I was good enough to protect my country before, why not again?
These zombies with guns are the enemy. They are even more dangerous than the islamists!
China took all the guns away from their citizens. This is why, on Friday the same day as the Sandy Hook Massacre took place, China had a lunatic run through a school with a butcher knife and slash 22 youngsters the same ages as the Sandy Hook students.
Navy SEALs didn’t kill bin Laden, guns killed bin Laden.
While you are correct, remember that the Secretary of Homeland Security has designated these same individuals as either terrorists or potential terrorists.
but but but if we make it AGAINST THE LAW to have a gun, then no one will kill anyone!
After all we made it illegal to have drugs and we have no more drug problem
and we made it illegal to steal and no on steals anymote
and we made it illegal to murder so that never happens anymore
So.. why would anyone need a gun? Its not like that have to worry about being murdered by someone who wants to steal their money to buy drugs! That stuff is all illegal!
So hand over all those guns, you law-abiding citizens (and dont forget to tell any criminals you know that they have to hand in theirs too)
The only thing more dangerous than the Zombies with guns or the Islamists are the Democrats; and they’ve already won!
but but but if we make it AGAINST THE LAW to have a gun, then no one will kill anyone!
After all we made it illegal to have drugs and we have no more drug problem
and we made it illegal to steal and no on steals anymote
and we made it illegal to murder so that never happens anymore
So.. why would anyone need a gun? Its not like that have to worry about being murdered by someone who wants to steal their money to buy drugs! That stuff is all illegal!
So hand over all those guns, you law-abiding citizens (and dont forget to tell any criminals you know that they have to hand in theirs too)
The Left want to legalize drugs but outlaw firearms. Drug use causes far more damage to families and society than firearms, so why are they so against firearms?
Private ownership of firearms is our only means of avoiding tyranny. Ask any dictator.
The Left really don’t care about “peace on earth” or the little children.
The only reason that the mass murder of children is a problem is that we have not yet reached the progressives’ goal of a value free society. Why should a few years of life make a difference between ‘choice’ and ‘murder’?
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
Also how many times has the MSM told you that anywhere from 55 to 60% of all gun related deaths are suicides? NEVER. So next time anybody starts shooting off statistics about murder by gun as if they mean one person murdering another, cut that number in half because that's the REAL amount not what the MSM uses.
The fundamental problem with human beings is identified way back in the account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis: we are utterly selfish and we want to be our own god.
That was reinforced in the Ten Commandments when God laid down law for our relationship to Him and our fellow man: He is God and we should submit ourselves to worship Him alone, and we should treat those around us with respect by not killing them, stealing from them, stealing their spouse, or otherwise hurting them. In other words, other people are just as important as yourself, so you should deny yourself your every desire by reining in your self-centered nature.
Jesus further reinforced this in two key ways. First was the command to love your neighbor as yourself, again making other people just as important as yourself. And finally, by performing the ultimate act of self-denial by giving up himself as a blood sacrifice so that there is hope for each one of us in eternity.
Look around. In every way, our culture has become the antithesis of self-denial. Everything from mass murder and abortion to screw-your-neighbor to get ahead (aka unfettered greed). We are just beginning to reap the just rewards in our culture for worshiping the the wrong god: OURSELVES.
The Democrats believe that their best ‘weapon’ against the 2nd Amendment will be new and very high taxes at the Fed, State, and local level on firearms and firearm ammunition.
Chicago’s Cook County drops bullet tax, keeps gun levy
By Mary Wisniewski | Reuters – Wed, Oct 31, 2012
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The senior executive of the county that includes Chicago dropped a proposed tax on bullets on Wednesday but kept a plan to tax firearms to help defray healthcare expenses associated with the high rate of gun.
“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,”
Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms.
If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“The notion of taxing ammunition may be traced to comedian Chris Rock, who once quipped, “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.” Before that, the legendary New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested a 10,000 percent tax on the most destructive bullets. Make them too expensive, he theorized, and they would disappear.”
If Guns Do Not Kill, Tax the Bullets
By JIM DWYER
Published: August 9, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/nyregion/taxing-bullets-as-de-facto-gun-control.html?_r=0
The Economist - 1994
“The idea of a license for gun owners has been floated by Mr Clinton and by Janet Reno, the attorney-general; it is argued most strongly by Charles Schumer, a Democratic congressman from Brooklyn. Under Mr Schumer’s bill, which is now before Congress, every owner would have a national handgun card, issued after a thorough background check, and all gun transfers would be registered with the ATF.”
What part of “Shall Not Infringe” do you not understand? Why should anyone have to get permission to exercise a God given right? You are falling into the liberal mind set, government gets to control. What if you had to get a license to post comments on the internet or to send a letter to your newspaper, Congressman, Senator or other government official, would that be ok with you? It is all an infringement on our rights.
The liberal naivete is that criminals, terrorists and the insane will not be able to get guns in a gun free world hence the problem is solved. Countries like the UK and Australia that have virtually banned all guns are seeing an increase in gun crime. Somehow criminals are managing to get guns in their gun free world and now it is the law abiding and now unarmed citizen that is a easy target. If guns are the problem why aren't there shooting rampages at gun shows and NRA conventions?