By: Al

Al — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:57:40 +0000

It amazes me every time I read the editorials on Guns and the 2nd amendment, the editorials are always stating what is the problem and presenting the solution, what they think is the solution, they fail to study the history of other nations that took this path, I mean to disarm the citizen, and did use crime and violence in the society as a reason to make the society safer, and now we are using the kids as a added element.
We need to study the history of nations that did disarm the citizenry, and find out what happened later after that took place, a very striking example come to mind 6000.000 millions JEWES that were led to gas chambers and killed. The history says gun registration first, people registration second, and the last and final solution was the confiscation of all the fire arms, that will give the Government a total control over the population, the citizens become subjects, they will do what they are told.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:34:22 +0000

I am getting very concerned about the direction and support I am seeing on the subject of “gun control”. The politicians and leaders of those groups supporting gun control are not stupid (no matter what we say, we actually know that).

They know that over 20,000 gun laws have not been effective in reducing violent crimes. They know that making illegal acts even more illegal by adding increased penalties will not work. They know that criminals do not believe that they will be caught and convicted so the severity of the penalty is of limited consequence. They know that if the severity of the penalty were actually effective, more countries and states would have the death penalty and there would be no murders in the world. Yet they continue to use good sounding but meaningless terms like “tighter gun control” as if they have found law number 20,001 that will stop violent crime.

They know that the US Constitution has a 2nd Amendment that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[Ratified 12/15/1791] and they know what that Amendment actually means. They know that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Columbine or 14 other mass shooting while it was in effect. They know the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. Yet, they propose new bans with even broader definitions of cosmetic features to define as many weapons as possible. The few details they have provided about the new weapons bans they are proposing, are increasingly broad in their criteria such that they will eventually result in the registration then banning, and then confiscation of all firearms. They invent scary-sounding but meaningless terms like “assault weapons” to describe firearms with magazines. These groups refuse to provide any detail on their proposals for gun control, which prevents any meaningful analysis of the possible effectiveness and/or legality of those proposals until the very last moment. They know all this and yet they continue to propagate known lies and misleading statements to garner purely emotional support from voters for their “reasonable” restrictions on firearms and ammunition without any real rational justification or understanding. If they know all this, then what is their true purpose?

Senator Diane Feinstein said that they have been working on their update of the “Assault Weapons Ban” for a year. So it appears they were just waiting for the next excuse to introduce it. They knew there would be another mass shooting so all they had to do was wait.

Comments on: Getting Firearms ‘Off the Streets’ – Firearms Discussion (Part I)

By: Al

By: Inquisitor