Skip to comments.Nadler: ‘The State Ought to Have a Monopoly on Legitimate Violence’
Posted on 12/22/2012 5:03:46 AM PST by Olog-hai
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said only the federal government should have high-capacity gun magazines and that the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.
At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, Nadler gathered with other House Democrats to push for stricter gun control in the wake of last weeks massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 26 dead, including 20 children. The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.
CNSNews.com asked: Would banning high-capacity clips at Ft. Hood have prevented Maj. Nidal Hasan from killing 13 people and wounding 29 others? I dont know. It might have, Nadler said. Certainly, it was on a military base and he may or may not have had authority to use military weapons. I dont know whether he did or not.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
It is incompatable with true American values.
So why is this puke in Congress? Did we forget to Americanize a district in New York City or something.
>>should we presume he doesnt know what happened in Nazi Germany back in 1938 too . . . ?
I would assume that he does know and he thinks that its a great idea. Communist politicians like him are scum, and the people who elect them are pathetic herd animals who want to stand around eating free food until its their time to get in line and walk up that chute to the slaughterhouse.
Pay no attention to Nadler. He is getting deluged with anti-gun petitions, e-mails, and phone calls from his commie district.
Not that he doesn’t agree, of course; after all, he thinks Obama is not far left enough. But he is under particular pressure now to talk the talk.
There are reports that every single conversation in his district for the past week has been about how terrible guns are.
Is that like “legitimate Rape”?
Come & take them, Fatso.
The Ignorance of Gun Control Zealots
Friday, 21 Dec 2012 09:47 AM
By Thomas Sowell
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.
But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.
In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.
Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.
Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.
In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s after decades of ever-tightening gun ownership restrictions there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.
Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.
You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.
There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.
Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Beat me to it!
Is that the equivalent of “legitimate rape” ??
Oh wait, it was a LIBERAL who made a dumb remark? Never mind, the media isn’t interested.
Yes giving the State sole access to weapons has worked out SO well in history...
Yep, spoken like a true fascist....
So who's to say what violence is legitimate?Crooked Federal Prosecuters who know about the Fast and Furious scandle and are not pursuing the people who instigated the selling of Real assault rifles to drug dealers.
Also are we now supposed to trust Law Enforcement agencies of any stripe that can break into your home under color of the law and not only terrify your family but place their lives at risk.
To hell with that.If these Government entities want to possess these high powered toys,I want the ability to have those same toys to defend myself or others should clear thinking on their part go overboard.
After-all,They work for me the tax payer.I don't work for them.
Nadler commenting on anything high-capacity invites too many jokes.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
— Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette (February 20, 1788)
Wow... I think they put that stomach LAP-BAND around his brain...
But if you think, even for a second, that those who wish to take guns from the good guys want to do it for "crime control and safety" you are only deluding yourself. They want to take the guns from the good guys because it gives tem total control over everyone else.
Only them nice NKVD, GESTAPO, CHEKA, NAZI, GRU, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI types should have effective weaponry.
Certainly not the great unwashed on the front lines who ACTUALLY NEED IT.
Can you believe this a$$clown has actually come out and stated what he really thinks? His statement is completely 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders’ views of the militia being the whole people, and the ability of the people to keep an evil standing army in check.
This is twisting the actual term used by political scientists, as I understand it. The term is "a monopoly on organized violence" which I believe allows violence in self defense that is not planned beforehand, hence not organized.