No products in the cart.

News

Just Burn a Witch to Stop Armed Murder

By Rob Morse. April 9th, 2018

There was a time when children cried so we burned witches. Today, we have some 23 thousand ‘Gun control’ regulations. We pass new regulations each time a celebrity gets shot or some white kids get attacked. We’ve burned that witch before.

Each gun regulation is sold to us in glowing terms as it’s being debated. Each new regulation is breathlessly described as-

urgently needed..life saving..essential reform..violence prevention..common sense..crime control..limit armed terrorists.. controlling dangerous weapons..firearms safety..controlling unprecedented weapons of war..public safety legislation..

..and it sounds so wonderful.

You have to ask yourself some questions if you don’t believe the overhyped press briefing. If each of the 23 thousand ‘Gun control’ regulations were all that we were told, then why do these regulations fail every few minutes and we have another violent crime? I thought all those earlier laws fixed that.

‘Gun control’ laws don’t stop criminals because criminals don’t obey our laws. (We can document that obvious point if you need.) ‘Gun control’ fails because we don’t prosecute criminals with the laws we already have. ‘Gun control’ fails because background checks look backwards at a person’s history. That gives criminals and crazies one free mass murder before they become prohibited persons.

At best, ‘Gun control’ isn’t much of a solution.

We’ve looked very hard at the data. ‘Gun control’ does nothing to reduce violent crimes like mass murder, armed murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault. (And here, here too.) Some data says that ‘Gun control’ disarms the honest people so crime actually goes up after ‘Gun control’ is passed. And before you ask, the police collect crime information, mostly for insurance purposes. The police rarely stop violent crimes in progress.

If the stacks and stacks of ‘Gun control’ legislation failed before, then why do we expect the next bit of legislative-ink-on-paper to stop the next violent criminal? The truth is, we don’t. Neither do the politicians who pass these laws.

[snip]


Those are very powerful forces at work. No wonder we try the same failed idea time after time. Until we are willing to dig past the headlines, we simply burn another witch and pass another ‘Gun control’ law. After all, it made us feel better last time.

I don’t have all the answers. I’m not even sure which will come first. Will we stop distracting ourselves with ‘Gun control’, and then look at the real causes and solutions to public violence? Will we implement a few effective measures and then stop wasting time with ‘Gun control’ legislation? Either would be fine, and not a minute too soon.


Read more at: JPFO

Photo credit: ajr

 

 

0

nancy.larned

Membership Drive & Giveaway

One comment

  1. It is important to remember that our Declaration of Independence says that the American colonies of Great Britain had become “free and independent states” — separate states. The U.S. Constitution refers constantly to the states, but never to a “nation”.

    John C. Calhoun’s 1831 “Fort Hill Address”: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities. The General Government is but its creature;” See: https://thementalmilitia.net/2017/02/08/john-c-calhoun-fort-hill-address-1831/

    Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

    Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

    Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed”, 1984: “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

    Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

    It is also important to remember that Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381 USED to be this, until the progressives changed it (consider why they might have wanted to change it (change is below this one): “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead… The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.

    THE CHANGE–> Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    Consider if that had not been changed, how many would require hanging.

    Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

Leave a Reply