Posted on 01/28/2013 7:37:53 PM PST by marktwain
Political trends come and go in response to events. Gun control was the rage during the Clinton administration, but over the past decade or so it became an obsolete cause. After the horrific crimes in Newtown and Aurora, though, it's staging a comeback.
One thing hasn't changed: The agenda includes mostly measures that will have little or no effect on the problems they are supposed to address. They are Potemkin remedies—presentable facades with empty space behind them.
This is something that supporters as well as opponents labor to conceal. Treating them as serious allows them both to posture for their own advantage.
So on Wednesday, President Barack Obama unveiled a raft of executive actions and proposed changes in federal law intended to prevent both mass shootings and chronic gun violence. A few are innocuous and reasonably promising, like improving databases for background checks and helping "ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need."
But the most notable ones fall into three categories. In the category of "useless" is the ban on "assault weapons," which has been tried before with no evident effect. The administration is fond of demonizing a style of firearm that the gun industry likes to glamorize.
What they are talking about, though, are ordinary rifles tricked out and blinged up to resemble something else: military arms designed for the battlefield. The "weapons of war" Obama wants to ban do nothing that other legal weapons won't do just as quickly and just as destructively.
Most criminals have no need of them. In 2011, reports The New York Times, 6,220 people were killed with handguns—compared to 323 by rifles of any kind, including "assault weapons."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
These laws are designed so as to inconvenience millions of law-abiding citizens in the hope that such laws will at least inconvenience a criminal or two.
There is an opportunity to apply a rather damning label here, that is quite accurate, but puts into context what liberalism is, including the gun control portion.
“Reactionary liberals”.
It is a major part of their self aggrandizement to say that they are “progressive”, “moving forward” and “looking to the future”, when in truth they are the *opposite* of these things.
Gun control is an old fashioned way for tyrants to control the people they rule over. It is *not* “forward looking” or futuristic. In truth, it is reactionary, a throwback to a worthless and destructive idea.
For liberals to embrace it is not “progressive”, but reactionary. Thus they are, and should be called, “Reactionary Liberals”.
And it’s not just about guns, either. Socialized medicine? An old, failed and extremely expensive way to make a health system *less* efficient, *less* fair, and *less* oriented to health care than to euthanasia.
“Reactionary Liberalism.” Only a fool filled with false nostalgia, of a past that never was, and failed wherever it was tried, would once again advocate disaster, because it is an article of faith in their religion.
“Reactionary Liberals.” The label should be thrown in their face every time they open their mouth. If for no other reason to let everyone know that what they want has been tried, and failed, because it was, and remains, a bad idea.
I am in opposition to any gun control what so ever. The evil and the criminal ones will do what they do with or without gun control. Honest people will continue to be honest without gun control. With that said, I am not posturing. Those who would sieze my arms will face a hard job of work when they undertake the mission.
The people in government don't care if citizens die due to "gun violence". They just care about reducing the possibility that their own personal skins may someday get ventilated. They figure their armed security can deal with people toting handguns - but semi-auto rifles are a different story. Those pose a tangible threat to the ruling class and we see the predictable reaction.
Think about it a while, and compare Newtown with the Phoenix incident. Sure, after Newtown there was a better organized, broader anti-gun push... but as far as purely visceral response by the left? Phoenix wins hands-down. Because, of course, it was "one of their own" who was injured.
Where politicians are concerned, their personal welfare and/or profit always rises to the top of the Occam's Razor scenario.
If democrats cared about criminals killing people, they would be tougher on CRIME.
Dems don't give a damn about crime and you know it. They have 'compassion' for the criminals - and try to get criminals out of prison sooner. So most of them can get back to doing crime. This IS what happens.
In Chicago the gangs work to elect Democrats. -The old vice lords and Blackstone Rangers ( under new names now ) ... There's a thread on it here - just a few days back - Chicago's violent gangs worked to elect Democrats. That's not a surprise - except to the kind of people so stupid they're shocked Al Gore would sell out to big ME Oil. I wonder if the useful idiots have bought his excuse - or if he's made one yet. But when Gore does come up with an excuse, they'll all fall for it...they always do.
A criminal isn't going to be slowed down for a minute. When people's right to protect themselves is taken away, crime goes waaaaay up. Happened in Australia when they took honest people's guns. Rapes went up too. Dem assh*les know how to read. They know what happens - they know crime, killings, and rape will go up when citizens are disarmed. Dem leaders play their party members for fools. Who knows, maybe they can't read....
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
The worst thing a government commissar can do is admit that he doesn’t have the easy and simple solution to intractable social problems.
Were he to do that, it would render unjustifiable the enormous salary, perks, and privileges he receives while passing increasingly restrictive and Machiavellian measures that increase government power exponentially yet achieve nothing positive - with little need for said commissar to do much at all of consequence except vent hot air, posture, and collect his check.
Americans rightly expect their legislators to be more than impotent gas bags with an insatiable lust for power over others, which, alas, is all they are, and little more.
Drudge reported today that Homeland Security put out a request for 7,000 full auto M-16’s and two 30 round magazines for each. These are not the 3 round burst models used by the military. They will have collapsable stocks to aid “concealment”
They are called “Personal Defense Weapons” No mention of Assault Rifle anywhere in the proposal.
These will be issued to”selected groups” in HS by Big Sis. (Napalitano).
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.