Typically, when you hear someone talk about gun control, they try to moderate it by using terms that don’t make them sound like the type of nutcase who blindly trusts government to do the right thing (which is what they are). They’ll use terms like “common sense gun control” or “common sense gun reform.”
The first question that you have to ask is “What is common sense?” because, in my experience, common sense is actually pretty uncommon, and they probably don’t have it. It’s when you start pushing them for specifics (or when they think that you’re on their side) that the disturbing truth comes out.
A perfect example is Mark Glaze who is the former executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (as if any mayors are for illegal guns). Glaze wrote a piece for a new anti-gun group called Guns Down. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action tells us about Glaze’s article:
Writing on behalf of a new gun control group called Guns Down, Glaze endorsed mandatory firearm owner licensing, alluded to a “government buy-back” for commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and called for restrictions that would prevent even the law-abiding from accessing guns.
In a departure from Everytown’s messaging, Glaze downplayed the importance of background checks, claiming that they “alone aren’t the answer.” According to Glaze, “To truly tackle the gun violence epidemic, lawmakers must go further – after the guns themselves.”
Glaze’s central thesis, and Guns Down’s organizing principle, is that there are too many guns in private hands the U.S.; regardless of whether those guns are lawfully or unlawfully possessed. This oversimplified view of gun ownership harkens back to the handgun prohibitionist messaging of the 1970s and 80s.
Think about that for a moment. Glaze is advocating “mandatory firearm owner licensing.” In other words, he says that you don’t have a Constitutional right to have your firearm. He thinks that you don’t have a right to have a firearm unless the government gives you that right.
Now, we can get into a long argument about where rights come from, but I’ll just mention that the Founding Fathers believed that our rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are inalienable. In other words, our rights don’t come from government; we have them because we are human beings.
Radicals like Glaze need to wake up to the reality of the fallacy of thinking gun control brings safety, and they need to stop treating government like God, as if government is where rights originate from. It’s that kind of ridiculous thinking that caused our Founding Fathers to fight off King George in the first place.
Too bad there’s not a mayor’s organization entitled ‘Mayors against illegal Totalitarian Gun Control laws’ that are designed to eventually make Everybody some kind of criminal where they can then invoke the mother of all outrageous unconstitutional laws–the ’68 GCA that makes all ex criminals permanently banned from gun ownership thereby setting the Tyrannical Stage for universal confiscations–by eventually making all persons potentially criminals. (See Battlefield America, by John Whitehead)
The radical left has recently been claiming that health care is a human right. I agree, but not in the sense they mean it: That government should be permitted no action or policy that negatively affects the health of the citizen, individually or en mass, and is beyond that the responsibility of the individual. the individual’s health is a human right – it is not a Constitutional right nor is it a responsibility Constitutionally distributed to any branch of government. The meaning the radicals place upon this is that the burden of the health care of the individual is not the responsibility of the individual but of the government and, by extension, the taxpayers. Although I see no validity in their argument, it does have some implications logically derived from their thesis that I suspect they would not like. Possession of firearms is not only a human right but it is a Constitutionally supported right, one the government cannot Constitutionally deny. It is therefore beyond argument whether it is or is not a right. It follows from the Leftist thesis that the government should be responsible for insuring that every citizen be supplied, at government expense if necessary, with a firearm. It is a human right.
Tell queer Bloomberg morons NOTICE. If you think you can take them come get them you only get them one way REGARDLESS OF ANY STUPID QUEER, LIBERAL WHINNERS LAWS!!
PERIOD!
I remember WWII
First they take ur guns then they takeover everything and every living soul
Same old story. These anti gun nut jobs haven’t checked out the history of the Nazi and socialist regimes who disarmed their citizens. I guarantee you that Bloomberg’s security guards are not armed with slingshots.
By Zbigniew Mazurak: if the federal government is reduced and reined in line with the limits imposed by the Constitution, the government will be small, will stop interfering with issues it shouldn’t tinker with, the federal budget will be balanced, and most of America’s social problems will be solved, because most of them have resulted from federal interventionist policies. In fact, there are practical and constitutional arguments against every liberal domestic policy.
The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:
1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.
James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
– Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9
Same old story. These nut jobs forget the history of socialist Nazi regimes who disarmed their citizens. I bet Bloomberg’s body guards don’t carry slingshots.
The anti-gunner just dont get it or too chicken crap to go get em..anti gunners can go after the criminals and get their guns but I bet their afraid to have their arses handed to them so go after law abiding citizens..NOT
Bloomberg is a fool. Nobody believes he has any common sense and he uses his fortune to bully others. His ideas about gun control are crazy. He expects law abiding people to just let the criminals have their way with us while he has armed body guards. What a two-faced SOB!
The fundamental problem lies in the difference in the way anti-gun people think about citizens in general, and violent behavior in particular. Those who espouse various forms of gun control legislation have 2 basic underlying beliefs that are different from those who oppose such laws.
1) They don’t trust “ordinary people” to be safe, responsible gun owners, who won’t endanger the public (especially THEM).
2) They believe that a law can prevent a behavior. This is a patently absurd belief (although a widespread one), but it is a necessary belief for those who hold belief “1” above. Otherwise they must live in constant fear of others in public, and have no means of addressing their fears.
Historically, passing laws that made bad behavior with guns (for example, a law against murder) has obviously failed to make the public safer, so they must seek more laws that would make misbehavior with guns less likely. Since bad behavior by some people cannot be stopped, this leads to the idea that, if we could reduce the number of guns in public hands, or reduce the ease of access to them, then misbehavior with guns would become less likely. Even if this were true, and the available research data indicate that it is not, the issue of violent behavior by other means (without guns) would still remain a problem, and anti-gunners would still be afraid of others who might become violent. Thus, we could expect that, if guns could be totally outlawed (as in the UK for example), the same people would begin trying to restrict or ban access to knives (as is already the case in the UK today). Once knives are banned, the same people will likely begin to seek restrictions on public access to martial arts classes/training probably using a rationale like, “since people are inherently irresponsible, a citizen who is trained in a martial art poses a danger to the public and to the police, so the police are the only ones who should have access to such training.” Essentially the same argument now commonly being used against guns.
The underlying problem is that those who fear violent behavior by others, but are not willing to accept any responsibility for their own protection, must continue to rely on the imposition of legal restraints for their protection. Since those violent people (criminals) who are feared, will not obey laws, including laws restricting access to the means of violence, and since, in fact, no law can actually prevent any sort of behavior (it can only increase the “cost” of such behavior should the perpetrator be convicted of it), ALL such laws will inevitably fail to provide protection, and each failure will inevitably lead to calls for increasing legal restrictions. This occurs because it is the only means available to address the issue of violent people for those who are too cowardly or irresponsible to consider protecting themselves. It works in the same way as superstitions do (and with the same utility), but, like superstitions, it lingers despite the lack of any supporting evidence for its benefit.
Ultimately, this means that it will persist regardless of any and all arguments, no matter how well supported, against it. The only effective way to counteract it, is to change the prevailing belief about ordinary people, and to make irresponsible and cowardly beliefs socially unacceptable. Doing this flies directly in the face of the needs of the Progressive movement, which seeks maximum possible governmental control over the lives of citizens, thus, it will be necessary to eliminate, or at least marginalize, the Progressive movement, if real progress in regaining our inherent right to self-defense (including with guns) is to be made.
Rights come from God and are UNalienable, not INalienable.
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights; they are a grant from the creator to the individual and are inherent in man, they can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
No right is inalienable only privileges.
GUNS AREN’T THE PROBLEM,BLACKS ARE———University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.
According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.
FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.
In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.
In other words: black people–at just a fifth of the size–committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.
FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.
DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.
In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.
FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.
Chicago’s death toll from 2001–November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321.
FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone. LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?.
We need to quit focusing on the gun issue and work harder at the people issue.
I’ve heard this garbage for many years, and I’m sick of it. Under the Second Amendment. The founders wrote it so that a person can protect them self’s, and their family’s. And to be able to match the strength of the aggressors, foreign and domestic. A bad guy will always be able to get a weapon either by stealing it, or by making it. People that don’t realize the more gun control that the government brings makes it harder for the honest person to protect his self and family. Look at Chicago IL, they have just about the most control then most city’s, and guess what they have a heck of a lot more crimes. look at their murder rates today it’s like a small war every day in their streets. Other cities have less gun control with a lot less crime..
Help me out here. A person commits a crime with a firearm and the gun grabbers want me
to forfeit my constitutional right? Hmmm, my daddy raised me different, then their daddy
raised them.
Bob July27,2017
I am retired military, and I know all about firearm safety and was classified Expert in several weapons. I own several weapons., All are legal and. registered . Tell r. Bloomburg that the day he stops having his armed body guards, he will have something else to spend his money on. According to history, the Japanese did not try
to invade the USA because they knew private citizens owned weapons, and knew how to use them
Help me out here. A person commits a crime with a firearm and the gun grabbers want me to forfeit
my constitutional right? Hmm …. I think my daddy raised me different, then their daddy raised them.
Gun control people love to change the meaning of words and phrases. They don’t want you to know that it really means (covertly) people control. ‘Gun safety’ really means a very similar thing, take guns away from people, ’cause they can’t be trusted. They are smart enough to know if they use these terms enough, people will think that the terms mean just what they want you to believe. And it works!
I don’t hear any of them advocating taking cars off the roads, and away from the people, because they kill a lot more people than guns do.
all anti-gunners want FULL CONFISCATION, AND THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE.
AND THAT’S ALSO part of ONE THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO’S PLANKS TO TRY AND TAKE OVER A NATION.
because they KNOW, AND ARMED SOCIETY WILL BE HARD TO OVERCOME.
don’t believe me,?ask THE JAPANESE WHY THEY DIDN’T TRY AND LAND ON OUR SHORES DURING WW11.
they stated, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT EVERY AMERICAN WOULD BE BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS ARMED AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED IN A SUCCESSFUL LANDING.
Comments are closed.