Tuesday, January 4, 2011

No Gun Control

A post on the News Star, I believe, was written in all seriousness.  The comments are a riot too.

Gun control has never stopped bad guys from getting guns and shooting up public areas. In order to stop this unconstitutionality, we need to repeal "gun-free" school zones, the D.C. gun ban, the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, waiting periods on purchasing handguns, and others. It is sad that our two-party government has divided us and completely ignored our constitutional rights.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor owning any type of firearm. It is about protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms from generation to generations to come.  

It is time to repeal gun control at the state, national and local levels. 

What's your opinion?  Do you agree with the first commenter who said we should repeal the law of gravity while we're at it?

Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. MikeB: “Do you agree with the first commenter who said we should repeal the law of gravity while we're at it?”

    Absolutely not. Gravity is very important, and it works! Every time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's interesting to note that Monroe, LA has virtually no gun control or gun laws--yet they lead gunloon shibboleths like DC and Chicago in murder and crime rates.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jade: “It's interesting to note that Monroe, LA has virtually no gun control or gun laws…”

    Incorrect. Monroe, being a part of Louisiana, being a part of the United States, is under federal gun control laws. That means dealer background checks, Lautenberg misdemeanor bans, interstate transfer laws, straw-purchase laws, felony prohibition, gun-free school zones… I could go on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TS: You do go on and on.

    As I said there are virtuall no gun control laws. Dealer background checks? Don't make me laugh...gun show loophole anyone?

    Again, LA has no gun control laws, period. Of course, their crime rate reflects that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you trying to say that the background checks we do have are useless? Is that what you are trying to say?

    ReplyDelete
  6. TS: Think about it. We have background checks on *some* sales. Not all, some.

    We also know many dealers are willing to bot conduct background checks in order to make a sale. This maens the *some* sales are diminished further.

    The point is pretty clear: when you have a system that can be circumvented at any time and can be ignored because there's no oversight--you really have no background check system.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is not “some”, it is most. So are you are saying it is somewhat, mostly, or totally useless?

    Jade: “We also know many dealers are willing to bot conduct background checks in order to make a sale. This maens the *some* sales are diminished further.”

    Making a law that says you have to follow the law won’t help this. All you can do is bust the people who conduct illegal sales with law enforcement. Based on your own blog, it appears this does indeed happen. So why don’t you change your “no oversight” to at least *some* oversight?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No,TS, it's some.

    It's quite simple; there's a very easy way to ensure it's prohibitively difficult for bad guys to get guns. Your masters at the NRA won't allow it.

    Think of it this way: suppose you wish to enforce a speed limit of 55 mph on a certain road. Would it make sense to only enforce the 55 mph on cars that are painted green? Would it make sense to only permit car dealers to enforce the speed limit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is a way to have complete background checks (open NICS), but it is your side that won’t allow it. Mike doesn’t want it, Japete doesn’t want it, and I’d have to assume that the BC as a group doesn’t want it. I don’t know about you. Odd, don’t you think?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike doesn't want it???

    C'mon TS, don't start making stuff up. I don't care if the NICS system is opened up to everyone or if private gun transactions have to go through an FFL guy. Background checks on every transfer is what I'd like to see, along with a few other ideas, none of which is happening in LA.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike, I apologize if I overstated your opinion, but this is where I am coming from: I still don’t think you “want” an open NICS. You said yourself right here that “you don’t care”, but you certainly continue to push the path of going through FFLs. I have never seen you bring it up yourself as a solution, and you usually steer it right back to using FFLs. Here is an old post:

    MikeB 3/11/2010: “Do pro-gun folks really consider opening up the NICS to everyone a trade-off? I don't see the benefit to you guys in that. Background checks on all transfers might require that, but they could alse require a trip to an FFL guy who for a small fee does the deal.”

    An open NICS has some support from gun owners. I don’t understand why your guys aren’t leaping down that path as a way of getting universal background checks- if it is indeed the background checks that you are after. If it really doesn’t matter to you which way it is done, then push the idea that has some support from us because it is far more likely to get accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fine, have it your way, but please explain why it's so important to you.

    ReplyDelete