The outrage of most Americans against guns is an emotional reaction against the tool that a wacked out individual used to kill the kids and teachers at Sandy Hook. Maybe this anger would be reasonable if the gun had gone off on its own, however, it did not. One man pulled the trigger. One man thought up the plan and executed it. Had guns not be available, he would have used some other tool.
We should not forget that Timothy McVeigh killed 20 some children and 160 adults, not with a gun but with fertilizer, gasoline and a rented truck. Should we then outlaw these also? The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to overpower the flight crews of four airlines and do incredible damage, should we outlaw box cutters?
Connecticut has one of the strongest gun control laws in the country. Additionally, the killer's mother had legally purchased the guns and has registered them. She also had been trained to use them safely. What else could a gun control law require? It cannot stop someone from stealing the weapon.
Guns, by themselves, do not kill anything. It takes a human to pick it up, load it and pull the trigger. Anytime before the trigger is pulled, nothing will occur. The issue should not be the tool but rather the individual.
Those who misuse a gun should have very serious sentences. The Connecticut gunman got the ultimate--his own life. This is as it should be.
We will never outlaw any act by passing laws against it. There are those who regardless of the number of restrictions you put on them, will continue to do bad things. We should punish those who do anti-social acts but we cannot regulate human behavior by passing laws.
Conservative Tom
Calls For Gun Control Not About The Children
December 19, 2012 by Bob Livingston
UPI
On Saturday, a couple advocating gun control held vigil in front of the White House.
“It’s for the children.” That, in essence, is the crux of the new impetus to institute stricter gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last week.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Chuck Schumer, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Senator Diane Feinstein — even pro-gun Senators Harry Reid and Mark Warner — are now turning to more gun laws as the answer.
It’s all about the children. That’s what they say. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it’s emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of 6-year-olds?
But who are Bloomberg, Schumer, Emanuel, Feinstein, Reid and Warner? They are statist totalitarians. They’re playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don’t care about children. They’re disingenuous.
How do I know? If they cared about children, they’d be weeping over the thousands of children that President Barack Obama has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they’d be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, they would oppose corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards that have made automobiles lighter — and, therefore, deadlier — and mandated air bags that have caused the deaths of thousands of children and adults in car crashes.
Politicians don’t care about children. All they care about is stealing liberty and acquiring more power. If a few kids die along the way, well… never let a crisis go to waste; eh, Rahm?
You wrote...
ReplyDelete"We will never outlaw any act by passing laws against it. There are those who regardless of the number of restrictions you put on them, will continue to do bad things. We should punish those who do anti-social acts but we cannot regulate human behavior by passing laws."
I don't understand this. Is it an argument for having no laws, since laws cannot regulate human behavior? Only an absolute anarchist would make a statement like this.
What I think you meant to say is that there will always be those who violate laws, but that does not mean that laws do not regulate the behavior of MOST people in normal circumstances.
--David
Good point and better made than mine! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that if there is someone that is bound and determined to kill others as in the case of the Connecticut, passing a law will not prevent him/her from doing the crime.
True, but why have laws that make it easier rather than harder for them to commit the crime? I believe that none of the guns used in recent mass murders were obtained illegally by the shooters.
ReplyDeleteI know it is an unprovable counterfactual, but still worth asking, "Would the woman who purchased the AR-15 used in the Connecticut murders have gone through the trouble and risk to obtain one illegally if it were not a legal gun?"
Since these guns of of no use except mass murder, it would be good to ban them except for the fact that -- in my opinion -- it would be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
--David
The guns in the CT murders were ALL legally obtained and registered UNDER ONE OF THE STRONGEST GUN CONTROL REGULATIONS IN THE US.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to discuss if she would have purchased an illegal weapon. Most law-abiding citizens would not purchase something that was illegal and it appears as if the mother was a law abiding citizen therefore she probably would not purchase an illegal weapon.
However, who says that these weapons (which are legal) have no purpose. Target shooting is a purpose. Mass killings are NOT the purpose of these guns, killings only occur when a nut job's finger is on the trigger.
More importantly, the intent of the second amendment was to allow the citizens of the country to defend themselves against an overbearing, undemocratic, despotic government. Kind of like what we have now!
I don't know much about guns, but I doubt anybody takes an AR-15 to a gun range. They use pistols and hunting rifles there.
ReplyDeleteThe Founding Fathers never contemplated a militia with hand weapons fighting against tanks, jet bombers, cruise missiles, or nuclear submarines! (Ask the Iraqis how that works out.)
More to the point, they could not conceive of a maniac going into a school with an AR-15 and slaughtering the kids.
--David
You need to go to a gun range. Anyone with a AR-15 would take it to the range to sight it in. Also most people who own guns, use them. They don't let them stay in the gun safe or laying around. If they have a gun, they use it.
ReplyDeleteThe Founding Fathers might not have contemplated future weapons but they realized that ANY government could get out of control and it was the RESPONSIBILITY of the citizenry to stand up to the government and take back the government. Without guns, it cannot happen.
As far as a maniac, I would disagree with you. There were bad people in 1776, there always have been and always will be. Had they thought that they could prevent someone from killing others by would written it into the Constitution, however, they were smart enough to know that one cannot prevent crime by passing a law.
Many think that a law can prevent illegal activities, that is dumb. Someone who wants to do something wrong, will do it regardless of the law against it. A law only stops law abiding people, not the criminal or a maniac.
Maniacs normally do not think about their deed in good/bad parameters. They just want to get back at the person/place/thing that caused them pain. It might look inconceivable to a normal person but very real to the maniac.
As far as guns, if the CT killer did not have a bushmaster, he would have had several clips for the other guns that he had. If he had had a revolver, he would have had quick-reloaders. If he did not have a bushmaster, a pistol or a revolver, he would have done something else maybe using some explosive or driving his car into the building. He would have done something
against the school.
This is the reason that all the talk about guns is ridiculous. It does not address the real issue. It is a phony argument.
Is a handgun with an 8 bullet clip as effective against 50 people as an assault weapon with a 100 round drum?
ReplyDeleteThe counterfactual question still stands: "If this guy did not have easy access to an AR-15, would have have nonetheless attempted the mass murder by some other means and, if so, would it have been as effective?" I can't answer that, and neither can you. It is a fact that there has not been a single mass murder in Australia since they made assault weapons illegal. However, I cannot support it because it is unconstitutional.
Do you have any evidence that people use assault weapons for target practice at gun ranges? I don't believe it. They use pistols and hunting rifles.
I have several clients with such weapons and they practice at least a couple times per year with them.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so ask one of them whether he takes a 100-round clip on his weapon. If you want to do target practice, an 8-bullet clip should work just fine. The only reason to blast away at targets with a 100-round drum would be to practice mass murder of humans.
ReplyDeleteI saw a deer hunter interviewed on TV this morning. He said that hunters get only one shot at a deer (two if lucky), so there is no use for assault weapons for hunting. For home protection, a handgun with 8 bullets would do the job. As I said, the only practical application for assault weapons is mass assault against humans. You are kidding yourself if you think it has any other application.
--David
The reason we need to allow guns of all nature, is that we need to control the government and not vice versa.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the first thing that Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Castro did when they took power was remove the guns from the people. Without guns, citizens have no way to fight back against an out of control government.
The arguments we see in the press over guns is a distraction, a false flag to get our minds on something other than the real reason for getting rid of a tool.
If someone had used a bat, hammer, car,tank, ladder, explosive or tennis racket, do you really think that there would be the outcry? No, because we could not fight the government with any of these, however, the car and ladders cause more deaths than guns! There are more deaths due to medical mistakes than guns, why is that not the subject of the rants?
There is a dangerous trend happening here and you, David, have bought it hook, line and sinker!
This government is failing and when governments fail they want to use all of their power to control the populace, rather than the other way around.
If the anti-gunners get an "assault-weapons" bill (whatever those words mean because it seems to be an undefinable term) passed, it will end up including ALL guns of any nature!
Be scared, be very scared!
You wrote...
ReplyDelete"If the anti-gunners get an "assault-weapons" bill (whatever those words mean because it seems to be an undefinable term) passed, it will end up including ALL guns of any nature!"
This is irrational paranoia. I have never heard ANY politician advocate for a total gun ban. The Supreme Court has very recently ruled that we have a constitutional right as individuals to have guns. I will take this bet for $100 if you are serious.
Meanwhile, it is just a matter of time before the next mass murder with an assault weapon takes place. If the only defense for having these weapons legal is to fight the government, there are already 50 million of them in circulation. Unless we had a government willing to use WMDs on us, that is enough, and if they are, no number of hand weapons is a match against the U.S. military. As I said, the Iraqis had no shortage of automatic weapons, and you see how they fared against our tanks and jet bombers.
Taking the argument to its logical extreme, do you have a constitutional right to have a hand-operated anti-aircraft missile launcher near a U.S. airport? I don't know, but do you see my point? If you want to fight the military, that is the kind of weapon required, not an AR-15.
--David
Let's just give the government total control of our lives from birth to death--they will tell you what you can do for life and what you will earn, where you will live and who you will marry. Then all will be good!!
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be your answer to everything!
Government is the enemy and you MUST look at all programs with that view in mind. Without guns, we are defenseless and my first paragraph is an example of what will happen.
You also seem to ignore my thought process on how the Obama Administration will institute gun control--by fees. This is his only answer for him to get what he wants--a gun free america.
The way to reduce the number of guns is an assault weapons buy-back program like they instituted in Australia when the made them illegal. We have 300 million guns and 50 million assault weapons already in civilian hands. It is long since too late for the dastardly Obama to have a gun free America. But if you want to make a $20 bet on your fees theory, let's hear it. When will this happen? How much fee to buy an AR-15? I have lost count of how many Obama conspiracy theories have been posted. None of them have ever happened, or ever will happen.
ReplyDelete--David
You didn't respond to my extreme example of a civilian having a hand-held anti-aircraft missile launcher near a U.S. airport. Maybe that wasn't extreme enough for you. Try this one: Does a citizen have a constitutional right to own nuclear weapons? If your answer to that is "No," then you acknowledge that the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and we are left with the decision of where to draw the line. Personally, I think the gun used in the school killings is constitutional, but we have not yet heard from the Supreme Court. So far, they have only said that we have a right to own guns, but not necessarily any kind of gun or "arms".
ReplyDeleteMy second point, is that you cannot defeat the U.S. military with 100 million AR-15's if we ever have a government evil enough to use the entire U.S. military arsenal against its own people. Even Assad has not done that yet. Is the evil Obama (and all our military) even more tyrannical than the Syrian government? If you believe that, maybe you should move to Canada.
--David
David, you are the eternal optimist, you must walk around with rose colored glasses and tell everyone "have a super special wonderful day!"
ReplyDeleteAs to your first post about the "50 million assault weapons" whose number is that and what is the definition? Even with the 90's assault weapons bill, there never was an operational definition. So we doubt your numbers.
I will ignore your comments on Obama theories, as we have not had enough time to get them even started. Wait until he is able to appoint another one or two Supreme Court Justices, then his way will really come clear.
On your second post, you are the one now becoming extreme. First point, the military will
not attack Americans but the UN would. If the small weapons bill from the UN is passed by the Senate as a treaty, the UN will come in and take small arms from Americans.
This probably will occur and Obama would welcome them here.
Your example of nukes or anti-aircraft rockets might be necessary after the UN comes into the US. Yea, I know that sounds radical, however, I also know that we (the US) have taken the side against freedom desiring people (Iran for example) and I would not rule out having to take any action, using any tool available to keep America free.
"If the small weapons bill from the UN is passed by the Senate as a treaty, the UN will come in and take small arms from Americans. "
ReplyDelete1. No politician has ever proposed this crazy idea.
2. It would be flat unconstitutional and ruled so by the Supreme Court.
3. Obama, nor any American president, would allow the U.S. to be invaded by the U.N.
4. The U.N. doesn't have the military force to do this even if the U.S. military offered no resistance. The U.N. has only 124,000 troops. Even if there are only 3.75 million AR-15 type of weapons in the U.S. (best estimate I could find under further review), that means we could outnumber them 30-to-1 with 4 million Americans in the fight and nearly all armed with the assault weapons already in civilian hands.
--David
Hillary has already signed onto this plan! If the Senate votes for the treaty it is law and with the current anti-gun propaganda, it probably would pass!
ReplyDeleteThe Supremes would vote 5-4 in favor of the small arms treaty!
Obama would invite UN troops to come into the country (they are already here) to support local law enforcement to enforce the law!
David, are you really this naive?