Serving up more victims

Seeing that we have a President who belongs to the Democratic Party, and a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats, let’s look at how their party views guns.  For the most part, Democrats believe that the 2nd ammendment is obsolete, since we are no longer under threat of a maniacal government.  So, because the Democrats believe we have no one who we might need to defend ourselves against, the need for firearms is reduced to being a non-existent need.  Non-existent needs don’t need to be protected by a constitutional ammendment, so in their minds’ eye, there is absolutely no need for anyone, save a law officer, to even think about needing a firearm.

Gun control

Gun control

Now let’s fast forward to the real world, where regular people live.  In the real world, when rapists have guns and the victims do not, the victim is doubly victimized.  By the rapist who is violating the rights of the victim, and the legislators who believe that the victim does not have rights worth defending.  In that particular scenario, how is the world view that the Democrats boast about remotely helpful to the victim of rape, who is not allowed to secure a firearm, in order to prevent being victimized in the first place?  In other words, how did gun control legislation help the victim in this situation?  Did gun control prevent the victim from being violated?  No?  Do perpetrators found with gun get longer sentences?  Possibly, but not always.  So how does gun control benefit our society?  That is a question that only Democrats can defend.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Anti gang legislation, no thanks?

Whenever those in government talk about violence, eliminating firearms is always on top of the list.  But if you really think of where all the violence comes from, gangs are always on top of the list.  So why don’t those with power, mostly those in the Federal government, such as the senators and the representatives from the House of Representatives, ever talk about legislation to eliminate the gangs that cause so much violence in the neighborhoods of the United States?  Local governments try their best to stop gang violence by implementing social programs that they believe will distract young people from seeing the perceived glamour that gangs supposedly offer.

Anti gang, 10.  Anti gun, 0

Anti gang, 10. Anti gun, 0

But if gangs are such a threat to the way that people in the United States live, how come most of the negative attention regarding violence points to firearms.  Could it be that it would be easier to control a society that is made artificially vulnerable due to the elimination of the right to bear arms?  If the 2nd ammendment is slowly being eroded, until it becomes obsolete, the Constitution as we know it will be but a memory.  If the ultimate document that defines the United States is allowed to be altered, nothing is sacred, and life as we know it will be a topic that those older than the age of 40 will reminisce about.  It would be better if those in government would address the problem of gangs, instead of trying to eliminate our rights.  Because if our rights are gone, what’s left?

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Could guns in the classroom save students?

If the students who were attending Virginia Tech in 2007 had been allowed to carry weapons, legally of course, on their person, could the outcome have been different?  We’ll never really know the answer, but we can imagine.  Let’s imagine that what happened in Virginia Tech was about to happen to a college in Utah, the only state in the Union that has allowed guns to be carried on campuses since 2004.  We’ll make the setting for our scenario 2004, directly after the ruling approving guns to be carried on college campuses.

A deranged shooter is having thoughts about killing his fellow students at the campus, and reveals his intention to kill others.  Before he has the opportunity to carry out his sick and twisted homicidal fantasy, he is shot by a fast thinking student who has had a permit as soon as he could get on legally.  The danger has been averted, the fast thinking student is a hero, and the tragic deaths of students stuck at the wrong place at the wrong time did not happen.  The institution has given the students the option for counseling to allay their feelings of being in harms way, but the ending to the story is pretty much a happy one.

Police to the rescue

Police to the rescue

The state of Virginia, along with the other 48 states, don’t allow college students to carry firearms onto the campuses.  We all know the result of the Virginia Tech student with a death wish.  What we’ll never know is what would have happened if the students were allowed to defend themselves.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Gun show loophole legislation

In April 2009, New Jersey Senator, Frank Lautenberg, Democrat, introduced a bill to close the so-called gun show loophole.  The reasoning that he, and others like him, mainly the left wing democrats and their voice, the mainstream media, use is that the perpetrators of the Columbine shootings 10 years ago is the result of the gun show loophole.

Luckily the Virginia State Crime Commission did not fall for the reasoning given by the gun show loophole supporters and voted down the resolution that was introduced to them in January.  The anti gun show folks thought that they could use the reasoning that regulating gun shows, though unrelated to the Virginia Tech shootings, could have prevented the victims’ deaths.  However, the weapons that Cho used were not obtained via gun shows, but through the internet.

Gun shows the cause of deaths?

Gun shows the cause of deaths?

So how could closing the perceived gun show loophole have saved lives?  It couldn’t have, but facts are useless to the mainstream liberal left wing controlled media, since they usually make them up as they go along.  It basically comes down to an insane person finally giving in to their personal demons that they succomb to when they do give in to killing others.  If there was no such thing as a gun show loophole, the Columbine tragedy might have occurred in another capacity, because people with the intent to kill will find a way to do the job.  Taking away the ability for regular sane people to obtain guns doesn’t prevent violence.  Instead it creates more victims, but don’t ever count on the mainstream media taking that view.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Up in arms?

Early on in the school day, Monday, August 24, 2009, at Hillsdale High School in San Mateo, CA, a city in northern CA, about 20 miles away from San Francisco, a bomb exploded.  No students or teachers were hurt, and the perpetrator, a former student was subsequently apprehended.  So where is the unrest and protests about the weapons of choice that the student was attempting to harm others with?  Why are there no people going on record about how much they want to make illegal ingredients that comprise pipe bombs, swords or chainsaws?

Pipe bombs at HHS

Pipe bombs at HHS

Whenever something that looks like a firearm is even thought of being the weapon of choice for the disturbed, homicide minded perpetrator, you can count on many different experts and talking heads lamenting the existence and how obsolete the 2nd ammendment really is.  However, when pipe bombs and bladed instruments that are clearly weapons with the ability to maim and kill are found at the scene of a crime, or potential scene of a crime, no experts and talking heads are to be found.

That sure is might strange, when the object of the bomber is killing as many people as possible, without having to look or aim at the people intended for death.  The mainstream media is obviously biased against firearms that unfortunately, in the hands of the desolate, desparate and disturbed, is often a tragic combination.  But as the NRA always has reported, people kill.  A person intent on killing will do that with whatever instrument, not just guns.  But don’t count on the media telling you that.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Israel’s armed school guards

In the wake of Columbine High School’s 10th anniversary of the tragedy that took young lives, let’s look at how another high profile country treats insurgent behavior.  Here in the United States, the state of mind of the perpetrator is always a factor.  In Israel, often times they refer to violent acts perpetrated against innocent individuals as acts of terrorism.  Their view actually makes sense.  People who are doing insane harmful things for the benefit of perceived fame and attention are terrorizing their victims.

Israel against the terrorists

Israel against the terrorists

Therefore the people doing the violent acts are terrorists and by definition, terrorists do not deserve shows featuring countless psychoanalysts explaining their feelings.  Terrorists go in with the intention of victimizing a group for the sole purpose of getting attention for their cause, and because of their twisted logic, many actually believe they are heroes or martyrs willing to die for their cause.  Authorities in Israel have figured out their game, and actually have armed security in many of their public institutions, including schools.  Of course, even if armed security is present in all of the institutions, the die hard terrorists will still attack, but the result is less casualties.

If the United States treated those who attacked any of our public institutions, all educational institutions included, the attention seeking “go out in a blaze of glory” bunch might be deterred, and only the die hard terrorist would remain.  Lives could be saved by the mere act of showing the supposed psychopaths that consequences will be given.  But in this country, people believe that guns alone are the enemy, not the person with the evil intention.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Plaxico Burress gets 2 years

Shoot yourself in the leg, get two years.  To add a prison term to injury, quite literally, Plaxico Burress, one time New York Giants wide receiver was sentenced to 2 years in prison for carrying a concealed firearm into a New York club.  Granted, Plaxico did not have a gun license in New York at the time, nor was the license he did have current, as his Florida license had just expired 6 months before the whole long drawn nightmare took place.  So let’s analyze the benefits of jailing the one time Superbowl great.

Plaxico Burress soon to be #. . .

Plaxico Burress soon to be #. . .

No doubt, he broke the law by bringing a concealed firearm where he wasn’t supposed to.  However, he did not injure anyone except himself.  But let’s put this crime in perspective.  A high earning tax payer is prosecuted, subsequently let go from his high paying occupation all because of a concealed weapon gone awry.  Our country is in a recession, services that depend on tax payer funding are being cut left and right, and the state of New York which also depends on taxes, is encouraging tax paying citizens to downgrade into non-tax paying individuals due to a gun going off in a club at the wrong time.

Glad that scenario was cleared up, it makes even less sense now.  Probation plus a fine plus community service might have reasonable, but 2 years.  Let’s compare:  J. R. Smith of the Denver Nuggets, get less than 90 days for an auto accident killing his friend, and Plaxico get 2 years for hurting himself.  2nd ammendment rights 0, vehicular manslaughter 10.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Violence begets violence

One of the arguments that the liberals like to use frequently is that the prevalence of firearms causes violence.  Let’s phrase their argument this way, “without firearms, our country would be a better, peaceful place”.  Now, just for argument’s sake, let’s make up a law against firearms to insure our peaceful happy lives.  We’ll call the law, “firearm free zone”.

Gun Control

Gun Control

We won’t allow firearms to be shown on television or any other kind of media.  Let’s say this social experiment continued for a 25 year period.  What might the results be?  Well, let’s look at states with the strictest gun control laws that have been on the books for a while.  Washington, DC, has banned guns since 1977, and everybody who’s ever read a news story knows that it is notorious for being a violent city.  Chicago, IL, has banned guns since 1982.  Chicago is another city that is constantly highlighted on national news for being a city that is not very safe, to say the least.  California has had very strict gun laws since 1975.

Aside from stories about the antics of the Hollywood crowd, there isn’t a shortage of cities in California that are riddled with violence.  Since the 1990s, Maryland has had many anti-firearms laws on the books, and yet it is a state that has no shortage of violent news coverage.  New York has had handgun registration laws since the early 1900s.  New York is constantly in the news for stories involving violence.  As we can clearly see, the argument is not based in reality.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Blair Holt Bill

In February 2009, the House of Representatives introduced the Blair Holt bill, also known as HR 45.  Among some of the proposals within this bill are:  testing before being able to obtain a firearm, being required by the federal authorities to notify them of a move, since you have bought a firearm, being subject to visits by the federal authorities to verify that the firearm is secured in the presence of children and last, but definitely not least, is the proposal of testing, to be determined by the federal authorities, during the 5 year period of licensing.  And those are just the salient facts that come from reading the bill.  After a thorough, line by line reading, you can be sure that there is more to be found, or rather, less rights to bear arms.

2nd ammendment as we remembered it

2nd ammendment as we remembered it

If the proposal of this bill doesn’t clearly show the direction that our new Presidential administration wants to direct the country to, then your optimism regarding the 2nd ammendment is to be commended or envied.  If you are skeptical or cynical, at best, of President Obama’s approach to eroding the 2nd ammendment right to bear arms, then, unfortunately, welcome to the “Hope and Change” you believed in to vote for him as the President.  With a virtually filibuster proof Democratic Congress, and newly confirmed SCOTUS pick Sonia Sotomayor, 2nd ammendment rights which were during times past were deemed, “constitutional”, can now be construed as “abstract”.  Let’s hope that rational reason and thought win abstract thinking during these tough times.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments

Which came first, Guns or violence

If an alien were to land on our United States’ shores, and exclusively watch the leftist fundamentalist, liberal mainstream media, such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC, and then take a test about violence and guns, that alien would probably blame guns for all of the violence that United States citizens suffer under.  In reality, those of us who know that banning does not make things any safer know that the media is just doing it’s job, and do it quite well.

Villify anything that opposes their collective beliefs, such as 2nd ammendment obsolete and single payer health care good.  Luckily people are catching on about the lies about the President’s health care reform, or single payer health care as it should really be known.  Unfortunately, defending the 2nd ammendment has not been as lucky because it’s attacked constantly.  Case in point, Hardball host Chris Matthews would not stop talking about the quote carried by New Hampshire Town Hall protester, William Kostric.  Chris Matthews constantly yelled at Mr. Kostric about the sign he carried, and just about accused him of trying to assassinate the President.  Luckily the authorities are not as “unbiased” as Hardball host Chris Matthews, because he wasn’t arrested.

Aliens vs. unbiased news

Aliens vs. unbiased news

Luckily aliens are just Hollywood creations that bring in lots of box office dollars, but the left wing liberal mainstream media is real.  Though it very well may have been created by Hollywood, the left really believes that the mere presence or thought of even owning a gun implies evil.

Bookmark and Share
No Comments