Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has likely cost himself the election this time. As covered in the CNN political blog, Huckabee went pheasent hunting to show that he was "one of the regular guys" and stated "This is what happens…You vote for me, you live. You don't…there you go."
Huckabee has made a death threat to everyone that doesn't vote for him in 2008. That's like Reverend Phlager when he made his famous public screwup of calling for the snuffing of an Illinois gun store owner, and all legislators that don't support his view on gun control.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Idiocy on D.C.
I've read some pretty stupid arguments during my limited time as a supporter and advocate of gun rights, but I'm willing to say that this guy takes the cake.
John Mashek makes some pretty unconvincing arguments in his editoral in the Heller Case. Here's just a few of his idiotic points:
"The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the District of Columbia can restrict handguns in a city with a big murder rate problem."
This isn't about whether or not a city, or a district, or even a government can restrict guns in a location where there's a high muder rate, it's about whether or not a government is restricted by the Second Amendment and prohibited from banning gun ownership outright, just as D.C. has done, citing their high crime and murder rate as justification for taking away rights.
Another piece of information for Mashek. If a governmental organization can decide that a high murder rate is reason enough to take away rights, what could they decide next? Maybe decide that they can take away rights after a public assembly turned violent and a riot broke out? Or maybe they could even decide that a loss of revenue could be grounds for a gun ban; the logic to that one being that if people don't have guns to buy ammunition for then they can spend their money elsewhere.
Also, D.C. used the argument of a high murder rate for instituting the ban 31 years ago, they're still using the same argument as just cause to keep the ban in place 31 years ago. So if they've got a high murder rate, even after banning handgun ownership and lawful gun use for more than three decades, what exactly has the ban accomplished in its time?
"Conservatives are supposed to be for states' rights. While D.C. is not a state, the city council is a ruling body and it has stood behind this law for over three decades."
Now hold up just a minute right there. It doesn't matter if D.C. is a state or not, it's still American soil and bound to the American Constitution. If D.C. is arguing that they're not a state and exempt from having to obey the Constitution then they're basically arguing that they're a foreign nation. And if that were the case then the Federal Government can't control America, since we're on two different national soils. D.C. is cutting off their nose to spite their face with that argument.
"The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns, and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere."
Wrong again Mashek! The NRA and it's four million members are not in support of guns everywhere in America and requiring that every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States walking down the street with a nuclear warhead strapped to their back, marked with "Second Amendment Approved", that's not the case at all!
The NRA is about the right of the people -the individual right, not the state or collective right- to have the most effective method of personal and self-defense available to them, and not taken away by some government entity for just any reason that they decide works.
"The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes."
What exactly is this? What does it matter if people don't plan to keep their guns locked up in safes and inaccessible to them during a time when they need them the most? Last time I read my copy of the Bill of Rights there was no language supporting the concept of mandated storage methods.
Mashek fails to understand many points with this. The first point is that accidental homicides with firearms are dropping dramatically each year, and it's not because of gun safes and gun locks, it's because people are actually learning safety. The number of kids killed every year is going down and down and down, and it's because more parents are actually teaching their kids that guns are dangerous and that they aren't toys to be played with.
Finally on this point, in his statement, Mashek ignores the fact that states like New York and California, with mandated safe storage requirements, have much higher crime rates than states that don't require their people to keep their guns locked up in a 2" thick gun safe with a 15 digit combination lock so absolutely nobody can ever have access to their guns, no matter what.
This is a dangerous world, and until we stop treating the criminals like victims and the victims like they've done something worth punishing, it's going to continue to be dangerous and only get worse. You wanna reduce violent crime? Reduce the number of criminals that are allowed to be out and free while Joe Average is locked up for a technicality.
John Mashek makes some pretty unconvincing arguments in his editoral in the Heller Case. Here's just a few of his idiotic points:
"The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the District of Columbia can restrict handguns in a city with a big murder rate problem."
This isn't about whether or not a city, or a district, or even a government can restrict guns in a location where there's a high muder rate, it's about whether or not a government is restricted by the Second Amendment and prohibited from banning gun ownership outright, just as D.C. has done, citing their high crime and murder rate as justification for taking away rights.
Another piece of information for Mashek. If a governmental organization can decide that a high murder rate is reason enough to take away rights, what could they decide next? Maybe decide that they can take away rights after a public assembly turned violent and a riot broke out? Or maybe they could even decide that a loss of revenue could be grounds for a gun ban; the logic to that one being that if people don't have guns to buy ammunition for then they can spend their money elsewhere.
Also, D.C. used the argument of a high murder rate for instituting the ban 31 years ago, they're still using the same argument as just cause to keep the ban in place 31 years ago. So if they've got a high murder rate, even after banning handgun ownership and lawful gun use for more than three decades, what exactly has the ban accomplished in its time?
"Conservatives are supposed to be for states' rights. While D.C. is not a state, the city council is a ruling body and it has stood behind this law for over three decades."
Now hold up just a minute right there. It doesn't matter if D.C. is a state or not, it's still American soil and bound to the American Constitution. If D.C. is arguing that they're not a state and exempt from having to obey the Constitution then they're basically arguing that they're a foreign nation. And if that were the case then the Federal Government can't control America, since we're on two different national soils. D.C. is cutting off their nose to spite their face with that argument.
"The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns, and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere."
Wrong again Mashek! The NRA and it's four million members are not in support of guns everywhere in America and requiring that every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States walking down the street with a nuclear warhead strapped to their back, marked with "Second Amendment Approved", that's not the case at all!
The NRA is about the right of the people -the individual right, not the state or collective right- to have the most effective method of personal and self-defense available to them, and not taken away by some government entity for just any reason that they decide works.
"The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes."
What exactly is this? What does it matter if people don't plan to keep their guns locked up in safes and inaccessible to them during a time when they need them the most? Last time I read my copy of the Bill of Rights there was no language supporting the concept of mandated storage methods.
Mashek fails to understand many points with this. The first point is that accidental homicides with firearms are dropping dramatically each year, and it's not because of gun safes and gun locks, it's because people are actually learning safety. The number of kids killed every year is going down and down and down, and it's because more parents are actually teaching their kids that guns are dangerous and that they aren't toys to be played with.
Finally on this point, in his statement, Mashek ignores the fact that states like New York and California, with mandated safe storage requirements, have much higher crime rates than states that don't require their people to keep their guns locked up in a 2" thick gun safe with a 15 digit combination lock so absolutely nobody can ever have access to their guns, no matter what.
This is a dangerous world, and until we stop treating the criminals like victims and the victims like they've done something worth punishing, it's going to continue to be dangerous and only get worse. You wanna reduce violent crime? Reduce the number of criminals that are allowed to be out and free while Joe Average is locked up for a technicality.
"The Supreme Court should respect D.C.'s right to ban handguns, as a strong majority in the city feels that way."
Look Mashek, this isn't one of those reality TV shows where the people call in and vote for who they want to see make it to the next episode! This is a country, we're talking about rights here. Rights are something you can't give away, rights are something that you can't just have limited because you want to. Rights were granted to us by God and are not something any other human being can rip away from us! Our rights predate the Constitution and the founding of America!
This isn't a matter that one district is allowed to decide. I don't care even if all of D.C. except for one single person did support the gun ban, that doesn't matter. A lot of public support doesn't mean that a law is right. The issue at hand here is whether or not a law is Constitutional. And trust me, the gun ban in D.C. certainly isn't.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Mall shooting in Nebraska
Well as we know yesterday there was a shooting at the Omaha Mall in Nebraska, done by a 19 year old who killed eight people, wounded several others, and then killed himself.
Before the calls for more gun control "to prevent future tragedies like this from ever happening again" let's stop and remember a few things here:
1. The gun was stolen from the boy's father-in-law; the same one that supposedly kicked him out of the house before. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns be registered, that wouldn't have done any good. Even if the sale of new guns could be banned, he still would've had access to it. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns MUST be secured and inaccessible my a minor, the dude was 19 years old and could've easily gotten past just about anything; even a gun safe.
Before the calls for more gun control "to prevent future tragedies like this from ever happening again" let's stop and remember a few things here:
1. The gun was stolen from the boy's father-in-law; the same one that supposedly kicked him out of the house before. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns be registered, that wouldn't have done any good. Even if the sale of new guns could be banned, he still would've had access to it. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns MUST be secured and inaccessible my a minor, the dude was 19 years old and could've easily gotten past just about anything; even a gun safe.
2. The Westroads Mall, just like every other mall in America, is a gun-free zone, otherwise known as a "victim disarmerment zone", where nobody, not even security guards or off duty police officers may be armed for any reason at all. Malls are privately owned property and the owners are free to bar any weapons from their property, and that's exactly what they did. Keep in mind this is the same case for the Utah Mall schooting back in February, carried out by an 18 year old with a shotgun. Only difference was there was an off-duty officer there to confront the shooter; even though he was breaking the law and violating mall policy. Link.
3. CNN can't get their story straight at all. First they were calling the weapon used an "SKS assault rifle", now they're calling it an "AK-47 assault weapon". Lemme tell you something, if you can't tell the obvious difference between an AK-47 and an SKS then you shouldn't be reporting on the story at all. They're both completely different in design and look almost absolutely nothing alike.
Keep those facts in mind when the news people start relaying this story to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
