Thursday, December 27, 2012

Gun Control: The illogical logic of liberals.

I remember reading a political satire many years ago written by Al Capp who said that a Liberal is just a Conservative who hadn't been mugged yet. Many people don't have to wait for that mind-altering moment when a thug knocks you to the ground to realize that we should all have the right to defend ourselves. Unfortunately, today, liberals control most of what we watch, hear and read so it would seem that the majority of people (on television, at least) are against the right to self-defense, especially when it involves the use of a gun. Liberals also have the unique ability to say the most profound things and convince themselves how brilliant they are but if a Conservative says the same thing, they are blasted as being so monumentally ignorant.
The two largest teachers unions are emphatically against arming teachers, although some teachers caught up in gun violence in school might disagree. Several school administrators want to allocate more money on school counselors and psychologists. The president of the Brady Campaign said arming teachers sends the wrong message to students. “It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns,” Gross said.

Duh? Why, yes, Mr. Gross, you are absolutely right, even in your ridicule. When a homicidal maniac is aiming a gun at you, the only way to stop him is to do something violent - like shooting him, or would you prefer that your school psychologist might suddenly appear from his office like some movie super-hero and try to talk the gunman out of it. Recall those famous words from Al Capp, when the gunman points his weapon at you, your liberal views fly out the window and you instantly become a pro-gun conservative and hope and pray you find a way to survive, wishing you had a gun to defend yourself. But hindsight always has 20-20 vision.
When you say it, its smart; when I say it, its stupid. /Big Journalism
Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools

by John Nolte 21 Dec 2012

Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can't stop howling ridicule at the NRA's idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA's idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media's going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch.

This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn't care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win.

The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look.

In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking:
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.

The media is not only so driven to ensure Sandy Hook is used to win this round on gun control that they've become morally blinded to what really needs to be done to immediately secure our schools; they've lost their grip historically and politically.

Think about it: The media is entering a new year attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with a policeman in their school.

Off the rails doesn’t even begin to describe it.
The leftist Liberal controlled news media blasted the NRA for daring to suggest placing an armed security guard in every school. While the NRA lost sight of the implication of their suggestion that only the Federal government could provide the answer to the local problem of school safety, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre was absolutely correct in placing the blame on Hollywood and the violent video games that are sold to young people. Hollywood thrives on excessive gore and violence in many of their films. And many teenagers and young adults, especially the socially handicapped, introverted loners, are addicted to these video games often spending countless hours playing them in their alter-ego, roll playing avatars. Other groups agreed.
Christian Science Monitor
Video games and shooting: Is the NRA right?
After a week of silence following the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 first graders and six staff in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association blamed the entertainment industry – specifically the producers of violent video games for inciting what has become a pattern of gun violence in the United States.

In describing the industry, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

Mr. LaPierre faulted the news media for failing to report on “vicious, violent video games” such as “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Kombat,” and “Splatterhouse” as egregious examples. He also singled out “Kindergarten Killer,” a free, fairly obscure online game.

“How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?” he asked reporters.
But the U.S. Supreme Court in its moment of cloistered ignorance said that any controls over the video gaming industry would be a violation of the First Amendment. I really think there could have been some common ground agreement on how best to handle this. After all we have minimum ages for drinking and driving and buying cigarettes so why not restrict the age to buying a violent video game until at least the person has matured a bit and not have such a young impressionable mind.

US Supreme Court strikes down violent video game law
By Emil Protalinski
On June 27, 2011, 1:00 PM EST
video games, supreme court, violen
The US Supreme Court today sided with the video game industry, in the six-year legal match with California lawmakers who wanted to make it a crime for anyone in the state to sell violent games to kids. In a 7-2 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia said the law does not comport with the First Amendment.

Others joined in dissent as the court found no compelling evidence to state that video games are more damaging to children than other forms of media, such as film or music. This is a huge step for video games, as it should stop the spread of expensive legislation hurting the industry.
California's argument was that because video games are interactive, they are more problematic because the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The Supreme Court was not persuaded. Here's what the official decision stated (PDF):
Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And "the basic principles of freedom of speech…do not vary" with a new and different communication medium.
Read more at:
Thanks to the successful efforts of the ACLU, mentally challenged people have been afforded the same rights as normal people in our society. With books filled with various psychological forms of mental diseases, many of which have violent tendencies, the mentally ill are allowed free access to our society and there is no database to identify them that could be accessed to perform a background check prior to a gun purchase. The most recent shooting events that received the greatest publicity were committed by persons suffering from some form of mental illness. Jared Lee Loughner, diagnosed with schizophrenia, shot 19 people in Tuscon, Arizona including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six. James Eagan Holmes, suffering from mental illness, shot 59 people and killed 12 in Aurora, Colorado. Nancy Lanza tried to place her son Adam in psychiatric care but before she could her son killed her with her own gun and then went on a killing spree at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut murdering 20 little children and six adults. None of these horrific incidents involved sane people. Yet the news media has put the blame on the guns, not the killers. But the worst possible fallout from all of these shootings is the national celebrity status the news media made of the killers. All of those introverted video game addicts that play the blood-splattered games in the darkness of their bedrooms must be sorely tempted to become wannabe copycats.
Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, told WND that despite calls by media and Democrats for gun control, his organization has received strong support from the public, particularly since his well-circulated interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Pratt argued that the way to prevent shootings like those at Sandy Hook is to get rid of laws that prevent people from protecting themselves.

“The feedback that we have gotten from people who were not members of Gun Owners of America was to the effect of it’s about time somebody said that,” Pratt told WND. “It’s been very affirming.”
FOX News

Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows

Published December 24, 2012

In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

But crime trends over the past few decades offer a mixed verdict on whether renewing the ban would reduce the kinds of mass shootings that have spurred calls for its re-enactment in the first place.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.

Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims.

Read more:
Statistics show that in every civilized country that has prohibited or restricted the ownership and possession of guns the crime rate has escalated. It happened in Australia in 1995 and in Great Britain in 1997 and in both countries that passed these restrictive gun laws  the rate of violent crime has exploded. The British newspaper Daily Mail ran this story three years ago. The story points out that, "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Read more:
One side note regarding the difference between America and the British Empire also needs to be explained. In the United Kingdom people are subjects of the crown but in the United States we are called citizens. Citizens have rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our government serves at the will of the people. In the U.K. people are subjects, like the serfs in heraldic days and they have permissions granted or denied at the whim of their political leaders, which may explain why they meekly turned in their guns when they were told to do so. The one irrefutable fact appears to be that in any country only law-abiding people obey the laws and when the guns were banned, only those who obeyed the law turned them in. The criminal element, which by their very nature are outlaws, simply ignored the ban on guns.
Another distinction that sets Americans apart from the world, especially Great Britain, is our historic regard for guns as a means to fight tyranny. It was the patriots in Lexington and Concord in 1776 that opposed the British crown orders to confiscate our weapons that set off the American Revolution. And our Founding Fathers wrote that necessity for guns in  the Second Amendment to our Constitution. 
Is there a pattern to the way these events are being handled by our liberal leaders? All or most of the mass murderers suffer from mental illness, all are allowed on the streets, all have no psychiatric background checks to restrict their gun purchases, and the only answer to every event is for leftist politicians and liberal news media calling for a ban on guns. It sure sounds like what the politicians are really after is to disarm America. Yeah, gun control works. Ask the experts.

In 1911,

Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929,

the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
About 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935

China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and Exterminated

In 1938

Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945,
13 million Jews and others unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956

Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977,
one million educated people, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964

Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970

Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated

In the 20th Century

56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated 
because of gun control.

In the 21st Century, will Americans be next?


No comments:

Post a Comment

No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at