Posts Tagged With: California

Some Rational Thoughts on Gun Control

Sometimes you find something that says it all and says it right, and with Mr. Carl Stevenson’s comment on the GodfatherPolitics.com article, Stop Trying to Reason with Anti-gun Advocates, that is just what we have. Thanks Carl!

With all of the hysteria, hype, and misinformation regarding gun control that’s emanating from the “progressive” left and flooding the media in the aftermath of the recent tragic shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, there are many important things that need to be raised into the public consciousness and which are deserving of serious consideration by the public.

I’m going to start with the origins of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“the GCA68”), since it’s in many ways the seed from which the misnamed “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994-2004 (the “AWB94”) sprung.

Since reinstating and expanding the AWB94 is the immediate goal of Senator Diane Feinstein and her fellow tyrant wannabes, knowledge of the roots from which the ban sprung is important.

Most people don’t know that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “written” by Senator Thomas Dodd (ironically, D-CT), the father of Senator Chris Dodd (also, D-CT), a major proponent of the AWB94.

I put the word “written” in quotes above, because Dodd actually had the Library of Congress translate Hitler’s gun laws from the original German and used them almost word for word in “crafting” the law.

This is WELL documented … poke around at http://www.jpfo.org and you’ll find the proof of that little-known fact, and much more of interest. (In particular, see http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20…, but do poke around more on the JPFO website – there’s a wealth of useful information there.)

OK, now that we’ve established the heritage of the AWB94, let’s explore the facts about both the myths that are circulating about the weapons they seek to ban and the general outcome which has, historically, always followed the disarmament of a population.

The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they’re lying.

Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)

The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT “spray bullets” as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)

Also impress up on people that the AR-15 and functionally similar guns are NOT “only suitable for a war zone” as the ban’s proponents and media personalities keep saying, but that they are, in fact, NOT really suitable for combat use at all because of their limitations. (Our troops would be SERIOUSLY out-gunned if they went into battle with AR-15s.)

Further, they are not “heavy weapons” as some of the media people keep saying. Inform people of the factual reality that these weapons are actually considerably LESS powerful than most of their grandpa’s deer rifles – to the point that in many states it’s illegal to hunt game larger than groundhogs and coyotes with the .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires.

The public has to be informed so that they understand that they are deliberately being misled and misinformed by the media to advance the citizen disarmament agenda of leftist tyrant wannabes in our government. (These same people through DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 3-4 times – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law). Considering that the you and I and all of the other US taxpayers are paying for all of this ammo, it’s frighteningly reminiscent of the story of political prisoners’ families being forced to pay for the bullets used to execute them … isn’t it?

If we allow these leftist control freaks to ignore and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment, history will inevitably repeat itself. These “gun control” proposals have NOTHING to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL.

Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.

Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.

Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.

The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.

Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.

Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.

The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.

They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope (2001)’

Advertisements
Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime

More support for the argument that an armed society is a polite society and proof that gun control does not protect the citizenry! As California’s leftist leaders take step after step to disarm the people of California, the people are paying the price in violence, crime and loss.

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime.

Categories: CPL Law, Gun Control, Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In San Jose, The Police Want You to Comply with Your Robbers

I am often dismayed by the vapid, flaccid attitude of police agencies after a private citizen defends themselves. That is, after all, what the whole concealed carry movement is about–self-defense. All too often, some mealy-mouthed toadie gets up in front of the media and goes on about the dangers of using a gun to defend yourself rather than congratulating the would-be victim for their courage and resolve in the face of danger. It is sad to see the depth to which we, as a society, have sunk.

Consider, for a moment, the incident that took place last Monday at a San Jose, California, jewelry store. Two armed robbers enter the store. When they commanded the lady who owns the store to produce the loot, she produced a pistol instead, firing a shot in the direction of the bandits and sending them running. She defended herself in a terrifying, highly-stressed situation and came out of it all unscathed. Now, what do you think the San Jose Police Department had to say about it?

Albert Morales, the San Jose Police spokesman, said, “We don’t recommend (drawing a gun or firing). We would have preferred that they just go ahead and comply with the request or demands of the robbers. Again they were after material items that could be replaced and again our biggest fear is that somebody would have gotten hurt, injured and possibly even died.”

How’s that for letting criminals know where they stand in San Jose? I can hear the collective sigh of relief coming from thieves, robbers, pickpockets, burglars and others who have made larceny their profession in and around San Jose. The police prefer compliance to self-defense, submission to standing your ground. No charges were filed, since the shop owner did not actually commit a crime, but Morales made it clear that the police, and presumably the City of San Jose, feel about her exercise of her right to defend herself.

That is the real crime in all of this. Morales is not scolding the thieves, he is scolding the victim. By doing that, he is telling the criminals of San Jose that they should not have to fear the people they prey upon; that the police feel their pain and would like to keep anything so untoward from happening to them ever again. Morales is worried that someone might have died. He’s right, the lady shop owner could have died. She could have been raped first and then killed. The possibilities of what they might have done to her are staggering. None of that happened, of course. She ensured that by drawing her weapon and pulling the trigger, a clear message to the robbers that their own lives were in peril. That was a message they heeded, running headlong out of the store and into a waiting SUV.

Law enforcement has to be made to understand that the armed citizen is not a threat or a problem for them to solve. Instead, they should appreciate such citizens for doing something that police have never actually been able to do: lower the crime rate. The rise in the number of armed citizens has lead to lower rates of violent crime across the board. Why? Because more often than not, the armed citizen actually shoots at their assailant. For any San Jose (or Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., etc.) cops who might be reading this, that means the would-be victim makes it dangerous to be a criminal. As a result of the increased danger, there is less crime. It is no more complicated than that.

Here is the video: Police Want Victims to Comply with Robbers

Categories: Guns and Politics, Liberty | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.