Uncle Joe Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by 1911love, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    I found this on Fox News. Joe actually admits that an AWB would have little effect on crime, but we still need to ban them. Sometimes I wonder if he even knows his multiplication tables that every grade schooler knows. I'll post the link in a sec.


    OPINION
    The gun debate is a culture debate
    Mar 19, 2013 2:46 PM EDT


    Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws-it is about culture.

    In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don't have "real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]"

    Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don't need to justify owning an "assault weapon," the government needs to justify taking it.

    Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate.

    One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people.

    The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

    One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society.

    Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why.

    In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government.

    Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

    Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because "gun disgust" engenders a bias against guns.

    In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem "allowing" private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

    Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

    The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates-in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous "assault weapons" ban, to "gun-free zones," were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

    Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of "gun-free zones" as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting.

    What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

    When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, "Well, it's a start." And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what "a start" means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is "just the beginning": "Oh absolutely. I mean, I'm against handguns."

    When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide.
     

  2. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Why do these people fight so hard to ban so called "assault weapons" when they know it will have little, if any, effect on crime? The answer is very simple. To them it is indeed a "first step". Their ultimate goal is to ban ALL civilian gun ownership one step at a time. If they succeed in what they are trying now their next target will be semi-auto hand guns, then all handguns, then "sniper rifles" (all hunting rifles), then semi-auto shot guns, then pump shotguns, then double barrell shotguns, then all shotguns.....they will never stop until they achieve their ultimate goal. That's why we must stay vigilant and fight them every step of the way.
     
  3. chuckusaret

    chuckusaret Member

    510
    1
    18
    Just a stepping stone to an AWB, one type of gun at a time......
     
  4. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Well written article that showcases exactly why there can be no negotiation with these people.

    No compromise.
    No registration.
    No confiscation.

    ... and should push come to shove, don't fret, we have all the guns. :)

    Tack
     
  5. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,249
    48
    48
    Another answer is the biggest thing "Control the Populace"!
     
  6. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Exactly Tack. I have never understood how all the unarmed antis think they could take ANYTHING from those of us who are armed. It would be a great training aid and would clean up quite a bit of human trash from this country.

    I'll get 2A liability insurance just as soon as I buy my fifth M134D!
     
  7. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Oops, I put the liability insurance thing in the wrong thread.
     
  8. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    The unarmed anti's wouldn't dream of getting there hands dirty or taking that risk... They will expect Americas LEO's to play Gesrapo to thier little "Joseph Gerbals" act.

    Tack
     
  9. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Good point. My prob now is bc of my mis-post I can't stop thinking of having five M134Ds. You ever rock one of those when you served Tack?
     
  10. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Actually, Ole Joe made this same comment back in January when he admitted that the AWB would have little if any impact on crime.

    They are pushing forward with the AWB for 2 reasons

    1. "We're doing something", always popular with politicians. Nevermind if they are doing any good.
    2. It's a great distraction from real problems that need solving that are not easily addressed.

    See, that's without even getting overly cynical or conspiratorial. It's also typical Obama. Faced with the great financial challenge to ever face this nation, he worries about gun control during a time when violent crime is at its lowest.

    Kind of like how he pushed Obamacare at a time when people wanted to know where all the jobs are.
     
  11. eatmydust

    eatmydust New Member

    4,360
    0
    0
    Enuff said:
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,715
    195
    63
    Exactly Correct Tack! That is my stand!

    And we do have a culture problem in America. We have the true Americans who live in America and then we have the Socialist /Communists that are here in America! Plain and simple!

    Dust! That is a great poster but there are some pictures missing!;)

    03
     
  13. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    I'm not familiar with the M134D?

    Light Infantry Arsenal durring my tenure consisted of:

    M9 Pistol
    M16A2 Rifle
    M203 40 MM
    M249 SAW
    M60 LMG
    LAW
    AT4
    Dragon

    ...and I think our Delta Companies had Mark 19's on there Hummers but I never got to fire one. :mad:
     
  14. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    M134D is a Dillon minigun. 7.62x51, I think 4K rnds/min. They go for around $215,000 for civilian purchase.
     
  15. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    Somewhat out of my price range. Also, can't find ammo for it. :D
     
  16. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    We can only dream right! Even without the NFA BS they are around $25,000 to manufacture I think.
     
  17. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Must be what Gov. Ventura was swinging around in the first Predator movie... huh?

    Nope, never got to play with anything that cool.

    Tack
     
  18. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Exactly! They'll send their version of the Brown Shirts and the SS to do it, that probably being BATF and/or DHS.