Gun Control! And It’s Blatant Stupidity


So, the left is demanding a conversation about gun control.  Okay, let’s have one.  What sort of gun control are we talking about?  Oh, no one has stated any particular gun control idea.  So, we’re suppose to discuss a phantom idea and give reasoned arguments against a nondescript thought, born of emotive reactions.  That’s inane all by itself.  But, that’s never stopped the left before, and it won’t now. 

So maybe the gun control the lunatic left is talking about is banning assault weapons.  Sure, what is an assault weapon?  Can anyone define it? 

There are legitimate uses for firearms.  Hunting, personal protection, and protection against an oppressive government.  The right to bear arms is all encompassing, so one doesn’t’ have to declare what they want a firearm for.  They can have one simply to have one. 

For now, I don’t think the left is arguing en masse against hunting, though some do.

The left likes to argue that the weaponry of the government is so advanced, that protection against an oppressive government is no longer a legitimate reason to own a firearm…. that if armed opposition to the US government became needed we would be so underpowered and technologically overwhelmed that the government would quash the resistance anyway.  We only have to look to the events in the Mid-east to  see just how ignorant, stupid, and reality denying that argument is.  Who has the US government been fighting for all these years?  Idiots.

Then there is the issue of personal protection.  Let me understand this logic, we’re going to disarm law abiding citizens in order to protect our citizenry?  Is that the argument?  What sort of mayhem would ensue if the lawless perpetrators of violence suddenly understood that most of the citizenry was unarmed and unable to defend themselves?  We needn’t a hypothetical situation to know.  All we have to do is look to Chicago or DC to understand what would happen.  These are war zones.  Murder regularly occurs in these places, so much so, it hardly makes news when the murders occurs.  It shouldn’t be necessary to state this, but because the left is ruled by emotion and not reason, it needs stated.  Lanza stole the guns he used from his mother.  It was illegal to bring the guns to the school.  How is it that the left doesn’t understand this statement towards the effectiveness of our gun laws.  They don’t do what is intended!

But, while we’re discussing legalities, we need to understand the role of our laws and their enforcement.  While it has shown that a police presence does prevent crime, the police usually engage only after a crime has been committed.  Their role is to clean up afterwards.  While it sounds trite, it is true, when threatened by gun violence, seconds count.  Police protection is minutes away.  I’d much rather have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have it.  I’ve a simple proposal.  We can enact a ban on all firearms.  For all citizens who gave up their ultimate defense, and are then consequently killed by gun violence, we execute an advocate of the gun ban for being complicit in the murder of our fellow citizens. For my part, I’ll have no part in stripping my fellow countrymen of the ability to defend themselves, their families, and their property.  If you’re going to take our ability to defend ourselves, then you must also accept the responsibility of your actions. 

But, it’s for the children!!!!

While the events at Sandy Hook were horrific, there is no legitimate argument that a gun ban will keep our children safe.  In fact, it has been demonstrated time and again this isn’t the case.  The OK city bombing took the lives of 19 children under the age of 6.  Would a gun ban stop that?  Of course not.  Today, Steve reminds us of the worst school mass murder in the US33 children and 5 adults died in a school bombing in Bath Michigan.  May 19, 1927.  What would a gun ban do for that?  Nothing. 

It can’t without notice the racial overtones presented by the left.  In 2008, there were 1,494 child (under 18 years) homicides in the United States.  The left suddenly cares when children are murdered in suburbia?  Of course, not all of those 1500 children were murdered by guns, I guess the left cares even less about them. 

Eliminating risks.

No one can eliminate the risks of inherent with living.  We are told that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  This is only one cost.  And it misses the point of freedom.  The real cost was never stated because our forefathers thought this self-evident.  The true cost of freedom is the acceptance that the freedoms are accompanied by failure, disappointment, and tragic loss.  Without risks, and occasional failure, there is no freedom.  As tragic as the deaths of Sandy Hook are, this is the occasional consequence of freedom.  The only thing more tragic than these deaths would to sentence all of our children to a world without Liberty. 

Would a ban on firearms be effective?

Of course not.  The manufacturing of guns is an archaic technology.  A person of some resources can easily manufacture their own repeating weaponry.  It already occurs.  The import of weaponry can also be easily accomplished.  Simply look to our neighbors to the south.  Their firearm laws are much more suppressive than the US’, yet, the weapons are more available.  Most of which are manufactured outside the US.  Given the left’s absolute refusal to secure our borders, we know we can easily purchase weapons in Mexico and bring them across the border. 

Give a coherent, reasoned argument.  

The left cries that we refuse to have a discussion about gun control, that we accuse them of politicizing tragedy.  Well, as demonstrated, they are politicizing and exploiting the tragedy of Sandy Hook.  20 children tragically died that day.  What about the 1500 other tragic deaths?  They didn’t cry then.  Why are they crying now? 

But, forget all of that.  Have someone from the left present a reasonable, coherent, well-thought proposal advocating gun control and I’ll happily engage them, as will millions of Americans across this land.  Answer the issues brought up here and elsewhere, and then demonstrate how some form of gun control will help ensure the safety of our children.  The can’t do it, more than that they refuse to try.  They simply throw up emotive, hyperbole driven responses in a guise to usurp Liberty and erode our Freedoms.  The safety of the public or children are not their goal, it never was. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Gun Control! And It’s Blatant Stupidity

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Surely you understand the need for banning private guns? We made the school into a gun free zone and then all those precious children were murdered in their classrooms. Obviously, the only way to make our society safe is to do more of what we did at the school, but do it EVERYWHERE!

    Yes, the gun-ban argument really is that insane. Remember, the gun-ban-nuts really are not rational. They do not actually think, they merely think that they think. They are actually in the role of feeling something and then trying to make a plausible sounding reason to justify what they feel. Liberals know that “murder = bad”. They have been conditioned to automatically respond that “gun = murder”, therefore “gun = bad”. (And yes, right-wingers have their own conditioning of a different sort.) When you tell liberals that guns may be a force for good, all they hear is you saying that “murder = good”.

    For a great short video of the famous (or infamous) Larkin Rose speaking of crazed gun-banners, see:

  2. Latitude says:

    What sort of mayhem would ensue if the lawless perpetrators of violence suddenly understood that most of the citizenry was unarmed and unable to defend themselves?

    …because waving a restraining order….is just not the same

  3. Latitude says:

    Let me understand this logic, weโ€™re going to disarm law abiding citizens in order to protect our citizenry?
    Or another way to put it….we’re going to pass a law…because no laws were broken in the first place

    ….they want to take guns away from the people that didn’t do it

  4. Latitude says:

    have to share this….toooooooo cute!

  5. Gene Nemetz says:

    On a lighter note…..

    Vince Guaraldi (Charlie Brown piano player) “What Child is This”

  6. HankH says:

    The left cries that we refuse to have a discussion about gun control, that we accuse them of politicizing tragedy.

    When it comes down to their championing the infringement on my right to own a capable gun for the protection of my home and property, there’s nothing to talk about. If they want to have a conversation about gun safety, keeping guns secure from children, learning to shoot, and the responsibility that comes with ownership then then I’ll be happy to talk.

  7. Gene Nemetz says:


    How about an NFL post? I’m ready for some football tonight!

  8. kim2ooo says:

    Mr Obama, the Left, Hollywood,

    Mr Obama, You mentioned other mass shootings in your speeches. But you failed to mention Ft Hood.

    Would you have us believe that you didn’t mention Ft Hood because of the makeup of the victims? Children body count and adult body count?

    Could it have been because it occurred on a military base that is completely controlled by the government. Everything that is going on within the fence and gates are the complete responsibility of the federal government, and still someone committed a spree killing? In other words, Complete gun control by the US Government was enforce that day at that government compound.

    In the middle of Nidal Hasan’s rampage is at least six – on base schools.


    Morally bankrupt [ evil ] Adam Lanza CHOSE to, WILLFULLY, TARGET CHILDREN.

    Willfully breaking into / by passing a secure gun case.
    Willfully killing his Mother.
    Willfully driving to a school.
    Willfully breaking into the school,.
    Willfully shooting adults who stood in his way.
    Willfully shooting his intended targets – The children.

    The sane prepare by defending themselves from both the evil [ morally bankrupt ] and insane.

  9. Bruce says:

    Don’t like guns in schools? Then give a taser to every teacher in the country.

    Beauty of this is if any shooter is nuts enough to risk being turned into a drooling agonized puddle on the ground he will then be caught alive, to mope in jail for the next 2 decades until the powers get around to filling him up with KCl.

    How could Democrats not like humane non lethal control of poor misunderstood paranoid maniacs?

    And they’re even manufactured in the US!

    • suyts says:

      Yes, there are a myriad of solutions which don’t involve disarming honest and sane citizens.

      • Bruce says:

        Yes but the art is to choose the answer which explodes the most progressive heads. This one in that respect is very good. Almost every progressive in the country would be left cranially ventilated with this one.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      Bruce says:
      December 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      . . . until the powers get around to filling him up with KCl.
      Kill him with an overdose of potassium chloride salt, or did you mean potassium cyanide (KCN)?


      • suyts says:

        potassium chloride, in too large of a dose is fatal. I believe that’s part of the cocktail when giving lethal injection to the condemned people.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          Anything in too large of a dose is fatal–even water. Potassium chloride is a salt substitute for those who have to limit their sodium intake. The 50% kill rate for those weighing 75 kg. is about 190 grams of potassium chloride. A similar kill rate for sodium chloride is about 300 grams (4 grams per kilogram of body weight).


      • cdquarles says:

        Nope, Potassium chloride plus insulin plus phenobarbital or versed or some other muscle relaxant and you get a guaranteed went to sleep death in about 1 hour.

  10. leftinbrooklyn says:


    Let’s see…
    – Several thousand years of human civilization.
    – Countless laws passed, none of which EVER stopped a crime. Only a human’s choice to abide by that law or not, stops a crime.
    – Most will choose to abide by the law. Some will not. The sound of mind would consider this self-evident.
    – The unsound of mind, unable to reconcile that reasoning, would double-down on the failure of the original law with more laws, at the expense of only those who were law-biding to begin with. It would deter the lawless no more than the original law.

    Is there a clearer example of insanity?

  11. DirkH says:

    The 14th B’ak’tun begins, world turns increasingly silly:

    Mia Farrow loves massacre movies; wants peace on Earth.

    Petition to deport UK national Piers Morgan from the US for attacking the constitution. Brits desparately try to convince Americans to keep him.

    Michael Mann to Ric Werme on Mann’s FB page: “So Watts minions coming out to defend him against having spent any of his 88K from Heartland (i.e. Koch Bros et al) on calendar. ”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s