We have met the enemy and he is us–Pogo (Walt Kelly)
What I’m looking at is the perpetrator.–Rep. Tom Reed
Wayne LaPierre, Claudia Tenney, Tom Reed, and other NRA apologists sing the same song. Guns aren’t the problem; more guns and especially more powerful guns are the solution. Guns in churches, guns in schools, guns in theaters would make us safe. We could all be safe if the enemy were overcome. The enemy is identified as:
- Crazy people
If you disagree with the NRA’s agenda, which of the above are you?
Why are there metal detectors and armed law enforcement at airports, federal government buildings, military bases, federal research buildings (NIH labs), County office buildings, county court house, county family court building, NY State Capital Building and the State legislature building that we have to pass thru when we visit them?
Support H.R. 34 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/34/text
From the Western Journal
Rynstone, I believe the answer to your question is that we are afraid of each other, and one reason we are afraid is fear of guns.
I say this is worth trying
Rynstone, I say your ideas are terrible; we don’t want to live like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whungerford, I fear the state and federal governments and the IRS far more than I fear my fellow citizens. I never lock my door when I go to bed at night. I also keep a hickory axe handle and baseball close by my bed and a magazine loaded tactical 12 gauge pump action shotgun strategically located. There are truly evil and bad people out there who have no qualms about hurting, raping and murdering unarmed citizens. The odds of them showing up at my house are slim but “Necessity is the Mother of Invention”. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Do any of you remember this horrific crime
This should make most a supporter of firearm handling, training and ownership, especially concealed carry of handguns.
Whungerford, we already do live like that. We just fail to protect our children against violence like we do our elected and appointed government officials and employees.
Many nations have mentally ill people. Like Canada, Japan, Denmark. Sometimes these people commit violence. But in those nations there is no easy way to have access to AR-15’s orother WMDs. So they don’t have mass murders even close to the US rate. Many Americans DO live in fear. They see that since 9/11 (in which 3,000 citizens were killed) there have been almost 500,000 American citizens who have died by gunshot. They see a governmentthat supports gunsellers rather than the safety of their children. They think they need to arm themselves and cower in fear. On some level it makes sense.
Of course, there are other real options. Outlawing miitary style weapons would be one. Having a national database of felons, violent offenders, etc. would be another. Mandating a waiting period to buy a weapon until a person has been vetted is a third. Outlawing private sales is a fourth.
Snce the federal government is unable to stand up to the gun manufactrung lobby we see the states starting to take the lead. NY, Connecticut, NJ and Massacusetts have just joined a coalition to exchange information that will keep guns out of the hands of felons, the mentally incompetant and the violent. It is a step in the right direction. And, since it is a “states rights” decision, I am sure all conservatives will applaud the move1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction to my last post. The Northeast Coalition is NY, NJ, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
A father of a murdered student makes a legitimate case for armed security in schools. Of course this is not the edited video that most news agencies ran More media manipulation of the news as it happens.
From Matt Walsh;
“The media is making quite a big deal out of the gun owners who are getting rid of their guns in an effort to promote gun control. Well, I am a gun owner, too. I will happily join these people in disarming myself, just as soon as conditions warrant it.
To be more specific, I will get rid of my gun the moment my gun becomes self-aware and develops the ability to go off by itself and shoot people on its own initiative.
I will get rid of my gun as soon as I begin to feel the insatiable urge to become a mass shooter.
I will get rid of my gun if I ever lose half my brain cells and no longer possess the basic competency to store and handle it safely.
I will get rid of my gun if someone can pull out a Bible and show me the verse that makes it a sin merely to own a weapon, or to use it for self-defense.
I will get rid of my gun if my gun ever becomes possessed by the Devil, or if I ever become possessed by the Devil.
I will get rid of my gun the very moment that all evil is vanquished from human society, and wickedness is purged from the hearts of men, and there is no longer any danger in the world and the whole of mankind can live in utter peace and harmony. When Christ returns in His glory I will certainly lay down my arms. I do not plan on bringing my gun to Heaven.
But we aren’t yet in Heaven. And that is why I have a gun. And that is why I won’t get rid of it.
Indeed, we are in a place so unlike Heaven, and so heavily populated with evil people, that it would be irresponsible and reckless not to own a gun. What sort of protector can I be for my family if I have not equipped myself with the tools necessary to protect them? I agree with the anti-gun people when they point out that the world is filled with bad and dangerous people. That is exactly why I own a gun. This is what the anti-gun people don’t seem to grasp: the very reason they want to ban guns is the very reason why we should not.”
Whungerford, this great video is for you and pystew,
I know Newt has to be one of your favorite former Congressional members.
You guys are really going to love this message.
Ryn. What are your actual opinions about the civilian population having unlimited access to the AR-15 and other military style weaponry? Do you really think it is a good idea to have a proliferation of those kinds of incredibly destructive weapons ?
I am asking for your own opinion based on your own logical thought processes. Not a link to other people’s speeches or videos.
Do you think any kind gun control is acceptable? If so, what would be your parameters for controlling weapons? And why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think that that the creator and the Founders wanted man to be able to protect themselves from all sources of evil.
An AR-15 is not used in the military. That being said, I believe that the citizens who are not mentally ill or convicted violent felons should be able to own AR-15.
There are far more common easy to purchase and readily available firearms that are far more destructive than AR-15’s.
I believe that most gun laws are unconstitutional from the interpretation of the US Constitution.
“shall not be infringed”. Words have meanings.
It is unfortunate that those adults who were murdered last week in FL did not have a 9 mm or 45 with a laser sight, some training and practice to defend not only themselves but the students.
Ryn.You know more about weapons than I do so I did a little research. . Are you saying that the AR-15 is not used by the miitary? I think you may be mistaken about that. This is from an article by Thomas Gibbons-Neff in 2016:
“The AR-15’s combination of portability, relatively light weight (about 8 to 9 pounds loaded) and customization options make it attractive for both close- and medium- to long-range engagements and the preferred weapon used to kill the enemies of the United States. The military variants are customized and used by every branch of the military for myriad missions, including clearing oil rigs and patrolling the large expanses of Afghanistan.”
I agree with you that the mentally ill and felons should not access to guns. I would add to that anyone who has been convicted of spousal abuse or any other crime of violence which may not be felonies. In other words, people who seem to have anger management problems.
You say that there are many guns which are more easily available and more destructive that AR-15 assault weapons. If so, I would also ban those types of military-style weaponry for the same reason.
The last important Supreme Court case regarding gun control was the DC v Heller case in 2008. As you probably know, the ultraconservative Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. This opinion stated that individuals have a right to a gun without regard to being in a militia. He also stated that the government has the right to limit ownership of guns to certain individuals (he cites felons and the mentally ill as folks who may be prevented from having guns). He also stated that the government had the right to limit the availabilty of certain kinds of weapons. He used miitary-style weapons as an example of the kind of weaponry that the government could legally ban.
So, it is Constitutional to have reasonable gun control. Even the most conservative Justice pointed that out. We can certainly disagree as to what “reasonable” means, but the principle of government regulation of weapons is clearly stated by the SCOTUS decision.
For me the issue is balance. The right of people to have weapons balanced with the right of society to be safe from arbitrary killing. It is a question of which right , the right to life or the right to possess cerrtain types of weapons, should take precedence. No one I know wants to take away all guns. But we need to remember that all rights have associated limits and responsibilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Firearms that look similar to an AR-15 have been used and are being used by the military. One could say comparing the AR-15 vs the firearms the military uses today and in the past would be like comparing the Fords, Chevrolet’s and Toyotas with customized paint, graphics and cosmetic enhancements that we drive today are like the Fords, Chevys and Toyotas that the NASCAR Teams race every week are the same. Sure, they both use gasoline (NASCAR uses 8 dollar a gallon racing gasoline) and look similar but perform completely different.
While the AR-15 is a very nice semi-automatic rifle for civilian use it is too big of a piece of crap to be considered for military use. Not rugged enough or durable enough.
Hollywoods use of the “assault rifle” has warped and tainted most peoples minds and the main street media and the anti-firearm crowd have run with it.
A person could easily kill another person with an empty BB gun.
According to the FBI stats there are more deaths from knives, baseball bats and clubs than all long guns combined including “assault rifles”.
There are far more deaths from handguns.
Joe, did you watch the Newt Gingrich video?
Ryn. You seem to be evading the point. The AR-15 is a weapon that fires multiple rounds of very destructive bullets. Call it an assault weapon. Call it a gun. Call it a banana. Trying to change the subject by deflection does not change the nature of the weapon. to suggest it is no longer the “top” assault weapon does not diminish it’s destructivenss. The fact that there are other weapons even more deadly does not diminish it’s capacity to quickly and efficently take innocent human life.
Weapons with the capacity for this level of human fatalities should not be available to civilians. As I pointed out in the Heller decision, even the most rigid “constructionist”, Justice Scalia, recognized that fact.
Your statement that a person could kill another person “easily with a an empty BB gun” has nothing to do with the destructiveness of the AR-15. Could a person with an “empty BB gun” go into a church or scholl and i the matter of SECONDS take 15 or 20 human lives?
Tell you what. Let’s test it. I will give you an empty BB gun and I will take a fully loaded AR-15. See who comes out on top?
Your FBI statistics are a very good example of the technique of the “partial truth”. . Are more people killed with knives than with rifles? Evidently yes. But while there are approximately 1,400 people killed every year with knoves, there are over 30,000 killed each year with guns. (About 13,000 of those are murders) So, you can ferret out a SPECIFIC weapon and claim a lower murder rate, but then maybe you need to ferret out a SPECIFIC knife as well? How many were killed with Bowie knives? How many with 12 inch knives? How many with kitchen knives? Of course, that is just an attempt to cloud the issue.
You do make a point , however. Assault rifles are just a small part of the overall weapons problem. With that I agree.
Which is why we need much more comprehensive gun control than we have today. Most murders are with handguns. Easy access to handguns continues to be the more important issue. Especially when states which try to do a better job of keeping citizens safe are prevented from doing so by states with lax laws on gun ownership and sales.
Ryn. I did not watch the Gingrich video. He is not on the Supreme Court. I did read part of the Scalia majority decision in DC v Heller, however. I do not agree with Scalia 99% of the time. In this opinion he stated that individuals have a rght to an individual ownership of a gun, outside of a militia. (Even though in my opinion the 2nd Amendmnet clearly does say “militia”). No matter.
Scalia, in his majority opinion made the point that the government has the right to regulate guns and who can own them, up to a point. So, I defer to the SCOTUS on the issue.
I have found Gingrich to be quite dishonest and hypocritical in the past in many of his comments. (Like condemning Clinton for his affair when he was having one himself)
He was hawking a DVD a few years ago claiming that the USA was a “Christian ” country. Included in his DVD greatest hits are: Rediscovering God in America (claiming again that the US was formed as a Christian nation) and Rediscovering God in America, Part 2…according to the description:
“Rediscovering God In America II: Our Heritage, hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich, explores the role of religion in early America and the belief that “our Creator” is the source of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as an exceptional nation….”
In other words, he is not only ignorant of US history and the roots of our indeoendence, he is a conman who hawks cheap DVDs to the gullible. The first three words of the COnstitution are ..We, the People. No mention of god in the document.
Nope. Newt is on my “no see” list.
The Importance of our Citizens Owning AR-15’s
Talking about guns and who should own them has become toxic. It wasn’t too many years ago that parents never had the thought that their children could be murdered while at school by a crazed person with a gun of any type.
It was all about grades, not getting in trouble at school, not getting pregnant, not getting drunk at parties, not doing drugs (a concern that began in the late 1960s and has escalated with the opioid crisis), and hoping your children had the right kind of friends.
When children learned to drive, the anxiety level increased for parents. More teenagers are killed in automobile accidents than have ever been killed from school shootings. But this is less than consoling for parents whose child was murdered while getting an education in a seemingly safe environment.
People talk about gun control. There are a lot of controls already
placed on guns and gun ownership. Not even full gun confiscation will stop bad people from doing bad things, as Oklahoma City and 9-11 proved. The latest proposals for gun regulation won’t do anything to stop a crazed person from killing other people.
The Florida shooter should have been stopped long before his murder spree happened. How crazy does a person have to act before someone in law enforcement steps in, especially with dozens of tips from citizens and the killer’s postings on Facebook? Government officials did not do their job – from the local police to the FBI.
Zero tolerance was applied to a kid who made a Pop-Tart look like a gun but didn’t do anything to a kid who actually threatened people with a real knife and gun numerous times.
Instead of taking responsibility for the missteps, the media, students, and politicians are blaming the National Rifle Association. Bizarre. But deflection is the name of the game in politics. It’s always someone else’s fault.
The sheriff is still in office and no one has been disciplined for the bumbling. I’m going to get political for a moment. If the sheriff was a Republican, we would be seeing and hearing a completely different narrative.
As a result, the gun debate continues. Many gun owners argue that it’s necessary to have a weapon like an AR-15 for protection against a tyrannical government. Personally, I think this is the wrong way to argue. If our government turned on us, there is no way that an armed citizenry could survive long with the full military force of the government. It would be a very messy war, far messier than the War for Independence or the Civil War. Citizens in those wars were nearly equally matched with weaponry. This is no longer the case.
I contend that a weapon like the AR-15 is needed if there is a political or social breakdown of society. The police can’t be everywhere. As we’ve seen in the Florida shooting case, there is a great deal of protected incompetence among government workers. This is the case for any large group. It should be expected.
There may come a time when social unrest breaks out in the United States because of an EMP attack or a natural disaster that affects shipping of goods in large parts of the country. Less than a week’s disruption in food delivery would be disastrous. Most people don’t have enough food or water stored to last them more than a week. We depend on the grocery store shelves to be stocked.
Consider what happens when there’s a snowstorm. Some commodities are bought up within hours.
I’m more worried about people close to home who are desperate
enough to kill for food and water. In a large-scale emergency, there is no way the government could stop marauders going through neighborhoods attacking people and breaking into homes.
Some might say that it could never happen here. There’s a lot that’s happening right now that 20 years ago people said could never happen. School shootings is one of them.
Most people – 99.9 percent – who own an AR-15 have never used it in a malicious way. Weapons are like insurance. They are only needed if there is a crisis. Most people who purchase a weapon never fire it. It’s locked away for safekeeping for a time when it might be needed.
There are “no-go” zones in Great Britain, France, and Germany. In some of these zones, even the police will not enter.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted the existence of ‘no-go areas’, where outsiders are afraid to enter…. Just before the New Year, Breitbart London reported how London delivery drivers have described large parts of the capital as “no-go zones” in which they are too afraid to work as a result of rampant knife crime and acid attacks…. BOMBSHELL REPORT: Berlin ‘Lost To Arab Clans’ Now Recruiting ‘Strong Young Migrants.’
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been saying the same thing for years but “was attacked by figures and organizations including the BBC for daring to highlight the issue of ‘no-go’ areas.”
What are innocent victims to do when they are defenseless and the government is reluctant to deal with the problem? What if these gangs wanted to expand their territory? A well-armed citizenry would not be held hostage by migrant gangs who have no regard for life or property. Just knowing that most people are armed in a neighborhood or county will act as a deterrent. No one needs to fire a shot.
During the riots following the Rodney King incident in April of 1992, Korean shop owners defended their property with rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
The nearly week long, widespread rioting killed more than 50 people, injured more than 1,000 people and caused approximately $1 billion in damage, about half of which was sustained by Korean-owned businesses.
Here’s the question Korean business owners were asking: “Where are the police? Where are the police?” They “would not see law enforcement for three days — only fellow Korean-Americans, who would be photographed by news agencies looking like armed militia in what appeared to be a guerrilla race war on the streets.” (CNN)
The conflict was temporary. In time, the warring factions decided to reconcile because they had common interests. But what stopped the violence and destruction was a small group of citizens who protected their lives and property with firearms. It’s unfortunate that the Korean population is leaning leftward politically. But that’s a story for another day.
Many argue that our founders never meant for the Second Amendment to apply to a weapon like an AR-15. It’s important to note that the Second Amendment does not specify what constitutes “arms” (armaments) in the same way that the First Amendment does not specify what constitutes a “press.” Can you imagine printing companies and newspapers restricted to using an actual press to print books, magazines, and newspapers? Should freedom of speech be prohibited if electronic means are used to broadcast that speech?
We live in a dangerous world. We always have. Today, however, because of numerous shifts in worldview thinking, moral subjectivism reigns.
Better to be armed and never have to use a weapon than to need a weapon and not have one. If you’re going to purchase a gun of any kind, learn to use it and follow all safety procedures, including guarding your weapons so your children don’t have access to them unless they are well trained and very responsible. If your children have other children over at your home, place your guns under lock and key.
From the Declaration of Independence;
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It is common knowledge and fairly evident form studying the Federalist Papers that the founding of The United States of America was based on the Founders understanding of the Judeo-Christian values.
It was genius to state that are Civil Rights are given to “We the People” by our Creator, not forma any Government Body. This means that no government body can take these Rights away.
The opposing view;
Why have you blocked me from posting comments on new posts ?
Free Speech, open debate and the free exchange of ideas are all good things.
Ryn. If the main argument for having an AR-15 is that the federal government is not doing its job in keeping people safe, I suggeat the following. Invest money in keeping pweople safe. You may not know this bu one to the last bills Clintin signed was to pay for 100,000 new cops to help cities patrol neighborhoods and fight gangs. Bush rescinded the program and it was not fully funded. The answer is not vigilantes; the answer is an effective government tha protects citizens. The first job of any government should be the safety of its citizens.As you may not know, there are also “no-go zones” in many US cities, where police refuse or are reluctant ot answer calls for fear of their own lives .
Your statement that it is “common knowlege” that the US was founded on Judeo–Christian principles does not have any evidence to support it. The founders cloud have said: This will be a Christian country. They did not. That is a fact of history. They did not want a religious government, they wanted a secular one.
For example, the ORIGINAL motto of the USA, implemented by the founders , was E Pluribus Unum, (from Many comes one). It was not until 1956, well after the origination of the US, that the religious nuts started their attempt to “sanctify” the USA. At that time they changed the motto to: In God We Trust. The founders would turn over in ther graves.
Nothing was given to the US by any “Creator”. There is nothing in the US Constitution that mentions a supreme being. Not a single word about god. Why not? The first three words of the founding document are clear: We, The People…All power of government stems from the people. Period. Those who woud attempt to impose their religious views on the government are in direct opposition to the preamble. We, The People.
in fact, the two places where the Constitution is explicit about religion the message is clear. There shall be no religious test for public office. That is pretty clear. And Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. What could be clearer?
No attempt to rewrite history, as Gingrich and others do in their DVD sales, changes the facts of the words themselves.