Democrats’ Misguided Gun-Control Bill

[Doc7505]

Democrats’ Misguided Gun-Control Bill​

The legislation is another dubious attempt to combat gun violence with stricter gun laws.​

The Democrats' Misguided Gun-Control Bill - The American Conservative

The legislation is another dubious attempt to combat gun violence with stricter gun laws.

www.theamericanconservative.com

22 Jun 2022 ~~ By Benjamin Ayanian

After the horrifying and tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, you would think lawmakers would be doing everything in their power to make schools safer. But, as evidenced by the House’s recently passed gun-reform package, Democrats are misdiagnosing the issue yet again.
There is, understandably, a sentiment among Americans that those in power must do something—anything—to prevent tragedies like Uvalde from occurring in the future. The House’s reform package is certainly an example of politicians “doing something.” But the legislation would blatantly violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights, and represents another dubious attempt to combat gun violence with stricter gun laws.
Democrats’ gun-control aspirations are wrong, first and foremost, because they violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights. An attempt to restrict our right to bear arms is an attempt to restrict our natural right to defend ourselves from government tyranny and against violence from others. The principles of self-defense underpinning the Second Amendment are not and can never be outdated.
History has taught us that George Mason was right when he asserted, “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Slaves were prohibited from owning firearms before the Civil War ended, and in the years following the war, states employed various unscrupulous tactics to bar black individuals from obtaining guns. German Jews were systemically disarmed in the 1930s before the Holocaust. And Armenians were stripped of their arms in the carrying out of the Armenian genocide.
The Second Amendment must be ardently defended, as we all have the right to defend ourselves against threats from the state and from others.

Commentary:
This legislation is another incremental attempt to disarm the civilian population.
There is also the usual grab bag of measures which have nothing to with guns at all but are just buckets of money being passed around to bribe supporters.
There is nothing misguided about this legislation. It is about deception and concealment of objectives. The rationale is "gun safety". What mean-spirited people could possibly oppose that?
The contents include ever tightening restrictions and harassments of lawful gun owners, which are completely ineffective at preventing violent crimes.
The RINO's in the Senate have once again succumbed to the siren music of the Democrat Left. The ship will now head directly to the shoals and rocks.
Stop and remember that Democrats have called for total gun control since the 1930's. History has proven time after time that when total gun control and confiscation is achieved tyranny and mass deaths follow. See: history of Russian Communists, Nazi's, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Iran, Venezuela, Taliban.

 

[Disir]

I agree. There is nothing misguided about it. Nothing has changed. They aren't mystified.

 

[Ringtone]

Stupid never sleeps.

 

[daveman]

Is this the one that criminals are finally going to obey?

No?

Then it's just another step along the road to disarming law-abiding citizens.

And that's turned out so great all throughout history.

Here's the thing: Democrats and RINOs don't give a shit about keeping anyone safe from gun violence. You can tell because they never try to disarm criminals.

No, they want people disarmed who are likely to resist tyranny.

Because armed people don't get on the boxcars.

 

[Doc7505]

Is this the one that criminals are finally going to obey?

No?

Then it's just another step along the road to disarming law-abiding citizens.

And that's turned out so great all throughout history.

Here's the thing: Democrats and RINOs don't give a shit about keeping anyone safe from gun violence. You can tell because they never try to disarm criminals.

No, they want people disarmed who are likely to resist tyranny.

Because armed people don't get on the boxcars.

Few felons are ever convicted of ATF regulations regarding possession of an illegal firearms in connection with a crime,
which is supposedly an automatic 10 year sentence, plus the initial felony.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun control can not possibly work because like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, it just entices another underground economy.

And even if we could make all firearms disappear, then mass murder/suicide would still happen, but with flammables, toxins, explosives, etc., like the Boston Marathon bombing.

Obviously mass murder/suicide is not normal, so if it is increasing, and it obviously is, then we are doing things wrong that are extremely stressful.
What we need to do is reduce the causes, not look for some fake short cut.

 

[Rigby5]

Few felons are ever convicted of ATF regulations regarding possession of an illegal firearms in connection with a crime,
which is supposedly an automatic 10 year sentence, plus the initial felony.

We have to give up on weapons charges because the War on Drugs have made firearms ubiquitous.
Everyone needs to have firearms now that there is such an underground cash economy.
There is no legal means by which convicted felons can be forced to be disarmed, after they have served their sentence.
There is no legal means by which you can have a multi tiered society when it comes to rights.
And that includes voting as well.
Preventing felons from voting is taxation without representation.
Totally criminal.

 

[protectionist]

Sometimes a good answer to misguided legilation like this, comes from a movie. In this case the movie is Out of Africa, starring Robert Redford and Meryl Streep. While walking around in the bush country of Kenya, Streep's horse (with rifle attached), is spooked by an approaching female lion (appears to be a healthy 330 pounds with plenty of teeth & sharp claws) Just then Redford appears with a rifle (or shotgun), and the lion continues to approach Streep.

Redford tells Streep "don't run" so the lion won't see her as prey, and the lion doesn't like the smell of her (perfume no doubt). In full panic, Streep tells Redford to shoot the lion, but Redford knows the lion wont attack.
And why don't lions attack humans with a long gun ? Because they're not as stupid as some people might think. They've seen humans with guns before, and they know what they can do.

The lion moves away and leaves. Redford asks Streep where is her gun ? She says "it's with the horse and he ran away" (leaving Streep defenseless to the lion). Redford says she better keep her rifle with her.
Aha, so you see ? Without the gun she's defenseless against the attacker. With it, she could have stopped the lion cold, if it had attacked her.
Note: perfume won't deter human attackers. Neither will being unarmed.