Gun Control Debate -  No one wants to take your guns! (979 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/27/15 7:53 PM 
To: All  (1 of 29) 
 1594.1 

photo NobodyWantsYourGuns_zps5td8p8tc.jpg

No One Wants to Take Your Guns!
(And Other Lies Gun Banners Tell)

by Jeff Knox
AUGUST 18, 2015

If you follow the rights issue at all, you have undoubtedly seen claims from members of the anti-rights crowd insisting that “No one wants to take your guns!” We’ve heard this for years — decades — as enemies of liberty have leveled a ceaseless barrage of attacks on our rights. The drum-beat got particularly loud during Obama’s first presidential election, and has continued to gain volume and intensity since then. Included in the meme is the idea that gun owners are paranoid, being misled by the “gun lobby,” usually misidentified as the NRA. The “gun lobby” is accused of irrational fearmongering, seeing threats where none exist, and fighting against “reasonable, common-sense, gun violence prevention efforts,” all for the sake of protecting the outrageous profits of the massive firearms industry.

I’ve recently read several pieces from very different sources all repeating the exact same talking-points, loudly proclaiming this “truth,” and berating “gun huggers,” “ammosexuals,” and good old-fashioned “gun nuts” for intransigence in the face of the prohibitionists’ self-declared non-threat. The language they use is much too similar to be coincidence. They are clearly working from the same playbook, but some can’t help allowing some actual truth to slip into their rants.

In recent pieces, several writers insistently repeated the mantra: “No one wants to take away your guns,” or “Obama isn’t trying to take your guns,” in bold-faced capital letters with plenty of underlining and exclamation points for emphasis, followed by some statement that all they want to do is “keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people,” and ban “assault weapons,” automatic and semi-automatic firearms, “high-capacity magazines,” and other weapons most frequently used by mass murderers and criminals.

Like Bill Clinton’s famous distinction about honesty being dependent upon your personal definition of what “is” is, rights restrictors suggest that as long as they’re not calling for a ban on all of our guns, we’re just paranoid. They see a vast distinction between wanting to take away ALL of our guns, and just wanting to take away the ones they are most afraid of at the moment, which also happen to be the most popular among U.S. gun owners.

With that in mind, let’s look at which guns, ammunition, and related products they have specifically advocated taking away or restricting in recent years. Their current list includes “assault weapons,” which they have a very difficult time defining, “high-capacity magazines,” which are also very flexibly defined, and .50 BMG “sniper rifles,” which they tell us are capable of shooting down airplanes.

In the recent past they have also attempted to ban handguns with plastic or polymer frames, handguns made of light-weight metals, handguns that are too small since they are “easily concealable,” and handguns that are large and “too powerful.” In fact, there have been numerous attempts to ban handguns completely. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was originally formed as the National council to Control Handguns before changing its name to Handgun Control, Inc., before finally shifting to their current moniker. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence changed their name from the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, not because they stopped wanting to ban handguns, but because they also wanted to ban “assault weapons” and other guns they say are too dangerous for the public to own.

They have already effectively banned full-auto firearms, rifles and shotguns that are too short, and handguns that are too long, imports of most military surplus firearms, and any gun that doesn’t really look like their idea of a mid-century hunting rifle. Laws have been passed in California and New Jersey respectively banning all semi-auto handguns that don’t include a mechanism for marking the expended case with the gun’s make, model, and serial number, and any handgun that isn’t able to automatically detect whether the person attempting to fire it is an “authorized user. Neither of these technologies actually exists in a reliable, workable form.

We have seen proposals to ban shotguns with detachable magazines, ban telescopic rifle sights, ban long-range rifles, ban hard, solid bullets, ban soft, expanding bullets, ban laser sighting devices, and ban anything intended to make a gun less destructive to the shooter’s ears. And they are actively trying to make it illegal for a hobbyist to make a gun in his own garage.

In short, they only want to ban any gun that is too big, too small, too powerful, too accurate, too long, too short, too loud, too quiet, or can fire too many rounds too quickly. And it is they who want to define what “too” is. They have tried to ban virtually every firearm ever made or conceived, and have mandated technology that doesn’t exist, is seriously flawed, or is outrageously expensive. They have also proposed exorbitant taxes, fees, and insurance requirements for purchases of firearms and ammunition, placing them out of reach of ordinary Americans.

So the truth is, no one wants to take our guns away. They only want to take away or severely restrict the guns they don’t like. But it turns out that those guns are the ones we own, and especially the ones we prefer. Once all of those are banned or tightly controlled we can expect them to begin pushing for prohibition on whatever might be left, just as they have in England and Australia.

  • Edited October 16, 2015 5:19 am  by  EdGlaze
 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/28/15 4:51 AM 
To: All  (2 of 29) 
 1594.2 in reply to 1594.1 

Anti-Gunners Say If One Gunman Kills, All Gun Owners Should Pay
by Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President
August 25, 2015

Of the 318 million people who make up the U.S. population, there is only one Dylann Roof — the confessed murderer who cold-bloodedly killed nine worshipers on June 17 at the historic Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.

To that unspeakably heartless crime, Americans everywhere grieved for the victims and their families. But our shared sorrow was instantly and all too predictably met by gun-banners charging us with collective guilt.

But the killer alone was responsible for his evil, hate-filled act. Not you. Not me. Not any other single human being. Not people who share a belief in freedom. Not people who cherish the Second Amendment. Not the NRA.

Yet because this 21-year-old accused murderer used a firearm to commit his cowardly, heinous crimes, every peaceable gun owner in the nation is being told by the likes of President Barack Obama that we must pay the price for this abject evil. They demand that we — as free people, as innocent individuals — submit to collective mass punishment.

Immediately after the shooting, Obama declared that this ghastly event occurred “because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun.”

“Every country has violent, hateful or mentally unstable people. What’s different is not every country is awash with easily accessible guns.”

“At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

Those statements by the president were preposterous lies, yet they went unchallenged by the media.

Keep in mind that on June 26, just days after the Charleston murders, a lone gunman in a rubber boat drifted ashore at a popular beach resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws — which are among the most restrictive in the world — didn’t stop this mass slaughter.

And there was the January 2015 shooting in Paris where two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins.

Try some headlines on stories most Americans never read because they didn’t serve the domestic gun-ban agenda.

From RT.com, Feb. 24, 2015: “9 people dead in shooting spree at Czech pub.” Despite tough laws, the mayor of the town where the murders occurred said, “I cannot see security measures that would prevent incidents like this.”

From the Guardian, April 7, 2011: “Brazil shooting: 12 children killed in school rampage.” Brazil’s near-total ban on guns didn’t make a difference.

Then there was the horrific 2011 rampage in Norway where a licensed gun owner, posing as a policeman, used registered guns to kill 69 people, mostly children, at a summer camp. Earlier, he also murdered eight people and wounded 11 with a fertilizer car bomb in Oslo.

From the Voice of America News, June 2, 2010: “Britain in Shock After Lone Gunman Kills 12.” Britain’s confiscatory gun laws didn’t stop the killer.

From ABC News, April 26, 2009: “18 Killed in German School Shooting.” Germany has some of the harshest gun laws on the planet.

 

 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/28/15 4:52 AM 
To: All  (3 of 29) 
 1594.3 in reply to 1594.2 

But Obama and his media acolytes would have Americans believe the fiction that mass killings are uniquely American and tied to our Second Amendment.

The president’s immediate reaction to the Charleston tragedies was to demand his version of “common sense” (aka, nonsense) gun control modeled on Australia’s response to a mass shooting in 1996. His threat was prefaced with a snide “reassurance” that his agenda was not “a wild-eyed plot to take everybody’s guns away.”

In truth, it is just that. It is as serious as a deadly snakebite.

“When Australia had a mass killing,” the president pontificated, “it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”

Every time Obama embraces the Australian gun laws, he and his willing media ignore and dismiss the details of what happened to our English-speaking cousins down under. That is a huge lie by omission.

When an Australian madman ended the lives of 35 innocent victims in 1996—using guns stolen from his first murder victim, a licensed owner—the Australian government acted with massive retribution against all law-abiding gun owners. It resulted in government destruction of all registered semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump shotguns that were confiscated from every licensed gun owner in Australia. Winchester Model 12s, Ruger 10-22s, Browning Auto-5s. Remington 1100s. All taken. All torched.

That little tag about the effectiveness of the ’96 Australian ban at the end of Obama’s claim — “And it hasn’t happened since” — was a lie as well. It did happen.

Despite the fact that law-abiding Aussies were disarmed with the ’96 mass gun confiscation, another insane killer murdered two and wounded five at Monash University in 2002 using a handgun, prompting another round of mass firearm confiscation — with government contractors torching a wide selection of registered handguns forcibly taken from licensed owners.

To arrive at his own Australia solution today, Obama and his cohorts in Congress need one thing — a list of gun owners and their firearms.

And this is what the incessant demand for “universal” background checks is all about. Who lawfully owns what. In the gun-confiscation mindset, this is deemed “common sense.”

Databases on all law-abiding gun owners is driving former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s state-by-state big-lie campaign to create universal gun owner registration under the guise of expanded background checks affecting all gun transfers, including private sales among family members and friends.

As a British licensed gun owner grimly told me after his registered firearms were taken for destruction: “Don’t let them register your guns. If they don’t know where they are or that you have them, they can’t come and take them away from you.”

Connect the dots. Obama’s obsession with Australia’s gun ban only makes sense if he can get that initial step. A “universal” background check system is the Trojan horse for what is to come.

With his embrace of Australian tyranny, Obama’s threat to our liberty and the existence of the Second Amendment is real and immediate.

As NRA members, our mission in the coming months leading up to the 2016 presidential election is to fight back against Obama’s tyrannical obsession with civil disarmament by defeating any scheme he cynically produces. And it is equally critical to replace this toxic regime with patriots led by a president and a Congress dedicated to restoring the unique American freedom Obama pledges to destroy.

###

 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/11/15 8:52 AM 
To: All  (4 of 29) 
 1594.4 in reply to 1594.3 

Come and take them
by Ben Chrystal
9 Oct 15

In the wake of last week’s tragedy on the campus of Umpqua Community College, President Barack Obama asked commanded Americans to “politicize” a violent Muslim’s attack on a crowd of innocent college students and teachers. Of course, asking Democrats to politicize tragedy is like asking Michael Moore if he wants another doughnut.

These are people who politicize everything. However, they did seem reluctant to politicize the fact that UCC murderer Chris Harper-Mercer appears to have been influenced by radical Islam. And they missed a chance to politicize the ludicrous parental failings of the killer’s father, who blamed his son’s actions on firearms: “How on Earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?”

But the same president who trafficked guns to Mexican narcoterrorists — and then lied about it to Congress — thinks we should politicize the tragedy that befell Roseburg, Oregon. I certainly wouldn’t doubt the expertise of a guy who literally put firearms in criminals’ hands.

The problem is it’s as difficult to have a political discussion, especially about so-called “gun control,” with a liberal as it is to have any other discussion with a liberal. When it comes to firearms, they manage to compound nearly comprehensive ignorance with learning curves steeper than the Himalayas. In the days since a lunatic Muslim shot up UCC, I’ve encountered an impressive menu of outright nonsense proffered by the anti-Bill of Rights crowd as proof that “gun violence” is a “public health hazard.”

They actually believe that guns kill people. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.” I don’t know where these vast herds of sinister and sentient guns roam, but the ones in my house are either lazy or defective. If I don’t take them out of the safe, they just sit there.

The reality is that guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The anti-Bill of Rights kids have been sneering dismissively at that point for years. What they have yet to do is refute it. It doesn’t matter who’s behind the gun. He’s the one doing the shooting. Even in the exceptionally rare instances of accidental shootings, the gun never “just went off.”

They think gun shows are some sort of terrorist weapons bazaar. I’ve been to more gun shows than I can count. I’ve also purchased at least half the weapons I currently own at gun shows. The guys from whom I purchased them are pretty regular small-business owners. Many of the sellers own shops in their hometowns and supplement their incomes with show sales. Very few, if any, subsist solely on the money they make on the show circuit. And every single seller at every single table at every single show to which I’ve ever been required the same paperwork and the same background check that they would run in their store. While there are some weird cats around the edges of the arena at most shows, those guys are usually ATF agents trying to blend in; and even the real freaks are less menacing than the average “Occupy” thug.

By closing the so-called “gun show loophole,” not only would liberals notaffect gun shows; they’d merely be making it impossible for my old man to give me his Rizzini 12 gauge. (Note to Pop: Do it now, before Obama gets his paws on it! Y’know, if you were considering it.)

  • Edited October 11, 2015 8:53 am  by  EdGlaze
 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/11/15 9:00 AM 
To: All  (5 of 29) 
 1594.5 in reply to 1594.4 

They’re absolutely terrified of “automatic weapons” and “assault weapons.” Of course, they also think anything with a bayonet lug, pistol grip or “high-capacity clip” is an “automatic weapon.” My wife owns a Ruger 10/22. It’s painted a color she and Rust-Oleum call “French lilac,” and I call “mortifying.” It’s possibly the least intimidating firearm on the planet. It also would not have passed muster under the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban.

Meanwhile, automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934. To be sure, it is possible to purchase a tax stamp and then wade into the fully automatic market. I’d love a chance to bring my own iron to someplace like Big Sandy, but I’m pretty sure I can’t sell the wife on a gun worth more than the jewelry I’d have to not buy in order to afford the gun.

They think that laws restricting legal firearm ownership and carriage will somehow prevent so-called “gun violence.” Think about the logical gymnastics required to conclude that disarming you will make you safer from people who make a career out of flouting the law. Think about the logical gymnastics required to continue believing that even after nearly every mass shooting in the past few decades, including a few on military bases, took place in a so-called “gun-free zone.”

They think we should emulate more “civilized” nations’ gun control laws. Obama brought up England’s and Australia’s infamous gun grabs. He left out the fact that England’s crime rate has skyrocketed since the government disarmed the people. And they have the added bonus of hosting a growing islamofascist population, which proved perfectly willing to use knives, machetes and even meat cleavers in their war on humanity — a fact brought bloodily to mind by the 2013 murder of British soldier Lee Rigby. The U.K. is also contending with a spike in so-called “knife violence.”

Meanwhile, armed Muslim terrorists have turned Australia into a playground, including last December’s Sydney hostage crisis and last Friday’s western Sydney attack. If that’s not enough proof that emulating other countries misses the mark, consider our next-door neighbors. Mexico has far more stringent gun laws than the U.S. does. I’d like to see Obama politicize guns while standing in Ciudad Juarez. As for Europe: By law, nearly every household in Switzerland harbors a gun. Switzerland’s murder rate is one of the 15 lowest on the planet.

They think they can get the guns. This is where the pin hits the primer, kids. The ultimate dream of every anti-Bill of Rights “activist” is confiscation. The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is somewhere between 270 million and 330 million. For all intents and purposes, there is a firearm for nearly every person in the country. The American civilian population is one of the most heavily armed forces on Earth. Many of those private owners are the same police officers, federal agents and service personnel who would be deployed against the civilian population in the Democrats’ gun-grab fantasy.

The Democrats are willing to risk the most destructive civil conflict in human history, one that would likely cost tens of millions of lives, just to save people from a danger that doesn’t actually exist. OK, kids. You want them? Come and take them.

 

 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/16/15 5:11 AM 
To: All  (6 of 29) 
 1594.6 in reply to 1594.5 

Keefe Report:
“Don't Let Them Register Your Guns, Mate”

by Mark Keefe
12 Oct 15

As politicians thrash around for "doing something” about deranged, dejected homicidal narcissists, many have settled on the Australian model of gun control. But few Americans understand what that really means. In 1996 one of the most horrific mass murders perpetrated by a single deranged individual occurred at Port Arthur in Tasmania. Within weeks, then Prime Minister John Howard railroaded through a Draconian gun-control bill.

Australian gun owners were not as organized at the time as National Rifle Association of America (although the Shooting Sports Association of Australia today is very effective). Also, as a former British colony, self-defense was not a valid reason to own a firearm in the eyes of the state. And, of course, the Australians have no Bill of Rights that includes the Second Amendment. Like many other former British colonies after World War I, the fear of Bolshevism spurred restrictions on handgun ownership. Australia also had a licensing scheme in place for all firearms.

The new law rushed through the state governments “Down Under” not only banned the future sale of certain categories of firearms, but put the full force of the Australian government behind confiscation of entire categories of guns from law-abiding firearm owners.

The government voted to pass a tax on all Australians to pay for the one-time “buy back," which begs the question: How does the government “buy back” something that never belonged to it? This was the personal property of law-abiding Australian subjects.

And what guns were banned? Semi-automatic handguns, all self-loading firearms and all pump-action firearms. Ruger 10/22s? Straight to the smelter. Semi-automatic-only service rifles, as used in high-power rifle marksmanship competition, had to go into the shredder. All semi-automatic shotguns, including the Browning A5, too, had to be handed in and destroyed. And the two most popular shotguns in the history of the world — the Remington Model 870 and Mossberg Model 500 — were confiscated and destroyed. All of them — because the government had the name of each gun owner, the type of gun and its serial number. The image above appeared on the cover of the Nov/Dec 1998 American Rifleman and shows confiscated firearms that once belonged to Australian citizens being destroyed in mass quantity.

So when anti-gun politicians say "they don't want to take anyone's guns away" but bring up the Australian model, or even worse the British model, they are being untruthful. The heart of Australian gun-control is the confiscation of firearms from peaceable gun owners.

An Australian acquaintance was recently visiting the United States. This was a man who had served in the Royal Australian Regiment in Vietnam, and had never committed a crime in his life. And he recounted, one by one, his guns that were taken from him — which included some that had been in his family for generations — and he told me in no uncertain terms, "Don't let them register your guns, Mate. Because once they do, they can come for them anytime they want.”

 

 
From: Jerry (coelacanth55)10/16/15 11:44 PM 
To: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon  (7 of 29) 
 1594.7 in reply to 1594.5 

The laws against automatic weapons have succeeded in stopping them from being used for crime.

Maybe if the gun rights community cooperated we could stop urban gun crime.

 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/15/15 6:27 AM 
To: All  (8 of 29) 
 1594.8 in reply to 1594.6 

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
by Phoebe Maltz Bovy
Dec 10, 2015

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known — as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as ;much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme — an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns — to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

Their wariness, as far as I can tell, comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose “elite” culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a fear of getting shot.) And there’s the extent to which it’s just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position.

The first issue shouldn’t be so complicated. It doesn’t take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But it’s right there in the First Amendment that we don’t have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesn’t prevent any of us from saying it’s been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed.

When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion aren’t wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of  abortion because of Roe v. Wade. They’re not keeping their opinions to themselves until they’ve got a term paper’s worth of material proving that they’ve studied the relevant case law.

 

  • Edited December 15, 2015 6:38 am  by  EdGlaze
 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/15/15 6:39 AM 
To: All  (9 of 29) 
 1594.9 in reply to 1594.8 

Then there is the privilege argument. If you grew up somewhere in America where gun culture wasn’t a thing (as is my situation; I’m an American living in Canada), or even just in a family that would have never considered gun ownership, you’ll probably be accused of looking down your nose at gun culture. As if gun ownership were simply a cultural tradition to be respected, and not, you know, about owning guns. Guns… I mean, must it really be spelled out what’s different? It’s absurd to reduce an anti-gun position to a snooty aesthetic preference.

There’s also a more progressive version of this argument, and a more contrarian one, which involves suggesting that an anti-gun position is racist, because crackdowns on guns are criminal-justice interventions. Progressives who might have been able to brush off accusations of anti-rural-white classism may have a tougher time confronting arguments about the disparate impact gun control policies can have on marginalized communities.

These, however, are criticisms of certain tentative, insufficient gun control measures — the ones that would leave small-town white families with legally-acquired guns well enough alone, allowing them to shoot themselves or one another and to let their guns enter the general population.

Ban Guns, meanwhile, is not discriminatory in this way. It’s not about dividing society into “good” and “bad” gun owners. It’s about placing gun ownership itself in the “bad” category. It’s worth adding that the anti-gun position is ultimately about police not carrying guns, either. That could never happen, right? Well, certainly not if we keep on insisting on its impossibility.

Ask yourself this: Is the pro-gun side concerned with how it comes across? More to the point: Does the fact that someone opposes gun control demonstrate that they’re culturally sensitive to the concerns of small-town whites, as well as deeply committed to fighting police brutality against blacks nationwide? I’m going to go with no and no on these. (The NRA exists!)

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen — no more guns — from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.

###

 

 
From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host12/15/15 6:50 AM 
To: All  (10 of 29) 
 1594.10 in reply to 1594.9 

America’s Gunsurgency
by Jenn Jacques
Dec 10, 2015

 

Say what you will about it, but the New Republic article title at least admits what the true agenda of the left really is:

This isn’t tongue-in-cheek, this isn’t satire, and this isn’t a poke at how ridiculous the thought of a complete and total gun ban is: this is the unfiltered agenda of writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy and many gun grabbers across the nation.

And she’s 100% bat-shit crazy serious:

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme — an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns — to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

What a novel idea: people who are not politicians standing up to speak their minds! Like the 2,243,030 people submitting to background checks in the month of November in order to purchase a new gun? Or maybe the participants of the Gallup Poll in which 58% of those polled said they have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association? What about the people who are not only buying new guns, but also applying for concealed carry permits to carry them for self defense and protection of those around them?

How about the fact that since Obama took office, an estimated 100 million guns have been purchased by American citizens, or the over 2.2 million guns sold in November alone, bringing the total to nearly 20 million guns sold so far in 2015? Don’t these people’s actions speak louder than any words? Or maybe Phoebe is conveniently ignoring these facts in an effort to push the gun control agenda.

Whether people like it or not, the national conversation has shifted, and the American people are expressing their opinions though gun sales, concealed carry permit applications, memberships/donations to organizations like the NRA and The Second Amendment Foundation, as well as speaking out to friends, family, and politicians.

The best thing to come from Phoebe’s article is the fact that the words “guns” and “urgently” combined to inspire me to coin a new term: GUNSURGENCY. I’ll use it in a sentence: America is currently seeing a gunsurgency in response to gun violence and the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, with citizens buying guns and applying for concealed carry permits in record numbers. Gunsurgency.

Perhaps someone should let Ms. Bovy know that the American people have spoken. Just because she is choosing to not listen, doesn’t mean the impending gunsurgency hasn’t made it’s battle cry widely known.

 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-29
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.