Skip to comments.ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT, NOT ALL OF IT VOLUNTARY
Posted on 01/24/2013 1:26:43 AM PST by Rummyfan
The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.
Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about "assault weapons" and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring "the gun lobby" to "children." (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)
Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.
Just don't expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.
Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless "assault weapon" bans are. (In fairness, New York's Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.
"Assault weapons" are defined as "whatever politicians say they are." The guns that are banned and the ones that aren't are functionally identical. They're all semi-automatics.
Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull -- that's the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a "semi-automatic." The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a "semi-automatic."
An example of a gun that is not a semi-automatic is a musket. Also those guns where a "BANG!" flag pops out when the clown pulls the trigger.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
Great graphics here...http://www.americangunfacts.com/
Great graphics here...http://www.americangunfacts.com/
apparently the GOP-e and the Mittbots wanted Obama for one more term.
A site so nice I linked it twice.
The M-N: a great gun to get a better gun.
The problem with state run mental health care years ago was very simple ~ there were few treatments that worked in any matter at all. The cold hard choice was between locking someone up at home ~ usually by chaining them to the wall or a pole, or putting them in a facility where there was at least enough supervision that they could walk around from time to time.
The states didn't do that ~ neither did the families ~ mental illness in humans did it and the causes were unknown or unknowable.
Sometime in the 1970s use of several new kinds of psychotropic drugs began and some of them were so efficacious profoundly mentally ill people could literally be allowed to live at home while making use of new inpatient clinics.
Drugs have continued to improve to the point that it's almost inconceivable that folks who suffer bipolar disorder would be locked up provided they use their meds ~ in fact, some bipolar victims have well paying careers ~ frequently in entertainment! Ted Turner is a good example, and others spring to mind easily. That doesn't mean they spend their whole lives on medications ~ but the medications help them spend most of their lives free of incarceration.
Right off hand I can't think of any with schizophrenia who are helped by medicne, but there are drugs that can zonk them enough they can lead peaceful, if not productive lives ~ under close supervision.
The federal government in its manifestation as the federal judiciary has been the enemy to effective control and treatment of the mentally ill. Those judges have put on ideological blinders and refused time after time to allow states to maintain their commitment laws consistent with medical capabilities. State courts who screw up are usually doing so at the direction of rules of practice dictated by federal judges.
That's one of the keys to this problem ~ busting the federal judiciary.
The communists did/do something similar -
anyone that opposes their ideology is, by definition, insane, and must be stripped of citizenship rights and incarcerated.
Perhaps the recognition of the National authorities remains legitimate only because the abuse hasn’t been contested sufficiently.
Please clarify your meaning of “Real federalism, on the confederacy model.....”. I’d appreciate your perspective on that.
I believe we agree on many of the points, however returning to my focus we must not only put out the Leftist’s arson fires, but eliminate all possible sparks they can fan back into a flame as they require for their purpose. We can only remain free as long as we can control the mischief of the mischievous.
“Real federalism, on the confederacy model...”
By the time of the rise of the Confederacy, there had already been a number of actions by the national government in favor of a stronger national government over the better part of a hundred years. And there was already considerable resentment in some of the states about these encroachments.
Likewise, time had uncovered several errors and flaws in the constitution that there was some degree of agreement needed to be fixed.
So when it came time for the Confederacy to draft their own constitution (which is a very interesting read, btw), they both overcompensated in favor of the power of the states, but also incorporated many of the necessary changes to the organization of government.
But the end result of this was much like what happened in the EU not too long ago, when a single state, or nation, could veto what all the other states or nations wanted. That is, they could not change the law, or direct the war effort, fast enough; and many otherwise good ideas went nowhere because of it.
That is, they were so opposed to the idea of a central government making changes they did not want, that they made their central government too weak. Thus most of the time, Jefferson Davis could not function nor lead. There was no resolution of disagreements between the states, and laws changed considerably as soon as a person crossed a state border. No standardization.
In any event, for most of the last and certainly this century, the pendulum has been stuck on too much power for the national government. It does need to swing back in favor of the states, and probably overcompensate for a while, but eventually there needs to be a return to balance between the two.
***They had the Mosins in a barrel by the front door for $119.***
Sigh; I remember seeing barrels of British .303s and German 8MM “Commission” Mausers for $10-15 back in the early 1960s.
Winchester. Savage and Remington could not compete with Army surplus so Thomas J Dodd and Emanuel Cellar decided to call for Federal registration of handguns only, AND a ban on army surplus rifles by demonizing them.
You could also buy Civil War bayonets, Martini Henrys and Remington Rolling Block rifles for a few bucks.
Cash and carry. No paperwork.
LMAO. Now I can’t find one. :(
I take it that the 5 rifles in the lower right corner must be left-handed models... /s
I remember growing up when the Western Auto stores
would have barrels of rolling block rifles for
$5 or 10 dollars each. No NICs check, just pay
Archangel Mosin Nagant Stock
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.