It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them

Maybe if the left would get their collective heads out of their butts and quit proposing feel good legislation that will do nothing to stop any of this we could move forward.

 

Its amusing the Bush card is thrown whenever a Progressive is backed into a corner. He was a wanna be tyrant and the Progressive answer is to compare people to him. Do you even understand what you are doing?

 

What makes you think the Georgia Legislature is a gun free zone. There are no armed guards checking everyone who comes in? There are no metal detectors? Anyone's free to just come and go?

 

It won't be, and they know it (or they've been duped.)

Authoritarians, left and right, ALWAYS go after supply to try to gain control. (And, control is what "gun control" is all about, not guns.) It NEVER has worked in the past, because where there is DEMAND, supply will always appear regardless of legality. Banning guns, like any other prohibition, is really just about deciding who the suppliers will be. (witness: drugs, prostitution, alcohol, etc, etc.) Monopoly control of SUPPLY gives you power, theoretically, but those monopolies never materialize, as black markets always appear to fill the void.

At the highest level, this desire to ban guns has absolutely NOTHING to do with public safety, even though the "useful idiots" have been convinced that it is, and they lobby loudly for it, with genuine sincerity, on this very forum. It has everything to do with authoritarian democrats eliminating the threats to their desire to gain and maintain control. It is another wedge issue that they use, to good effect, to keep The People divided against themselves, so that The People do not unite against them.

So, if PUBLIC SAFETY were to become a priority, a focus on the violent people who are committing the violent crimes would be prioritized, but as we see, those violent people are most often depicted by the authoritarian left as the victims rather than the core of the problem, again to maintain the division that supports their control.

The primary focus of our criminal justice system should be to identify those people who represent a demonstrated departure from 'domestic tranquility'; a verified threat to peaceable society, and to segregate them from the populace, until such time as they are rehabilitated, and not before. There should never be a case where a person has demonstrated the initiation of violence against another, been found guilty, and be allowed the liberty to do it a second time. The violence in our society is largely a failing of our criminal justice system to execute its primary function; to segregate dangerous people from peaceable society.

 

I weep for the things the left could accomplish if they'd just drop this silly idea that you can ban gun violence. With same-sex marriage pretty much off the table as a hot button issue now, guns are one of the only major wedge issues that remain. And the left is being foolish about it, at least the parts of the left calling for bans.

 

Phoebe Maltz Bovy, cited in the OP, is a Canadian and not an American. We can also note that there are obviously some in America that might make the same statement but they DON'T represent the views of most "progressive" Americans when it comes to gun control. Sen. Diane Feinstein would be an excellent example of a Democrat that's opinions on gun control are not reflective of the opinions of most "progressive" Democrats as she's an extremist within the Democratic Party in many of her opinions on guns.

 

Yes, of course I do. And he isn't the only one. Reagan/CONTRA ring any bells?

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 5

Never mind that the OP is a American living in Canada as another poster pointed out.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

- - - Updated - - -

Wonderful many of our Presidents have sucked. MOD EDIT - Rule 5

 

Ammo is covered by the 2A. The term 'arms' includes ammo. A person with a gun and no ammo is, in effect, unarmed. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sorry, bro...

 

I could name a lot of things about alcohol, but handing someone a beer is not exactly remotely close to shooting them with a gun. I don't understand your point.

That is a completely false statement.

What does "they" refer to? Machine guns? Explain, please.

Really? Thirty times in as many seconds as distances up to a mile? Jeez, who knew?

I never said that. Next.

 

You think the Georgia Legislature is a gun free zone.

 

Banning guns is racist and only Nazis do it.

 

You have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You will not be allowed to bring it past the guards. Then again, maybe you didn't bother going through the guard station. Hmmmm..... In case you hadn't noticed, some of those gun free zones included armed guards.

 

Good point.

Gun control laws in the South were enacted to make lynchings safe for the KKK.

 

The left wants to ban guns because "they kill people"

The right wants to ban muslims because they kill people.

 

And the guard station is not a gun free zone. And there are other armed men in the building in case you didn't notice. An armed guard at a compound is about the same as having a police ten minutes away, cause when seconds count, it's too late and that's the point of CCW. Class dismissed.

 

And now the left wants to make home invasions safe for the crips.

 

There is no such thing as a "No Gun Zone" in America because in all of these so-called zones there are those authorized to carry firearms.

It can also be noted that throughout American history we've had local laws that prohibited the carrying of firearms in certain locations by the general public. These still weren't "no gun zones" of course because law enforcement was always allowed to carry firearms in these areas.

 

You think you're proving a point for your cause but instead you're proving a point for ours.

The cold war the equivalent of an american man and a russian man, both armed, and neither attempting to fire on the other, for fear of return fire.

 

Then, they are not "gun free".

 

Most of the modern left is virtually thought free.

They operate on auto-pilot - a product of very comprehensive programming.

 

Republican nonsense.

In the South law enforcement officers and local officials were often members of the KKK making lynchings "safe" for members of the KKK. Try checking the arrest, prosecution and conviction records related to KKK lynchings. Even when those that committed the lynchings were known to law enforcement they generally weren't arrested, rarely prosecuted, and virtually never convicted. In many cases the law enforcement officers themselves could have been involved in the lynchings.

 

Not responsive.
The gun laws in the South were enacted to disarm blacks.
Gun fights are dangerous. The KKK - including the Klan cops avoided them.

 

Ah - that would then assume only Progressives can ignore the Constitution.... a common fault in logic.

 

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto.



'Nuff said.