Come, Take them…

Progtards never miss an opportunity to wave a bloody shirt.

It’s really all they have, as not a single one of their programs or initiatives can stand in the face of serious examination and logical examination.

Glenn Instapundit Reynolds writing in the pages of the tired gray crone of Gotham notes:

In 2012, Room for Debate asked ”Is the Gun Lobby Invincible?” Since then, the answer has turned out to be “yeah, pretty much.” And the reason is trust.

So if you want more gun control, you need more trust. And if you want more trust, police and politicians must be more trustworthy. Good luck with that!

Trust in both Government and Law Enforcement are at or near all time lows, the demonstrated lawlessness of the Obama [mal]Administration undermines the very trust required to convince free men to give up their arms.

Forcing the issue will not end well.  μολὼν λαβέ

Political Death By Non-debate? Let's Hope So.
Salon Article Calls Michelle Malkin a Monkey
  • Par4Course

    Laws making gun possession illegal would remove all guns from society like laws outlawing heroine has removed all heroine from society.

    • Even less effective, as otherwise law abiding gun owners will NOT comply.

  • Constitution First

    The same Progressives endlessly mewl, we can’t possibly round up and deport 12 million Crimaliens, but we can certainly confiscate 300 million firearms from 100 million law-abiding gun owners. (Especially when they are being aimed in anger).
    0bama; worlds greatest gun, ammunition and Gadsden flag salesmen.

    • jim_m

      Because when they start putting people into prisons concentration camps for keeping those guns people will start to comply. And if you think that this is hyperbolic, what do you think the purpose of “sensitivity training” and Diversity training” are? They are reeducation day camps to get people thinking the correct ideology.

      • Constitution First

        They will have that little sticky issue of getting us disarmed before rounding us up… I predict this will not end well.

        • jim_m

          Under Mrs. Clinton’s plan, she would use administrative powers to make anyone selling a substantial number of guns declared “in the business” of firearms dealing, and subject to the same rules as retailers, if Congress does not act, according to the campaign aide.

          The plan is to enact gun control by executive order. The dems have officially and now openly given up on democracy and are declaring their intent to establish a fascist state. Within our lifetimes we will see the last federal election. It may come sooner rather than later.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Can I assume you are employing hyperbole?

        • Scalia

          When he specifically denied using it?

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    Wow, everyone is coming to take your guns and round up all of you good law-abiding “Amuricans” and reeducate you. Of course, as you say, “it won’t end well” because the people with guns will certainly stand up to this tyranny. Yeah, the government won’t stand a chance against a bunch of regular guys in the neighborhood with a few guns.
    Gun grabbers? They couldn’t even pass more extensive background checks because of both parties. There are Wal-Marts that sell guns and some are open 24 hours a day. There was a full page ad in the Sunday paper this past week. Come into Dick’s Sporting Goods and pick up a new driver and don’t miss the Bushmasters that are on sale.
    The right sure is made up of paranoid people. Not worrying about what is happening, but being concerned about imaginary scenarios.

    • jim_m

      So you missed the part where they are saying that they will use the power of the executive to circumvent the constitution and the Congress?

      Reviewing history you missed the part where Germans thought that Hitler’s antisemitic ideas were extreme but that he would never actually act upon them. You must have missed the part where left wing governments throughout the last century has committed atrocities against those who dared to merely think differently than they did. The Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution and the Holodomar have made no impression upon you?

      Freedom is secured through vigilance, and not by saying ,”Don’t worry, it will never happen.” Every atrocity starts with the left overreaching and the people standing by and doing nothing.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        So people that sell a “large number of guns” would be considered “in the business of selling guns” and would have to comply with background checks?

        Yeah, that’s crazy, why would someone that sells a “large number of guns” be thought to be in that business?

        Why does the right seem to think that background checks are tantamount to, what do you guys call it, oh yeah, “gun grabbing”?

        From 85% to 90% of Americans support background checks, but to a certain segment, this is the proverbial Trojan Horse.

        How about closing the gun show/private sale loophole?

        Just as an aside, if someone in the house is, well, borderline, perhaps having a closet full of guns and ammo, and bragging about it, is not a great idea.

        • Scalia

          You’re the only person here who’s mentioned background checks. Perhaps you’re unaware that the NRA backed Senator Cornyn’s proposed background check bill. We are not philosophically opposed to checks.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Well, that is a start.

        • jim_m

          No. Ultimately, the goal is that anyone selling any gun would have to be an FFL. That has been stated publicly in the past.

          The so called loophole is so small that you cannot name a single mass shooting that has occurred because the shooter got his weapons that way.

    • Sky__Captain

      The stupid is strong with this one, surpassed only by his blissful unawareness.

      • He seems blissful in his profound ignorance.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Don’t need to have 8 guns in the house (I only have two hands) and I simply don’t think that an invading army will be pounding on my door as I am not, you know, in the

          • Sky__Captain

            You really need to read the writings of this country’s Founding Fathers on the reasoning behind the Second Amendment.
            Go on and do it, we’ll wait.

            When you’ve read and understand the Founding Fathers’ reasoning and fears, then we can a reasonable discussion on this.

            Of course, your blissful unawareness may be at risk.

          • More along the lines of profound ignorance.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I am sure this what they had in mind, everyone has the right to have this in their basement. Sure, why not?

          • jim_m

            Individuals owning weapons? Yes, yes it is.

          • jim_m

            Actually, yes, why not?

            You have not answered my questions about Cars, pens, computers, and phones and you can add to that TV’s, radios, and I am sure I can think of more.

            DO you have more than one color of shirt? Why? Surely white is good enough. Perhaps you are in favor of a national uniform so everyone is dressed the same, the better to promote equality.

            Have you ever had something that was worn out? Do you understand that guns too will wear out?

            Seriously, you believe that people should not be allowed choice? That somehow this right is less of a right than others because you don’t like it?

            Choice is a necessary requirement of freedom. Without choice we do not have freedom.

            But it is obvious that you do not intend to defend your fascist beliefs here. You only want t troll the board. You have never contributed anything of worth here.

          • Scalia

            You have not answered my questions…

            And he won’t either. When he hits a roadblock to his liberalism, he retreats faster than the Red Sea before Moses.

          • jim_m

            I’m still waiting to here when you plan to burn your house down. Clearly you would never have a smoke alarm unless you were planning to do so.

          • Jwb10001

            Who are you to tell anyone how many of anything they can have. Are gun collectors now also the enemy? Jay Leno has way more cars that he should be allowed to have. Why do liberals think they can tell other people what they can have and not have and if by some miracle I’m allowed to have something I best not have too many.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            So Mrs. Mercer and Mrs. Lanza were collectors?

            My mistake.

          • Sky__Captain

            It is obvious that you have not followed my advice, and thus are not capable of reasonable discussion on the issue.

            Keep on being oblivious, but do the rest of us a favor and not impose your profound ignorance on us.

          • iwogisdead

            H’e smarter than Madison, Mason, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, Jefferson, and all those other idiots who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He doesn’t have to discuss this because all of those dead people are just stupid.

          • jim_m

            Your comments are typical of someone who knows nothing about guns. You think that they are all the same and are all interchangeable.

            They are not. People can have more than one item without being “a collector”. Some people will own a motorcycle and a car? Why? It isn’t necessary to have both for transportation.

            Do you have more than one pen in your house? Why? You can only write with them. You have no need for more than one in your entire house.

          • Jwb10001

            You made a general statement about 8 guns and 2 hands. I’m sure I never mentioned Mrs Mercer or Mrs Lanza, but you know you can respond how ever you like.

          • Evil Otto

            You didn’t answer Jwb’s questions. You deflected.

            Let’s try this again, just with the first: Who are you to tell anyone how many of anything they can have?

          • jim_m

            I can legitimately have a gun for deer hunting, a gun for fowling, one or more guns for large game hunting (Elk, Bear, etc), a gun for varminting, and then guns for self defense, hand gun for home defense, another gun for concealed carry, possibly a defensive shotgun.

            Right there I go up to 10 guns and that doesn’t allow for me to want to have different caliber options to be able to ensure that I can have access to affordable ammunition. Nor have I mentioned other recreational uses.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I grew up in Michigan and am well-versed in firearms used for hunting and received a 4-10 on my 7th birthday.

            We both know that we are not discussing people with shotguns for hunting birds or deer rifles, etc.

            I suppose what I am referring to is “…then guns for self defense, hand gun for home defense, another gun for concealed carry, possibly a defensive shotgun….”. I can only assume you are expecting trouble.

            But as Sky Captain says, I will refrain from commenting “and not impose your profound ignorance on us”

            Carry on, everything is fine and I can only assume you will all be safe if indeed your home is overrun by Huns, the Hell’s Angels or a tyrannical government run amok.

            Again, fewer homes with guns, but more guns overall. What does that tell me? That there are a number of people that are prepared for, well, something. My advice? Move out of Baghdad.

          • jim_m

            Do you have a smoke alarm in your house? When you you plan to set fire to it?

          • You hide it well.

            You’re done on this thread. Move along.

          • Sky__Captain

            So rather than actually do some research into the subject and attempt to understand, you’d rather wallow in your blissful, profound ignorance?

            Fascinating.

          • Jwb10001

            No they only have 2 hands they can only have 2 guns. That’s enough of a collection.

          • Sky__Captain

            That would be your opinion, of course.

            I disagree, and we will never convince each other of the error of their views. I agree to disagree on it.

          • Jwb10001

            Sorry I was quoting Buster should have tagged the sarc.

          • jim_m

            Really? So You only ever have need of one type of hammer? Or one type of saw? You use a back saw to cut steel? You use a hack saw to prune your trees? I suppose that you only have a standard screwdriver because there is usually a way to make it work with Philips head screws.

            Your position is borne of ignorance and a willingness to deprive others of their rights with the assumption that the rights you care about are so important that no one would ever think of taking them away.

          • Jwb10001

            Sorry I was channeling Buster (2 hands 8 guns) should have been more clear.

          • iwogisdead
          • Scalia

            Again, fewer homes with guns, but more guns overall. What does that tell me?

            It tells you that the ones without guns are the ones getting killed in these mass shootings.

          • Jwb10001

            “Fewer homes with guns more guns over all what does that tell me?”
            Fewer people own guns, people that do own guns own more of them than they used to. I wouldn’t have thought that was too difficult to sort out.

          • Scalia

            Again, fewer homes with guns…

            Where are you getting your information? And while you’re looking up the statistical data, you might enjoy Debunking the “Declining Number of Gun Owners Lie”.

          • Jwb10001

            You could want a gun because it’s fairly rare and valuable, you could want a gun for target practice, sheet shooting, clay pigeon shooting, competitive shooting. You could want a gun because it’s beautiful in your eyes and you want to display it in your house. You could want a gun because people like Buster don’t want you to have a gun and if they can’t prevent that they only want you to have 2. Best of all you could want a gun because you want it and it’s no one’s business why you want it.

  • JWH

    I’ve turned increasingly fatalistic. I’ve largely concluded that mass shootings are the consequence of our rather libertarian gun policy. And I don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it.

    • jim_m

      In China they have mass killings with knife wielding attackers. In Rwanda they had a genocide of over a million people conducted with axes and machetes.

      It is human nature that you need to confront.

    • Scalia

      I feel like a broken record (not because I’ve repeated it to you), but these mass shootings occur where people are unarmed. There are retired police, retired military, private security companies and even volunteers who are willing to stand guard at our schools. My church has a security team, all CCP holders, who are trained how to react in the event of an emergency. That suggestion has been on the table for some time, but Democrats continue to propose measures that will do little or nothing to stop these shootings.

      If you acknowledge an individual right to keep and bear arms, then it should readily be seen that deterrence is the only realistic option we have. Gun grabbers don’t want armed guards at schools because it undermines their mantra that guns are the problem. That makes them look like they’d rather see children slaughtered than to concede a political point. That’s the real outrage.

      • JWH

        Thing is, Scalia, I’m starting to feel like we’re living in a world where we need armed guards at every damn streetcorner. That’s really not the kind of world I want to live in. Keep in mind I’m not actually proposing any policies here. I’m just expressing my disappointment and deep dissatisfaction.

        • jim_m

          Your a victim of media distortion. The frequency of mass shooters is something like 0.0000003% of the population. Your odds of encountering one are vanishingly small.

        • Scalia

          Well, when goons start popping off on every street corner, we can have a discussion. It appears they’re targeting gun-free zones (or nearly so). Recall that gun-free zones were not put there by the NRA; they came courtesy of woefully misguided people who thought that criminals would respect their boundaries. They have blood on their hands.

          • JWH

            Hmm. If a 36-year-old man shows up in a school zone with a small armory in tow, I think there’s reason enough to stop him and find out what the hell he’s doing. But the whole “gun free zone” thing reminds me of the old “drug free zone” signs — a waste of taxpayer money that doesn’t do squat.

            As far as arming folks at schools, I’m rather hesitant. Whether the armed individuals are guards, school employees, or police officers, I would be worried that they’d go straight to “gun” in situations that could potentially be handled through talking. (Reference: This incident: http://valleycentral.com/news/local/teacher-talks-down-gun-wielding-student-in-high-school-hostage-situation?id=1245394)

          • Scalia

            It’s a legitimate worry, and I share the same concern, but I still feel that their presence would be better than their absence, especially in light of the alternatives that liberals propose.

          • JWH

            Hmmm … Perhaps you and I, despite our (substantial) political differences might agree on that point. If you’re going to have individuals (school employees, security guards, or police officers) armed and in schools, then they need to be trained on how to de-escalate conflict without firearms. A point of compromise?

          • Scalia

            Oh, certainly. I’m not a shoot first and ask questions later guy, especially at a school.

          • JWH

            Indeed. And I’m glad you understand where I’m coming from. This scenario (not a school shooting) troubles me, too: http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/

            In that story, a guy pulled his gun to try to stop a carjacking. Instead of getting the carjackers, he accidentally shot and killed the victim. And then the guy tried to cover up his misdeed …

        • jim_m

          So would you rather have that armed guard be an agent of an impersonal state, that can act with impunity and when they make a mistake and violate your rights they have immunity from prosecution, or another citizen who has to respect your rights and will receive real consequences should they err in judgement?

          Because crime isn’t going away because you ban guns.

  • Of further note, all the mass murderers in U. S. History taken together are a tiny fraction of the murders committed by Governments against their own citizens in the 20th Century.

    • jim_m

      Oh, but those mass murders were predominantly to advance a left wing agenda, so they are all OK.

      • Wendy Smith

        WORK AT HOME::Eran$97/HOUR…I just purchased themselves a McLaren F1 when I got my check for $19993 this past 4 weeks and just over 17 thousand lass month . this is really the nicest-work Ive had . I began this 10-months ago and straight away started making more than $97… p/h .learn the facts here now .
        lbg…..
        ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleCyberTechHomeJobsEmploymentDaily/get/chance/top…. ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱

  • Idahoser
    • jim_m

      Not to mention that disarmed societies have a tendency to become giant gulags.

  • Sky__Captain

    Of course, there are times that guns are quite useful in the correct hands.
    http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

    If one is not comfortable having or using guns, then by all means do not.
    All the rest of us ask is that you do not try to force your wishes on everyone.

    • jim_m

      Odds are that all these anti-gun people have been in a room with someone carrying and never knew about it. Odds are they have been in a home of someone who owns guns and didn’t know it. There is more danger in their fear than in reality.

  • Jwb10001

    Some seem very keen to put restrictions on the 2ond amendment to prevent mass killings. It’s been shown time and again that these people are in no small part motivated by the desire to be famous. Perhaps we should put a restriction on the 1st amendment freedom of the press and not allow them to broadcast anything about these events. I’m not being serious but it seems we want to always go after the implement of these killings not the motivation.