(It will be if too many of our elected officials have their way) In our frustration, disbelief and yes anger too we often accuse our elected officials of being idiots, ignorant and outright stupid about the viability of gun control, but we are wrong. President Barak Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (R-CA), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA.), Rep. Bobby Rush (D- Ill.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein. (D-CA), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Sen. Mike DeWine (R.-Ohio), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-CA.) and others of their ilk are intelligent, highly educated people who understand full well that gun control has never worked, is not working and will never work. So why, you may well ask, are they pushing for gun control? The issue for us is about safety for our children, schools and our communities, while at the same time retaining our constitutional rights and security. Our Senators and Representatives claim that its their goal too but is it? Is it really? If true why do they insist on whipping a dead horse like gun control? Its common knowledge that the states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the most violent crime and one of the highest crime areas is Washington DC! If gun control is a dismal failure, and it has been proven that it is, what could be the motive behind our nations lawmakers dogged efforts to pass more and more gun control laws? There is only one reason and that is to confiscate all guns from law abiding citizens. They arent worried about criminals now, they will take care of them later, their main focus is ordinary law abiding citizens guns. You see through their gun registration schemes our officials know where most of our guns are, unlike criminals who dont register their guns. Once they take our guns and turn us from citizens into subjects then they can begin to transform America into a union of socialist states, a government of the people by the government, a stated wish by many lawmakers. Many Senators and Representatives have already said they wish the government had more power so they could get more done without interference. What did you think they meant? Im not saying they want to turn America into what Russia was, no, not that far reaching. They want a modified socialist state where they pass the laws they want, where they hold office for decades, where the news media is controlled by the government and where the justice system operates quickly with more law and less justice, more taxes and less freedom. Can this really be true? Is it really possible? Possible yes, true I dont know but consider this; If there are real solutions that protect children and our communities as well as our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and there are, then why do these Senators and Congress persons continue to propose laws that have no effect on criminals and no chance of stopping violent massacres? Why do they continue to use smoke and mirrors instead of working on real solutions? Why do they continue to punish law abiding Americans for the sins of the criminal and the insane? Instead of solving the problem they are slapping the victims, their families and all of America in the face and that is unconscionable. As far as I'm concerned those who propose gun control, who want us disarmed are socialists pure and simple.
You are so right papadoug It is all about total control now. Someone even intoduced legisation to get rid of the 2 term limit for president (so Obama could possibly go for 3 or more) You put the wrong people in power and they abuse it. They want to make government bigger, but that would be the end of our freedom. Never trust a government that doesn't trust their own people.
Except in every other first-world democratic nation... Translation: "Warning: total conjecture ahead" Because implementing gun control in an area can be expected to be totally effective when there's nothing to stop you from driving back and forth to other areas where there is not gun control... On a NATIONAL level, there would be physical borders with customs officials... But it's just so much more fun (and it supports your pre-existing view, truth be d@mned) to compare a NATIONAL program with a state-based program. More conjecture, based on the premise that what has worked in every other country couldn't possibly work here on the national level, because it doesn't work on a neighborhood level... Are you aware that there is a difference between socialism and communism? Maybe because gun control works in every other first-world democracy? Maybe because you can't selectively legislate against SOME people without being discriminatory and having it thrown out by SCOTUS? Actually, the victims are dead. "They" are slapping those who contribute to the problem. And those who fight against it are paranoid fascists.
Logician0311; "Except in every other first-world democratic nation..." Where oh where do you get your information from, political garbage.com? A Harvard study would seem to disagree with you. "The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling: “Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)”. Logician0311; "Are you aware that there is a difference between socialism and communism"? I do but obviously you don't so allow me to educate you. There is a stark difference between Marxist Socialism and Democratic Socialism, the former being what you are talking about. What Obama and his cronies want is a modified Democratic Socialism. Since the end of WWII a slow movement of socialism has infested our country alternating with small periods of strong capitalism. Economists call it “creeping socialism”. The ideology of socialism developed from the notion that capitalism creates inequality in society. It’s a concept that advocates public (government) ownership of all resources. It also advocates control of prices, wages, health care, everything including public safety and itself. A government of the people by the government is central to its goal. Socialism is a construct in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that plans and controls the economy. Socialism promises equality, security, and prosperity, but instead delivers quite the opposite which has been clearly demonstrated throughout history. The end result is failure ending in tyranny and oppression. "Both socialism and capitalism use the threat of legal action as a means of gaining compliance; however, what differs is the motivation. Capitalism uses force to prevent the violation of civil liberties whereas socialism uses force as a means of cohering citizens into action and breeds a culture of dependency and fear." If the powerful Obama political machine takes over both houses of Congress in 2014, be prepared to take a sharp left turn toward Socialism. Analyses of the President’s inauguration speech this week by both Democrats and Republicans describe a second-term agenda that is concentrated on his socialist ideologies. If you want to know who his socialist followers are just look for anti-Second Amendment lawmakers. You will also find they are in favor of more far reaching restrictions on the Bill of Rights as well including the First Amendment right of free assembly, already on the chopping block. He laid out a plan to force the nation to accept principals that are decidedly counter to the values established by our Founding Fathers. He disregarded pressing issues such as Social Security and Medicare reform and, instead, put a focus on climate change and gay marriage. This was also noted by various national news media including NBC, CNN, Reuters, CNBC and more. Obama will resort to an increased use of executive orders to implement his policies if he can’t achieve bi-partisan support for his agenda in the Democratic Senate and the Republican House. This is his plan to circumvent democracy in favor of his beloved socialism. Author Toby Young, noted in the London Telegraph; “Obama’s inaugural presentation was an aggressive assertion of modern liberalism, with the emphasis on gay rights, gun control, gender equality, combating climate change and – if his remarks about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and income inequality are anything to go by – redistributive taxation. This is a fully-fledged socialist agenda that will leave the 47.2 per cent of Americans who didn’t vote for Obama feeling ostracized and angry. If this is going to be the tone of Obama’s second term, the next four years are likely to see America more divided than at any time since the 1960s.” Obama’s vision is not a democratic socialism but one in which individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group, i.e., the government. Socialism as we know it today, most commonly refers to "market socialism," which involves individual market exchanges organized by collective planning. Socialism is often erroneously linked with communism and while communism can also contain socialism the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems. Obama’s clear objective is to employ socialism with elements of government control that while short of communism far overreaches the freedoms of democracy. Unfortunately my arguments will have no effect on you because your head is firmly buried in the sand, mired in failed hopes and empty promises.
Nice try, but there's a huge difference between FIRST-WORLD democratic countries that I referred to (which are similar to the US in many ways) and just "Nations with anti-gun laws". News flash, bright boy... You cannot simulataneously accuse the government of unfairly legislating away your rights while accusing the government of implementing a Democratic Socialism... Democratic Socialism is inherently anti-authoritarian and anti-government, making your accusations conflicting. What kind of limitations on the BoR? You mean like telling the media what coverage they can provide in relation to mass shootings? Arresting people with no charge, storing them in Gitmo and torturing them for information they may not have without any kind of trial? Asking hispanic people to "show their papers" because they LOOK like illegal immigrants? Legislating the reproductive rights of legal adults? Can you provide a link highlighting that the founding fathers were more interested in Medicare than climate change? Given that the GOP's entire strategy for the first term was to "Make Obama a one-term President" (FAIL), I believe they dictated the terms of the current conflict within the government. Obama’s vision is not a... blah blah blah blah.... [/QUOTE] Translation: I can read Obama's mind and make declarative statements regarding his motivations. That's very poetic. If only your abilities included knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Knock, knock, the study did include FIRST-WORLD democratic countries. See what he did there? He changed what I said, "modified Democratic Socialism", to what he wanted it to be, (Democratic Socialism) to fit his argument. In another part he asks; "Can you provide a link highlighting that the founding fathers were more interested in Medicare than climate change"? Here he takes two separate statements and combines them into one in a desperate attempt to shore up his empty rhetoric. You're out of gas my friend! The media only tells one side now but it would be nice if they would tell both sides and (horrors) even the truth. You use hollow arguments and senseless blather to prosecute your inane arguments. You are a country auctioneer trying to sell used oats to farmers telling them they are freshly harvested oats. But the farmers see your used oats for what they really are and so do I. Your big problem is that no matter what you say you cannot escape the fact that "gun control" has never worked and will never work because it is aimed at the wrong people. You use the same false "facts" and twisted logic politicians do. We're done here.
Great, the study "included" first-world democracies... It also included a number of countries that are not comparable to the US. Hardly useful. I was illustrating that your "modified Democratic Socialism" is so heavily modified (in ways you don't bother to list) that it no longer even vaguely resembles a Deomcratic Socialism. Try again. You go ahead and have gas... Your illustrated that the government has deviated from the original priorities of the founding fathers by highlighting the lack of emphasis on Medicare reform and the increased emphasis on climate change... You backing away from that position? News flash... I'm not selling oats. I'm just pointing out the glaring holes the position you dress up with half-a$$ political analysis. Actually, it's aimed at ALL people. Any suggestion from the gun lobby on how to only target the "right people" without being discriminatory would be interesting to see... Although conservatives historically are not great at avoiding discriminatory behaviors. Gun CONTROL is not (and should not be, in my view) synonymous with gun BANNING. A lack of control - particularly when dealing with weapons designed to inflict lethal wounds - is not something any responsible person (gun owner or not) should be seeking.
