Reality Check: Are calls for stricter gun laws rea
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News, Info and Happenings outside Middletown
Forum Description: It might be happening outside Middletown, but it affects us here at home.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4990 Printed Date: May 10 2025 at 3:30pm
Topic: Reality Check: Are calls for stricter gun laws reaPosted By: TudorBrown
Subject: Reality Check: Are calls for stricter gun laws rea
Date Posted: Jan 12 2013 at 9:19pm
Reality Check: Are calls for stricter gun laws really about guns?
Worldwide – U.S. Ranks 1st in Gun Ownership and 28th in Gun Homicide, Ron Paul says Resent and Resist
Since Sandy Hook’s devastating shooting, there have been discussions
from everyday citizens, politicians, media pundits and political
organizations on how to resolve the problem that has taken mainstream
media spotlight in the past year; the problem? Shooting sprees, which
have occurred in malls, movie theatres and schools.
One of the trends that has followed in the wake of Sandy Hook’s
shooting is misinformation or inaccurate reporting on gun-related
statistics. To cut it short, CNN’s Piers Morgan in particular has led
the way for pro-gun law advocates and has done a great job at displaying
statistics, which are demeaning. For instance, Morgan continues to
claim that Britain, a country that happens to have firearms banned, only
produced 35 gun-related homicides in 2011.
Sure, but looking at the overall picture, Britain is actually second
in the European Union when it comes to crime rates. The UK also has the
fifth highest robbery rate, and fourth highest burglary rate; to top it
off, the EU declared Britain the most violent country out of all
European countries.
As SLN reported, “However, according to the CATO Institute and FBI
statistics, when guns were banned in the UK, armed robbery rates jumped
40%. In Australia, armed robbery rates increased 40%. The statistics
also show that the majority of robberies in the UK happen when people
are home, which is 50% of the time.”
Interestingly, Britain’s violent crimes rate is 2,034 per 100,000
people compared to the United States’ 466 violent crimes per 100,000
people.
As Fox19’s Ben Swann pointed out, the U.S. has the highest gun
ownership in the world – 88 guns per 100 people. Although the U.S. has
the highest gun ownership, America is 28th in the world when it comes to
gun homicides; 2.97 per 100,000 people.
Luckily, Representatives in D.C. like Thomas Massie from Kentucky are
taking the stand against gun grabbers and lawmakers who think reforming
firearms is a reasonable idea. The freshman Congressman proposed a bill
recently that would repeal all federal “gun-free school zones”, Massie
explained, “Gun free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting
themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by
criminals.”
A prominent figure in the Liberty movement and a man who helped Rep.
Massie find his path to D.C., former Congressman Ron Paul spoke out
against the idea of gun grabbing on Wednesday during the Alex Jones
show. Paul said regarding Obama signing a gun-related executive order,
“Well, it should go without saying, he’s has gone way too far. It should
also go without saying, he’s acting with the use of illegal violence.”
The former Rep. detailed, “I’ve always assumed the line in the sand
will be drawn, if the federal agent marches in, unannounced and they
say, well give me your gun and give me your gold. I don’t think we’ll do
that, calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and
resist.”
Replies: Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 13 2013 at 9:10pm
According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world
slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th
century.
The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own
governments prior to being slaughtered.
Posted By: Wots
Date Posted: Jan 13 2013 at 9:31pm
"Sensible Gun Laws"... Actually, it's a FANTASTIC
idea! That means we can do away with all the ones we currently have that fall
under "Completely Ridiculous"
then.
Here's another "Sensible" notion. Since rewriting the
2nd Amendment is such a grand idea for the Liberal Population, I suggest we
introduce legislation regarding their beloved 1st Amendment that would impose
strict regulation as well. They MAY NOT enter any discussion without supplying
documentation they have a basic knowledge and understanding of the topic first,
which will be supported by extensive background checks to verify their education
in the matter is sufficient to supply meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Furthermore, mental aptitude or clinical disorders may affect or nullify such
Right, as mood-altering prescribed drugs can and do have adverse effects on
perceptional awareness and rational reasoning may not be present in any
discussion while being influenced by mood enhancement prescriptions. THAT would
be amazing, as it gets more exhausting every day trying to muddle through the
ignorance they use to support their self-declared superior intellect on matters
they have no grey-matter to comprehend
------------- Wots Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers.
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 13 2013 at 9:41pm
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 6:23am
I find it awfully ironic that the same government that proposes to take your guns away from you everytime a "Columbine" or a "Sandy Hook" happens when the anti-gun people cry, doesn't hesitate to place a gun in the hands of a soldier who has received a few weeks of training to kill and, based on his/her psychological profile after combat, may rejoin civilian life and be a candidate for this type of violence. The same politicians who are now considering taking your guns away are the same politicians who are all for guns when they want to start a war. Which is it Washington?
Because there are a few people with guns in their hands who are unstable, they want to penalize the entire nation of competent gun owners? Perhaps along with a background check (avoided if you go to a Hara Arena gun show-just show your license and walk out with the weapon of choice), they should include a psychological evaluation of the person buying the gun before approval. It is not the gun that should be removed, it is the unstable person who is holding it that is the issue. I can still get my hands on an AK-47 even if they outlaw them and I'm sure not gonna turn in my weapons......especially with the increase in crime in this town and the reduction of officers on the street providing extended response time.
------------- I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
Posted By: Wots
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 9:09am
When is the last time that the liberal news media reported anything on an unbiased point of view?
------------------------------------
NRA is not the all answer but it is the next best thing. Last I heard Bass Pro Shop is offering a $25 gift certificate for every NRA membership.
And a $300 NRA Lifetime Membership going on NOW-No Sponser Needed!
Federal district Court 9th circuit Judge Alex Kozinski said it pretty well.
The simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341- 42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: 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.
Former Dem Gov: “The good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific”
------------- Wots Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers.
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 9:39am
Teenager gets ticked off at someone at school, goes home, goes into his parents bedroom, opens the closet door reaches up on the top shelf and gets the gun and shells...goes back to school the next day and kills a few people.
Even if dad has the gun locked up....this is a teenager and he knows where dad keeps the key. How on earth are we going to stop this from happening? Not enough laws in the land to stop this from happening in any city this afternoon.
Think about some of the really dumb things that you did in high school. How would you like for someone to have pictures of the event and post it on Facebook for everyone in school to see? This is a much different world today for teenagers. Camera phones and Facebook are a mental health threat to many teenagers...imo
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 11:34am
The teen ager doesn't even have to go home to get the gun. He can access one out on the street. At home, IMO, dad should place a trigger lock on the weapon and keep the key, have the ammo in a completely different place locked up and keep the key, not tell the kid where the gun is located, have the kid go through a weapons handling course if dad insists on having a weapon in the house. The parent has to assure themselves that the kid is mature enough to know what they are dealing with. Otherwise, get the gun out of the house.
My son and I have had weapons in the house since he was in high school. Not once did he demonstrate carelessness in handling a weapon. He and I went shooting at the Sportsman Club on several occasions. He seemed to handle himself well, recognizing gun safety at all times. Ya just can't bring a weapon into the house knowing you have kids present without introducing them to proper respect for the weapon. JMO
Won't be able to control the availability of street weapons as long as a person can go to a gun and knife show and be old enough to produce a valid ID, produce the cash and walk out with an AK-47 or a Glock. See people taking arm fulls of weapons of every kind out to the trunk of the car and return for more in these gun shows. No criminal checks, no psychological checks before purchase. How many with no criminal record buy these weapons and sell them to gang members who kill? Dunno. You can't legislate a weapon free-for-all. Legislation to remove assault weapons from the street is a joke and waste of time. A law won't stop the availability nor the killing. Criminal/psychological evaluations of who is wanting to buy the weapon is a start but not a total solution IMO.
------------- I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 2:00pm
Contact all of your Reps with One Click: http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html
Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 2:18pm
Obama says armed gaurds arent the answer so I guess that means that all his secret service detail can leave their weapons at home ? This is nothing but the lefties salivating all over themselves because they thing they finaly have a great excuse take away our second amendment rights. If they really cared about protecting our children wouldnt it make a whole lot more sense to start protecting them the same way we protect everything else thats valuable ?
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 2:36pm
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 3:53pm
Hey! George stopped short of telling us what we should do being armed if "any tried to abuse us including our own government didn't he?
Got some ideas.
Speaking of "any who might attempt to abuse them including their own government".......why am I thinking about city hall about now?
------------- I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 4:16pm
In Debate with Breitbart's Shapiro, CNN's Piers Morgan Calls the Constitution 'Your Little Book'
“You come in here, brandish your little book as if I don’t know what’s in there--”
“My little book? That’s the Constitution of the United States. It’s our founding document, Piers.”
“I know what’s in your Constitution.”
“Do you really?”
That was the climax of a heated debate between Breitbart News
Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro and CNN’s Piers Morgan on live television
this evening--one in which Morgan came off much the worse for wear.
Shapiro began by pointing out that for weeks, Morgan had bullied
guests who defend the right to bear arms by "standing on the graves of
the children of Sandy Hook."
“How dare you,” said a rattled Morgan.
“I have seen you do it repeatedly,” Shapiro replied.
He challenged Morgan to explain whether he wanted to ban all guns,
not just “assault rifles,” since the vast majority of gun deaths involve
ordinary handguns. “Why don’t you care about banning the handguns in
Chicago?” Shapiro asked him.
Morgan, who later stated that he supported Americans’ right “to
defend themselves with a handgun or a pistol,” pointed out that the
weapons used in recent sensational mass shootings had been “assault
rifles,” and insisted that the debate was not one of “left and right,”
because his position ought to be the consensus, as in Britain. Shapiro
countered that the basis of the Second Amendment was not self-defense or
hunting, but the ability to resist government tyranny--a point that
Morgan attempted to mock, unsuccessfully.
Shapiro’s statement is worth quoting in full:
Shapiro: I think the reason that it’s about left and right here is
because fundamentally, the right believes that the basis for the Second
amendment--and they believe in the Second Amendment--the basis for the
Second Amendment is not really about self defense, and it's not about
hunting. It's about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the
Founders said, and that’s what the right believes in this country.
Morgan: Which tyranny are you fearing, yourself?
Shapiro: I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in the country in
the next fifty to a hundred years. Let me tell you something, Piers.
The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn't
fear that is why they're now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist
revisionist history where there's never any fear of democracy going
usurpatious or tyrannical, is just that. It’s fictitious.
Subsequently, Morgan accused Shapiro of wanting to “do nothing” about
mass shootings, to which Shapiro replied that his position was to
improve background checks and screening for mental illness and criminal
histories among potential gun owners and their households. Shapiro later
pointed out the hypocrisy in attacking the National Rifle Association
and the Second Amendment without subjecting violent video games, the
American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment to the same
scrutiny.
Morgan then presented Shapiro with a letter co-signed by Ronald
Reagan in 1994, urging support for the assault weapons ban (an
ineffective policy, which lapsed after ten years). He challenged Shapiro
to justify “why an American needs an assault weapon.”
Shapiro repeated his point on tyranny, to which Morgan said: “Do you know how absurd you sound?”
In so doing, he proved Shapiro’s point:
Here’s where you go into the bullying....For weeks now, you have been
saying that anybody who disagrees with your position is absurd,
idiotic, and doesn’t care about the dead kids in Sandy Hook. And then
when I say that’s a bullying tactic, you turn around and say that I’m
bullying you.
Later on the program, once Shapiro was safely off camera, Morgan
admitted: “In an ideal world, I’d have all guns gone, as we have in
Britain, but this is not my country and I respect the fact most
Americans wouldn’t wear that kind of argument.”
An epic win for Shapiro, and for our "little book."
Posted By: TudorBrown
Date Posted: Jan 14 2013 at 10:46pm
Posted By: Wots
Date Posted: Jan 15 2013 at 11:30pm