Misguided Gun Grabbers Still Ignoring Reality

by lewwaters

A Salt RifleIt seems shortly after any horrific shooting, where some crazed gunman goes on a frenzy shooting up another gun free zone, as we saw last year in Aurora, Colorado and the Newtown Elementary shootings, misguided individuals crawl out of the woodwork with their cries of “we need gun control,” “repeal the second amendment” and “pass an assault weapons ban.”

These and many more cries begin within minutes of such horrific events, receive lots of press and TV time and a lot of noise is made in Congress from self-serving politicians demanding a ban on any and everything in sight and without a clue of why there is a second amendment or that gun-free zones provide easy targets for malcontents bent on causing mayhem and death.

Eventually, the noise lessens, misguided gun grabbers crawl back into their holes, useless legislation might be passed and largely ignored and nothing really changes.

We saw this same scenario playing out after the Newtown shooting, but the noise level is increasing again as those misguided individuals are still screaming for a piece of paper with words on it, falsely believing it will protect them from the criminal element.

New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a long time gun hater except when armed guards are protecting him, is pouring large amounts of his own ill-gotten gains towards efforts to impose more restrictions on legal gun owners. Bloomberg’s $12 Million effort led leftist magazine writer Alec Macgillis to pen a wishful thinking tome, This Is How the NRA Ends A bigger, richer, meaner gun-control movement has arrived.

Macgillis apparently doesn’t realize that it isn’t the people in lock-step with the NRA, but the NRA following the lead of the people in our country.

In Washington State citizen opposition saw several gun grabbing efforts defeated in the legislature early in 2013, including an effort to impose so called “universal background checks” on all private gun transactions, again ignoring that the criminal element ignores all laws as they steal or buy illegal guns on the black market or from other criminals.

But that didn’t stop a small band of misguided individuals who believe they can impose such restrictions through our “citizen initiative” process where the legislature could be forced to impose such restrictions through a petition drive and subsequent vote of the people in the state.

The lazy C, or local pitiful excuse for a newspaper joins in with the false belief of such background checks will keep illegal guns out of the hands of those who should not have one as they editorialized,

“Contrary to what many opponents state, we do not believe taking this step will eradicate the gun violence epidemic that has invaded even the most pastoral corners of our nation. But it would be part of the overall solution. People who should not be allowed to buy guns — criminals and the mentally ill — would find it more difficult to do so.”

The obvious contradiction, “we do not believe taking this step will eradicate the gun violence epidemic” and “People who should not be allowed to buy guns would find it more difficult to do so.”

It also must be remembered that many of these same people are those same ones who virulently object to and oppose all efforts to properly train and license qualified volunteer teachers and school staff or even other armed personnel in schools to thwart off any repeat of what happened in Newtown.

Strong evidence of the futility of the effort from the Lazy C and these misguided ‘gun grabbers’ is found in a recent survey taken of over 15,000 verified Police Officer’s from across the country by PoliceOne.com, a preeminent website for Law Enforcement personnel.

Asked, “What effect do you think the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have in improving police officer safety,” over 60% answered “none” while nearly 25% answered “negative.”

To “What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as ‘assault weapons,’ would have on reducing violent crime,” 71% said “none” while 20.5% said “negative.”

Getting closer to the futile attempt by misguided gun grabbers, “Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime” received a whopping 79.7% “no.”

To “Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made,” received the largest answer of “Casualties would likely have been reduced” from 80% of respondents.

In response to “Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable,” an overwhelming 91.3% replied “yes.”

PoliceOne summarizes the results as “Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.”

Yes, the results are just what gun grabbers do not want to see, but that is how well over 15,000 verified Police Officers responded to the survey showing clearly that the majority of Police prefer “more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.”

I don’t expect gun grabbers to pay any attention to these results, it’s just not in their nature to listen to anything contrary to their narrow-minded view and false, feel-good beliefs that are shown time and again to be erroneous.

All we need to do is look toward Chicago, Illinois and their near total ban on gun ownership saw 7 Dead, 41 Wounded in Wave of Chicago Weekend Violence.

We do not want to see repeats of that in our cities in Washington State or anywhere else.

We will soon see signature gatherers outside of stores or at our doors to push this misguided attempt to impose more restrictions on us, giving criminals more easy victims.

We must not allow them to disarm us at a time we read more and more of reductions in Police coverage in cash strapped communities.

Obama, Assault Weapons

13 Comments to “Misguided Gun Grabbers Still Ignoring Reality”

  1. Well based on the supreme court ruling this morning with regards to voter i.d. laws I imagine that ALL even illegals will have rights to bare arms. Afterall, they now have the right to vote since they do not have to prove that they are citizens any longer. Our country is up for grabs and ANY country can march in and take us over through the political system.

    Like

  2. While listening to the morning news, I heard one segment about a neighborhood group in Jennings Lodge (in Clackamas County) who wants to put up signs stating “This is a Glock Block. We Don’t Call 911.”

    It definitely gives one an uneasy feeling about what our future holds for us, our children and future generations. Are we returning to the “Wild West” once again and if we are…the weaponry is by far, more likely to cause more destruction in the wrong hands.

    Bear in mind…I am not against the right to bear arms. I am however against the possession and use of any automatic weaponry, and I am especially against the possession and use of the ammunition which penetrates the safety gear our police must wear on the job. There needs to be some control of what is bought and sold here in our nation.

    The gun grabbers??? In my opinion…they’re just plain whacked out. They’ve been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.

    Like

  3. There is only one problem with the automatic weapon issue Goldie. Once you ban something then it is game on for future infringements.

    Like

  4. Fully automatic weapons, like the Military uses, have been banned since back in the 1930’s.

    What they erroneously label “assault weapons” today is based solely on their appearance and are semi-automatic, meaning one bullet per pull of the trigger. It has to be released and pulled again to fire again.

    Like

  5. I know that which is a good example of my opinion. What one person deems okay another will fight to remove from you.

    Like

  6. Thank you for the clarification, Lew.

    Carolyn…regarding your comment @8:08 pm, if that were so…then according to Lew’s information he presented, the weapons game has been in full play since the 30’s (obviously).

    A food for thought…if our government cannot control what weaponry is sold here in US soil, what makes them think they can control the nuclear capabilities of countries like Iran and North Korea?

    They need to continue some kind of gun control. It will cost the taxpayers no matter what, but in the long run…it might be worth it. Here’s some ideas I’ll throw into the discussion. Maybe some of them are already in play –

    1) “If a person has been convicted with any premeditated crime involving a weapon whether they were or were not in possession of that weapon, there would be random searches of their person, vehicle(s) and residence approved only by the judge at time of sentencing which will begin once the person is allowed back in society. Prior to their release, their residence will be cleared of all weapons matching the one used which resulted in their conviction.”

    2) “Any international transport of a weapon without government pre-authorization will result in immediate arrest and conviction…NO trial. There will be no ‘Three Strike’s Law.” Sentencing will be dependent on history of offender.”

    3) “NO immediate deportation of ANY foreign nationals violating the International Weapons Transport law before serving the mandatory sentence and have a GPS chip implanted while serving their sentence so that once released and immediately deported, their whereabouts can be monitored once they infiltrate US soil.”

    Like

  7. My “ideas” what I believe would be strict gun laws. Two more to add to the list, including one which I’m sure some will find questionable:

    4) “A GPS chip will be implanted in any person convicted of a premeditated crime involving use of a weapon whether or not the weapon was used.

    5) “All gun sales…private or public…must include background history checks. Any person selling without following this rule would face criminal conviction.”

    I am 1000% in support of responsible and rightful gun ownership. There needs to…no, there HAS TO be laws protecting the innocent rather than protecting those who violate the rights of the innocent and the safety of our nation. If we don’t crack down on the problem…it will only get worse.

    Like

  8. Gun-rights groups say the effort to impose more gun control measures is misguided, noting in particular that most killings in America are committed with handguns and not the assault weapons the administration intends to target. Some local officials have vowed to resist federal action.

    Like

  9. Re: “assault” weapons–it is a fact that Leftists have always had some trouble defining what that means; frequently, they satisfy themselves that any weapon common to a battlefield satisfies the definition of an assault weapon. Of course, the Colt .45 has been around for almost a hundred years and has served many American soldiers on a variety of battlefields. A last word on the assault weapons ban proposal: such a ban was in place during the Clinton administration; during the life of the ban, no decline in crimes committed with such weapons resulted, meaning that the ban had no practical effect.

    Like

  10. I knew that. Bans are only usefull for one thing, removing your right to stop tyranny.

    Like

  11. Singapore is one of those countries where gun violence, statistically, is practically unknown.

    There are a wide variety of reasons, but few we can actually apply here. We have a Supreme Court which has ruled on our right to possess and carry firearms. Singapore does not seem to have that as a “right,” per se’.

    But here’s the thing, you see:

    Arms Offences[sic] Act
    The Arms Offences[sic] Act regulates firearms offenses[sic].[19] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit scheduled offences[sic] (Section 4A). These scheduled offences[sic] are being a member of an unlawful assembly; rioting; certain offences[sic] against the person; abduction or kidnapping; extortion; burglary; robbery; preventing or resisting arrest; vandalism; mischief. Any person who is an accomplice (Section 5) to a person convicted of arms use during a scheduled offence[sic] can likewise be executed.

    Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence[sic] in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences[sic] Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms.

    [25/84]

    (3) Where any person at the time of his committing or at the time of his apprehension for any scheduled offence[sic] has on his person any arm, he shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.

    (4) Where any person convicted of an offence[sic] punishable under subsection (1) or (2) is proved to have been previously convicted of a scheduled offence[sic], he shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 6 strokes.
    [25/84]
    Using or attempting to use arms
    4.
    —(1) Subject to any exception referred to in Chapter IV of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) which may be applicable (other than section 95), any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall be guilty of an offence[sic] and shall on conviction be punished with death.
    [30/93]
    (2) In any proceedings for an offence[sic] under this section, any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have used or attempted to use the arm with the intention to cause physical injury to any person or property.

    In short, if you use a weapon illegally in Singapore for almost anything criminal, you’re liable to be executed for it. Sentences are, essentially, automatic.

    “Arms,” as a definition, could also include knives and other weapons besides guns: garrotes, screwdrivers, blow torches, ice picks, chain saws…. you name it, the law could be used broadly enough to cover anyone who would use any instrument of any kind of criminal harm to another…. or anyone who knowingly assists them in the act to include selling them the weapons in question.

    Kind of removes the incentive. Kind of reduces the upside potential.

    As a nation, our crime rate continues to drop overall. Well, unless you live in the “gun free” zone of the City of Chicago.

    Imagine what would likely happen to even Chicago’s homicide rate if laws like these were enacted around the country.

    What I never forget is that the plummeting crime rate seems to be in direct proportion to the implementation of more “Three Strikes” laws.

    To that end, I would advocate an American interpretation of Singapore’s gun laws that would result in the life sentence of anyone carrying a weapon during a crime, and the execution of anyone who uses a weapon, in any way, to commit a crime.

    Further, I advocate the reduction of the “Three Strikes” law to a “TWO Strikes” law.

    EVERYONE knows the difference between right and wrong. Everyone should be entitled one “mistake.”

    But only one.

    I would call the weapons violations laws “One and Done,” And I would call the Three Strikes changes what they are: “Two Strikes and You’re Out.”

    Democrat heads would explode all over the country. Naturally, leftists would oppose this sort of thing. It’s “racist,” you see.

    I don’t care if it is: oddly enough, a gun doesn’t give a rat’s ass what color the finger on it’s trigger is.

    But regardless of color, under this law, if you’re going to use a gun to commit a crime, you are GOING to get hurt.

    This law, enacted, would have the benefit of shifting attention from the increasing regulation of those of us who follow the law, to those who actually BREAK the law.

    An approach that might work well in dealing with illegal aliens, come to think of it.

    That said, like so many other things in our lives, they are there, or not there, because of government.

    Our economy is an ongoing train wreck because the Obama Gang and Congress seemingly know about as much on how to fix this as they do brain surgery. In the end, it’s both the president AND Congress, including the establishment GOP, who are the reason we have his mountain range of debt being dumped on our children’s… and additional generations…. heads…. the ultimate game of kicking the can down the road.

    Simply put: if Obama and Congress didn’t want there to be a debt…. there wouldn’t be one.

    Likewise, gun violence continues to be a problem because government continues to look in the wrong direction: they continue to punish the law abiding for the acts of the law breaking. And it’s the same thing with gun violence.

    The gun-grabbers toy around the edges, making a lot of moves that accomplish nothing, doing their best, apparently, to keep the focus off those who need it the most.

    The impact of laws such as this would be immediate. Politically, the left would freak and then have to defend their efforts to derail such a move. They would be forced to either hop on to the train or get run over by it.

    That, by itself would be a thing of beauty, politically. But if saving lives is the goal, I have yet to see anything from anyone that would do more, faster, and I would love it if someone had a better idea.

    Like

  12. The argument from the left would be: we need more money for prisons and reform
    I agree with you and for the most part “reform” is not what our prisons do. I do have concerns with the strike out clauses as long as we prosecute children as adults. There are so many cases where kids do really dumb crap and would never repeat the mistakes if we do not through the kid away into prison. That issue needs addressed in order to be tougher on crime.

    Like

  13. Of course, although waiting periods provide a direct comparison to gun policy, that’s not the only type of anti-choice law that limits access to abortion care . Republican-dominated states also impose restrictions on abortion providers that force health clinics to close their doors, require doctors to tell women scientifically inaccurate information about abortion risks, force women to look at images of their fetus on an ultrasound before being allowed to proceed with an abortion, prevent women from using their own insurance coverage to pay for abortion care, require women to seek out “counseling” at right-wing crisis pregnancy centers that attempt to dissuade them from choosing abortion, or ban the procedure altogether before the cut-off defined under Roe v. Wade.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: