LA Times answer to failed gun control laws

The Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece May 28^th on how to deal with people who say that gun control laws don’t work. Their answer? About what you would expect from a left-wing propaganda sheet.

They want to just ban all private ownership of firearms. If no one has a gun, then all will be perfect and we will all live in harmony with rainbows overhead and unicorns cavorting in the meadows. Here are the details from The LA Times:

In a post Tuesday, I listed the mass shootings since January 2013 in which at least three people were killed. It’s an agonizingly, depressingly long list, and I cited it as the prime reason we need meaningful gun control. The post received the usual blowback from gun owners, most of whom skipped over the scope of gun deaths in this country to look more myopically at last week’s tragic events at Isla Vista (which I mentioned only in passing, seeing this problem as much broader than the most recent headlines).

But there also have been responses from people who share my disgust at the endless gun violence that pervades American culture. A few asked what should be done. My personal preference? It’s a decidedly minority viewpoint, but I say, ban them, with a carve-out for hunting weapons.

And we’re off to the Moonbat races! So what does this moron think would be a good idea?

For example: Hunters could own shotguns (and rifles where state laws allow them for hunting), but they would have to be registered and the owners would have to pass a gun safety course before they could get a hunting license (already a requirement in most, if not all, places). That license would be a prerequisite for registering a hunting weapon. Resale of a weapon should be monitored to preclude passing it along to unqualified people. Ammunition sales would be tracked much like we do sales of pseudoephinedrine (an ingredient in meth).

And as we have seen, tracking pseudoephinedrine has ended the problem of Methamphetamine FOREVER!

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill. Yes, hobbyists also like to use guns for target shooting and other nonlethal purposes, but it’s hard to say that desire for sport outweighs the atrocious level of gun-related deaths in this country.

Perhaps Mr. Numbnuts might want to consider a few things. First, a lot of these “Atrocious gun-related crimes” occur in areas with that have all but outlawed the ownership of guns in the first place. In places where the Second Amendment is upheld and defended, (As it should be), by the government, gun-related crime isn’t all that high. In fact, it’s just the opposite, but in typical Moonbat style, Mr. Martelle is not one to let pesky little things like “facts” get in the way of his beliefs.

Self-defense? Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data. Similarly, the scope of gun victims is unknown, in part because of gun-lobby interference in efforts to try to establish baseline reports (we know how many die but not how many are wounded). This national debate would be helped immensely if the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were funded by Congress to collect the data.

I beg to differ. There is a lot of data showing that guns in the hands of citizens does stop crime. Perhaps Mr. Dimbulb has never heard of, let alone read the works of one Gary Kleck, Ph.D regarding the defensive use of firearms. Then there is John Lott, another person who has done extensive research and makes his data sets available for people to review. Here, allow me to link to his book More Guns, Less Crime. You should try reading it Mr. Martelle. You might actually learn something. Of course, that would require you to have an open mind and a some sort of grasp on reality.

As for the argument that the 2nd Amendment was written with an eye toward protecting America from the tyranny of King George, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The Bill of Rights was adopted six years later in an atmosphere in which there was no standing federal army; the government relied on state militias, which were composed of soldiers who brought their own weapons with them. We haven’t had an army like that in a long, long time. And the idea that a few well-armed patriots would be able to defeat the U.S. Army should the government turn despotic is, at best, a romantic infatuation.

And here we see the typical Moonbat’s ideas of military strategy and tactics, not to mention his grasp on history and the thinking of the Founders of the United States. The first problem for him is that the people who decide they have no choice but to remove a tyrannical government aren’t going to march in a line against the army. Generally, these same people actually, unlike you, respect the Military. Quite a few of the “Rebels” will be former military themselves.

No, they won’t be fighting the Army, they will actually avoid the army. Instead they will go after the source of the problem. The tyrants in Government, their agents in the so-called “Law Enforcement” arm and the bureaucrats running the agencies. They will also go after the supporters of the tyrannical government, which probably means you Mr. Martelle and pretty much the entire “Main Stream Media.”

This doesn’t take into account if things start to go sideways, there will be those in the military and law enforcement who decide that their oath to the Constitution is more important that your desire to strip people of their guns. This means desertions.

There is another thing you haven’t considered. Just how many “Trigger pullers” does the army and federal law enforcement have? At best, perhaps a million. Assume that only 10 percent of gun owners take up arms. That means at least 10 million people. Then there is the problem of concentration of forces. You will have those 10 million “Rebels” spread out all over the country taking potshots at politicians, bureaucrats and media types. The military and law enforcement work best when they can concentrate and pin down an opponent. Just take a look at Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency is hard.

And finally, we have tens of thousands of people who have received a doctorate degree in insurgency operations. Suppressing them AND running them. These men and women know just how to violently bring down a tyrannical government if they have no other options.

Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld private gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment, but the Supreme Court has been wrong before (Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott case, decisions allowing deed restrictions to bar home sales to African Americans, etc.). One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns. (By comparison, the 1st Amendment, near and dear to my heart, is not absolute: We have libel laws, which inherently limit free speech for the sake of the broader good, yet even journalists recognize them as a reasonable compromise.)

The Supreme Court has made mistakes in the past, one of the most recent being the upholding of Obamacare. Then we have the Kelo decision ((Kelo v. City of New London)) and the court’s turning the Commerce Clause ((The New Deal)) on it’s head under your favorite President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With regards to the First Amendment, we’ve seeing restrictions by the courts on the free practice of religion as well as attacks on speech. (The First amendment guarantees Freedom OF Religion, not the Moonbat idea of Freedom FROM Religion) As to the Second Amendment, there is a great body of work on exactly what the founders intended and what it meant. They wrote all this down in the Federalist Papers as well as personal letters and documents. They would be shocked and angered at the suppression of the Second amendment today, even with the court beginning to understand that it is a right mandated by the constitution. You might like to know that the founders expected people to own actual artillery as well as guns.

So my personal view: Ban the guns, and slowly but inexorably bring our culture back from this violent, communal madness. It won’t be fast, it won’t be easy, it probably won’t even be possible given the political realities. But the status quo is unacceptable and, at one level, suicidal. We have to try to fix this.

I have a very simple solution for you. Leave. Move to a country that gives you exactly what you want. How about Great Britain? No guns allowed, no knives allowed and if you say something that someone else finds offensive, it’s off to jail with you. You are a typical group-think Moonbat. You are terrified that if you have access to a weapon, you too will snap and kill people like that scumbag you mentioned. In your mind, along with others in the Progressive Liberal Fascist Movement, the individual can’t be trusted and therefore must be controlled.

In some respects, I agree with you. One of the interesting statistics that you won’t bring up is the political beliefs of the recent mass murders. Funny thing, there isn’t a Republican in the bunch. They are all Liberal Democrats or were raised in Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrat households. However, since that doesn’t fit your narrative, you will ignore it, just like you ignored that psychopathic twerp’s use of a knife to kill his first three victims, (100 percent fatality rate), and used his car to run down several others. (No fatalities thankfully)

As to his guns, he hit 8-10 people, (I haven’t been able to find the exact number), and killed three. That’s bad of course, but seems to indicate he was better with a knife then he was with a gun. Of course, that also doesn’t fit your narrative so it will be ignored.

You are quick to strip the rights away of over 100 million people by fiat. How about we continue down that path and have censors looking at your writing to determine if they should be banned? Or how about mandatory police inspections of your property at will? Oh yes, if you are questioned, you won’t be permitted to not answer their questions, nor will you be allowed to talk with an attorney or have one with you during questioning.

Do you see where this is going dumbass? The Right to keep and bear arms was meant to be the final check on an out of control government, one that you seem to want. You might want to review what happened in Nevada a month or so ago. Make no mistake, the Bureau of Land Management storm troopers were outright suppressing the First Amendment as well as many other rights you hold so dear. Do you want to know why the pulled out so suddenly? They were outnumbered, surrounded and out gunned. Yes they had machineguns. So what? As anyone who knows firearms and they will tell you full automatic fire is of limited utility and a great way to run yourself out of ammunition.

Make no mistake Mr. Martelle, many people, including myself, were worried that “This was it!” and that there would be shooting. This wouldn’t have been another Waco, TX. Incident. This time the entire BLM force would have been wiped out or forced to surrender and be taken off to the local jails in shackles.

Perhaps you would like another historical note where the Second Amendment was used to stop a tyrannical government. Have you ever heard of Athens, Tennessee? No? Here’s a short video explaining what happened there.

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mYP25kC2Y’]

You may want to take away my rights and the rights of others Mr. Martelle, but you better consider what will happen if we refuse to allow it. Picture repeats of Athens, Tennessee happening all across the nation.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...