Posts Tagged ‘assault weapons ban’

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!