundings, the nature of people, and criminal methods.—Joe]
In 2015, NICS denied 106,556 background checks. In 3,625 cases, a denial was overturned on appeal. In October 2015, citing manpower shortages, NICS stopped accepting appeals altogether. The FBI didn’t restore the function until February of this year; examiners are still working on appeals submitted almost two years ago.
Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…
John Morse Colorado Democratic Legislator March 8, 2013 In the context of advocating for the passage of oppressive gun laws. [This has been widely, and erroneously, quoted as:
People who own guns are essentially a “sickness on our souls” that must be “cleansed. … Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn’t come easy. It’s gruesome…”
While that could seen to be a valid interpretation of his intent, that is not what he said. He claims,
“To insinuate that I referred to gun owners as a ‘sickness from our souls’ is obscene,” Morse said Tuesday, according to KDVR. “As a former police officer and a gun owner myself, I believe in the right to bear arms. And as a legislator, I am committed to making our whole society healthier and safer.”
The claim, “I believe in the right to bear arms” does not mean he respects the right. And from the context we know he is admitting that that he is intent on knowingly attempting to violate that right.
While we can’t definitely read his mind the erroneous version of the quote can’t be far from the truth of what he believes.—Joe]
Remember this. Those who want “common sense gun laws” will never be satisfied. If they are successful banning guns they will come after knives, chemical sprays, sticks, and rocks. These people have mental issues.
Just say no and refer them to a mental health expert.
A coalition including the National Rifle Assn. on Thursday filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s new gun laws, this time arguing a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional.
NRA attorneys representing the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the group’s state affiliate, filed the lawsuit in federal court in San Diego, maintaining that the law banning possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition violates the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Last month, the NRA and affiliated groups filed a lawsuit challenging another new law that bans the sale of semiautomatic rifles with bullet buttons that allow, with a tool, the removal and replacement of the magazine.
I want those repressive laws overturned and, in California, it’s not going to happen legislatively. The Federal courts are probably the best hope to get rid of them. But I worry that the courts are not ready to accept the Second Amendment at face value.
I realize the lawsuit filed yesterday is based upon a due process argument but many judges have no problem ignoring such thing BECAUSE GUN!! I would feel better about this if we had a better set of judges on the Supreme Court as well as a lot more depth with originalists in the lower courts.
Soviet organisation has made possible the creation of armed forces of workers and peasants which are much more closely connected with the working and exploited people than before. If this had not been done it would have been impossible to achieve one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism—the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie.
The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
Most of the people who don’t like guns only don’t because they’ve developed a pathology of discomfort around the idea of them.
It seems to come down to their understanding [or lack thereof] of guns and comfort of being able to use them themselves. If they can’t conceive of someone using them responsibly, then they don’t want people to have access to them. Thus, because they aren’t competent enough with firearms themselves to understand them and their function, it is hard for them to understand how others could be competent with them as well without some kind of extensive training to prepare them [such as law enforcement].
This, combined with the sort of heard mentality of them and their peers, makes for a seemingly self evident understanding that no one should own guns accept law enforcement and such.
Every single person that I’ve taught to shoot, has become pro gun if they weren’t previously, just because of the realization that guns are tools that people can and need to understand just like any other tool. One can be irresponsible or responsible with any tool. Machete, chain saw, gun, knife, car, pen, hammer, saw, screwdriver, etc… Any tool can be dangerous or serve a positive purpose.
We believe that this is really not about the Second Amendment, it’s about public safety.
Patti Brigham Co-chair of the Florida Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence Gun control groups claim victory in Florida – for now [They claimed victory because no pro freedom bills were passed, not because they were able to pass one or more laws infringing upon our rights. They have to try and keep their morale up somehow.
Aside from blocking the bills which would have reduced the infringements upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment what annoys me is that Brigham thinks she can bypass the Second Amendment with an argument about “public safety”. Apparently she is ignorant of and/or disagrees with Ben Franklin on the tradeoffs involving safety and liberty. Even if I knew nothing of the issue I would be substantially more inclined to side with Franklin than with Brigham.
“Public safety” doesn’t outweigh individual rights. This is particularly true when it involves prior restraint. If it did one could make a winning case for banning speech and writing which advocates socialism. Far more people have lost their lives because of socialism in the last 120 years than have lost their lives because of private ownership of firearms.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is about public safety.—Joe]
Instead of making it difficult for law-abiding gun shop owners, fully prosecute straw purchasers, felons in possession of a firearm and people who unlawfully use a weapon. Incarcerate more criminals, and you’ll get less crime. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, and you’ll get more crime. Which goal is Sen. Harmon trying to achieve?
Dan P. Eldridge May 10, 2017 The gauzy misdirection and untrue smears of an anti-gun-rights activist [It’s a rhetorical question but I’ll answer anyway. Senator Harmon, Democrat, has a vested interest in getting votes. As there are over twice as many Democrats in prison as all other political affiliations combined and convicted felons are not allowed to legally vote the senator wants fewer of his constituents sent to prison. Furthermore the more crime the easier it is for the senator to spin the story that he is needed to protect them from the crime. If people realize they can, and should, protect themselves from crime then they will have less, imaginary, need for him. He does not want this.
So, DUH! The senator wants to make it harder for citizen to protect themselves and fewer violent criminals going to prison.—Joe]
Gun control activists who previously worked for Watts in various state organizations are said to be frustrated and feeling burned by her, according to one source.
“Staff who worked for Shannon quit or are fired faster than the organization can replace them. She’s a nightmare,” the source told TheDC.
Another source close to the organization said in a written statement, “Two beliefs unite nearly all gun control supporters: background checks save lives, and Shannon Watts is a self-promoting tyrant.”
In order to be a gun control supporter you have to have a very low opinion of individual rights and a high opinion of the use of government force to infringe upon those rights. That one of the most prominent promoters of rights infringement is also a tyrant is as one would expect.