Oh, the irony. “A professor at the Southern State Community College (SSCC) in Ohio is currently under investigation for threatening to shoot up the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia and Washington lobbyists in order to increase support for anti-gun legislation.”
His FB post read, in part :
“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors.
This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists.
Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons.”
Not sure how someone with this tenuous a grasp of reality manages to become an adjunct prof, but there you have it. And while I’m sure that if he did do that, he might see some action on weapons, but I’m not so sure it would be legislative.
Don’t ever let them tell you nobody wants to take your guns.
Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!
Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.
“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?
This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]
In the states that have such bans what the gun controllers did when 85%+ of citizens ignored them was declare victory and ignore them back. I suspect this will only last for a while. Eventually the laws will have to be repealed or things will get more and more tense.
Our job is to continue changing the culture by taking non-gun owners to the range and being open about gun ownership in hopes of decreasing the tension.
Elizabeth May Leader of Canada’s Green Party referring to AR-15s, the most popular rifle in the United States. June 16, 2016 Canadian gun enthusiasts and their truly bad timing [Don’t ever let any get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
But let’s be clear about precisely what kind of decision is letting events like this recur.
Congress’s decision not to pass background checks is not what’s keeping the US from European gun violence levels. The expiration of the assault weapons ban is not behind the gap. What’s behind the gap, plenty of research indicates, is that Americans have more guns. The statistics are mind-blowing: America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns.
Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.
I don’t want to ignore the shooter’s motivation. But I want to deny him–and every civilian–the means to kill 49 innocent people on a whim.
I suppose we could get along fairly well without pressure cookers but no gasoline or matches would be a huge step backward. Let alone the hundreds of other things that could be used. The only place where that would even be plausible would be a prison.
Washington State reports that in 2013 (most recent year with data), firearms were involved in 10 deaths by accident, 476 by suicide, and 114 by homicide (total of 600). Motor vehicle accidents, including pedestrians, motorcycles, etc. accounted for 412 deaths.
So in order for the first sentence to be true Kelly had to include suicides. And what “gun safety law” does he think will reduce suicides? He knows better than to claim such a thing exists and doesn’t make such a claim. He implies his proposed law does this in order to further his cause. This is a deliberate deception.
The 30 percent number is a blatant lie. If you assume “kids” includes ages 0 to 17 there were three unintentional deaths, five suicides, and four homicides for a total of 12 firearms related deaths. If you include up to ages 19 (not really “kids”) you can add another 22 for a total of 34. Which, of course, still doesn’t add up to 30 percent of the number of deaths.
He claims they are set on “doing this in a way that does not infringe on the rights of gun owners.” But as Benghazi points out the proposed law is all about confiscating firearms. And Brian Judy (NRA) and Alan Gottlieb (SAF) both point out the proposed confiscation is without due process. So we have here still another lie.
Deception and blatant lies. It’s the best they have to offer. It is an integral part of the anti-gun culture.—Joe]
BACKGROUND CHECKS or ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN hasnt worked so far , you can tell by everyday shootings and increasing gun deaths ,theres only one way to deal with it ,BAN THEM ALL there aint no time for HALF-MEASURES ,RADICAL LAWS AND CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE
An arbitrary list, with no checks and balances, no functional controls or due process of any kind, will deny our fundamental constitutional civil and human rights. The man currently in the White House is calling for the list. You’re insane if you object, he says.
By implication, if you can’t buy a gun, you certainly aren’t free to possess any of the firearms you already own, right? Someone should come and take all those dangerous guns away from you because they must be contraband. You’re too dangerous to own them.
Alan Korwin February 19, 2016 Obama Announces No-Buy List for Guns [If the government can, which they do, add people to a secret list without notification, justification, or chance to defend yourself and prohibits you from exercising a specific enumerated right they are in possession of tool which enables an end-run around the constitution.
If you think there is nothing wrong with this then what is your argument as to why the government couldn’t just as well say you may only exercise “constitutionally protected” rights if you are on their secret list?—Joe]