by Big Dog on Aug 7, 2012 at 16:10 Political
This nation has tens of thousands of guns laws on the books and those laws have made no difference in gun crimes. Unless, of course, those laws are ones that allow freer expression of Second Amendment rights. Places with laws allowing carry of firearms have lower crime. Places like Chicago and DC, where the gun laws are the strictest, have out of control crime.
After the Aurora CO theater shootings the liberals were screaming for more gun laws. Mind you, these well intentioned liberals only want common sense gun laws and not anything that would infringe on your rights (nod, nod, wink, wink).
Faced with the reality that the theater was a no gun zone which means that a rule was in place to keep guns out, the liberals had to think of some other reason to enact these sensible laws. The shooter did not follow the rule about taking a gun in the theater (but everyone else did much to their detriment) so banning guns won’t fly. Hmm, the guy bought thousands of rounds over the internet so maybe we need to ban that. Upchuck Schumer of New York is trying that but it must be a bad idea because it was slipped into another bill. The guy used fewer than one hundred rounds so it matters not how many he bought over the Internet, he could have bought a hundred at a Wal Mart on the way to the theater.
Wait now, the libs are pointing out that the shooter had a mental health issue and that a more extensive background check could solve the problem.
Hell, the recent shooting at the Sikh Temple involved a whack job skinhead so a better background check might have kept him in check as well.
Really? Let us see. There is a report that the psychiatrist treating the Aurora shooter reported him to campus police.
There is a report that federal law enforcement had the Sikh shooter on its radar but did not deem him a threat.
So what we have are two police agencies that were aware of the potential for disaster from two people who ended up being mass murderers and those police agencies did absolutely nothing to prevent the massacres from happening.
How in the name of all that is good would a more stringent background check have prevented any of this if the police already knew about the potential problems but did not act?
In fact, the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords had been in trouble with the law and was known to have issues but the law enforcement agency in the area swept that away because his mother worked there.
So tell me again how more government involvement will curb the killings?
It won’t. The government has been more and more involved in the effort to disarm us for a long time and in all the places where government has successfully infringed on our rights the number of gun crimes has gone up. The aforementioned Chicago and DC are prime examples. New York is another.
Guns are banned in Chicago and severely restricted in DC and New York (ironically, Chuck Schumer has a carry permit for New York) and look at the carnage. Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan.
We do not need more gun laws. We need the laws we have enforced and we need those entrusted to uphold the law to act when they have credible reports that someone is evil.
Never surrender, never submit.
Print This Post