Sunday, January 06, 2013

The Dangers of Gun Control

The Dangers of Gun Control
Chicago Illinois now approaches the record most dangerous city in the world.  And it has the most gun control laws in the country; Stockton California and Washington DC are not far behind.  More laws More Crime…

By de Andréa
January 4, 2013

You see, the blind mindless theory behind GUN BANS, is…if no one has a gun then no one can get killed with a gun.  While that ‘ideology’ may be true as an ideology, it has been proven repeatedly not to work practically, and it most certainly does not prevent violent crime.  It is only in a total utopian state where that might have a desirable effect.  But that my friend, is not the reason for GUN BANS.

Mathematics being a fairly absolute science, and according to the FBI annual national crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs etc. far outnumber the number of murders committed with a rifle for example.  And yet we have no ‘assault hammer’ laws.  Why?  Read on…

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.  Do the liberial Nazis like Senator Di-Fi have access to this information?  Of course they do, proving that it is not about guns, but about control.  If my memory serves me right, I think someone named Hitler did exactly the same thing and at least some of us old folks remember what that outcome was.

So, it appears the zeal of Senators like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are misdirected but they are not, they know exactly what they are doing.  For in looking at the national FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs and the like consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle, the so-called assault weapon of choice.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605.  In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, a decrease over 2005, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618, an increase over the previous year.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year than rifles remains constant.  The total people murdered with rifles between 2005 and 2009 were 2641 but the total number of people murdered with hammers and other blunt instruments in the same time period were 3089.  1023 more people were killed with hammers etc than rifles.  Oh, don’t take my word for it, LOOK IT UP.  LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE NEED HAMMER CONTROL!  We need more HAMMER FREE ZONES.  Maybe we shouldn’t do that either, the deaths by hammer will then go up even higher.  But even though this will never be in the media or you will never here any legislator say it, the fact remains, more people are murdered by every other means than a fire arm.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT.  

The FBI annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded ASSAULT RIFLES.  We would do more to curb this problem if we had ‘Feinstein Control’ than we would with gun control.  Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by rifles. With the blind logic of Feinstein we should outlaw hands.  Or why not just OUT LAW PEOPLE!

A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.  We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters’ tools and/or a caveman’s stick.  Moreover, it seems fairly obvious to independent thinking people that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a stick or something.

Chicago has been a shining city on a hill for control freaks for decades.  In fact, so extreme is the so-called gun control in the Windy City that prior to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago, you couldn’t even have a gun in your own house with which to defend yourself or your family.  In other words, a Chicago home owner is like a public school teacher, living in a dangerous GUN FREE ZONE — he must sit defenseless with his fingers crossed and simply ‘hope’ that criminals’ with guns, that for some unknown reason don’t obey gun laws,  didn’t target his house on any given day or night.  That’s Chicago politics.

Even now, after the Supreme Court McDonald decision, you still have to jump through a myriad of hoops to get a gun in Chicago.  How do 15000 people get murdered in a GUN FREE ZONE?  In Chicago, it’s like going into a combat zone with out a weapon.

So in a gun-controlled -utopia such as this, you might blindly expect that school-age children would be safe from all harm, that is if you buy into the mindless theories of Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Yet the truth is, that more than 440 school-age children have been shot in Chicago in 2012 alone.  This is not to say that 440 school-age children died, simply that more than 440 school-age children were at least shot and wounded.  The number of school-age children killed is reported at approximately 60, Sandy Hook pales in comparison all in a city, as Sandy Hook is considered, a GUN FREE ZONE!  And the pont-a de jure is such that these numbers are well above those for the 2011 school year, in which 319 Chicago students were wounded and another 24 were killed.  That’s because there were more gun laws in 2012 than in 2011.  As I said More Laws More Crime…2013 will likely see another increase in gun crime as more criminals realize there are less and less guns in the hands of unsuspecting citizens.  I think I’d sooner take my chances in Syria; at least there’ one would likely have a gun to defend him/herself.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Illegally denying the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms to law-abiding citizens not only doesn’t curtail the actions of criminals, but as in Aurora and Sandy Hook it emboldens and enables them.

I will now wax a little philosophical
There was a good reason behind the Second Amendment, and it wasn’t for “…the purpose of hunting” as president Clinton so eloquently put it.  The architects of the constitution were not afflicted with the same brain desiese that our legislators are today.  They had a real education that included learning reason logic and good old fashion Free-independent thinking.  They, unlike their descendants in Washington, knew their history, and understood that doing more of the same failed tactics over and over again, produces more and more of the same failed results.  

If our representatives in government were really educated instead of indoctrinated with a twisted form of ideological utopian tyranny, they would know that laws don’t stop crime anyway.  The philosophy and purpose of law has never been and never will be, to stop crime, if for no other reason - except that it doesn’t.  But law simply condemns crime, and once that condemnation has been established, there is no more need for more laws that produce the same lesson.  The eventual result of more laws is more criminals, the very result we are trying to defeat.  It’s called the “Law of diminishing return”.  If Feinstein’s new national gun bills become law it will do nothing but create an additional 100 plus million new criminals.

The reason behind the Second Amendment was to stop the very actions that the government is now engaged in.  Because the actual underlying reason behind the illegal anti-Second Amendment laws is not gun-control at all, it’s the eradication of ‘Freedom’ and the elevation of those that would control not only your guns, but the total control of a people.  It always has been…it’s the historical philosophy and agenda of the ruling class. 

If you can for a moment clear some of the cobwebs out of the thinking part of your mind and just read the Second Amendment as it is, not read anything into it, but just read it, and even if you know nothing about the history behind it, it tells you the purpose of it.  Try it, you might like it.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The whole Amendment is simply a statement of its purpose except the part of course that says [it]…“shall not be infringed.”  That part is telling the Federal Government that they can’t make any law that would infringe on this Constitutional law.  But the purpose in the Amendment is the statement - that it is …“necessary to the security of a Free State”.  This doesn’t necessarily mean the security of the nation, as much as it has to do with the security of FREEDOM, the very thing the Framers knew the Central Government would try to take away from the people.  That’s why we have the protected …“right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  It is actually the last standing threat of the people against the government to do their job of up holding the law and protecting our freedom, but the greatest fears of the Framers are now in sight, the destruction of that Freedom.

And incidentally the “militia” part’…it also refers to the people, as the militia was the people at the time, not the government.  Just a little history now and again helps.

The first Eight Amendments are stating the rights of the people, and they simply tell the government to keep their bloody controlling hands OFF!  The Ninth Amendment says, these aren’t the only rights we have, and the Tenth tells the Government that they have no power except what is written in the Constitution, everything else’ is first’ up to the people, and then to the individual sovereign states. 

I truly believe there will again’ come a time… When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  

The quote you just read is the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence my friend.  You might want to read the whole thing as if you never read it before, and then decide if it still applies today.

And the last little bit of philosophy that I’d like to leave you with, something I have learned over the years.  If you run from a fight, it just chases you - it doesn’t go away…  

Thanks for listening – de Andréa

No comments: