Posts Tagged ‘assault weapons ban’

Let’s Ban Knives Too

Posted by Troy on 27th March 2018 in Current Events, Human Nature, Political

They asked a 13ish-year-old why he was marching for their lives.  He responded “My brother was shot.”

Okay, so if your brother was stabbed, shall we try to ban knives?

I know what you are going to say… “That… DIFFERENT!” which is pretty much the hallmark of someone that doesn’t have a good explanation for how they feel.

I think we can all agree that no one NEEDS a knife that is greater than 2″ in length.  With a little patience, a paring knife will do anything you need to do.  So why do we have to have this high capacity… sorry… longer knives?  For CONVENIENCE?  Because you  think it’s fun to cut huge swaths of meat?  YOU MAKE ME SICK!

Can we agree that personal tragedy is a stupid reason to make any legislation?  Every year, 20 babies fall into 5 gallon buckets and drown.  Do we make it a law that people have to bust these buckets in half or that they come with detachable bottoms to prevent such deaths?  Or do we accept that it’s a tragedy and feel sorry for the families that it happens to.

You may say, “You care more about your right to buy an AR-15 than about kids’s lives!”  But that is not the case.  I don’t want to ban the AR-15 because it wouldn’t really do anything.  If he couldn’t get an AR-15, he’d use shotguns and pistols or a host of other choices.  If guns were not available, a suicide vest or some other horrifying concepts would suffice.  So why should I give up my right when it will not accomplish ANYTHING?  Just to say “We did something!”  Yes… we did something useless and removed a right in the process.  That doesn’t seem a noble goal.  It seems more like an act of vanity than anything.

You say, “You have been brainwashed by the NRA!  They’re just a tool of the gun lobby!”  Nah.  I joined the NRA because I love and understand the 2nd Amendment and want it protected.  Frankly, if they are serving the gun lobby, I flat out don’t care.  All I care about is that the 2nd Amendment stay intact.  I didn’t embrace the 2nd Amendment because of the NRA.  I embraced the NRA because of the 2nd Amendment.  Get it straight.

You say, “We’re not talking about doing away with the 2nd Amendment!  We’re just walking about COMMON SENSE gun control.”  Well, most of what you call “common sense” actually wouldn’t solve a damn thing…so I kinda question if it is really common sense.  But here’s a serious question: “If it’s NOT about doing away with the 2nd Amendment… why are you demanding FEDERAL gun legislation?”  You see, the states can do pretty much whatever they want.  You mean to tell me that Miami, FL has the same needs as Cody, WY?  THEY DON’T.  Why not let them decide what gun laws make sense for them?  The greatest thing is that, in so doing, you don’t have to actually disregard the 2nd Amendment because states have a very large leeway in their gun regulations.  So why is it so very important that it happen at the Federal level?   Because the end goal is total disarmament.  And that is why we will never give an inch.

Long Live the Constitution!

Trump’s Base

Posted by Troy on 1st March 2018 in Current Events, Political

Trump bragged about how he could shoot someone in Time’s Square and his base wouldn’t leave him.  That’s possibly true, but I will tell you this, Mr. Trump, they will leave you if you abandon the Second Amendment.  None of the laws being talked about would have prevented the mast majority of mass shootings.  These are basically infringements of Constitutional rights with no payoff.  Nothing they are suggesting would have prevented a mass shooting.  Mr. Trump, if you go against the Second Amendment, don’t bother running in 2020.  Your base will abandon you, and you will lose.  I assure you, they are way more loyal to the Second Amendment than to you.

Long Live the Constitution!

In defense of the AR-15

Posted by Troy on 19th February 2018 in Current Events, Political

Let’s be honest: this is a failure of the FBI.  Holy crap, how many people have to report a kid?  How many times does he have to say he wants to kill cops and be a professional school shooter before you say, “I’ll look into it?”

Okay, so people are all up on the AR-15.  Here’s my defense on why average Americans should be allowed to have these weapons:

1 – Just like drugs, if someone really wants an “assault rifle” for nefarious reasons, they are going to get it.  Sorry, but that’s the truth.  You can make the argument “Yeah, but why make it easier for them?” which does have some merit, but I will continue.

2 – For the most part, if you want to kill multiple people, a sawed off shotgun with a followup .45 pistol will give you similar numbers.  [exclusion for the Las Vegas shooter... in that kind of scenario with a packed field of people and a long distance, an "assault rifle would be ideal, but this is just one instance.]

3 – School shootings are statistically unimportant.  “HOW DARE YOU!  It is a tragedy!  What if that had been your child?!”  It was my child, I’d cry my eyes out.  Likewise, if my child drowned in a 5 gallon bucket (happens 20 times a year), I would be devastated.  However, I would also realize it is statistically unimportant.  As such, I would not push for federal anti-bucket laws.

4 – If you want to say, “If we save BUT ONE LIFE!  JUST ONE TEEN,” I will counter with: Do you know how many die from drug overdoses?  From alcohol related accidents?  What if we lowered the speed limit to 25 miles per hour?  What if we increased the age for driving to twenty-one?  Think of all the lives that would be saved.  But all of these have costs, and we are unwilling to pay for these costs.  The uncomfortable truth is this: “The way we live our lives, kills people.  We know this, and we are willing to accept a certain number of deaths to maintain our lifestyle.”  Think of it this way: the five-year old girl that got hit by a car and died may have lived if we had a fifteen mile per hour speed limit, or if we required that children stay indoors at all times, but we don’t.  Getting to places quickly helps us get more done per day.  Going outside is fun and healthy for the child.  We feel sad that the girl died, but we do not do away with cars that she may live.  We don’t make her parents keep her inside so that she will be safer.

5 – Murders are mostly caused by handguns.  Demonizing the AR-15 or any other rifle doesn’t’ make it so.

Long Live the Constitution!  Long Live the Second Amendment

Obama Using Human Tragedy to Push Gun Control… AGAIN

Posted by Troy on 15th June 2016 in Current Events, Political

Never let a crisis go to waste, right?  With every mass shooting, they make a new push for gun control.  Here are the facts:

An assault weapon is an effective weapon, but other weapons are available that would have had similar results (such as a sawed off 12-gauge).  If they can’t get an assault weapon, they will buy other weapons or make a bomb or poison gas, etc.  As such, an assault weapons ban will not work.  That’s not even assuming that they won’t go to the black market and get one anyway.  If you can buy crack, what makes you think you can’t buy an AR-15 after they are made illegal?

The Terrorist/No-Fly list.  The issue with this is that you get on this list by them just putting you on there.  You have no right to see the “evidence” facing you.  It makes getting off the list impossible.  What’s to prevent them from saying that right-wing bloggers, tea partiers, etc, are all terrorists.  Boom.  You’re done.  The NRA has said they support this assuming that the FBI investigates you and settles the case.  So I will go one further.  If you are put on a no-fly/terrorist list, they have to take you to court and they have to settle the case one way or the other after showing you the evidence they have against you.  They have 30 days in order to do this.  After this, they pay you a $75,000 a day penalty like the EPA charged a Wyoming man that dug a home-made pond on his land.

I remind you, the Orlando terrorist bought his guns legally.  The San Bernardino terrorists had a friend buy theirs.  This is why gun laws are going to be largely ineffective.

I refuse to give up my rights.  Doing so will not make us any safer.  Let them live without armed protection for a while and see how they like it.

Long Live the Constitution!

Assault Weapons Bans are Useless and Liability Protection for Gun Manufacturers

Posted by Troy on 19th December 2012 in Current Events, Political

They say 62% of Americans are for the banning of assault weapons.  Quick question:  Why?  We had one.  Do you know why we don’t have one anymore?  No, the answer isn’t, “Because of the NRA.”  It’s because it didn’t reduce crime.  Do you honest to God think that a criminal is going to say, “I wanna commit a crime!  What, I can’t use an AR-15?  Oh well…I guess I’ll just attend community college, get a job, maybe meet a girl and get married and raise some kids…”  Or do you think they will say, “That’s okay.  I’ll just use this sawed off shotgun instead.”

The killer already had a gun.  This law wouldn’t have stopped him, but even if he didn’t, do you think that the result would have been better if he had used a 12 gauge?  Given the fact that the victims were in neat little rows, a few shotgun blasts would have made that room a slaughterhouse.  An AR-15 is great for a variety of purposes.  Many enthusiasts pick it or the AK-47 as the best all around gun.  However, at close quarters, there is no more devastating weapon than the 12 gauge.  Where assault weapons really shine is at mid to long (but not seriously long) range.  My point?  The gun choice is largely unimportant.  Two pistols would have had equal ammo capacity or a .22 loaded with stinger rounds would have done the job just as well given who he had chosen to target.  Outlawing one type of weapon would not have saved those kids.  Hell, he could have used a sword and cleared that room.

Finally, the Huffington Post has a story about how the families of the victims are being denied the opportunity to seek restitution…from the gun manufacturer!  Ok…why do the gun manufacturers have any liability here?  They didn’t pull the trigger.  If you want them to be on the hook, then you have to agree with the following:

1)  You can sue Ford and Jack Daniels when someone dies at the hands of a drunk driver.

2)  You can sue a Ginsu when someone is stabbed to death.

3)  You can sue Louisville Slugger when someone is bludgeoned to death.

4)  You can sue God when someone is drowned.  Hey…He made water, right?

You think all of these examples are asinine, and you should.  Why do you think differently because it’s guns?  The answer is because it is guns, and you want to get rid of them, and you will use any means necessary to do it.

Gun deaths per year: 31,000 (17,000 suicides and probably shouldn’t be counted, so 14,000 deaths)

Doctor accident deaths per year: 120,000  (funny)

Drug overdose deaths: 27,000 (maybe we should make these illegal to stop these?)

Abortions in the US this year: 1,200,000 (insane!  right?  Talk about saving children’s lives!  ha ha)

Smoking deaths: 443,000 per year

Obesity deaths: 300,000 per year (Maybe we should make McDonald’s illegal?)

Drunk driving deaths: 10,000 per year

Driving accident deaths: 33,000 per year

We could make a lotta stuff illegal and save a lot of lives.  So why don’t we get rid of all this stuff!  We can move to just public transportation (read 2084!).  Come on!  Join the club!  Drink the Kool Aid!

Think for yourselves, guys.  Think rationally and logically.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ak-47s belong the the hands of soldiers, not criminals

Posted by Troy on 26th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama begins his attack on the the Second Amendment.  I imagine the Left is fit to be tied.  They thought the public would demand more gun control after the Fast and the Furious.  It didn’t materialize.  Then they thought, surely after Gabby Giffords!  Nope, sorry.  Finally this!  This has to be the moment of truth!!!!  Not even now.  After each of these events, gun sales actually increased.  Imagine that!  It appears that Americans love their right to keep and bear arms.

According to Obama, AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not criminals.  First, he needs to learn about the military.  He’s the Commander in Chief.  I’m sure he can arrange a field trip to a military base.  We use M-16s.  Communists use the AK-47…I can understand why he’s confused, actually.  His premise is that only militaries and criminals use these weapons.  There’s a third group that he always forgets to account for:  law abiding gun owners.  The vast majority of AK-47s are owned by law abiding citizens.  Why should their rights be infringed upon?  His argument is based solely upon the concept that criminals are only willing to use AK-47s to commit their crimes.  Obama is assuming that they would be unwilling to switch over to a different type of rifle or use a shotgun.  This is why gun control opponents say that the end result of gun control must be the illegalization of all guns because, if not, what the hell is the point?

And a note to Fascist Mayor Bloomburg:  If the police of America went on strike until more gun control was enacted, I promise you, you would not see more gun control.  What you would most definitely see is every citizen that could afford guns buying them.  You would also see the pure rape of all those communities that have denied their citizens the right to defend themselves.

Long Live the Constitution!