Friday, January 11, 2013

PERSPECTIVE


We have got to get blunt objects off the street.

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

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, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
 

Knee Jerk or just Plain Jerk?  Senator Feinstein


“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here,” Senator Dianne Feinstein

Info on her new bill can be found here

The new bill also requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:Background check of owner and any transferee;Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

Yeah, good luck with that #&%$@


Corporal Joshua Boston - Amen, Brother!


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

 

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



49 comments:

FreeThinke said...

When the government, itself, becomes Public Enemy Number One, the only sane thing to do is to GO UNDERGROUND.


When the law is unjust and insane and administered by an equally unjust, insane establishment determined NOT to represent our best interests as individual citizens, it is our RIGHT to ALTER -- or better yet -- ABOLISH the Establishment.


"LIVE FREE -- OR DIE!



~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

Why did WH force us to sign in in order to post?

And why did WH remove our capacity to edit remarks?

"LIVE FREE, OR DIE!" becomes more appealing by the minute in this age of micro-management and ever-tightening restrictions -- EVERYWHERE.



~ FT

FreeThinke said...

OKAY! It made me sing in AGAIN. If that is the new policy, I am OUT of here, until you guys put things back to rights.

Who needs yet-another pain-in-the ass to deal with?

NOT I!


Buh Bye!

~ FT

Silverfiddle said...

Feinstein is just a plain jerk.


So they're going to meticulously register and track every gun owner and every weapon? Just like they keep track of aliens and the visas they hand out?


Like they track and can account for every dollar they spend?


This is the fattest, dumbest, most wasteful government on the face of the earth, with a litter trail of failed projects and destroyed lives behind it, and yet it has the gall to propose one more 'solution.' And serious people actually listen and believe it can happen...


Our government long ago descended into a farce, and we are an incredibly stupid people.

shawkenawe said...

This post is a bit fatuous. No one's going after anyone's rifle or shotgun. BTW, in 2011, according to what you've posted, rifle AND shotgun deaths totaled 679 as opposed to hammers and clubs deaths, which totaled 496. So I don't get your point.


Firearm deaths actually do outnumber those deaths by hammers and clubs. And no one here can convince me that had Adam Lanza shown up at Sandy Hook with a club or a hammer that there would have been the same amount of carnage that destroyed the bodies of those little children.

One of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court said this when he appeared on FOX news and was interviewed by Chris Wallace:

"There are limitations on the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court will have to decide what exactly those limitations are."

Also:

"He emphasized the “bear arms” point to say that while owning a gun is perfectly legal, owning a cannon is a different story. However, he noted that there are certainly handheld weapons which can do a fair amount of harm, and said when such a case comes before the court, he would have to make a legal call based on what were understood limitations at the time of the Founders."



IMO Mr. Boston is an hysterical paranoid gun fanatic.

rncscab said...

Register hammers, not guns!

rncscab said...

Help prevent forest fires... register matches!

Silverfiddle said...

@ Shaw: "There are limitations on the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court will have to decide what exactly those limitations are."



I don't imagine there is much disagreement over that statement.


It is the registering and cataloging by government's that I have a problem with.


They should prove their competency by registering and cataloging all the gun criminals first. If they fail at that, then they have no business going after law-abiding citizens.


I have no problem with tightening up background checks. I would love to have access to the CBI system here in Colorado. As it is, I never sell a gun because I don't know where it will end up. There is no way in hell I would sell one to a stranger. Even if I sell it to someone I trust, he may in turn have it stolen or sell it to someone who then sells it to a criminal.


And the ATF does a pretty good job of following that trail, btw, and it's mostly due to original point of sale records and the record-keeping of gun owners. My Dad, and a few friends, have had the ATF come to them inquiring about a gun they bought years ago being used in a crime. You tell them who you sold it to, and they follow it to the end.


I also have no problem bringing in storage as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance, after the fact. That killer's mother, God rest her soul, should have had her guns locked up.

FreeThinke said...

AMEN!

FreeThinke said...

Did you ever read the story about the camel and the tent, Ms Shaw?

FreeThinke said...

I hope, then, that you place the same restrictions then on your private sales of knives, cleavers, cast-iron skillets, hammers, saws, baseball bats, pruning shears, spades, shovels, hedge clippers, automatic nailers, rocks, heavy blunt objects of any and every kind including bronze or cast iron statues, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.


Unless and until human nature is perfected by the meek and totally sincere acceptance of the sublime and supreme authority of Jesus Christ and His Holy Word, anything and everything including -- your great-grandmother's hat pins, crochet hook and knitting needles -- has the potential to be be used as a deadly weapon.


The ENEMY is US.

FreeThinke said...

I still want to know why the [very welcome] "edit" function has disappeared as suddenly as it arrived?

Silverfiddle said...

It must have to do with you you log in. I can still edit my comments.


Don't you love how technology has made our lives easier and more stress-free?

FreeThinke said...

Let's see what happens now. I'm curious.

FreeThinke said...

NOW I wish we had the same capacity to emend posted comments with the old, familiar and maybe - not-so-dear-after-all software.


Never a dull moment, is there?

FreeThinke said...

Clever!


Great idea.


Maybe we should just STOP LIVING altogether and have ourselves BRONZED for POSTERITY?


You have to admit we'd be out of danger once and for all -- and we wouldn't have to go through the bother of aging -- or taking any risks whatsoever.


HEAVEN -- right?

NME said...

"And no one here can convince me that had Adam Lanza shown up at Sandy
Hook with a club or a hammer that there would have been the same amount
of carnage that destroyed the bodies of those little children."


Sounds like you need to check out the continuous stream of news out of China on the mass killings and other attacks on school children that have been rampant over the past few years. Not a single one of them was committed with a gun. All of them were committed with household knives, axes used for chopping wood, hammers used for building things, and other such scary weapons of mass destruction.


An adrenalized crazy person can hack and smash through a lot of people in a very short time.

shawkenawe said...

None of the children who were terrorized by the knife-wielding crazed Chinese man were killed.

NME said...

If we get to the point at which the brownshirts start coming for our guns, I will probably have lost them and have no idea where they are. I'm sure that I'll be deeply perplexed and apologetic to the brownshirts for not being able to help them out, and I'll probably even offer them some ice water if it's a hot day, and maybe some cookies.

We'll talk some sports, and maybe a bit about the weather, as they not so covertly look around for potential hiding places. They'll be charmed by how friendly and cheerful we are, and apologize for intruding and wish us a good day as they leave.

Then, after an appropriate period of time has passed, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, I find my guns!

It's kind of funny how it works out like that.

NME said...

Since you left "man" in the singular, it's clear that you are only aware of one of the many incidents that have occurred over the past few years, and are unaware of the ever-increasing body count. Of children. Killed by things that can be found around just about any house.

Finntann said...

And no one here can convince me that had Adam Lanza shown up at Sandy Hook with a club or a hammer that there would have been the same amount of carnage that destroyed the bodies of those little children.

How about if he showed up with a couple of five gallon gas cans?

Those bent on mayhem commit mayhem, a guy in Japan killed 30 people with a sword. Andrew Kehoe killed 38 schoolchildren with nary a gun in sight.

The point is, you govern on principle, not via knee-jerk reactionary legislation which seems to be the current fad.

These incidents are aberrations, you focus on the tool, not the incident or its possible causes, and guns were not the cause of this incident. Would thirty kids in a kindergarten classroom dead in a gasoline explosion be preferable to you?

You could ban guns outright, you might stop shootings, you won't stop mass killings by crazy people bent on killing. Google Daegu Subway Fire, that whack job killed 198.

Hell, you could eliminate vehicular homicide and manslaughter deaths simply by banning cars.

As to the point about shotguns... like hammers, no one is talking about banning them.

Lester Liberalmann said...

And when handguns are factored in....you look as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Jersey McJones said...

It must be nice to have such a buffet "perspective."

"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."

Funny how you guys just ignore the first half of that amendment.

Good ol' "Conservatism"... the ideology of personal convenience.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Go study up on the following court cases before you open your pie hole here again on this issue:

Heller 2008

McDonald 2010


Good ol' liberalism... The studied ignorance of the facts...

Jersey McJones said...

Whatever, Silver. I have a right too, ya' know, and that's the right to have my own opinion. The difference between my opinion and yours? I actually pay attention to the entire amendment, not just the part that conveniences me.


Facts my ass.



Conservatism these days is devoid of any facts whatsoever.



JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Wow, Silver. Really?


JMJ

Finntann said...

You have a right to your opinion, you pay attention to the entire amendment, yet remain ignorant of or ignore the fact that in context, the militia was an armed citizenry with its own guns. How convenient

Silverfiddle said...

???


But probably, yeah, really.


Explain.

Jersey McJones said...

I am personally a contextualist, so I get what you're saying, Finntann. And yet I still say that the expression of the Second Amendment right in today's America is far too liberal.


We don't live in Mad Max world, and we can't have howitzers on our roofs, or nuclear bombs in our basements. We have to be realistic about the expression of our Second Amendment rights.


The apologetic of the Second Amendment is yet another example of the far-sightedness of our nation's founders. It's a shame that you conservatives simplify their great works.



JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Sorry man. Apparently, I had a PC problem on my end.



Sorry again, JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Loony.


JMJ

viburnum said...

"We don't live in Mad Max world, and we can't have howitzers on our roofs, or nuclear bombs in our basements."


I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing that we should. Neither should we be banning weapons simply because Diane Feinstein has her knickers in a twist about their appearance.



The marine who wrote that letter, like two generations of veterans before him, was trained on and thoroughly familiarized with that type of rifle. If it's his choice to own one he has that right. Banning them simply for their looks is nothing more than a "lets do something so we can all feel better" reaction that unfortunately will not solve the problem.



Anyone reasonably proficient with firearms could easily wreak as much havoc armed with anything shy of a muzzle-loader, or as Finn points out, use other means.

FreeThinke said...

BRAVO, NME! My thinking exactly.

NME said...

I guess that means that when they stop by your house, you'll either already have been rendered defenseless so they'll just move on to your neighbors, or you'll have been emasculated to the point that you'll just give up your ability to defend yourself like a good little serf.


THAT is loony.

RWT said...

True, everyone has a right to make a fool of themselves. And we can laugh at you for it.

RWT said...

You can ban guns totally like we did in Australia, but it still cannot prevent a scumbag if he wants to kill a lot of innocent people.

Just google sydney drive by shootings and you'll see we have an epidemic of gang-related shootings even though we have very strict gun control here.

In all the shootings that have happened here, no one has been able to explain to me how our laws that could not stop someone from shooting up a house with 10-20 bullets would stop the same person from entering a local school and doing the same thing.


No amount of mewling in the foetal position about various laws by gun haters can stop bad people from getting weapons. All their laws do is ensure that the innocent, the old, the frail, the disabled and weak have nothing to defend themselves with when the scumbags come for us.


Perhaps that's what you want.

rncscab said...

If slaves were allowed to have guns, they wouldn't have been slaves.

rncscab said...

Help prevent slavery... BUY A GUN!

shawkenawe said...

Post gun control laws passed in Australia and gun buy-backs:


[H]omicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

viburnum said...

You've apparently overlooked the Monash University shootings in 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

And our friends down under unfortunately know first hand that you don't need a gun to commit mass murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_Fire

Silverfiddle said...

And here's more perspective on Australia:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847



And the official government site, showing that gun crimes, including murder, spiked after the gun ban, but after that homicides did go down, although assaults continue to rise.


An interesting note is that the US experienced a similar decrease in homicides, although we did not implement a ban as Australia did. That muddies the correlation picture.

Silverfiddle said...

I recommend everyone go read the official Australian Government report on firearm related deaths:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269.html

Figure 1 is instructive. Firearm deaths were declining before the ban, and they spiked afterward, but have now continued to decrease, just as they are in the US, despite our lack of a similar ban.



Keep reading down the report, and you will see a sharp decrease in "other firearm deaths" but a steady increase in handgun deaths.

Silverfiddle said...

And here's more perspective on Australia:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

And the official government site, showing that gun crimes, including murder, spiked after the gun ban, but after that homicides did go down, although assaults continue to rise.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/1%20recorded%20crime.html

An interesting note is that the US experienced a similar decrease in homicides, although we did not implement a ban as Australia did. That muddies the correlation picture.

From the latest government report I could find:

The proportion of homicide incidents in 2007–08 involving a firearm increased modestly to 12 percent (n=30), an increase from nine percent (n=24) in 2007–08. Despite this increase, the involvement of firearms in homicide incidents remains at an historical low. The majority of firearms used in 2007–08 were identified as being either unregistered and/or unlicensed.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/13.html

Jez Austin said...

Not sure how carrying a gun offers any protection from a drive-by shooting. I think the idea is that by making guns rarer overall, criminals bother with them less too (there may be some lag in that effect). A lot of it might be a question of taste, but I'd rather reduce criminal gun use than live with criminals routinely touting guns, but be allowed to carry my own.

viburnum said...

The problem of course is that criminals by definition have no regard for laws so you're effectively only disarming the rest of us. I'd rather keep assault weapons legal and provide a mandatory death penalty for using one in the commission of a crime. Of course that's another argument altogether.

Kid said...

Anyone who believes in gun control has the mind of a child.

Check out Unarmed UK. What happens when they Know you are unarmed? Nothing good.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Jersey McJones said...

The trouble, viburnum, is who that marine might sell that gun to.

JMJ

Jez Austin said...

I'm not familiar with the underworld in either country, but would you agree that criminals in America are more likely to carry guns than their British counterparts? I think general availability is a factor, though it may take some time for the criminals to change their gun habits, if they're already accustomed to them.

RWT said...

We had more shootings last night. Can you explain how our laws that could not stop someone from shooting up a house with
10-20 bullets would stop the same person from entering a local school
and doing the same thing?