The Gun Reality Democrats Just Can't Seem To Understand

[gonefishinagain]

The Jawa Report: The Gun Reality Democrats Just Can't Seem To Understand

Read More

 

[Dave Workman]

I'll see that and raise you with this...


Milwaukee mayor, police chief crack a code

Today in Milwaukee, Wis. – a city about the same size as Seattle – anti-gun Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Edward Flynn appear to have cracked a code about homicide that some of their contemporaries out here in the Pacific Northwest just can't grasp.

<broken link removed>

 

[hermannr]

I'll see that and raise you with this...


Milwaukee mayor, police chief crack a code

Today in Milwaukee, Wis. &#8211; a city about the same size as Seattle &#8211; anti-gun Mayor Tom Barrett and Police Chief Edward Flynn appear to have cracked a code about homicide that some of their contemporaries out here in the Pacific Northwest just can't grasp.

<broken link removed>

Their anti-gun stance is clear in their reasoned response to this finding. They want a mandatory sentence for simple possession of a firearm. It should never be a crime to possess a firearm by anyone. EVERYONE's life is worth protecting, and our constitution's (US< WA< WI) all have provision for the unrestricted RIGHT to bear arms for our own personal self defense.

The USE of a firearm in a crime should be a crime, but not the possession of a firearm. Proactive policing (making simple possession a crime) is on the road to the police state...and has no place in a free country.

 

[Hrethgir]

It should never be a crime to possess a firearm by anyone.

What about convicted felons? I guess that should come down to what the felony was (armed robbery = no more guns for you; embezzling money from work with a computer = ok to own a gun), but I think there are some people out there who have proven that they should not be allowed to own a gun.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I hope he didn't really mean that because a felon is not just anyone, they are bloody criminals. This is who the liberals should be targeting, profiling and incarcerating, not the law abiding!!! Sure less guns in the hands of.... wait for it... CRIMINALS is always a good sign, lock em up and keep them in jail and do not release them due to lack of funding like Californication is doing!!!!

 

[hermannr]

What about convicted felons? I guess that should come down to what the felony was (armed robbery = no more guns for you; embezzling money from work with a computer = ok to own a gun), but I think there are some people out there who have proven that they should not be allowed to own a gun.

Think about this: While you are incarcerated (prison or MHF) you are protected by the state, and they are required to protect your individual, personal life. When you are not incarcerated, the state has no requirement to protect you, as an individual. (so says The US Supreme Court)

So what happens with "prohibited persons"? You have just created a second class of citizen that have been judged as having a life that is not worth protecting. The state is not required to protect them, and their ability to bear arms to protect themselves has been restricted.

Conclusion: If the person is so dangerous to society in general that he/she should not be allowed to protect himself/herself, then they should be incarcerated, or executed. Otherwise, their life is as valuable as any other, and their RIGHT to bear arms for their own self defense should not be restricted.

I turned 21 before the GCA1968. There were no prohibited persons back then. There were a lot less problems with the misuse of firearms then than now. Just like any gun control legislation...those that will use a firearm for evil purposes do not care what the law is. Those that will utilize something properly, do care. So Who's RIGHTS are actually being restricted by these GCAs? The law abiding citizen? or the criminal?

I agree, the misuse of a firearm in a criminal act should be dealt with more stridently than the same act without the force of arms...but once the person is out of prison, the debt has been paid and they should be free members of society again. If the act was so heinous that the person should never be allowed to be free again, that person should be executed, not warehoused for life.

 

[Hrethgir]

Think about this....

Ok, I read that over and I thought about it. You make some very good points I hadn't really thought about before, I think I might have to rethink my views on there. If you're rehabilitated, you're rehabilitated, you should get your rights back. If you aren't rehabilitated enough to get your rights back, then you probably aren't rehabilitated enough to be let out of prison in the first place. Only problem here is the revolving door issue with so many American prisons. So overpopulated that they let people out early just to make room for the next batch, regardless of if they've paid their debt to society or not.

 

[hermannr]

Ok, I read that over and I thought about it. You make some very good points I hadn't really thought about before, I think I might have to rethink my views on there. If you're rehabilitated, you're rehabilitated, you should get your rights back. If you aren't rehabilitated enough to get your rights back, then you probably aren't rehabilitated enough to be let out of prison in the first place. Only problem here is the revolving door issue with so many American prisons. So overpopulated that they let people out early just to make room for the next batch, regardless of if they've paid their debt to society or not.

And what is the overpopulation issue caused by? Maybe intolerance of another person's lifestyle, that is not hurting anyone else? Let's let the guys (and gals) out that are in because of simple possession. Example, that kid that stole his mother's boyfriend's HK and when he dropped his backpack, it fired and hit another student? The mom was in prison and became a "prohibited person" because of drug possession. She is now back in prison because she had access to a firearm. Can you tell me what good to society this incarceration is doing? The kid is now in foster care, the mom is in prison (again) for "possession" of a firearm, (tho she didn't actually have possession) and the boyfriend is in court because his girlfriend's son stole his legal HK.

If there was no "war on drugs" simple prohibition, (and with alcohol you know how well that went) the girlfriend would not have been a "criminal" in the first place (and not another "prohibited person"...another form of prohibition). If there was no GCA68 the boyfriend would not be fighting for his freedom in court, and if there was no GFZ crap (another form of "prohibition") this would have been handled as an unfortunate "accident" (which is what it was.)

I grew up when you could take your rifle to school and go hunting after school. No-one cared. I purchased my second rifle and first pistol (my own money, my own action), when I was 16. I got first rifle (my 22) as my 12th birthday present. Just like thousands of kids back before the GCA68. Never was a problem back then, except for those that want NO FIREARMS in private hands. They want total government control of ALL firearms...and the plan is to incrementally remove private firearms until they have them all. Started way back with the NFA34

Believe me. The real plan is to remove ALL firearms from private possession. That includes your double barrel shotgun and your ss .22. Remember: "...all the animals are equal, it is just that some are more equal then others..." Animal Farm. Those that are "more equal" do not want the others to have the means to resist.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

...So what happens with "prohibited persons"? You have just created a second class of citizen that have been judged as having a life that is not worth protecting. The state is not required to protect them, and their ability to bear arms to protect themselves has been restricted.

Conclusion: If the person is so dangerous to society in general that he/she should not be allowed to protect himself/herself, then they should be incarcerated, or executed. Otherwise, their life is as valuable as any other, and their RIGHT to bear arms for their own self defense should not be restricted...

...I agree, the misuse of a firearm in a criminal act should be dealt with more stridently than the same act without the force of arms...but once the person is out of prison, the debt has been payed and they should be free members of society again...

Good stuff...really good stuff. To that I'd like to add that the Innocence Project estimates that somewhere between 2.3% and 5% of currently incarcerated individuals are innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. That could mean over 100,000 people in prison RIGHT NOW for crimes they didn't commit. How many more innocent people are walking around free, but now forever saddled with the label "felon"? Adding insult to injury, their rights have been stripped from them.



Sent from a phone; typos likely

 

[Hrethgir]

And what is the overpopulation issue caused by?

I agree completely with all that. There are too many people in there for stupid stuff, and because of that, people who SHOULD be in there are getting out early. And yup, the war on drugs is a total failure. If we legalize and regulated drugs, the cartels would be pretty much put right out of business, and that would probably be a good thing, lol! And I know the overall plan is to completely get rid of guns from the hands of private citizens, and I will fight that as hard as I can. We need to get this back to a government FOR the people, I'm just not sure how we can do that.

 

[hermannr]

We need to get this back to a government FOR the people, I'm just not sure how we can do that.

That is easy, and not easy. We need to WORK for the election of like minded persons, or if there is no like minded person available, we need to run ourselves. The demise of freedom begins with apathy.

 

[RicInOR]

I think they have an agenda - which includes a 'spin' guide where it is ok to lie and miss lead. And if they are doing that to a Natural right, what else are they doing that about?

Disgusting: Democrat Anti-Gun Nuts Now Lumping in Trayvon Martin with Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora Shootings | Jammie Wearing Fools

 

[Misterbill]

Sadly it's not just Democrats. Can anyone imagine a Romney presidency this winter NOT also see him doing exactly what Obama did? Same goes for Christie, REPUBLICAN Bloomberg, and many others.

I don't dispute that the Dems as a party are the party of gun control. But there are plenty of elitist Repubs that feel the same way as Feinstein.

It's all about control and lack of trust in Americans. Bottom line: They don't trust their citizens with guns. That's a stripe that runs conservative and liberal alike.

 

[Stomper]

Don't be so caught up with "political labels" these days. You can change the label on a can of pickles to read "peaches", but it's still a can of pickles.

As with everyone in life, pay attention to what they DO, and not always to the clothes they wear and the haircut they're sportin'.

Charlatans are adaptive if nothing else.

 

[Stomper]

Duhhhh.... Ba-bup-a-duhhhhh.... OK, I have finally removed the last vestiges of "dumb" from myself. (Phew, it was like squeezing a zit!)

 

[Bacchus]

McAuliffe believes the real issue is not lowering gun crime. The real issue is giving people the illusion of safer cities by citing fewer guns

The "real issue" is control of the people.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Sadly it's not just Democrats. Can anyone imagine a Romney presidency this winter NOT also see him doing exactly what Obama did? Same goes for Christie, REPUBLICAN Bloomberg, and many others.

I don't dispute that the Dems as a party are the party of gun control. But there are plenty of elitist Repubs that feel the same way as Feinstein.

It's all about control and lack of trust in Americans. Bottom line: They don't trust their citizens with guns. That's a stripe that runs conservative and liberal alike.

Mr. Bill, I totally agree with you. When we fought and defeated the British, not all of them ran back to England, they just changed cloths and mingled with the population. Their ideals are still in power today (on both sides of the isle), the only way we can win this war on gun control is to wage a national war on.... wait for it... Criminals!!!

 

[Dave Workman]

Disarm and disable; the anti-gunner’s ultimate goal

Anti-gun Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) ignited a firestorm the other day that continues this weekend; an attempt—according to his critics, as suggested yesterday by the popular No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money blog—to intimidate supporters of Stand Your Ground laws.

<broken link removed>