News Snipet 'Blog

Imagine that!

You mean criminals don't consider gun laws before committing crimes with guns?

I wonder how much of our tax money went into that study!

Da Snip calls it again.

 

Here's a nice quote. Do you know who said it?

"There exists an incredible capacity for cruelty in this town. A hundred and fifty years ago an honest man would have had the right to respond to such cruelty with hot lead. What recourse has he today? Civil Litigation I suppose. Which system works better? Well, let's see - one built the greatest nation ever, the other is helping destroy it."

(hint, it wasn't a so called wimpy liberal, that's for dern sure.)

 

Gun laws aren't about protecting people. They're about garnering votes and forwarding a system of rights erosion.

 

Yep! Subjugation of the masses - a return to serfdom. Thanks for your comments, Darth & Pontif.

 

the chances of a child or a drunken teen or anyone too careless and tired will use the gun in your house for mahyem. The chances of needing a hand gun are minimal at best in this world. Cops go their entire careers without firing a shot!!! Long guns are another matter. They cannot be as easily concealed. Chicago has strick gun laws, and studies show they have less boof killings of young kids. How many kids would you like to shoot themselves before you understand a sane view on this matter? I worked for hand gun control, ran a campaign in san francisco for hand gun control. People mistake this for GUN CONTROL. It is only in the sense of taking the guns that are only needed for concealing--pistols -- and severly regulating their use. Unfortunatly, most of the world is too stupid to be reasoned with, and thus chicago's valiant efforts are deconstructed by the surrounding suburban gun shops and those evil con selling shams THE GUN SHOW where they sell the illegal to the illegal. This is where Timothy Mcveigh shopped...

Have a Nice day there Jack...

 

hi scott!

thanks for chiming in on the blog. i guess i have difficulty making assumptions about all society and therefore applying general rules because of exceptions. for example, i can't look at someone and determine if they will use a gun responsibly or not any more than i can determine if someone can drink alcohol responsibly. (i believe that last i checked there were more deaths related to irresponsible use of alcohol than handguns). to limit someone's freedom based on assumptions you make about them is not very democratic or liberal.

also, as to needing a handgun, i have always said that "you never need it till you do". the chances of my house burning down are close to never, and i really don't need homeowners insurance until it does. but i take the precaution of purchasing it because of the possibility (slim though it be) of it happening.

another perspective about guns is that they have become so rare in homes, etc. that children have become fascinated by them to distraction when they ARE exposed to them. when i was growing up, there were guns in plain sight in our home. they were like a piece of furniture. none of us particularly touched them (and when we did we were trained at a VERY early age how to respect them and handle them appropriately) or were attracted to them. to us, guns were not a forbidden fruit to be snatched off the vine as soon as an authority figure turned their back. don't many liberal thinking people advocate the same for such dangerous things like having sex, etc.? many of our children are dying from AIDS, but we do not forbid them from having sex, do we? No, we teach them how to be safer with it.

i believe also that we have all of the regulation we need of firearms. killing is a crime punishable by death and should be applicable no matter how its done. if we try to remove every means by which one member of society can kill another, then in 2020 we will all be living in padded cells. the logic of restriction does not always hold up.

another thing that helps is to understand the intent of the second amendment. i wrote a couple articles and posted them at

http://www.newssnipet.com/articles/091304gunban2.html

if one looks at the intent of the constitution it is always about the limitation of government's power and the empowerment of individuals. such was the purpose of the second amendment.

last comment is about mcveigh. i'm not sure what guns have to do with what he did, but are we to judge every person who uses alcohol based on the irresponsibility of the few who abuse it?

p.s. the burden of alcohol on society is much greater than guns in terms of death rates and healthcare. if we use the reasoning we do with guns on this issue, then we should go back to prohibition as there are many children in society who are both directly and indirectly affected by its irresponsible use. can you imagine a person having alcohol in their refrigerator with minor children in their house?