This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/30/2019 5:51:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law's primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Today's gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15. By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.
Let's look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in their 2018 report on Crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles. A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders -- 6,603.
What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buyback plan that 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O'Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating for knife control, hammer control and feet and fist
Gun controllers' belief that "easy" gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase. With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here's my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today? That's really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.
Let's examine some elements of this decline.
If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today's America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn't believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn't believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors. During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn't believe that we're now debating whether teachers should be armed.
Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation's homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they've eliminated our means to defend ourselves.
Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them. After Fidel Castro's demand for gun confiscation, he said, "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") Cubans later found out.
All the result of an explosion of liberals in news media and education since about 1960. The “informers” lied and censored.
The Democrats have been screaming for gun registration and bans since 1962.
1962-Call for Handgun registration ONLY! “Rifles will not be affected.”
1963-Call for registration of All guns and a ban on 5 shot army surplus rifles!
1968-Got a ban on small foreign handguns and 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles.
1971 Call for Ban on small American handguns. “Rifles will not be affected!”
1975 Call for Ban on all handguns. “Rifles will not be affected!”
1981 Actress Lee Grant on ABC’s GMA yells...
“The NRA is a rifle organization! They should give up their handguns and they can keep their rifles!”
1984 Call for ban on semi-auto rifles.
1994 Ten year “ban” on “a-s-s-ault rifles”.
2000 Call to ban single shot .50 cal rifles.
Rest assured if they get a ban on semi-auto rifles, they will be back for the handguns, and more, and more and more.
Assault Rifles are banned and regulated.
AR does NOT mean assault, which is an emotion for a thing, such as an assault rock.
Need ONE conservative judge to NULLIFY all AR laws.
All. Now.
“Hell yeah...” Stalin-like, Mao-like, Chavez-like GOVERNMENT SPOKESMEN with DEMANDS.
1) O’Rourke
2) Biden
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Walter, the “gun-grabbers” are MISREADING us, also!
Americans will not allow their guns to be “grabbed!”
I W N C
Bttt.
5.56mm
I like what the author is trying to do, but he misleads us by omitting the entire category "Firearms - type unknown" that was in the report.
|
Handguns |
6603 |
47% |
|
Rifles |
297 |
2% |
|
Shotguns |
235 |
2% |
|
Firearms (type unknown) |
3130 |
22% |
|
Knives or cutting instruments |
1515 |
11% |
|
Other weapons |
1671 |
12% |
|
Hands, fists, feet, etc.2 |
672 |
5% |
I agree in principle but hate it when people mislead by twisting the data.
Let's gloss right over the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The Democrats have been screaming for gun registration and bans since 1962. 1962-Call for Handgun registration ONLY! “Rifles will not be affected.”
The reason why the NFA of 1934 effectively banned short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns by imposing a then outrageous $200 tax was because originally handguns were also supposed to be part of the $200 tax. Handguns were removed from the law at the last minute, but the SBS and SBR provisions remained.
The gun grabbers have always wanted to grab handguns.
As always, Walter is absolutely brilliant in his observations and opinions.
I believe I once saw a Sears ad from the twenties or thirties era for a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun. As I recall, the price was under $200!
Leaders don't follow. Leaders take responsibility for their actions. Instead, Biden is following O'Dork's lead on this issue.
Americans don't want to hear about having their guns rights taken away from them by the leading candidate for president for the democRATS.
But I guess with all that Trump had accomplished so far, they have nothing else to run on but negative messages.
So in some distant parallel universe Beto gets elected. He passes, against all odds in congress and surviving the Supreme Court, an Assault Weapons Ban. And just as he said, he came for all our ARs and AKs, and we gave them all up.
The next school shooting will be with a shotgun, and it will be at least as messy. Or, like the Virginia Tech shooter, the shooter will use handguns, or the Texas Tower shooter who used a ‘sniper rifle’ (standard deer rifle) ...and the body count will be the same or worse...
Then the whole gun ban cycle starts over again and another class of firearm is banned,,,until they all are.
The second Amendment isn’t about hunting or sporting. It is about self defense and tyranny.
They want to ban firearms because they want to do things that a well-armed population would never allow.
Actually, the RATS have been trying to disarm us at least since the days of FDR.
That is exactly what all this is about. It most certainly is not about "public safety" or reducing crime. As the statistics point out current "gun control" efforts such as the idea of an "assault weapons ban" (whatever that is) - even if 100% successful would not make any difference.
Consider, if every single semi-automatic rifle was pulled from the streets - note that this is a much broader definition than the typical "assault weapon" hand waving... Even if you got every one, legal and illegal the effect on crime and deaths would be so small it would literally take a mathematician/statistician to tell us what the effect had been after a few years. Because to the casual observer the effect would be lost in the noise of typical year-to-year variability in the data.
So why bother? Because the would-be gun-grabbers think it is potentially achievable. Like the old joke about looking for a lost wallet under a street light, this is what they think they can do right now. If you look at the proposed bans in the context of their stated objectives they make no sense whatsoever. None. We can prove mathematically and through objective real-world examples that they will not work. Some of the places with the worst gun related crime are the very places with the most stringent "gun control" laws.
So have the gun control advocates lost their collective minds? Why else advocate for something demonstrably futile? Because the stated reasons and goals are a lie. What are the real reasons, the real goals? Well, I missed divination class at school so we'll have to make some deductions and formulate some theories the old fashioned way: based on observation and experience.
What we see is a first step. An effort that will ultimately fail at it's stated objective. However, it will pave the way for additional steps towards that same stated goal, safety, while also making gains towards the real goal of disarmament. In a word, incrementalism. When "assault weapons" bans inevitably fail to have any noticeable effect on crime & deaths, something like a complete ban on semi-automatics will be tried. (that idea has already been floated at least once) Limits on magazine capacities. Also laughably ineffective at impacting crime they do serve the purpose of getting people used to having their rights limited. Then perhaps a ban on handguns (a-la several Countries such as Great Britain)...and on and on towards complete civilian disarmament.
Like the author, I am very concerned about what their plans are for us once we lack the means to potentially resist those grand dreams. History and the experiences of populations in other Countries would indicate these grand dreams are more nightmarish for the rest of us. Don't think it can happen here? Ha! Search for "gun control followed by genocide" - I'm sure the people in those Countries didn't think it could happen there either. Let's learn from their mistakes, not learn the hard way.
BTW, here is what you could get through the mail in 1967:
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.