The Call For Common Sense Gun Laws & Other Such Silliness

In amongst all of this brouhaha, there are some claims that we can all agree on “common sense gun control.”  And this sounds reasonable.  More strenuous background checks, preventing the mentally ill from getting guns, and the like.  Of course all of these measures must be implemented by the government.  You know the same government that gave the very guns it’s now claiming should be banned to Mexican Drug Cartels.  I’m sorry but I would give a schizophrenic a gun before I give a gun to drug cartels (with the schizophrenic you might have a 50/50 chance they won’t do anything, with the cartels you have a 100% chance that mass murder will occur).

But I do believe in common sense gun control.

406015_10200475871483856_1186033546_nI believe in common sense gun control…but common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense spending, which means you do not spend more than you have. You do not believe that you can spend your way out of debt or into prosperity.  Common sense requires that you ignore everything idiots like Krugman, Bernake, Geithner, Lew, and Keynes have ever said because common sense tells you their ideas are harmful and idiotic.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense spending.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense taxation.  It means you recognize that raising taxes on the rich will not solve anything, that if you raised taxes on the rich to 100% it wouldn’t begin to make even a dent in our year to year budget (let alone the complete national debt).  Common sense taxation would show that the entire code is far far too complicated.  Common sense taxation requires that you recognize that taxes only hurt the economy and never help, that they must all be cut and cut drastically if we are to get out of our problems.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense taxation.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense regulation, which means understanding that regulations only harm, and that a government that has the best interest of the people and the economy in mind will only have the bare minimum amount of regulation.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense regulation.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense foreign policy which means understanding that isolation is both foolish and immoral…and that the only thing more foolish would be to engage in getting rid of the bad guys without a plan (Bush) or being the ally of the very nations which are out to kill us (Obama).  Thus using common sense you would never allow lunatics like Hagel, Kerry, Brennan near our foreign policy infrastructure. Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense foreign policy.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense legislation.  Common sense legislature would not include bills longer than Russian novels or being told that you have to pass something to know what’s in it.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense legislation.

Reagan Guns

If only his whiny and worthless excuse for a conservative press secretary could have had as much character.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense immigration.  That would include things like real border security, real reform that allows workers to come in as guests, professionals to come in with an easy way to Visas and citizenship, stopping anchor babies and allowing immigrants to take handout from entitlements.   Lots of things. It would not include amnesty and Dream Acts via illegal executive order.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense immigration.

Common sense gun control can only be instituted by a government that has common sense that means common sense  welfare.  That would mean work and education requirements.  Time limits.  Working to roll back the rolls not expand.  Working to make more people get off welfare not get on.  You can’t praise the life of the utterly indefensible Julia and you can’t roll back work requirements.  Obviously I can’t trust the government to institute common sense welfare.

Until then there is no such thing as common sense gun control because even the most reasonable proposals will be carried out by over paid, over educated, life long bureaucratic idiots and will always be carried out to a very non-common sense, illogical and harmful extreme.

Common sense gun laws wouldn’t depend on gun free zone which we all know don’t work.

It wouldn’t be championed by people from the most violent cities with the strictest gun laws that show beyond a doubt that gun laws don’t work.  (Oh and before you begin with that, but they get their guns in places without those gun laws arguments…one needs to ask why isn’t the crime just as high in those places with the lax laws?  Oh maybe because in those places criminals know people will shoot back).

Common sense gun laws may sound like “we’re not going to take away your gun if you’re a law-abiding citizen.”  But let’s be honest here, is anyone a law abiding citizen anymore?  With all the federal, state, local laws, regulations, statutes and judgements are you sure you haven’t broken any of them?  Can a human being even be expected to know all of them?  But that might be the point.

But really that might be the point….Anyone remember this scene?

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Common sense gun control would be to enforce the laws you have, not have prosecutions go down 45% from the previous administration. 

And common sense has nothing to do with 23 executive orders that create commission and spend more money but do actually nothing.

Or let’s try this bit of common sense.  Countries like the UK and Australia that don’t allow hand guns have higher violent crime than the US (much much higher).  States and cities with stricter gun laws have more violent crime than those that don’t. There has never been a mass shooting at an NRA meeting or a gun show…there are lots of shooting in gun free zones.  Common sense and statistics tells us that John Lott was right, “More guns, less crime.”  But that would just be common sense.


So don’t talk to me about common sense gun laws until you have a government that can enforce common sense gun laws.  Until then I, and you, are safest when we are armed and able to defend ourselves.

But maybe we should just listen to the inherent argument for gun control and why it isn’t needed for to protect us from the government.

(1) Our government would never ignore the rights enumerated in the Constitution so we don’t have to worry about needing guns to defend ourselves against the government

(2) Therefore we don’t need guns.

(3) Since we don’t need guns the government should confiscate them, to hell if it’s a right enumerated in the Constitution, ignore it.

(4) What do you mean you see a contradiction between points 1 and 3? I can’t hear you LALALALALALALALALA!

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Civil Liberties, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

14 responses to “The Call For Common Sense Gun Laws & Other Such Silliness

  1. BoB

    “Countries like the UK and Australia that don’t allow hand guns have higher violent crime than the US (much much higher). States and cities with stricter gun laws have more violent crime than those that don’t.”
    You seem to be mixing “violent crime” with gun violence crimes. The U.S. Title for City With Highest Rate of Gun Violence goes to New Orleans, which has the loosest gun laws of all and probably no “Gun Free zones”.
    Gun violence occurs in one place and one place only … where there are guns! It comes as no surprise, then, that the industrialized countries with the strictest gun laws also have the lowest gun violence rates.

    • “You seem to be mixing “violent crime” with gun violence crimes” No I’m not mixing anything you are however…you’re mixing up the obvious connection that more guns equals less crime. When you have a well armed populace fewer people are dumb enough to commit crime because they’re at least bright enough to understand that the chance to get my wallet isn’t worth the risk of my shooting them in self defense.

      Also why should I distinguish between a violent crime committed against me and a gun crime committed against me? What kind of insane Bizarro logic world are you living in? If I get killed with a knife or killed by a gun, it really doesn’t matter to me or my family, I’m dead. If someone rapes a woman at knife point or at gun point, doesn’t matter to her, she’s still been raped. If someone robs my house unarmed or with a gun, I’ve still been robbed. But to you, it seems that violent crimes committed without guns are somehow not as bad as violent crimes committed with guns–one day be sure to tell your attacker that you would prefer to be cut up or bludgeoned with a hammer because gun violence is wrong, but all that other stuff is okay. In the real world violent crimes are violent crimes and they’re all bad. And the FACT (and I know you liberals have trouble with facts) is that the fewer guns the populace has the more crime you have, the more well armed the populace the fewer crimes you have. (http://www.americanoverkill.com/great-britain-has-higher-violent-crime-rate-than-the-united-states/ , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html , http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358816973&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime).

      As to your statement about New Orleans, it’s deceptive in several important ways. The first being the while Louisiana enforces gun rights, New Orleans where the infamously corrupt police force is known to confiscate guns without due process, does not. Second, with the exception of Las Vegas, there are few cities on Earth that (A) have as long a history with organized crime and (B) where people go to with the express purpose of getting three-sheets-to-the-wind drunk (i.e. perfect targets for crime). (Shocker that with corruption, organized crime and easy targets you have the perfect recipe for crime). I think you forget that on a per capita basis Washington D.C. has always also been a violent place and it has some of the most insanely restrictive gun laws in the nation (fun fact, crime rates dropped in D.C. AFTER the Supreme Court struck down gun bans http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-3/)

      “Gun violence occurs in one place and one place only … where there are guns!” Dumbest statement I’ve heard in a while. It doesn’t matter what tool a criminal uses, all that matters is what is the rate of violent crime itself. And the facts are that violent crime is higher where people can’t fight back. And it doesn’t matter if you have gun laws or not, strangely enough criminals don’t really care. Violent crimes occur where there are either criminals or crazy people, and they tend to use whatever tools are handy.

      But perhaps you’re right when lots of children at school are hacked to death by a lunatic with a cleaver (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/asia/14china.html?_r=2&0 ) it’s so much better than they’re shot by a lunatic with a gun. I mean if a gun wasn’t involved, it must be better, right?

      • BoB

        “Gun violence occurs in one place and one place only … where there are guns!”
        Read the statement again … it’s really quite irrefutable and so obvious in its logic that your machinations in attempting to refute it are … cringe-worthy.
        Since you’ve made up your mind that I’m given to really dumb utterances, I’ve got another one for you about guns:
        “By what sophistry does the problem become the solution?”
        I just can’t help myself …
        I find the rest of your post to be rather self aggrandizing and tortured … and nothing I haven’t heard many times before. Maybe it works with your acolytes but I’m not one of them. It did push me closer to a position I’ve been thinking of lately … that the time for debate really is over.

        • Oh my silly little troll,

          So your argument is that you have no argument against anything I said thus you win the argument?

          “By what sophistry does the problem become the solution?”
          When the problem is criminals and mental unstable people with weapons the answer certainly isn’t disarm everyone else. The only sophistry here is you blaming the gun and not the person behind it.

          Oh the reason you may have heard some of my points before is because truth and facts tend not change a whole lot, they’re seldom new and original, because once something about human nature is found to be true (i.e. criminals will get weapons even if they’re outlawed, because they’re criminals) you don’t need something new and original with each round. Only lies and delusions need to be constantly new and original.

  2. And in case your troll wants a more left wing sources.

    Looking at Tables 1–3, it is easy to find nations in which very high gun ownership rates correlate with very low murder rates, while other nations
    with very low gun ownership rates have much higher murder rates. Moreover, there is not insubstantial evidence that in the United States widespread gun availability has helped reduce murder and other violent crime rates. On closer analysis, however, this evidence appears uniquely applicable to the United States.
    More than 100 million handguns are owned in the United States84 primarily for self‐defense,85 and 3.5 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns for protection.86 Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms.”87 It is little wonder that the National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
    might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.”

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    • BoB

      I’m going to try to explain my position one last time … not because I expect a different result (like the proverbial madman) because if I’ve learned anything in life, it’s that you can’t change anybody’s mind about anything, especially something with an emotional component. People change their minds as they will, when they will and through various avenues of their (or fate’s) choosing. If you cannot accept that as a truism then we have no common ground.
      I have a position on the matter. It is not an argument. It is not a point of debate. It is not a conclusion arrived at from any perusal of statistics.
      You have your position as well. After all, nobody buys a gun because the preponderance of evidence supports gun ownership or because they’ve been swayed by argument. They do so as a personal choice and for personal reasons.
      Two guys are walking down the street … one feels the need for protection while the other, experiencing the same situation, does not.
      Therefore, one carries a concealed weapon while the other faces the same situation with just his car keys.
      That’s as clear as I can make it fellas. God Bless and Good Bye.

  3. Pingback: The Call For Common Sense Gun Laws & Other Such Silliness (Via The Conservative New Ager) « The Snark Who Hunts Back

  4. Pingback: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ–Come and Take Them. | The Conservative New Ager

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s