Skip to comments.We must act now to prevent gun violence (barf alert)
Posted on 08/12/2012 7:03:24 AM PDT by rellimpank
When is the right time to take sensible and pragmatic action with regard to guns?
Is it after the senseless and tragic "mass shootings" that leave us shocked and numb at the very thought that such cruel and brazen acts of terror are committed in our communities, our neighborhoods?
It's been a week since the Oak Creek tragedy; about four weeks since the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo.; just over two months since a gunman murdered five people in a Seattle coffee house; a little over a year and a half since six people were gunned down and 18 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were wounded in Tucson, Ariz.; and five years since 32 people lost their lives at Virginia Tech.
As a country, we watch the news and feel intense grief as details of those murdered and wounded unfold. We hear from the pro-gun lobby and the gun control groups. We move on.
Should we take action after the men and women who are sworn to uphold the law, protect and serve and put their lives on the line are shot in the line of duty?
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
The purity of our country is tainted! Should we stand by while these despicable gun owners sully our nation? Marry our women? Corrupt our children? I say no! We must drive these gun owners to the east, where a final solution awaits.
I’ll do my part with some quality range time.
By George, I think he’s got it!
That will stop criminals and wackos cold in their tracks!
Never mind locking up the criminally insane who are diagnosed AND medicated even before they lash out...
Only (near) drunk drivers can be arrested and punished before they kill. It’s for the chil’run.
Why don’t we concentrate on the gangsters/criminals killing 41 people a month in Chicago?
But I wish to go one step further.
Instead of gun ban legislation, let's take the plunge.
Let's outlaw MURDER.
If only we had outlawed murder right from the start, that pesky Cain would never have slain Abel and he’d be with us today...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A much more effective way is, while someone is pointing a gun at you, trying to relieve you of things of value, is just say
“Pardon me sir, may I see your permit?, I also want you to note that this whole area is a gun free zone and we have voted this county to be a Nuclear Free zone”.
Now, if I were a criminal, it would surely dispatch me with abandon.
At my VFW Post we had a NE Liberal from Mass, besides that he was a drunk - one of those stand up functioning drunks - (Like I was for years) that was VERY anti-personal gun.
He maintained that anyone who carried concealed was a threat to everyones safety and I told him ‘Yes, Joe, especially those in your condition’ (this was after I stopped drinking).
He had threatened a couple of us carriers (non drinkers) with calling the police on us and I just casually mentioned that, from experience, he was much more of a threat to society leaving in his ‘condition’ (drunken stupor)than a sober person with a license to carry.
Several times I promised him that with his true distaste for guns etc, that if I ever saw him being held up etc, I would be sure to call 911 and NOT step forward to help him.
And he was the typical ‘target’....old, heavy, slow moving, head down, shuffling along etc...
Now I am old, heavy, NOT so slow moving, head up - look everyone in the eye, not to the point of staring etc, and walk with purpose, Oh yes, I have at least one friend in my pocket and usually one in my sock and I have set a limit how far some will go accosting me - realize once it is out and aimed, chances are it is going to go ‘boom’ sorry, I must state that I will be the cause of it going ‘boom’.
Like the police were called to an old Lady’s home and they found 5 rifles, 4 or 5 hand guns, a lot of ammo, couple of shot guns.
One of the young ‘idealistic’ cops said “Maam why so many guns, what do you think you are afraid of”
“Not a f’n thing Sonny -except maybe YOU guys”.
Look, I don't want to sound crazy here, but maybe.... just maybe.... we can outlaw armed robbery, assault, and rape.
THEN there will FINALLY be no crime.
Nope. Crime, violence is concentrated in the most government-saturated areas of our country, in the big cities. There you have neighborhoods, where everyone gets government welfare, goes to government jobs and whose entire lives are directed by government.
How is that working out? Detroit looks like Nagasaki about the atomic bomb. Who won the war again? Japan? Where government oversteps its bounds, devastation follows, social, economic and moral.
The size, scope and power of government must be drastically reduced to save our country and our people.
Anyone, who opposes this is a dupe or a power-mad psychopath. The Democrat Party is the party of power-mad psychopaths.
Look, I don’t want to sound crazy here, but maybe.... just maybe.... we can outlaw armed robbery, assault, and rape.
THEN there will FINALLY be no crime.”
You left out cow-tipping.
The way things may transpire in regards to some people willing to defend liberty I would bet some granny or an older gentleman Veteran will walk into a gangs warehouse or some place where these hoodlums will be gathered and then do a mass high rate of fire pest control situation.
Now for you liberal freak trolls, what do you think of THAT?
Or a group of soccer moms get together and get a Dillon minigun built into the families SUV and go downtown to pay a visit to a gangs dope house?
The tables may just shift I expect soon. The people are getting tired of elected officials being bribed or too afraid to confront evil.
The gun controllers can run havoc at will, because they seek to achieve control, yet have nothing to lose if they fail.
Those who believe in gun rights do have an important stake in the game. If they lose, they lose their freedom and have their rights taken away.
Were this a gambling game where the house could never lose, but the gamblers could lose, nobody would want to play. But as things are now, the “house” keeps forcing us to play a damned game with them.
So what needs to happen is for the gun controllers to have to ante up if they want to play, an ante big enough so that if they lose, they feel some pain as well.
Recently, the radical leftist controlled Pediatrician Association of Florida wanted its members to demand from parents the information if they had guns at home, with the idea of denying them service if they had guns, or refused to say if they had guns.
And this information would also be made available to the government, because of the HIPPA Act, which then might be able to deny adoptive parents children, or determine custody, just because they had an “unsafe” home, “unsafe” because they had guns.
It was a bitter, nasty and vicious attack against gun rights.
But the Florida legislature intervened, forbidding pediatricians from asking parents if they had guns.
Yet the pediatricians went to federal court, which overturned the Florida law, because “it would inhibit the *free speech rights* of the pediatricians.”
So the scoundrels can now try and coerce parents to give up their guns, or at a minimum to lie and tell them they don’t have guns, if they are wise enough to coach their children to say they don’t have guns, either.
And because there are relatively few pediatricians in much of Florida, if parents and their children are denied service, they might have to travel 50 or 100 miles to get their children medical care.
So the villains got away with it, and it cost them nothing, which is bad all the way around.
In future, advocates of gun rights and freedom will have to do better, not by just defending these rights and freedoms, and showing that theirs is the path of justice; but they must also fight back to come up with some way of penalizing the anti-gun, anti-freedom agitators for their attacks.
The title the authors gave - “We must act now to prevent gun violence” - is a lie; it’s not what they really mean.
If they really meant what they said, they would more correctly have said - “We must act now to stop the murders”.
Instead, what they are really saying is: “We must act now to control everyone’s guns.”
They could do things to fool themselves that they are achieving that. The mad man who attacked the Sikh Temple would have, like all criminals, still found a route to the weapons he wanted. But that would not deter them from the tyranny they’d impose on everyone else just to make themselves feel good.
Whenever you see a headline like this, simply substitute the word “ownership” for “violence” to see what the real agenda is.