Posted on 10/07/2017 4:39:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Liberals believe in never letting a crisis go to waste; so before the blood cools on the ground after a mass shooting, we always have some variation of the following conversation:
Liberals: WE MUST ACT!
Conservatives: What do you want to do?
Liberals: A bunch of things that will hurt law-abiding gun owners, but won't fix the problem!
Conservatives: No, thanks.
Liberals: WHY WON'T YOU ACT?!?!?
Every time some terrorist, wacko or radical kills people, liberals always want to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it. Their unconstitutional goal is complete gun confiscation, something which would likely lead to mass violence against the people carrying it out along with the prominent people and government officials advocating it. The Founding Fathers understood that if the American people were ever disarmed, it would only be a matter of time until the guns of a fascistic government were pointed at the people. So wise Americans understand that an attempt at widespread gun confiscation in the United States may very well lead to large numbers of freedom loving civilians, cops and military members taking up arms to insure that we continue to live in a Constitutional Republic. Liberals would do well not to forget that.
Setting aside the bloodbath that policy would likely lead to, it still wouldn’t solve the problem even if it worked. You can talk about the “success” of gun confiscation in Australia if you like, but it’s not a comparable situation. There are already large numbers of illegal guns in the United States and getting more firearms into the country isn’t going to be a big problem with our porous borders. You want to get rid of guns in the United States?
Well, you CAN’T.
But of course, calling for gun confiscation in the United States is widely unpopular and so many liberals won’t admit that’s what they want to do.
So what other gun control laws could liberals implement that would stop mass shootings?
None.
If you want to know why, take a look at some of the most prominent shootings in recent years starting with Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas.
Paddock killed 59 people with semi-automatic rifles, but he had no criminal record or known mental health issues and he passed a background check with ease. He did apparently use bump stocks on his guns to speed their rate of fire and even the NRA is on board with banning them. Would getting rid of bump stocks have stopped Paddock? No, but it MAY have reduced the body count. Keep in mind that bump stocks replicate a technique that can be learned; so he may have been able to do the same thing without a bump stock given time, practice and motivation, all of which he seems to have had.
Then there’s Omar Mateen, the Pulse Nightclub shooter who gunned down 49 with a semi-automatic rifle. The Lone Wolf Jihadi bought his guns legally after passing a background check.
What about Dylann Roof? The notorious racist killer who killed black Americans at a South Carolina church? He did pass his background check, but it was because of an error by the FBI screener looking at his application. Unlike the first two names on this list, he did his killing with a semi-automatic pistol.
We also can’t forget Adam Lanza. Remember, the crazy kid who killed 26 at Sandy Hook? He murdered his own mother and took her guns. What law stops someone who is ready to kill his own mother?
Jared Lee Loughner was forced to leave college because campus officials feared for the safety of students around him, but he wasn’t convicted of a crime. Therefore, he passed a background check to buy the Glock he used to kill 6 people and shoot Gabrielle Giffords in the head.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan was caught talking to a radical, anti-American cleric, but our intelligence agencies just shrugged that off. Later, he passed a background check, bought a semi-automatic pistol and used it to murder people at Fort Hood.
James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist, but never spoke of any plans he had to hurt people, which would have legally required her to report it. Holmes passed a background check, bought weapons including a semi-automatic pistol, semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun and used his weapons to murder 12 people in an Aurora, Colorado theater.
We can go on and on with this, but the point is that there is no magic fix.
Want to reduce the size of high capacity magazines? Once you know your way around a gun, you can change out a magazine in less than 2 seconds. Furthermore, semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns have all been used in mass killings. Banning one class of guns isn’t going to stop it. Additionally, as we discussed, banning all classes of guns wouldn’t end mass killings either. In Europe, where there already are the gun control laws liberals would love to implement, there are still gun massacres. One hundred thirty people were killed in a mass shooting with automatic weapons in France in 2015. Even if every gun on the planet magically disappeared tomorrow, the mass killings wouldn’t go away. In fact, the largest mass murders on American soil were committed with airplanes (9/11) and bombs (Oklahoma City). That seems especially noteworthy given that Paddock also had ammonium nitrate that could have been used to make a bomb. In 2016 in France, a man even killed 84 people by plowing through crowds with a truck. What, are we going to ban vehicles next? Get serious.
Once someone’s mind is set on murder, there is no simple fix.
So, how do you find the people bent on murder? Most of the time you don’t. Predicting which “moderate Muslim” will be radicalized and become a lone wolf killer is impossible. Predicting which mentally ill person will actually go around the bend and kill people isn’t doable. Some might be better bets to become violent than others, but the vast majority of people with mental illnesses don’t hurt anyone.
Maybe getting God back in our schools, pushing Christian values and working on changing our “all attention is good attention” social-media-driven society might help, but I doubt liberals would be on board with any of those things.
Long story short, gun control isn’t the fix for mass murders. If you want gun control so badly, move to the South Side of Chicago where it already exists and leave all of us law-abiding gun owners alone.
Now, would it have made a difference if everyone at that concert had been armed? Fact: none whatsoever. That’s one of the reasons why it was chosen as a target. Fact: that group of God and Country lovin’ conservatives were fish in a barrel, twenty thousand plus strong in number, shoulder to shoulder in an open-air venue. Conjecture: they were collateral damage on the Globalist’s altar. Purpose: cause enough outrage at our vulnerability to cause/force a knee-jerk reaction - we’ve gotta do something!
For those of us that have been on the giving or receiving end of gunfire (and depending on our travels), another thing emerges from the available videos - the acoustic signature of not ONE, but seemingly THREE different caliber weapons and very nearly simultaneously! I anxiously await the surgeons and ME’s findings after their having dug slugs out of the living and the dead, but I think we’re going to find three different calibers- 5.56, 7.62 X 51 and 7.62 X 39. A couple of my associates are of the same opinion. I would like to say - the truth will out...but given how things have progressed (or sadly, have not); I’m gonna hafta go with BOHICA. In the advancement of sinister agendas; Truth is the first casualty.
Yes, a number of weapons were photographed in this dead Hillary lovers suite on the 32nd floor, but that doesn’t explain the muzzle flashes and synchronized reports coming from the 4th floor which were videotaped by a cabbie who was directly in front of the hotel, by several concert goers at the venue, and which were also reported by police.”
From Oathkeepers article
Liberals can’t handle the truth!
Aside from that, the issue really isn’t ‘mass shootings’, as thinning out the population was always on their wish list. If the left cared about people being shot they would have addressed the situation in Chicago (for example) by now.
Rather, disarming the red-blooded American is the objective, leaving us unable to protect our family and property, and defenseless against tyranny.
Concerning James Holmes, it is pointless to fixate exclusively on the guns as he also booby-trapped his apartment with enough explosives to put the building he lived in at the time on the moon. Only very quick and precise thinking on the part of the police who upon seeing the door slightly opened with loud music blasting prevented anyone venturing in there before bomb disarming specialists were brought in. Many, many more lives could have been lost right then and there than at what happened at the movie theatre.
We haven’t really even seen mass violence, until we see it committed by the government against unarmed civilians, like in China or Russia (or others) in the last 100 years. Now, THAT’S mass violence.
Yes, close to 100 million dead in the 20th century alone. That’s controlled murder at its best.
Gun confiscation wont stop it. It will just make it painfully obvious the massacres are done by the state, as then only the state will have guns, and by then it’s too late to stop them.
Don’t we already have “gun control”? But the American people must keep hoping for more!
Liberals already KNOW that gun laws, in and of themselves do nothing to stop the carnage. The fault lies in the selective enforcement of laws already on the books.
Murder is and always has been unlawful behavior, and exoneration from this behavior is only by demonstrating that the murder served, in some way, the greater good, and could be justified.
Those who murder, or even maim, others without any such justification are subject to punishment to the limit of the law. But because of something called “prosecutorial descretion”, allowing some acts to go unpunished, when clearly punishment is called for, there is created a loophole for not applying the law. Otherwise, it is argued, the courts should soon be overwhelmed with a backlog of untried infractions of the law.
There are probably several way of overcoming this conundrum, but that is what supports the whole legal trade. Delay, deny, and dismiss.
It’s not about stopping mass shootings.
These are fascists. They just want to be the only ones with the guns doing the shooting!
One of the first things the British tried to do to quench the American rebellion was to confiscate the guns.
Liberals do NOT want to stop mass killings, they want MORE.
Each time a mass shooter attacks and can get emotional and force more laws against law abiding gun owners.
The Liberal agenda does not include stopping crime.
Liberals lie. All the time. Liberals lie.
Libtards already know that. They just want to confiscate your guns so that they can never be opposed.
If they ever get back in charge the will ignore the 2nd amendment and legislate confiscation of your guns.
They only way to stop this is total defeat of the left.
Lets create more laws so the criminals and the insane will have more laws to abide by
Chicago......they dont care.
With a background in law enforcement at several levels and being a combat veteran, my views on firearms differs from much of what I read and hear. I don’t see the use of firearms in these killings any different than I do an automobile with a DUI at the wheel.
I believe we are looking at two different causal factors. One has to do with perpetrators seeped in a religious ideology they believe calls for the killing of infidels. Those, of course are of radical Islam.
But the other group is different. These are clearly people with mental issues.
There appears to be an uncanny correlation between these white mass murderers and psychiatric drugs. Sitting in a doctor’s office two years ago, waiting for my annual physical,I read an article pointing out that in 31 of the most recent murders (or attempts), at schools and the like, the shooter was on one of the hard, usually prescription, drugs, it also noted a high percentage of suicides are also related. Interestingly, the mental health community has counseled law enforcement not to inform the public of this fact because others on the drugs may stop using them and become worse. - a very complicated problem.
It seems to me we need to concentrate our attention and prayers to combating the actual causes. These are people with mental health issues. How do we get them off the streets? Maybe, just maybe, it is the psychiatric community who are failing us and all society..
On the other hand, Republicans are too timid to turnbthe tables on them and state the obvious fact that demonicRATS are the ones who benefit from such outrages by exploiting them for their own political gain and the proof of that can be found in the fact that the most dangerous cities in America are gun control meccas run by demonicRATS.
Bunch of cowards. Speak up, Republicans! Give 'em hell!
It’s time to roll back those dangerous 1st Amendment rights.
“It’s not about stopping mass shootings.
These are fascists. They just want to be the only ones with the guns doing the shooting!”
Exactly!!! They don’t care about the mass shooting, they just want our guns.
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.