Wow. That was a close one. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional gun ban in our nation’s capital.
As I’m watching CNN, I’m becoming more and more convinced by the media bias. Instead of reporting on any kind of actual statistical facts that surround the presence of guns in a community vs. a community where guns are banned, they bring on a Chicago police officer whose son was killed around Mother’s day as he went shopping for a gift. Heartbreaking story, I know.
And I don’t mean to dimish the man’s pain at all, but let’s look at the whole news story here. Why did CNN bring him on and conveniently leave out any kind of data on the subject? They seem real quick to report data on anything that upholds their agenda, but in line with classic the current strain of liberalism, they’re right at home with using people’s emotions to change their opinion when facts don’t support the agenda.
Listen, it’s real sad when people die at the hands of a gun. But people: more often than not, it’s not the gun that’s the problem. It’s almost never an accidental shooting. Only in the rare case is it not intentional. In that light, I’d submit that the perpetrator would use whatever means they have. If they don’t have a gun, they’ll use a knife. And in Australia, they’ve banned those as well. Hasn’t really curbed the violence though. (Hell, even Australia’s Herald Sun Times has better coverage on the ruling than our own media.)
Quite rarely do we see stabbings in America. And liberals, being quite short minded as usual, are far too comfortable in their simple math. Lots of murders + Guns being used = Guns are the problem. Get rid of the guns, they philosophize, and you get rid of the problem. What’s the real problem? Lots of people who use violence to solve problems + A Gun Ban = Criminals move on to other means to weaponry.
I’m glad the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment. It means I can stop arguing with gun control loonies who have this misguided notion that if you deprive criminals of their weapons, they’ll just be sad and give up.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only proven deterrent to violent crime is a well-armed public.
“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem…That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Scalia
Tags: Gun Control, SCOTUS
Posted in general | Comments (3)
Mike Adams changes his mind about gun control:
Specifically, I concluded that liberals cannot be allowed to own guns, much less carry them on our college campuses. If they cannot control their emotions enough to engage in rational debate, they cannot be expected to handle a firearm responsibly.
Maybe some will object to the notion that a constitutional right can only belong to one segment of the population. Or maybe their objections will be drowned out by campus feminists shouting “my body, my choice.”
Tags: Gun Control
Posted in general | Comments (0)
An interesting comment on the blog ‘Of Arms and the Law’ concerning a post about Barack’s misguided attempt to reduce gun crime:
You said: “Reducing crime by limiting access to the types of guns that criminals use is not a bad thing.”
OK. You are making a critical assumption, which must be addressed before the argument can proceed. Gun control advocates, such as Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Durbin, etc., simply assume that gun control equals crime control. That assumption is the mantra of gun control … it’s repeated so often as fact that advocates just take it as truth. Most articles I read that advocate gun control automatically assume this is true, and they give it no further thought. They are usually mistaken before they even begin - that is part of the problem.
Take waiting periods, for example. The idea/belief here is that making a gun purchaser wait 24, or 48, or 72 hours, or 5 or 10 days will decrease crime because it prevents people from buying a gun “in the heat of the moment” and committing a crime with that firearm.
But in reality, we have to consider the average “time to crime” for firearms. Of firearms that have been used by a criminal committing a crime, the average “time to crime” (time from purchase to use in a crime) is about 11 years. Someone correct me if I am wrong but that’s the number I recollect. And that is the AVERAGE. There are “times” in the tails of that distribution, of course, and surely a few of them are short by chance alone. But on average, people do not rush out to buy a gun and use it immediately to commit a crime. These facts demonstrate that this particular kind of gun control … waiting periods … is baseless, ineffective, and will not stand upon the scrutiny needed to evaluate these laws.
Look, the bottom line is this: (1) assumptions upon which arguments are based must be scrutinized, and (2) should a particular gun control law be demonstrated effective in reducing crime, that is the STARTING POINT. Even if such a law was found to reduce crime, it must be weighed against other considerations, be they the value of an armed populace, or the clear prohibition against government to pass such laws (e.g. the 2A phrase stating that “the right…shall not be infringed”). Remember, it doesn’t use the same language that the 3A does … the 2A doesn’t say “shall not be infringed but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
So, Floyd, the point I really want to drive home with you is that EVEN IF a particlar law is proven effective in reducing crime, that such a law should be passed is still not a foregone conclusion.
I wonder, too, why no one wants to address this: almost all guns have been outlawed in England. Yet, crime miraculously still exists. And there, since they can’t blame it on guns like we can, they have to move on to the next readily available weapon– knives. And no, I’m not joking. Listen, it’s just common sense. It’s not the weapon that’s the problem. Outlaw a gun, a maniac will just use a knife. On the other hand–and quite ironically–a well armed public is the only proven deterrent to violent crime that the liberals have been searching for.
Tags: Gun Control, Obama, Truth
Posted in general | Comments (1)
