Our daily dose of Hardscrabble Farmer wisdom:
Do any of the gun control advocates ever push for the disarmament of the government? If guns are dangerous, then it would stand to reason that it doesn’t matter who has them. So guns themselves are necessary in order to enforce laws, edicts, etc. The real problem then would be who is statistically more likely to misuse them? Civilians or governments? Can we get a body count and then decide?
Gun control advocates are almost always totalitarian types, i.e. My philosophy is correct and yours is wrong, therefore you have to accept my ideology and I don’t have to accept yours.The government agrees with me and will use there guns to make sure that you comply with my will. Who can argue with that kind of logic?
Gun control advocates are almost always the most uninformed people in the world in the use and mechanics of these tools. They don’t own them, have never used them, don’t know how they operate, what the names of the parts are, etc. You wouldn’t listen to a doctor who didn’t know the parts of the human body were or what function they performed, why would you take policy advice from someone who is ignorant of the subject?
Gun control advocates never seem to make the connection between the use of firearms by criminals (who by their very nature ignore laws and edicts) and the use of firearms by responsible citizens. Crime rates in gun free zones are ALWAYS higher than in areas where gun ownership is ubiquitous. The failure to observe readily available facts in an effort to create a more violent and dangerous environment for everyone ought to be a reason to ignore rather than accept their arguments.
I own and use firearms in the same way I own and use power tools as they were intended to be used. I understand their functions, how to maintain them, how to handle them safely and when required for the task at hand. I would no more accept a ban on my possessions and their use than I would try and ban motor vehicles and fast food even though both of those cause far more deaths and physical harm than firearms ever have.
The problem, once again always boils down to those who advocate for human freedom and personal responsibility and those who champion tyranny and the complete submission of the individual to the State. At the point of a gun.
Isn’t it ironic, dontcha think?
Concise, excellent and (most importantly), true. I wish the reality that gun free zones are consistently more dangerous was more widely known. Seems like the NRA could do a massive ad campaign on this a swing some of the ill-informed (MSM informed) voters.
Even here, in the rather gun-friendly state of AK, a recent bill to allow carry on the University of Alaska campuses was derailed. In AK, no permit is required for concealed (or open) carry, for folks allowed to own. We passed an updated “castle doctrine” law a few years back that provides no requirement to retreat “anywhere you are legally allowed to be”; essentially a “stand your ground” law. But when a bill to allow carry on campus came up, the liberal UA staff went ballistic and the generally reasonable UA president intervened. The bill’s sponsor watered it down to only apply to folks with CC permits, which sort of shot the whole Constitutional justification in the foot (metaphorically). The bill ultimately died-no carry on campus, but plenty in the surrounding town.
Boixer and Feinstein new bill is friends and family bill that allows police to do warrentless search and confiscate arms.All they need is call or complaint .Noted that it could be baseless,does not matter.Why do the Natzi’s always make it sound like a good deed?Friends and Family,Affordable heath care?Its always the complete opp.
Donna..you can rest assured that any government bill that sounds like it’s a helping hand will always be a kick in the ass. Just think of laws like the Patriot Act or The Bank Secrecy Act ….among others .