“It's either going to be the Republican idling the bus over the edge of the cliff, or the democrat flooring it. And don't anyone give me that third-party crap. Because a vote for your principles is a vote for lead-foot.”
You could of course make a similar list of "features" that might (to you) help classify a person into a particular ethnic group.
But why go to the work of doing all this "classification"? That question gets more to the heart of the matter. Let's say that in both cases, the goal is to reduce or prevent crime. These are two methods of attempting to reach that goal.
The method's effectiveness is directly related to how well the classification criteria demonstrate a causal (not casual) relationship to the crime that is being "prevented". To put it another way, let's look at how well the "features lists" correlate to the actual perpetrators of the crimes.
The first and most obvious problem encountered with banning assault weapons (or any other "class" of firearms) is that firearms are not the perpetrators of the crimes. If firearms don't commit crime, does it make any sense to restrict them? Can it be demonstrated that restricting any kind of guns leads to a reduction of crime (which is the point, right)?
Anti-gunners won't let rational thought get in the way of a good plan though, so let's press on and evaluate the effectiveness of classifying and treating differently certain groups based on the identified superficial features.
I'm going to tread lightly here, so please do your best to not be offended. I'll start with racial profiling. IF it could be shown that crime was disproportionately often a result of black, white, arabic, or asian criminals, would it make sense to focus investigative efforts on that group of people? It at least makes sense on surface. If 3/4 of a crime is perpetrated by members of group X, and group X only represents 1/4 of the population, it would make sense to focus investigative efforts on members of group X when attempting to solve or prevent that crime. It at least makes logical sense, whether or not you believe it to be constitutional.
On the other hand, classifying and restricting firearms by their cosmetic features doesn't make any sense at all. "Hold it right there! The assault weapons ban applied to weapons of warfare. It wasn't about how the gun looked!" I beg do differ, and would happily lay that little lie to rest:
So as you can see, classifying guns based on these features has nothing to do with their likelihood of or effectiveness at being used in crime. So-called "assault weapons" function identically to common hunting rifles and other firearms not covered by the ban because they don't "look menacing" or couldn't pass as "military-style".
The reason I brought this whole thing up is that amazingly there are people who would contend that racial profiling is abhorrent and yet support restrictions on the law-abiding such as the "assault weapons" ban.
I merely wanted to point out that one is at least logically (not necessarily morally or constitutionally) defensible, while the other is utterly absurd.
What do you suppose would have happened to the officer had the bullet actually struck an innocent child? Better yet, what do you think gun-control advocates would want to happen to him? Certainly the answer would be, "Nothing." Now what do you suppose the same people would want to happen to you or I if a bystander were struck by a "stray bullet" fired in self-defense? I'll tell you: They'd want you treated more harshly than the one you were defending yourself from."A .40-caliber bullet that Forks police fired early Sunday at a man they said charged them instead broke a 5-year-old boy's bedroom window about a block away and landed near the child's toy box."
The gun-haters would have us all cowering in a closet calling 911 while Jumper has his way with our families and our property. Meanwhile the police would respond, if they feel like it, and when they get around to it. In this case they'd likely have been more of a clean-up crew.
I found it interesting that in the article there was no mention of the guns being "registered" or anyone in the household being "licensed".
All in all, a good story. Chalk one up for the good guys.
An officer shined a light on me and then pulled up. Tells me to keep my hands where he can see them. No problem. Then he tells me 'I need for you to give me your gun'. And I said no, you don't, I've got Rights. He stated 'My safety comes first.' In turn I said, think you have that backwards. I'm the citizen and you are the servant. He then says "I don't need a civics lesson, are you going to comply or not?" I then say I have a Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms, you are a public servant and have no right to disarm me. I've presented no threat to you and you are not justified to disarm me. He then calls in the 'goon' squad.
What would you have done?
I think David's actions were appropriate and got the point across. What worries him (and me) is the apparent prevalence of such a superior attitude by our supposed "public servants".
"My wife and I, we never believed in guns," said Heyne, who has recovered physically from the three gunshot wounds he suffered. "We never bought our kids toy guns and made a point of talking to them about the danger. I never thought I would be someone who would go through this."
Who'da thunk it? Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make problems go away. Neither does "not believing" in something. Not believing in defending yourself will get you killed by someone who DOES believe in using violence to get what they want. You think this thug would've shot you and your wife up and went on to pistol-whip another woman to death if you had been carrying a firearm and had been trained to use it?
Astonishingly, that's not what Mr. Heyne advocates. The rest of the article is about a "pending measure in Congress called HR 5005 by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that would repeal provisions allowing law enforcement access to trace gun ownership. " Of course, the libs say this is a bad idea, because it "would take away the power of law enforcement to find out who owns a gun."
Anything that takes away police power and reserves it for law-abiding citizens is good, in my book.
"Weiss said under his proposal, gun owners would be held responsible if the weapon is later used in a crime."
I see. Are law enforcement officers so inept that they can't track down and punish the one who actually committed a crime and instead need to use a law-abiding citizen as a whipping boy?
Pathetic.
That sounds great, right? Let me translate: "The bills are intended to restrict the (heretofore) lawful use of firearms, encourage snitches, and make sure police can ruin your life if you don't have all the right "papers".""The bills are intended to prevent gun violence, protect witnesses and bolster police powers."
That's right, Guy. The government has no power over the law-abiding, only the criminal. So what do they do when they want more power? Turn law-abiding people into criminals; pass so many laws that you can't help but break some, even incidentally. Then, any time a person gets a little too much advocacy publicity, the thugs can make an example out of them."My sense is these criminals fail to follow the law," said Assemblyman Guy Gregg, R-Washington Township (Morris County). "You will be with this legislation creating criminals of people who did nothing wrong."
The whole article talks about how the place is terrorized by gangs, which I'm pretty sure are composed of bad people, not inanimate objects."The streets are running with blood from teenagers being shot by drive-bys," Payne said. "We need to look at ways to stop guns at their source. We need to stop guns from entering our areas."
And I'm pretty sure that that's the point."None of these bills are needed. (Registered gun owners) just have more hurdles to jump through to exercise their right to self-defense."
Sounds foolproof to me. I think the crime rate in Jacksonville will be drying up any minute now.
That's one more reason I won't be submitting my children to the Socialist State Brainwashing System, aka public education.
A good first step would be to enact a state law limiting handgun purchases to one a month per buyer. Here's a question: Shouldn't 12 handguns be enough for a uburban or rural family to fend off a potential attacker?
You have to wonder about any proposal to make law abiding citizens turn over their guns when visiting the courthouse. That makes no sense. I see no reason why trained citizens should not be able to keep their guns. If something unforseen occurs, an armed citizen would be an asset.But you have to wonder about a proposal by a state judicial security committee to make police officers turn their guns over to the sheriff's office when visiting the courthouse. That makes no sense. We see no reason why trained police officers should not be able to keep their guns. If something unforeseen occurs, an armed officer would be an asset.
Officers shot a convicted murderer Saturday night after he took aim at authorities following a two-hour standoff. He had a shotgun and two handguns on him, even though convicted felons aren't allowed to carry guns. Gun control advocates say the case has implications for tighter controls on illegal trafficking.
What??? Didn't he know it was illegal to be in possession of a firearm? I guess he did:
Peters' rap sheet includes 23 convictions, starting with a murder in the 1970s. Since then, he'd been back to prison for two more decade-long sentences -- for drugs, a felony assault, and repeated gun possession.
So let me get this straight. This guy has been convicted of TWENTY-THREE crimes, and has been released to menace the public over and over. The courts had him in their grasp, and decided to let him go. They even knew he was illegally obtaining guns, and yet still allowed him to roam freely.
Now when he commits another crime, again with a gun, the response is that we need more restrictions on law-abiding citizens to try to prevent him from having access to guns? Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Let me make a different proposal: If you can't trust someone to lawfully use a gun, they belong in jail. If they're trustworthy enough to release to the public, they're trustworthy enough to own a gun.
Let me put it another way: If the convicted and released felon is the sort of person who you'd suspect might commit another crime, what makes you think that he won't be able to get a gun just because it's against the law for him to have one? If you think he's likely to commit another crime, why are you letting him out of the slammer to begin with?
If he is indeed reformed and worthy of regaining his freedom, then so be it. Whatever you decide to do with him, leave me and my freedoms out of it.
I don’t know how many times something like this has to happen before people learn their lesson. Our society is plagued by guns, yet the government does nothing to try to cure the problem.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." --Col. Jeff Cooper
This is from keepandbeararms.com, which is a good firearm news aggregator.
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/ has many more examples of "Idiots with guns". From that site:
The purpose of Idiots with Guns is not to humiliate, but to educate. Over the years we have seen photos of people who, upon picking up a gun, just cannot resist pointing it at something they should not, with their finger on the trigger. This is usually the camera, another person, or themselves.
The Four Rules:
Read: Blood dance.Governor Rendell is again calling for changes to Pennsylvania gun laws following the first fatal shooting of an on-duty Philadelphia police officer in a decade.
Americans used to have a lot of freedom when it came to defending ourselves and our country. We had that, when we were citizens, up until about 1934 - then they took it away from us. I'd like them to give us that right back."What I’m going to try mostly to do is convince the legislature to let Philadelphia have the right to pass its own gun laws. We had that, when I was mayor, up until 1996 – then they took it away from us. I’d like them to give us that right back," Rendell said.
The rest of the article is just a bunch of blood dancing aimed at drumming up support for useless gun-control measures. I'd like to talk with anyone who takes these guys seriously.
It seems to me that there are only two possible outcomes to this kind of cycle. First, if we let it continue, it will end with the prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms, firearm "replicas", paintball guns, BB-guns, et al.
The only other option is to break the cycle by reversing the gun owner's reaction in step 5. We, as responsible gun owner/operators, must take it upon ourselves to in effect market our hobby. If we fail to show the world that the shooting sports and self-defense are indeed commonplace among normal, law-abiding citizens, we will be exterminated (at least they'll try).
So, take it upon yourself to make a convert this month. Take someone out shooting who's never been. Make it your mission to make guns a cultural norm once again.
Second, a man claims he was "assaulted by three people, one of whom pointed a gun at him."Ramsay said the suspect was looking for someone else and it was unclear why he
pulled the gun. The officer said it wasn't a robbery.
"It's sad, but it's a reality of the times in Duluth right now," Beyer said. "We're seeing too many of these gun calls."
Full disclosure would also allow anti-gun activists to publish the names and addresses of permit holders in local papers, which has happened in Ohio.He said full disclosure would put an end to criminals wondering who might be carrying a hidden gun - eliminating "the general deterrence" of not knowing whether someone is armed.
Pratt said Riley and Moore have good records on supporting the right to bear arms, but the organization has to look at which candidate will fight and which will be passive.
Moore is the one endorsed by GOA.
When asked what guns he owns, Moore said, "The more appropriate question is what kinds of gun do I not own?"
I like him already.
The Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va., counts 300,000 members nationwide and considers the NRA too moderate.
That's why I'm a member, and you ought to consider it as well. For the most aggressive freedom fighting, I highly recommend Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO).
The first story is pretty self-explanatory. Guy has gun in house. Kid finds gun. Kid shoots gun and kills himself. Guy gets a “4-year felony” charge.
The second story may have some skeletons in the closet, but at the very least, an officer is exonerated when a girl is shot with the officer’s gun in the officer’s car. The police say she killed herself (which is in doubt), but even if that’s true, how did she gain control of the officer’s weapon?
You see the contrast between the two stories. Regular guys are responsible for the lack of secure storage and eventual misuse of their firearms, while the boys in blue apparently are not. I guess it’s true: They’re like me and you, only better.
Durham Police say thieves likely used a website posting to trace a gun owner, break into his Newcastle home, rip his safe off the wall and steal rifles, shotguns, pistols and bullets.
If reading's not your thing, download and watch this video. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, because I haven't got it all downloaded, but it looks very interesting so far.
I haven't read this (Crackdown takes aim at guns, sentencing) but it looks like something I ought to be covering.
Here (New law puts guns in right hands) is a response to an article I wrote about recently ("Kaci is Confused" - April.)
Sorry, but the lack of comments and feedback makes it less fulfilling to put the work in to writing.
I thought it was a military-style weapon that's not good for anything but killing people! Well, I guess it is, and it turns out that that's a good reason to own one.
Damion arrived at the home with two friends and began quarreling with the 32-year-old about money Damion thought the man owed an acquaintance, Lambert said. "The resident was attacked ... and got out the weapon to hold off the attackers," Lambert said. "We're confident it was self-defense." The man was a registered gun owner and the AK-47 was a legal weapon, Lambert said.
I'm pretty sure that guns don't just go out and hunt down 5-14 year old kids, so I don't know how they can be "responsible for many of these incidents".Firearms account for about 10 percent of deaths among U.S. children aged 5 to 14, the study noted. For every gun-related death among children, three children are injured by guns. Household guns are responsible for many of these incidents.
Newsflash: "Gang and gun violence" does NOT equal "gangs and guns". Gangs (the term generically used) nor guns are inherently evil. Using either to commit unjust violence, is.Members of the group will meet in Denver through Thursday and attend meetings and workshops designed to strengthen their efforts in combating gang and gun violence.
If an employer can tell you what you can and can't have in your car, then they
must be able to conduct searches! You don't advocate that, do you!?!
If it's about being able to defend yourself on your drive "to and from work", then there are options available that don't encroach on an employer's right to dictate the terms of those who wish to enter its property.It isn't about having a gun in your car at work. It is about being able to defend yourself on the drive to-and-from work. People being stalked are most vulnerable when they are on a fixed schedule at a known location: to-and-from work, picking-up and dropping-off kids at school and daycare, to-and-from religious services. All are known locations, and known schedules. All are places that society loves to disarm people.
The bill would have imposed a $500 fine on anyone who does not report a lost or stolen gun within 72 hours after the weapon has gone missing.
Officials said this weekend`s collection was successful due to the participation of local churches and heightened community awareness following the shooting of two young girls in the city`s Englewood community last month.
|
Gun Blogs Home/Join | List | Next | Previous | Random
|