Archive

Tag Archives: Gun Control

Progressives like to think that our nation needs to give up our right to own and bear arms. They like to think that this belief gives them some moral high ground, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have become quiet practiced in the art of exposing progressive gun grabbers for the lunatics they are. They of course are quiet adept at attempting to defend their radical stance on firearms. Their defenses almost always operate off of their assumed “moral high ground”. Rather than debate in world of facts, they prefer to operate in the realm of feelings. Thus they will attack the individual, and attempt to discredit him, rather than disprove an argument.

You will hear progressives push for gun control, like the type used in the United Kingdom, and Australia (both countries lack a Constitutional right to own and bear arms). They will claim that these are common sense reforms, that no one is trying to take your guns away. They will openly attack anyone who claims that they are trying to place the nation on a slippery slope towards total gun confiscation. They will say, “no one is trying to take away your guns”. Despite the fact that both Australia’s and the United Kingdom’s gun control measures resulted in gun confiscation.

When it comes to fighting progressives it is hard, because they are never honest. They cloak themselves in the American flag, claiming to defend liberty. They will never expose their true agenda until it is too late to be stopped. That is not the case with socialist though. A socialist is a progressive that is not ashamed of his radical ideology. He is willing to embrace it, and will always admit to his ideology.

Senator Sanders is a self described Socialist. He openly called for a ban of all Semi-automatic weapons. He claims there is wide support for this. I have not heard a massive uprising of people calling for the ban of Semi-automatic firearms. Maybe that is because once the shock and fear that progressives like Senator Sanders feed off subsides, people come to their sense.

A semi-automatic rifle is not a weapon of war, that as Senator Sanders claims,”have no other purpose but to kill people.” That is simply just not the case. Semi-automatic is a term that progressives love to use, because it sounds exotic. They love for people to hear that word and think of distant battle fields, with rifles spewing death from the end of the barrel. This just is not true, sadly Senator Sanders is trying to play off of your perceived ignorance.

When you break down the word Semi-automatic, suddenly the firearm does not seem so exotic. Semi means half, thus a semi automatic is half automatic. A semi-automatic firearm fires ONE round every time you pull the trigger. If you hold your finger down, the firearm will not continue to fire. That would require a fully automatic firearm, which have largely been outlawed for public ownership sense 1934.

In 1934 it was decided that fully automatic firearms had to be banned, as they had no place in a civilized society. Mass shootings, allowed progressives to push for “common sense” reforms. They blamed guns for the violence during the prohibition era. Thus using fear, the progressives achieved a major limitation of our Second Amendment Rights.

Now, the progressives are at it again, Senator Sanders has revealed the progressives hand. He has announced that they are taking us further down the slippery slope, now they want to ban semi-automatic firearms, because they are weapons of war… weapons I thought were banned in 1934.

Senator Sanders probably does not realize that he has actually helped prove an belief long held by conservatives such as myself, the slippery slope. The progressives utilize the progressive slope to perpetuate their ideology. They know that no rational minded American would give up the liberties that our limited government has guaranteed us for the shackles of progressive tyranny. So they work slowly. They start with fully automatic weapons, they start with mandating health insurance, then they push for more. Now Senator Sanders is pushing for a ban of semi-automatic weapons. Where does the slope level out?

To a rational minded individual the answer is pretty obvious. Banning fully automatic firearms did not stop the violence, so the problem must be semi-automatic firearms. When that fails to stem the violence, it will be pump action and bolt action firearms. Then single shot firearms. The slope ends when the American People are unarmed, and no longer have the capacity to defend themselves against an over oppressive government. The gun control slope ends, when the Government no longer has to fear the people. Then they will start a new slope. What is to stop them from taking our freedom of speech? They are already working on the freedom OF religion.

Senator Sanders is honest, and he has honestly shown us that the slippery slope does exist. We must stand up against these buffoons, because sadly a growing number of people are starting to take them seriously. Desperation will drive people to insanity. We must stand firm in the light of the truth, with facts to guide the people from the haze.

Advertisements

I have opened the window to write a new post probably over 100 times sense my last posting. I have thought that I felt the need to write something, but it all feels like it is blurring together for me. How many times can progressive mythology be brought down by science and common sense? I quickly lost interest or forgot about the posts that I was going to write. But this time, this time is different.
I feel compelled to sit down and write about what is happening in the country in the wake of the Oregon shooting. I want to look at some facts that are not being observed. I must talk about the thousands of thoughts running through my head.
I have long warned that we are entering a dark time in this country, I am sorry to say this is the first thing that I must change about this post. We are not entering a dark time, we are IN a dark time. Our nation need not prepare for the coming storm, it is too late for that. The painful slashing talons of the hurricane are already here. The sea level is rising, and the decisions we make now will determine our survival.
By now I am positive that anyone who might find their way to this blog has heard of the shooting in Umpqua Community College in Oregon. When I first heard of the shooting I was shocked, and my soul hurt for those who lost family members in the shooting. I knew that they would be suffering the pain of losing someone they love, but I also knew they would soon feel a pain that no parent, friend, or family member should have to suffer. They would soon feel the excruciating pain of the dagger stuck in their heart twisted as their pain is exploited to push an agenda that otherwise would be obliterated by public outrage.
After each of these tragedies the progressives fangs emerge. The smoke has not even finished pouring out of the barrel before they begin trying to exploit the deaths of countless innocent lives to push their agenda. Typically when something like this happens, I am quick to jump in, quick to start defending our rights, and expose the progressive agenda for what it really is. This time however, my rage was unleashed when I heard President Obama speak on the situation.
After a national tragedy our nation looks towards our leaders for solace and strength. The right words spoken after a tragedy can unite the nation; bring out the best in our souls. I will always remember watching President Bush standing in the rubble of the Twin Towers, holding that fireman saying, “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” President Bush did a lot of things wrong, but at that moment he galvanized the nation. Those words, that confidence, served as an inspiration for all of us.
With the eyes of the nation glued to their televisions, President Obama stepped to the lectern. What words of healing would he offer, what words of wisdom would he choose to sooth the nation’s suffering? None, he was not interested in healing, he came ready for war. President Obama had this to say about the shooting, “This is something we should politicize”.
Something to be politicized…. I have long said that progressives feed off these tragedies, they latch on to the morning, and feed off their suffering. I never once thought that they would ever openly admit it on national TV news.
As you can imagine, the second President Obama let these vial words of naked partisan hatred from his lips, my fingers started flying. I blew my Facebook account up. I was enraged. I was preparing to write an entry to disembowel his fanciful arguments. I was going to destroy his ignorant claims, and lay waste to any progressive who dare perpetuate the “effective gun control” myth. But I stopped.
Yes, I stopped. I have written on the subject of gun control countless times. I have scientifically proven that fallacy of the gun control argument. I can honestly say that I laughed out loud when President Obama, in front of God and the Nation said, “he notion that gun laws don’t work, is not borne out by the evidence.” The first thought that came to my mind was how most mass shootings take place in gun free zones. His evidence claim is quickly evaporating. I realized that there was no need to write about idiotic nature of President Obama’s ignorant statements.
President Obama is a lame duck President. As of the landslide election of 2014, President Obama has no legal means left to advance his agenda in a meaningful way. His Presidency is effectively over. He is now a non-factor in American Politics. He can sit and fume in the White House for the rest of his term. Let him rot.
However, that all changed when I heard the story of the Ten Commandments being taken down in the dark of night. Seeing these stone tablets removed by cowards under a vial of darkness I realized, that our nation has indeed entered dark times. The Ten Commandments were ordered removed from the Oklahoma Capitol Building after being ordered by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The tablets were taken down under the cover of darkness to avoid protests and outrage from the public.
Why?
Why were these tablets taken down in the dead of night when no one would be there? The answer is simple, progressive politicians know that Americans hold our religious views very deeply. They know that public outrage can quickly be aimed directly at their political careers. They know that in this modern day and age, when a 25 year old guy from Ohio has the ability to reach the entire world with his viewpoints, public outrage can quickly grow. They did not want huge protests in the street. They did not want the firestorm that would accompany removing the Ten Commandments, for fear that it would unite the Christians, the Jews, basically the majority of the United States.
Christianity, religion itself is under attack in this country. Christianity is the current punching bag for the progressives. Religion is the enemy to progressives. The concept that mankind was created by God, is troubling for people who want absolute blind authority over the masses. How can they have unquestioned power to oppress…. Sorry… to protect the population from their own ignorance, if the people of this country answer to God? The answer is that they can’t, thus religion must be destroyed. This is common practices in progressive states like the USSR. The State, not God is the supreme power in the world. Your rights are not granted to you by God, they do not even exist. What you think to be your rights, are in fact nothing more than privileges granted to you by the state.
Most progressives will of course deny any such war is being waged, or that the removal of religious liberty is their ultimate goal. Often they will cover up this plot by saying things like, “Of course we do not want to ban religion. There is no war on religion, this country was founded with strong religious principals. No one could ever destroy that bond.” Typically this statement will be followed by the typical “acceptance” statement. They are right. No one in this country, except for progressives and radical lunatics, would ever accept an outright destruction of religious liberties. Instead, the progressives work as they always work, in the shadows.
Progressives have gradually been conditioning the majority of the country into giving up their religious liberties, while simultaneously dividing the nation along religious lines . Look at how viciously they attack Christians. They attack public displays of faith, no more Christmas Trees and don’t you dare say “Merry Christmas”. They take down monuments honoring those who died protecting our freedoms, because it took the shape of the cross. They claim these religious symbols are offensive to other religions, thus pitting Americans against one another. Christians are now suddenly the bullies, while Jews, Muslims, and Atheists are now victims of aggressive rhetoric such as “Merry Christmas”. They bastardize the First Amendment to mean freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion.
Christians are despicable aggressors forcing their view points down the throats of everyone around them. Never mind the fact that the ACLU is filing a lawsuit to FORCE Catholics to violate their religious views, and perform abortions in Catholic Hospitals. Never mind the fact that Christian Bakers are being forced to make wedding cakes for gay couples, even though gay marriage violates their religious beliefs. Never mind the fact that President Obama refuses to call the people burning prisoners alive in cages Islamic Terrorists.
Never mind the fact that when a man walks into Umpqua Community College in Oregon and begins to choose victims by the answer to a simple question, “Are you a Christian?” a yes response followed by a bullet, there is silence. Sorry, there isn’t silence. There is anything but silence. President Obama has the bold face audacity to step up onto a podium lean up against his lectern and tell us that the shooting is our fault for not letting him violate the United States Constitution. President Obama openly admitted that he wanted to “politicize” this issue.
Never mind the fact that the stories covering the events of that bloody day are about gun control… sorry gun safety control is a dirty word, the bravery of the man who stood up to the shooter, or the arrogance and ignorance of President Obama. My favorite story has GQ literally stating F!@K You Ben Carson, all because Dr. Carson said he would have stood up to the shooter. How many stories have you seen talking about how the gunman set out to execute Christians? The MEDIA IS SILENT!
There is a genocide waging across this planet. Christians are being wiped out by radical Islamic Terrorist throughout the Middle East. The Ten Commandments, are now considered offensive, despite the fact that they are the basis of Western Civilization. Christians can be targeted and gunned down in the Streets of the United States and all we hear about is President Obama running his mouth about wanting more gun control. We hear a man spewing ignorant filth from his mouth push his radical agenda, while the blood of innocents flows through the streets.
I am sorry, if you were hoping to have more time before this country plunged into darkness, it is too late. The darkness has arrived. Now is not the time to start preparing. Now is the time to stand. Take the hand of your neighbor, hold them close. Pray to God for Strength, and stand.

Evil thrives when good men do nothing. However, Demons Run when good men go to war. It is time to stand up, and speak out against this madness. It is time to unite against the insanity. Christians, Jews, Muslims, rational minded people, stand up. We must hang together, or we will burn separately. Why do religious affects bother atheists? If they don’t believe in God, these are just stone slabs. Stand up, and speak out. Reach out to your neighbors. Rebuild your community. Only through the strength granted to us through unity, can we weather this storm. The path laid out by progressive thugs like President Obama can only end in disaster.
I am a Christian.

God Bless you all.

There has been another shooting in this country, and this time on live TV. I am sad to say it, but once again these poor innocent people’s deaths, their families pain and suffering, are being exploited to advance the progressive ideology. Once again we see President Obama, saying that this happens too often. Gun grabbers once again are trying to generate enough uproar that people act out of fear, instead of intelligence, and willingly give up their God given rights.

I have written at length, multiple times about the illogical conclusion that more gun control equates to lower crime/murder rates. I am not going to rehash those points again… you know, I say that, but I know that some progressive Zealot is going to want to do battle defending their time proven failure of an ideology. Instead I would like to frame the argument in a different light.

Recently, to much fanfare, the Supreme Court ruled that States do not have the authority to ban gay marriage. This ruling was cheered throughout the land. President Obama lit up the White House with Rainbow colored lights to make it look like the Gay Pride flag.

So the courts have ruled that Gay Marriage is a right protected under the United States Constitution. What would happen, if Dallas decided to regulate gay marriages? Require them to register where they live? What if Nashville decided that gay couples had to pay higher taxes than non gay couples?Imagine if the Federal Government decided to pass a law restricting Gay couples rights, maybe denying them tax breaks other married couples receive? Is there any rational thought process that leads to doubt that there would be national outrage over this clear violation of their God given rights?

Of course not, and they would be right to cry out against these clear injustices.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that Obamacare subsidies are legal, rewriting the rules of the English language to come to that conclusion. WE have heard the President, and countless Democrats demand that all challenges to Obamacare be dropped, as the Supreme Court has now clearly ruled that it is Constitutional.

So there would be national outrage if individual cities, or the Federal government choose to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gay Marriage. President Obama and many Democrats have demanded that all attacks on Obamacare be stopped, as the Supreme Court has ruled it is Constitutional. Why then does President Obama and the rest of the progressive movement choose to ignore Supreme Court rulings upholding the Second Amendment, and striking down gun control laws?

The United States Supreme Court rules continually in favor of the Second Amendment as being a protection of an individual’s right to own and bear arms. Yet for some reason, progressives like to keep trying to pass new gun bans, new restrictions, despite the fact that the court has struck them down countless times. The Heller Case clearly defends the individual right to own and bear arms, and struck down the DC gun ban. Yet, people like Diane Feinstein continue to push for new regulations restricting this right.

My question is why is it that according to progressive’s it is okay to violate the Constitution and ignore Supreme Court rulings when it comes to the Second Amendment, but not when it comes to say Obamacare? Why is a Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare the final salvo in the fight, the definitive end to any challenges to the law, but Supreme Court Rulings that uphold the Second Amendment are to be completely ignored?

In the case of Gay Marriage, no where in the Federal Constitution is the issue of marriage addressed. Not one time does the Constitution mention marriage, or give any power to regulate it to the Federal Government. The Supreme Court struck down Gay Marriage bans because they violate the 14th Amendment which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

No where in this Amendment are the words Gay, Homosexual, Heterosexual, or Marriage stated. The court still ruled that 14th Amendment protects Gay Marriage because it protects equal protection of the law. That ruling struck down gay marriage bans.

The right to own and Bear Arms can be found in the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads:

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.

I will stress again, for all you new comers, the Second Amendment has what is called a prefatory clause, which is used as a form of justification for law. The first half of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, in no way limits the the right protected by the Amendment. It is simply stating one reason why the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and is a staple in 18th century law.

This Amendment clearly states that we have the right to own and carry guns. This has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court, most recently in the Heller Case striking down the DC gun ban.

The Obamacare case was decided base on the Supreme Courts interpretation of intent. There was no Constitutional authority cited, they completely rewrote the law. The law intended to make it so that only states that set up state run exchanges would be allowed to receive subsidies. This was intended to force Republican governors to accept Obamacare. Jonathan Grubber all but spelled that out when he was pushing for Obamacare.

So of the three which one was made on the strongest footing? Heller defending the individual right to own and bear arms? The Gay Marriage Ruling? or the Obamacare ruling?

Needless to say, progressive Hypocrisy is well highlighted here. It is funny that the decision most passionately defended by the progressive is the one made with the least amount of legal creditably.

You cannot decry limitations/restriction on Gay Marriage, and support further gun control efforts. The Supreme Court has ruled on both of these, ensuring that they are in fact individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I keep hearing about how ” the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, not an individual right.” This statement is wrong, and based on a lack of historical knowledge.

The 2nd Amendment has a preamble, the “well regulated militia” is just one reason for the amendment, it does not define the amendment.

Preambles exists in more than just amendments, for example, a preamble does not limit a claim on a patent. The preamble of the Constitution does not act to limit the scope of the document. It was common practice that when laws were passed you would cite a reason for having them.

When looking at the 2nd amendment you have to remember when it was written. There is a book titled Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation, By Edward Beal. It deals with the concepts of English law from 1762 through 1908. On page 252, Beal writes
“A preamble of a statute is a recital of some inconveniences for which a remedy is given.

“There was a time when statutes were made without preambles; and the preamble of a statute is no more than a recital of some inconveniences, which does not exclude any other, for which a remedy is given by the enacting part of the statute.” — 7 Bac. Abr. Statute (I.)2.
Enacting Part and Preamble.
The preamble may sometimes be usefully looked at as a guide to ascertain the subject-matter, scope and object of the statute.
Where the enacting part is clear and unambiguous, the preamble cannot be resorted to to control, cut down or restrict it.
Where the enacting part is ambiguous, the preamble can be resorted to explain it.”
the enacting part, the actual amendment, seems pretty clear.
This was further enforced in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, The Supreme Court held (the following comes from the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

Lets use a little common sense. The founders had just won independence from Britain, they were able to do so because they had the firearms. Would they really limit the peoples right to bear arms to just the “militia”?

I would also like to point out that “well regulated” back then did not mean lots of government laws and rules, it meant trained and disciplined.

So if you where to right the Amendment today it would probably read.

“The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right has been protected for many reasons, such as, but not limited too, a well trained militia is essential to the sustained security of the United States.”

So to sum it up, the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. End of story. To change that, would require a new amendment.

If you are at all in tune with the news, than you are aware that there was a hostage crisis in Sydney Australia. A gunman held 17 people hostage. I am starting to think the story was a hoax, because they have very strict gun control in Australia, so there could not have possibly been a gunman. If it is illegal to have the gun, how did he get it?  This is another case of gun control failing yet again.

So I thought I would point out that on Black Friday there was a shooting in Chicago at Nordstrom on Michigan Avenue. A man gunned down his ex-girlfriend and then turned the gun on himself. I find this story hard to believe, after all it is illegal to have a hand gun in Chicago. So either the man got past security with a rifle/shot gun, managed to avoid detection of everyone in the store, or this is another case of the failure of “gun control”.
I have always found it hilarious that people actually believe that you can stop violence; by limiting or restricting access to firearms. We have all heard the progressive’s constant assaults on our second amendment right to own and bear arms. They claim that guns kill people. They believe that a gun can pick itself up, cock itself, select a target, and then fire. I really wonder what it is like to live in a world where inanimate objects are capable of murder, no wonder they are such a jumpy group.
This shooting in Chicago is a classic example of how, banning guns does not prevent crime. It does not stop evil people from doing wicked things. A gun is a tool. Its purpose, to harness the energy released from the rapid ignition of gun powder, to propel a projectile down the barrel. It comes down to the intentions of the person wielding the firearm that determines whether or not a crime is committed, and a tragedy occurs.
The evidence proves, actually proves not global warming proves, that allowing the public more access to firearms, and more liberty to carry them reduces crime, where as limiting access to firearms leads to increases in crime.
Firearms are a great equalizer; the smallest of women has no hope of defending herself against a 250 pound man. However, a firearm suddenly changes that arithmetic. Criminals think twice, when there is the possibility of getting shot.
I always love this assumption that progressives have that criminals purchase their guns legally. For some reason they think that a bank robber, is really concerned about gun laws, when he is getting ready to rob a bank. They are criminals, it is obvious that they do not care about the law; it is sort of what makes them criminals.
I really do love trying to get inside the progressive mind, although sometimes it can be quite scary. You see as a conservative, I believe in limited government, that the individual is empowered to make their own decisions in life. A progressive believes that you are too stupid to make that choice, and someone has to make it for you. Progressives believe that because they feel a certain way, you should be forced to feel that way as well. If they think that cars are destroying the planet, and thus buy a Coal Powered Nissan Leaf, they believe that you should buy one to. If you do not want to buy the Leaf, they believe someone should force you to. A conservative would by the car, tell you about it, and if you don’t buy it well that is your right. The same story rings true with firearms. Progressives do not like guns, they do not want to own guns, so they think you should not be allowed to. Conservatives place the power to choose in the hands of the individual.
How much more suffering will have to happen before people wake up and realize that empowering the individual is the answer? How much longer will we allow nut jobs to continue this myth that guns are the problem? There is no evidence to support the theory, yet people are still forced to endure the painful results of its implementation.

President Obama’s new spokesman Josh Earnest was out getting a work out spreading the word about President Obama’s criminal agenda. This time he was addressing how President Obama was looking to act outside the rule of law to restrict your rights to own a firearm. Earnest said, “The president’s goal is to look for opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority to try to make our communities safer. We’re always looking for those opportunities. But none of those opportunities when they present themselves is going to be an acceptable substitute for robust legislative action.” I love how progressives always think the solution to any problem is another law. The problem clearly is that you are too stupid, and have too much freedom. President Obama does not have the authority to limit our 2nd Amendment rights. That would require an amendment to the constitution. So any action he would be taking would be outside the rule of law.

Honestly I have to say I just “love” how easily President Obama flips the bird to the laws of this nation. How easily the arrogance necessary to perpetuate this myth that he somehow has the authority to alter federal law from the White house, comes to him. It truly is amazing.

Earnest also had this to say. “The question I think really facing lawmakers right now is what common sense steps can Democrats and Republicans take to reduce the likelihood of gun violence. And there are some, and they have unfortunately been bottled up in Congress and that is a disappointment to the president. But that’s not going to stop the president from continuing to push for administrative steps that we can take to help reduce gun violence”. Once you hear the phrase “common sense steps” whatever comes next is pointless. Common Sense Steps is progressive lingo for, government regulation and control.  Once they start pushing for “common sense reforms” they already have a list of demands, and are firing up the propaganda machine to blast conservatives for hating children and bathing in a pool of orphan’s tears.

Besides the obvious issue of President Obama’s criminal actions, there is the issue that his administration continually perpetuates this idea that there is a legislative solution to this problem. They believe that the American People are dim witted sheep, and that if they keep harping on this idea of restricting liberty for safety, eventually they will cave and welcome be dominated. The “common sense reforms” they are seeking aren’t anything new. They are concepts that have been tried in the past, and have been documented to fail. They want to close the “gun show loophole” the loophole that doesn’t actually exist, but they want to close it anyways. Registering firearms, background checks, and of course a ban on the sale of scary looking semi-automatic firearms. The problem is that these ideas have been tried, and they have failed.

Now Progressives have officially checked out, they are prepping their, “you hate children, your wrong, guns are evil” arguments. That is because, unfortunately they would rather ban guns, lets not beat around the bush that is their end goal, than solve the problem. Guns are not the problem. A gun did not cause that shooting in Oregon. A gun is a chunk of steal and plastic, a device designed to harness the energy released by the combustion of gun powered, to propel a projectile out of the barrel. It is incapable of committing mass shootings. No amount of criminal actions, or progressive ignorance and bigotry can change that simple fact. A gun is an inanimate object, no different than a car, propane tank, knife, chair, or pressure cooker. Banning firearms is not going to prevent murders, because the gun does not cause the murder, end of story. Murders are perpetrated by people. The solution does not lie in disarming the people of this country, but rather by dealing with the crumbling society that is producing these murders. 

Our culture is crumbling, and all progressives can say is “ban something else”. Rome is on fire, and the want to legislate wine consumption. If we do not address the social issues that are pushing these people over the edge, past the brink of insanity, they will find ways to act on their impulses. No amount of legislation can solve this problem. No mater what progressives tell you, you cannot legislate morality. We as a society are the only people with the power to fix this problem.  President Obama illegally regulating firearms is a political stunt to please his progressive base. Common Sense firearm legislation is a nice trick to allow for progressive to continue to exploit the symptoms of our crumbling culture. 

You have two choices. If you like the give a mouse a cookie approach, support President Obama and his criminal actions. But if you want to actually address the structural issues causing these problems join me and working on creating a culture that cares for its members. A society that supports one another. A community that acts out of compassion. The first option is one of force and oppression, the second option is one of individual liberty and responsibility. The choice is yours.  Personally I am choosing individual liberty and responsibility. What’s yours.