Friday, January 8, 2016

Citizenry Pushing Back on Unpopular Gun Restrictions

All those that want an Australian type of gun confiscations should consider these three facts.

1) Unlike Australia (and every other country in the world) the people do not have a 200 year history of a Bill of Rights that constrains the Federal Government, resulting in a citizenry believing that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege, dictating gun ownership, shall not be infringed by the government.

 2) In Australia the popularity for gun confiscation was 90%; a huge percentage considering the small fraction of Americans want to disarm themselves.

 3) In Australia 1 in 5 owned guns; of the 3,000,000 guns only 600,000 were turned in voluntarily. In the US gun there are a 100 times more guns with ownership exceeding 1 to 1, with some 350,000,000 guns.

So the reason that the gun restrictions in Australia works is becasue it is the will of the people, so the majority comply.  In the United States it is the opposite, where liberal politicians are governing against the will of the people and trying to push gun bans and restrictions on a very suspicious citizenry. As an example, in September of 2011 the citizenry of Colorado recalled two state legislators (the first time in Colorado history) and a third did not run for election, after they pushed through a slate of, what turned out to be, very unpopular anti-gun laws. The most contentious was a mandatory  turn in/ magazine confiscation law that would a million of previously law abiding Coloradans into criminals over night. Further in Connecticut, another unpopular law demanded owners register their assault weapons with the state or face confiscation and arrest. The law was all but ignored, plus it was also discovered that at least 68% of the police officers in the state owned an unregistered assault weapon. It appears the state is now taking a wait to prosecute tactic, charging only those when the police discover a violation during their routine calls for service. And in Los Angeles, a new law (similar to the Colorado law) required the turning in of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds, but not one magazine was turned in.

What liberals tend to ignore is a law has to to has voluntary compliance to work. In other words, just passing a law does not mean it will be followed, and if it is not, there is little the state can do about it, bar some unreasonable punishment which is forbidden by our Constitution. This is the danger of legislating against the will of the people. At the point the people say no, there is a real danger that the current leadership will loose the peoples respect, and the current governance will collapse due to a nullification by the people of  their permission to lead.

There are many skewed studies design from the beginning to cherry pick information to show that gun availability results in gun crimes; the primary statistical issue is correlation does not equal causation, in other words it's very difficult to determine cause from effect. However, any study on guns needs to stand up to the FBI statics that gun homicides have been spiraling down (by 50%) in the last 20 years, while gun ownership has skyrocketed; yet based on this information Peter Gelblum is horrified; that's hard to figure (hey thousand of people are not being killed, isn't that a good thing?) unless Peter simply hates guns under any circumstances. Here are some other facts; of all homicides blacks are the victim 50% of the time (although they are only 13% of the population) and 80% of black male adults die from homicides. Further some 80% of of non-suicide violent gun deaths is a result of gang violence and a majority is black on black crimes in poor black urban communities. These Democrat run ghettos are the only places bucking the trend of reduced gun violence; and these cities have the strictest gun regulations in the country. Yes, these thugs can go across the borders where gun regulations are not as strict, but FBI studies tell us that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are not purchased legally or stolen; most are acquired in an underground black market. Even if guns are obtained in such a manner, it does not explain why the violent crime rate is much lower where the criminals are supposedly going where guns laws are less strict. As far as background checks, again the FBI and ATF have released information that 93% of guns denied through background checks are false positives

The there is call for a so called ban to "automatic" or assault weapons; automatic is being used in-correctly as these non-military grade rifles are semi-automatic. The reason liberals use the terms automatic and semi automatic interchangeably, is first because it really piss@s off gun people and second, to promote misinformation to the ignorant masses of liberals. This is becasue if the masses were to find out the truth, that workings of a semi-automatic rifle is essentially the same as every pistol ever made going back to 1911 (or before), and that not only are these rifles rarely used in crimes, (certainly less than shotguns) even though there are some 4-5 million in the hands of the law abiding citizenry, the FBI has acknowledged that another assault weapons ban would have absolutely no affect on reducing homicides and/or violent crimes (just as what didn't occur during the last ban). Then the liberal masses might start asking; Well if that is true, why not try something that has a chance of actually reducing violent crimes? It is simply the left making a mountain out nothing (a strawman), and making a great noise of how they want to save the citizenry with this ban, so they can claim the morale high ground, when in reality the entire issue is just a smoke screen to divert attention away from the Democrats utter failure in creating cities that are no more than hellholes, that are killing off blacks in record numbers.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

There Is No Gun Emergency to Respond To (and other Democrat propaganda)

 Gun violence and homicides have been in a downward spiral since 1992; homicides have fallen off so much that suicides out number them 2 to 1; 20,000 out of 30,000 violent gun deaths. It is also well known that the accessibility of guns does not drive gun violence, rather gun violence follows crime trends and crime trends as I said are way down. But that has not stopped Obama and the Democrats from creating a gun crime emergency strawman. The current executive orders are symbolic at best and would not have stopped any of the recent high profile gun murders such as Newtown shooting in 2012. Obama's message to congress,  "pass something; anything" on guns, was an attempt to get congress to buy into this Democrat election year charade; a political strawman built on our nation's sorrow and mourning of the dead children of Newtown; it is as despicable as it sounds and with a tear in his eye, Obama executive orders are at best symbolic and at worse a political ploy to further his agenda.

The Democrats continue to play to the liberal (ie PC) uninformed.

1)They believe that restricting the sales of guns to lawful citizens will reduce gun violence and guns cause crimes; even though as gun ownership has increased, the crime rate has fallen (a assault weapon ban is necessary even though they account for fewer homicides than shotguns). Like the presidents message to congress by Obama; do something; anything (regardless if it has any affect, becasue it's all for show).
2)They believe Islam is a religion of peace even though there is violent jihad, slavery, misogyny and apostasy in the Quran and other Islamic scripture; and ignores the fact that radical Islam is responsible for pretty much all the terrorists violence in the world today.
2b. They believe that Islamic radical jihad is based on retaliation, rather the Quran's promise of a world Caliphate (as if the Clinton Administration did some wrong to the Islamic world the resulted in 911) and 1400 years of Sunni-Shiite warfare.
3)They believe the First Amendment is flawed because it allows diverse belief systems to be voiced, it also allows hate speech and micro-agressions, which they see as a problem unless it comes from a liberals mouth.
4)They believe that Democrats are not responsible for the slavery that caused the Civil War and the continued racism during reconstruction through Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation and poll taxes. Even if the Republicans magically became the racists party that the Democrats were (when Republicans made gains in Presidential elections, the Democrats still controlled most of the state houses in the south through the 60's, 70's and 80's), after 100 years of abolitionists policy and the forcing of civil rights on a racist south, it does not erase the historical damage done to the black psyche by Democrats, that continues even today in the Black Lives Matter movement. They don't see how the Democrats continue to oppress the black community by making it totally dependent on welfare, gave more money to families without father in the house and rewarded young women when they became unwed mothers, and segregated them in high crime low income urban cities they control.
5) There is more, but most of all "they always blame America first"