Gun control was very effective at accomplishing government objectives in Germany during the 1930’s
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Market Volatility
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- arn on Market Volatility
- arn on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bill on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Market Volatility
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- stewartpid on Market Volatility
- William on Record CO2 Growth
- Greg in NZ on Hottest Summer Ever
It’s not the guns they wish to control.
Reblogged this on Reality Check.
Anyone who says that gun-control Europe has a low murder rate needs to average in the extra three or four million per year during the first half of the 1940s.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
Here is a caption for the photo above: “Gun Control! Do it for the children!”
If it saves the life of even one child…
Hey Chip! Yeah, let’s just finish the unsaid part of that sentence, the part that the Progessives just blow past like Ted Kennedy through a curve in the road: “If it saves the life of even one child… it is worth all the thousands who die from the secondary consequences of this legislation!”
(Notice I used the word “secondary” instead of “unintended”.)
Comparing policy critics to neo-NAZI Holocaust deniers is exactly why the climate alarmists are losing the public debate. Now here Steve is helping turn our own side into rightfully ridiculed fanatics by doing the same thing. Gun control is mostly an urban policy compromise in the continuing Drug War era, meant to disarm gangs, effectively. Because of the constitution, this is not easily achieved without softening the Second Amendment in general. A girl in a party night tube dress is no match for hardened gang members, pistol or no pistol, and thus such single women vote for gun control. There’s no NAZIs involved in this. The Drug War sustains gangs just like Prohibition sustained Al Capone.
That explains why California is trying to confiscate rifles from rural residents.
I don’t have all the answers, Steve. You know that already. So do I.
That statement is so full of bovine excrement that it actually might cause global warming.
If only those darn gang members would just follow the law, Washington, D.C., and Chicago, with their strictest gun laws in the country, wouldn’t be the worst offenders for gun crime in the entire country.
So, maybe try a different tactic?
Gun control, short of complete disarmament, does not, cannot, and will not disarm criminals. It will only serve to disarm the law-abiding, and make them easier pray for still-armed criminals. (All mass shootings happen in so-called “gun-free zones”; purely coincidence, right?)
Gun control not only isn’t effective; it is also counter-productive. Liberal (as in free, not progressive) concealed-carry laws drive down gun (and non-gun, violent) crime everywhere they are employed.
Their fashion choices can’t infringe on our God-given rights, but I daresay you’re wrong. I know plenty of women who are as deadly with a firearm as they look in a tube dress. But maybe that’s just the women out here in flyover country.
Oh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
But DiFi is the only one, right? Yeah…
The Drug War is irrelevant. Gun control has no impact on The Drug War. Disarming law-abiding citizens will do nothing to disarm criminals, and will make law-abiding citizens more at risk from those still-armed criminals.
How’s that working out for the Black population in Chicago and L.A.? Criminals really do manage to find illegal guns to use while citizens in those areas are deprived of an effective legal means to protect themselves.
Nik, the word is not “softening”, the word is “violating.” By law, the Federal and State governments are prohibited from infringing personal ownership of guns and other weapons. If politicians violate the law and pass illegal legislation, why should anyone obey such laws? If our politicians are criminals, why should we disarm ourselves for their convenience?
If politicians were simply misguided (as opposed to criminal) in their support of gun control, they would be talking about amending the Constitution — just like they did for alcohol prohibition. I would still have other reasons for disagreeing with them, but if the gun control crowd were honest, they would at least approach the subject rationally and move to change the Constitution first.
“A girl in a party night tube dress is no match for hardened gang members, pistol or no pistol, and thus such single women vote for gun control.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8r6CY5UZyw
Really Nik, get out of that sewer and one of us can introduce you to a real woman. 😉
PS – This single woman will not be voting for gun control, or a Democrat.
Guns are one of the few means women have for equalizing the strength issue. Otherwise we go back to being second hand citizens “owned” by men.
I grew up with one set of standards for my brother and a much stricter, confining set for me. That is I NEVER left the house after dark without an escort. It was just “Not Done”.
Here’s the latest gun control status in Chicago:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/22/305905289/45-people-were-shot-in-chicago-over-the-weekend?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140422