It’s not “gun reform.” It’s not even “gun control.” It’s civilian disarmament. The organizations lobbying to “strengthen gun regulations”—the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Americans for Responsible Solutions, etc.—want to strip Americans of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Mother Jones provides more evidence (if evidence were needed) that these groups are gun grabbers with their summary of post-Newtown gun control laws: More Than Half of Americans Now Have Tougher Gun Laws. The article’s bullet points trumpet the fact that . . .
• 41 new laws in 21 states and DC made it harder for people to own guns, carry them in public, and enhanced the government’s ability to track guns . . .
• Together, these laws affect more than 189 million people.
What part of that is desirable? Why is it a good thing that it’s harder for people—not criminals or psycho killers—to own guns? Why is it a good thing that it’s harder for people—not criminals or psycho killers—to carry guns in public? And what kind of person thinks it’s a good idea that the government should have a greater ability to track the private ownership of firearms?
Someone without the slightest grasp of history (e.g. the Holocaust) or current events (e.g. Mexico). Someone who believes that [fire]power should be concentrated in the hands of the state for the good of the people. Someone who believes, however unconsciously, in fascism.
“Gun Reform” is an insidious term because it is vague and, essentially, meaningless. Criminals can be reformed. Guns cannot. Gun laws can be reformed. Doing so “reforms” (as in reconstitutes) the basic social compact between free citizens and their government established and protected by the Second Amendment to the United Constitution.
Do not be fooled. Ever. No matter what gun control advocates call their crusade, no matter what the say about the Second Amendment, they are not for it. They are against it. And being against it means they are against your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Big time.
well said, beginning to end, thank you
In a nutshell, short and to the point.
That should be distributed for others to see and digest far beyond this choir.
Roger that RF. Vigilant as always and spreading the faith as I go.
“What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
Every man for himself, and God against all. – Werner Herzog
“41 new laws in 21 states and DC made it harder for people to own guns, carry them in public, and enhanced the government’s ability to track guns”
I’m too lazy to fact check, but if the 41 new laws is correct, then they could put whatever they want for the rest and it would technically be correct.
If Kalifornia, alone, enacted 50 new laws then it is technically correct to say “50 new laws in 50 states”
Misleading as all get out, but correct…
I was speaking more to the 21 States part, but I see what you are saying.
Like I said, any number would be correct. Well, any number short of 41.
Why would they let some little facts get in the way of a good story?
Oddly enough, California would not be one of those 21 states, as the laws that would have done that were vetoed (the laws that were signed are relatively inconsequential)
Of course they actually are only thinking of any law that is “gun control” regardless of its effect, redundancy, etc. So even though, e.g., the law about criminal storage of a firearm in households with children (and BTW Texas already has the same law, yet since I am in California it is the end of the world liberalism here), doesn’t effect purchase, carry, ownership, or the ability to “track” anything. But it is “gun control” I mean safety, er I mean reform…
Meanwhile 70 laws were passed that the MSM judged pro gun.
One more gun law oughta do the trick, I reckon!
good to see that the Mother Jones graphic artist understands the technical aspects of the subject matter.
Im curious why they chose the south to be white and the north to red? interesting implications…
I don’t think there’s any significance. I was talking more about the flying bullet, complete with case.
We fire the whole bullet, that’s 65% more bullet, per bullet.
That helps to relieve the coming lead shortage.
Keepin’ it classy, MJ.
It’s the new “time-release assault bullet”.
Perhaps you Americans need our former (Chretien government) Justice Minister, who authored the Firearms Act, to put it succinctly:
“I came to Ottawa last year, with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military.” — Allan Rock
And this has been happening in Canada:
Restricting the right of civilians to own firearms is only part of the agenda. The aim of business and political elites in Canada, the U.S., Britain and Europe, Australia is the eventual transition to the Singapore model of an authoritarian, corporatist state, where civil rights and dissent are severely circumscribed.
Do you remember when on this site you used to say you weren’t sure that Obama wanted to take your guns? Not meant as an antagonistic statement. I am hoping legions of gun owners are now fully awake, and I don’t just mean to Obama’s dreams of civilian disarmament or other govt officials…but also what an unfortunate percentage of our citizens want.
I admit, I did not think that Obama would poke the bear. I was totally blindsided last year, and they got extremely lucky with the timing of Lanza, right at the start of the legislative season during the only term that might matter to Obama. Who knows, maybe the NSA schooled him.
We all were. Me, I take it personally as I voted for him. I believed he would actually help us get out of our recession and uphold the constitution.
Needless to say, I’m awake now and I’m angry.
I will not be fooled again.
really, that comment should end with a guitar riff:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
OH. MY. GOD.
I am not worthy lmao.
yeah, me too.
Obama ran in 2008 as a sort of libertarian-leaning democrat who would bring a new outlook to American politics. It all sounded very refreshing after the political landscape being dominated by eight years of war, PATRIOT act, Christian fundamentalism in politics, etc.
in the end, he wasn’t kidding – he brought a new outlook alright. it just wasn’t the way we thought it would be. his entire campaign and image was a sham; a selling of false goods.
Obama turned me squarely towards the Libertarian party and warmed me up to a lot of Republicans, and I doubt I’ll ever vote Democrat again. The Democrat party is gone and has literally been taken over by socialists – and shit, I used to point fingers and laugh at people when they said the S-word in the runup to the 2008 elections. I had to see it to believe it, I guess.
Obama ran in 2008 as a sort of libertarian-leaning democrat who would bring a new outlook to American politics.
Yeah, that’s what he packaged himself as.
Thing is, nobody who actually held those positions would have gotten anywhere in the Chicago Machine.
That’s why so many people on the right are more than a bit exasperated by the “I thought he was DIFFERENT!” types.
Obama is an empty suit and always has been. The signs were there. Learn to recognize the signs- who he hangs out with, who his mentors are, and especially his track record and accomplishments- or you’ll be suckered by the next one, too.
rosignol, understand that at the time I was barely in my 20s and didn’t have a clue about those things yet. All I knew at the time was “republicans bad”.
Don’t feel bad. My first Presidential Election (at the wise old age of 18), I voted for Perot.
We all make mistakes when we’re young. 😉
While not surprised by Obamao, I was blind-sided by the amount of support that people who Ive known for many years who were so vehemently in support of the gun grab and who got hooked on the bloody shirt for the chilluns bandwagon.
Same here. When Obama first came in, I wasn’t a gun owner and didn’t have the knowledge I have now. I even voted for him the second time around, although it was a *really* close decision. When it came to guns, I was sure he’d let the sleeping dog lie.
Now I see that lying is pretty much the only thing he’s ever done. Aside from assaulting the entire Bill of Rights and ignoring most of the Constitution, that is.
The best thing I can say about Obama and the Democratic party I used to vote for is that they’ve finally turned me into the libertarian-minded constitutionalist I should always have been.
I have a feeling there are many more like you becoming more aware every day, some without the courage to make such a frank admission.
“Who knows, maybe the NSA schooled him.”
I’m certain it’s more like “The Intelligence Community sat him down and said ‘Sit down, STFU, and only read what’s on the paper we give you. Remember what happened to the Kennedy family. Clear enough?”
Note that the IC is composed of just enough good, patriotic people to keep it afloat, with the rest being corporate people or Feds with personal agendas. Oh, and the odd psycho to liven things up.
I bought my first AK after he was elected the first time. I bought another AK and two ARs the second time. If he does a third term I will buy three aks and six ARs. Just kidding, no, really!
Well written. The truth is every one of these people thinks that “the world would be a better place if all the guns went away.” Once you establish that as the “goal,” the only variation among them is the tactics to achieve that end.
Maybe we need to switch tactics, get them to realize that the world wasn’t really all that spiffy a place before guns were invented.
If you feel like going to jail for 3 years for having an unlicensed BB gun, please ignore these posts.
If you do not, then understand that anti-self defense crowd considers BB guns weapons subject to “reasonable” regulation and will not hesitate to put you in jail for failing to submit the proper paperwork on that rodent gun of yours. That is the end state (or worse) we are talking about.
Some of the candidates in 2014 will be kooky, I have no doubt. Will they be kookier than the notion that you should spend 3 years in jail for a bb gun?
“Why is it a good thing that it’s harder for people—not criminals or psycho killers—to own guns?”
Silly wabbit, to them, they one in the same. One is always just one step away from the other. Thus the need for total control, for they trust neither. Duh..
Some day you folks should read The Gulag Archipelago or some Ayn Rand or maybe even The Gestapo
today’s headlines are in those ‘dated and un-applicable books’ both chapter and verse; think of them as windows into our future.
Did a little reading on Objectivism and Rand a couple weeks ago, great stuff.
They have no problem with civilians, government employees not in the military, owning weapons. They want to disarm citizens, people who pay taxes and have honest jobs opposed to government employment.
I invite anyone to take a stab at the comments from user “Darque Wing” who has so many posts in the comments section that you have to wonder if he’s a Mother Jones employee.
“And being against it means they are against you life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
“you” should be “your.”
Good show. And you can never go wrong with Nick Fury.
Ugh, I hate myself for knowing this but that’s actually Reed Richards from an alternate universe. Seriously.
Embrace your inner nerd!
Wow, never would have guessed, but I thought something looked a bit off about him. Thanks for the fix!
Ask ANY one of these people, literally, any.single.one. if given the opportunity tomorrow for the 2A to be completely erased off our constitution, if they would support it or not.
Youll have your answer, a resounding YES.
Its not “we dont want to take your guns”, its “we arent able to take your guns, yet”
Given the ability, they would 100% be in support of wiping the 2nd off existance.
They cant right now, so at the moment its just infringing as much as they can get away with until their goal is an actual possibility
NBC news tonight listed the names of 173 children under 12 that died from “gun violence” in the last year. Where were the names of the children under 12 killed by “hands and feet”, which is three times as many? Or the other hundreds of child deaths caused in other ways? It doesn’t fit the agenda.
On HuffPo I just saw that a group of big investors is putting the screws to Amazon, interrogating them on sales of things that make “assault weapons” more deadly. They describe something I recognize as a B.A.D lever, and they also mention something that enables faster fire.
A B.A.D lever? Seriously, that’s what they’re targeting? I’m embarrassed for them.
All in association with Newtown, of course, even though these items have nothing to do with that event.
When the SAFE act was passed Obama didn’t criticize it as being irrational, or passed in haste, or illegal. He praised it and called it a “model” other states should follow. That’s his “common sense,” his “reasonable,” his “compromise.”
His idea of “reasonable compromise” was made VERY clear during the government shutdown/budget ceiling fiasco.
“I’m willing to negotiate with Republicans, after they re-open the government and raise the debt ceiling.” – direct quote from an audio interview I caught on National People’s Radio
GIVE ME EVERYTHING I DEMAND, AND THEN WE’LL TALK ABOUT IT
So, if we have problems, how do we wag the dog? Ala Reagan after the Marines got blown up in Beirut? Or some of the crap Obama has pulled?
If I keep your mind on gun control, you will never figure out that both political parties are corrupt and will spend your limited time fighting gun control.
Hmmmm . . . .who to use as a proxy? Children beaten to death, legal overdoses on drugs, child deaths in hospitals – caused mostly by those clowns in the American Pediatric Association, child swimming pool deaths? No, we in the media get too much advertising money from them.
Hmmmm. . . . .how about diverting their attention to guns, we can use the children, just like Hitler did. It is a slam dunk and wE will be able to steal millions . . . .lets chase domestic terrorism also, let’s disarm everyone, . . . . .
I know, tin foil hat time and I am nuts. Just like Galileo thinking the earth rotated around the sun or Christ saying we need to take care of each other. I am no Galileo or Christ, I am a peanut but . . . .just sayin’.
I browsed several of the ‘authors’ articles. Most on gun control. Several on how many children have died since Sandy Hook. But he doesn’t ever ask why. Why? Because in his mind guns should not exist or should only be in the hands of the government. Then no children would be killed by guns.
But I want to know why and how by catagories like:
Irresponsible gun owner
I also want to know what the big picture looks like. How many children between the ages of 0-15 died from other kinds of accident, poisoning, fists, abuse, neglect, etc. For him to lament that 174 children have died this year because of guns doesn’t mean anything to anyone who know what it means to be responsible for yourself and your own children.
I’m honestly not trying to troll, but why is gun ownership a “natural right”. I can see “civil right”, even though I think it might be a little bit of a stretch. I firmly believe it’s a Constitutionally protected right. That much is clear to me. But I’m not sure ownership of anything is a natural right.
Would someone enlighten me?
You have the absolute right to defend yourself from harm. The best tool for that job in a lot of cases is a firearm. By extension, you have the right to own that firearm.
I think that line of reasoning is specious at best.
I think that people have natural rights to action in the interest of self-preservation as long as it does not impede on another’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness but not to ownership of anything. That is, I don’t have the natural right to keep myself from starving by stealing food from another person.
If your line of reasoning holds, then you have a right to the food because the other person doesn’t own it.
“That is, I don’t have the natural right to keep myself from starving by stealing food from another person.”
This line of reasoning is disingenuous. No one is equating the right to own something with entitlement to it; having a right to something doesn’t mean you are entitled to have it handed to you.
All rights are natural. Gun ownership is as natural as, say, shovel ownership. The only limit on rights and liberties is where they infringe on the rights and liberties of others. You may have a shovel (you can’t steal one, and nobody is required to give one to you, but you are free to acquire one using your own just means), but you may not dig in your neighbor’s backyard. You have the right to own a car, but you may not ram other drivers or park in their driveways. You have the right to own a gun, but you may not shoot anyone who is not about to hurt you or someone else.
We call them “natural” rights because it’s just so natural that we have them. It requires no special authorization, and no special philosophizing to justify why you should be able to do (insert thing you want to do). “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are… endowed with certain unalienable rights…” It if doesn’t hurt anyone, you have the right to do it. That is what liberty is. That’s what America is SUPPOSED to be like.
So, there’s not really anything special about guns that makes ownership a natural right. They do have the benefit of being the best tool to defend your life, liberty, and property, though, so people feel more strongly about gun ownership than say, shovel ownership =)
That’s an interesting question. I think sometimes we confuse the right with the tools.
There is an absolute natural right of self-defense. Self-preservation might be a more general way to put it.
If you’re starving, maybe you do have the right to steal if it’s the only way to keep yourself alive. The guy you’re stealing from still has the right to stop you because he has the right to protect his life and his possessions. Even a murderer who is trying to kill you has the right to fight back if your defense might take his life; would you expect him not to? He values his life as much as you value yours.
But he values yours a lot less than he ought to — he’s trying to take your life by force — and by doing so he puts his own life in the balance. Killing him is your right, if that’s what it takes to preserve your own life.
So I’d say that at the most fundamental level, the gun is not the right. Self-defense is the right. Gun ownership is a civil right that stems from the absolute natural right of self-defense.
“All rights are natural. Gun ownership is as natural as, say, shovel ownership.”
I disagree. All rights are not “natural”. There is a difference between natural, civil and constitutional rights.
“So I’d say that at the most fundamental level, the gun is not the right. Self-defense is the right. Gun ownership is a civil right that stems from the absolute natural right of self-defense.”
This is exactly my point. The ownership of a gun is not a “natural” right. I view it as a “constitutional” right. Some might include “civil” right as well.
“[If you] don’t have the ‘Right’ to keep and bear arms to defend yourself, others, property and possessions; — then exactly what ‘Rights’ do you actually have?”
I’m arguing the difference in degree of a “natural and unalienable right” like self-preservation or personal freedom (i.e. not to be enslaved), to a “constitutional right” like free speech, the right not to incriminate myself, etc. Owning a gun is not a “natural” right. It’s a constitutional right. But on this site I often see writers call it such and was wondering why.
But thanks for all the responses! I appreciate it.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
[ Excerpt: ]
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–”
Among the many difficulties in fully ‘understanding’ the concept implied by the word ‘Rights’, is that it presupposes the presence of another person or persons.
For the purpose of understanding the concept of ‘Rights’ simple question as follows:
“If every person but you suddenly vanished from the entirety of the planet, what ‘Rights’ would you have?”
Note that in such a circumstance, given the absence of any other person who could somehow alter, abridge or in any way ‘infringe’ upon or Violate your natural ‘Rights’, the word itself would obviously become wholly meaningless and insignificant.
BTW “The first and most valuable tool every person owns is their own body.
If you don’t have the ‘Right’ to the unencumbered benefits derived from use of your own body through labor; cannot own property without paying taxes for the privilege of renting it from government; don’t have the ‘Right’ to keep and bear arms to defend yourself, others, property and possessions; — then exactly what ‘Rights’ do you actually have?”
Very well put.
Dammit, ran out of time in the editor. I was going to say, what about the rest of society?
It seems to me there’s some necessary compromise that comes with living in an organized society. The individual consents to (hopefully minimal) limits on some rights in return for benefits that the collective can provide. We’ve tipped too far toward the limits, but still…
“41 new laws in 21 states and DC made it harder for people to … carry them in public …”
Is there a State that has gone from shall to may issue this year? Is there a State that has designated more locations off-limits for carrying this year? Is there a State in which it became harder this year to carry a gun in public in some other sense?
There you with those pesky facts again.