JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
776
Reactions
2,656
A good read Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

Excerpts:
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
 
Last Edited:
Read this earlier today; put me in a good mood. While I generally don't give two bubblegumes about what anyone in Hollywood thinks, particularly as I worked for quite a few of 'em in the past... I was pleased to see a non-borg, well written pro 2A article.
 
Agreed. This is exactly the reason gun control is really people control and is at its heart a reaction without logic.

Do you think there is absolutely no popular support behind gun control, and it is only the government officials who have an interest in it ?
 
Do you think there is absolutely no popular support behind gun control, and it is only the government officials who have an interest in it ?

there are a great deal of people out there that support higher gun control and many feel that guns should be banned entirely. the real weapon at use is the power of suggestion. when you lie so many times and you get others to tell the same lie and say it hundreds then thousands of times, to some it becomes truth.

this is far more dangerous than any weapon in the world.
 
Do you think there is absolutely no popular support behind gun control, and it is only the government officials who have an interest in it ?

No doubt there is public support of gun control. I think the notion of gun control is pretty broad though. It ranges from putting into place some methods to theoretically reduce the chances of mentally unstable folks from getting guns to an outright ban of everything a la England. I think generally speaking the public is in favor of certain aspects of "gun control" but I don't see the majority of the public interested in "gun control" like Feinstein wants it.

Personally, I'd like to se some mechanism in place that would enhance communication between mental health and law enforcement. However, I think at its most basic level trying to control gun violence really is people control.

The crux of the issue to me is how do you not infringe on an individuals rights but have mechanisms in place to try to mitigate tragedies like V-Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook as examples. I know that not all tragedies are preventable but I really believe if the Lanza's, Cho's, and Holmes are identified and mental health and law enforcement communicate perhaps these situations could've been prevented.
 
Nice to see someone in Hollywood thinking for himself.
As a show of appreciation, I will watch his Glengarry Glen Ross tonight and spend the next two weeks quoting it.:s0155:
Admittedly, I avoided the movie for years until I learned that Glenn Close was NOT in it.
 
David Mamet is definitely not a typical Hollywood persona, he seems to be much more level headed.

Men's Health did an article on him a few years back, the article was centered on his passion for Martial Arts.

Glad to see him sounding off on 2nd Amendment, I will have to watch his movie Redbelt again.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top