user
Accomplished Advocate
I'm against gun-violence.
My immediate question about this thing in Connecticut was, "Why didn't anyone shoot that sonofabitch before so many kids got killed?"; the school was, after all, "in loco parentis" and had a duty to protect those kids. But I agree with The President when he announced that we need to take effective action regardless of politics. And, since what criminals do is, by definition, a violation of existing law, it is clear that passing laws has no beneficial effect.
I read this article about the incident:
Wall Street Journal Articlel
I was particularly interested in this quote: "Politics be damned," Mr.
Larson said in a statement. 'Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's
history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not
a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again." So, it's
only since Lautenberg's "gun free school zone" statute that the deadliest
crimes have been committed.
They rely on the argument that the guns are in control of humans, rather than the other way around, so getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will end violence. It amazes me that anyone takes that argument seriously. Or the idea that passing laws will be an effective measure against such bizarre criminal behavior. What did occur to me, thinking about the sudden clamor about "effective, nonpolitical action", was that the "gun free
school zone" thing is a cynically designed tool made for precisely what it's
done: getting more people killed, and particularly children, through the use
of firearms wielded by psychotics whacko bastards. That way, the
Lautenbergs of the world can then point to the incidents like the one in
Connecticut and say, "See?". People don't believe me when I say things like that, but there really are people are willing for innocents to die if it furthers their path to world domination. These people do not want the peasants armed, and they don't care about personal defense issues; but they can't do "social control" without disarming the population.
Surely you're aware of the effect of such laws on the behavior of people. Every morning, I watch the morning news on the Washington, D.C. stations; I always see three to five stories about people having been criminally shot in D.C. and Prince George's County, Maryland. I do not for a minute believe that there is something inherently wrong with the predominantly black population in those jurisdictions that does not show up in the lilly-white Virginia suburbs, and the only other difference is "gun control" legislation. I argue that it is precisely that "gun control" legislation that makes P.G. County and D.C. so dangerous.
I used to be chairman of the Fairfax Transportation Safety Commission. One of the things I learned in that job was that local governments are aware of dangerous intersections, but won't do anything about them until someone is killed. They intentionally maintain the danger, hoping that someone will be killed, because then they can make an argument for permission and funding for whatever control measures they want to impose at that intersection. Same thing is going on here. Lautenberg and his ilk have created a federal statute precisely to create enhanced threat of exactly this kind of violence in public schools in order to create a political climate for "gun control". I hold Lautenberg directly responsible for the deaths of those children in Connecticut.
I agree with that guy, politics has to stop being the issue; we need to take
truly effective action; and when we repeal the GFSZ act and allow school
personnel to be armed, things will go back to the way they were prior to
passage of the act.
We need to repeal the "gun free school zone act" and arm school teachers right away! One thing is clear, gun-free crime zones cost lives because social deviants think, "it's like shootin' fish in a barrel." If "gun control" laws worked, Prince George's County, Maryland would be the safest place on the East Coast. I'd be in favor of sending the fiscal bus over the cliff, even if it means higher taxes, if it also means a reduction in the federal bureacracy and particularly if it means no compromise on RKBA.
My immediate question about this thing in Connecticut was, "Why didn't anyone shoot that sonofabitch before so many kids got killed?"; the school was, after all, "in loco parentis" and had a duty to protect those kids. But I agree with The President when he announced that we need to take effective action regardless of politics. And, since what criminals do is, by definition, a violation of existing law, it is clear that passing laws has no beneficial effect.
I read this article about the incident:
Wall Street Journal Articlel
I was particularly interested in this quote: "Politics be damned," Mr.
Larson said in a statement. 'Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's
history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not
a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again." So, it's
only since Lautenberg's "gun free school zone" statute that the deadliest
crimes have been committed.
They rely on the argument that the guns are in control of humans, rather than the other way around, so getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will end violence. It amazes me that anyone takes that argument seriously. Or the idea that passing laws will be an effective measure against such bizarre criminal behavior. What did occur to me, thinking about the sudden clamor about "effective, nonpolitical action", was that the "gun free
school zone" thing is a cynically designed tool made for precisely what it's
done: getting more people killed, and particularly children, through the use
of firearms wielded by psychotics whacko bastards. That way, the
Lautenbergs of the world can then point to the incidents like the one in
Connecticut and say, "See?". People don't believe me when I say things like that, but there really are people are willing for innocents to die if it furthers their path to world domination. These people do not want the peasants armed, and they don't care about personal defense issues; but they can't do "social control" without disarming the population.
Surely you're aware of the effect of such laws on the behavior of people. Every morning, I watch the morning news on the Washington, D.C. stations; I always see three to five stories about people having been criminally shot in D.C. and Prince George's County, Maryland. I do not for a minute believe that there is something inherently wrong with the predominantly black population in those jurisdictions that does not show up in the lilly-white Virginia suburbs, and the only other difference is "gun control" legislation. I argue that it is precisely that "gun control" legislation that makes P.G. County and D.C. so dangerous.
I used to be chairman of the Fairfax Transportation Safety Commission. One of the things I learned in that job was that local governments are aware of dangerous intersections, but won't do anything about them until someone is killed. They intentionally maintain the danger, hoping that someone will be killed, because then they can make an argument for permission and funding for whatever control measures they want to impose at that intersection. Same thing is going on here. Lautenberg and his ilk have created a federal statute precisely to create enhanced threat of exactly this kind of violence in public schools in order to create a political climate for "gun control". I hold Lautenberg directly responsible for the deaths of those children in Connecticut.
I agree with that guy, politics has to stop being the issue; we need to take
truly effective action; and when we repeal the GFSZ act and allow school
personnel to be armed, things will go back to the way they were prior to
passage of the act.
We need to repeal the "gun free school zone act" and arm school teachers right away! One thing is clear, gun-free crime zones cost lives because social deviants think, "it's like shootin' fish in a barrel." If "gun control" laws worked, Prince George's County, Maryland would be the safest place on the East Coast. I'd be in favor of sending the fiscal bus over the cliff, even if it means higher taxes, if it also means a reduction in the federal bureacracy and particularly if it means no compromise on RKBA.
Last edited:
