The recent tragedy in Vegas has resulted, so very unfortunately, with the same old, same old. The left are out insisting on "common sense" gun control as the means by which we can rid mankind of the kind of evil that resulted in so many dead and injured. But as McVeigh and 19 muslims proved, there are many ways for madmen to kill lots of people. So it ain't guns. Never was and never will be. Taking them from the rest of us only puts more people at risk with less hope of rescue.
We hear again about "gun show loopholes", which do not truly exist as they are described by know-nothings. And to the extent that gun shows have ever been tied to crime is only due to so-called "straw purchasing", which is already illegal. It isn't possible to make what is illegal more illegal.
Someone on Facebook mentioned preventing the mentally ill from having guns, as if that hasn't been addressed already as well. The true issue here is one of civil rights and when one is certified as being mentally ill and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. It isn't a simple thing to make such determinations, and certainly, as with no-fly lists, there would certainly be those who are wrongly regarded to be among those with whatever degree is decided upon to deny a person his Constitutional right to bear arms.
Speaking of which, more than one person has suggested that anyone on a no-fly list should be denied. But again, there have been many cases where someone is wrongly added to that list, and now, as if being wrongly denied the ability to travel by plane wouldn't be bad enough, a person would lose his right to self-defense, too.
Of course the big thing now is bump stocks...a devise that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire multiple rounds quickly, almost like a fully automatic weapon. They've been approved for sale because they don't actually convert such weapons to full auto, and few people even knew they existed before the Vegas tragedy. It even appears as if the NRA is willing to stand down on this particular issue and allow the knee-jerk control freaks to outlaw them. This doesn't deal with the issue of just how simple it would be to make a homemade version that would work just as well as the store bought, but such people never think beyond the self-serving politics in which they're engaging.
(And that means, no, I don't think they really care about saving lives. I think they care about appearing to care about saving lives, or they'd deal with the real issue....which ain't guns.)
And then there's the question of "need", or more precisely, lefties whining that they don't see any need for anyone to have an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, an AR15 style weapon (because they look scary) and in this case, a need for bump stocks that allow one to fire their weapon like it's a Tommy-gun. The better question here is, who are these people to suggest they can impose their idea of "need" upon another as if they know each other person's personal situation. I recall the riots after the Rodney King verdict where Korean store owners were on the roofs of their businesses with guns protecting their property. I'd wager their need was real and legitimate. But "need" is irrelevant. It's called, the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
What's more, this whole gun-control thing smacks of bad parenting, where all the kids suffer because of the misbehavior of one sibling. I hate that, and I hate it more on the adult level where it is even more common. With this issue, it is especially heinous as it puts people at risk, just to politically posture one's self as "doing something".
But then, guns ain't the problem, anyway. Never were and never will be. In the meantime, I'm posting links to a few relevant articles and vids. They address this topic well. Take the time.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/03/democrats-have-no-idea-how-to-prevent-mass-shootings/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.9bed45490864
IF the above two don't hook you up, try this one...the article where I found them:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/04/are-there-any-new-gun-regulations-that-are-appropriate-in-the-wake-of-las-vegas-n2390116
https://youtu.be/UEihkjKNhN8
https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE
One more thing: "silencers". I thought this had been thoroughly debunked, but perhaps not. I've seen a few vids that compare guns with and without suppressors. In these vids, it is clear that the guns are still loud, just not so loud that damage to the ear is a problem, though many would still use ear protection. In other countries, it's considered bad form not to suppress one's rifle when hunting or target shooting.
But then I decided to google words to the effect "gun silencers that actually silence guns" and came upon some vids that perhaps suggest there's more to the story.
One vid showed a fully automatic weapon (I won't mention the type here---cuz I didn't write it down and don't want to take the time to find it again) that was remarkably "silenced" by it's fully integrated suppressor (part of the gun). The mechanics of the weapon made a bit of a racket, but had the Vegas shooter such a weapon thirty-two stories up, perhaps more would have been shot before they could tell where the bullets originated. Of course, buying a fully automatic weapon is incredibly difficult and most licensed dealers can't sell them anyway.
Another presented a pistol with an integrated suppressor that was also rather quiet. It was made by a company that is actually in the business of making suppressors for a variety of products and decided to try their hand at designing a pistol. That is, they're not actually a firearms manufacturer outside this particular pistol.
Yet another showed a guy adding multiple suppressors in order to see if he could get it "Hollywood" quiet. That is, like all the silenced weapons in the movies that gun-control nuts think are representative of the real world. This guy had about five screwed on to the end of his pistol's barrel and it was rather an awkward piece at that point. While it was really quiet, he removed one of them so it would be more practical.
All three of these weapons were very pricey. The automatic in the first example is probably over ten grand, and I'm guessing much more. Both pistols start around $1200.00. They may be considerably more as well...I'm going from memory here.
Still and all, guns aren't the problem.
Saturday, October 07, 2017
Sunday, October 01, 2017
No, I Meant YOU Should Embrace Grace, Not Me!
Just a quick post here to highlight curious practice of deleting legitimate comments by one who has complained about ill treatment after having been blocked from commenting at the blogs of Stan, Neil, Glenn, Mark and I don't know how many others. Oh, how he whined when references to his positions were posted at any of these blogs! Now, after having been accused of supporting and defending rapists, he deletes my comments posted to clarify my position and question how his charges expresses the spirit of "embrace grace"...a term he is quick to use at other blogs where his weak arguments are appropriately derided for being as weak and dishonest as they are.
You'll note that at this here blog, I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, either upon myself or worse, my other visitors...one of the only rules for engaging here that I have. Even then, if such comments contain actual substance, I tend to copy such comments, delete them, but then re-post them with the childish vitriol either deleted or re-worded in brackets (this happens now and then when feo posts something that, for him, has just a bit of substance or something for which a response seems appropriate---a rarity).
Some would ask, why bother? There are two reasons:
1. I enjoy regular discourse a bit deeper than small talk.
2. I much enjoy discourse with those who have opposing points of view. And with those with invented religions to which they attach the word "Christian", there is much to discuss.
It's too bad, but leftists are notorious for running away...surrendering without actually conceding defeat. Deleting comments is one manifestation of this trait. And even if any of my comments are truly lacking in substance (as feo's routinely is), deleting them leaves one forced to take the word of he who deleted them...and that's a risky proposition, given the less than honest reasons given for deleting them in the first place. I say, let others back you up by joining in and criticizing what I said.
I once deleted a comment of Mark's because I thought it was over the line in terms of crudeness. His point could easily have been expressed differently to get the same thought across. From that point, his deleted comment was referenced falsely by the person at issue here, and from that point I found it more practical to leave even the crude comments stand, so as to let people expose themselves as well as to let others respond if they felt like it. And of course, to respond to what was actually said, not like Dan who responded as if Mark said something he never said.
I've mentioned all of the above in one way or another on more than one occasion. I try to practice what I preach...at least here at my blog. Dan does not. When he runs up against that which he cannot counter, he quits, pretends he never saw it, accuses the commenter of bad behavior or he deletes. And he certainly fails to ever "embrace grace"...whatever the hell that was ever supposed to mean.
You'll note that at this here blog, I only delete comments that are no more than personal attacks, either upon myself or worse, my other visitors...one of the only rules for engaging here that I have. Even then, if such comments contain actual substance, I tend to copy such comments, delete them, but then re-post them with the childish vitriol either deleted or re-worded in brackets (this happens now and then when feo posts something that, for him, has just a bit of substance or something for which a response seems appropriate---a rarity).
Some would ask, why bother? There are two reasons:
1. I enjoy regular discourse a bit deeper than small talk.
2. I much enjoy discourse with those who have opposing points of view. And with those with invented religions to which they attach the word "Christian", there is much to discuss.
It's too bad, but leftists are notorious for running away...surrendering without actually conceding defeat. Deleting comments is one manifestation of this trait. And even if any of my comments are truly lacking in substance (as feo's routinely is), deleting them leaves one forced to take the word of he who deleted them...and that's a risky proposition, given the less than honest reasons given for deleting them in the first place. I say, let others back you up by joining in and criticizing what I said.
I once deleted a comment of Mark's because I thought it was over the line in terms of crudeness. His point could easily have been expressed differently to get the same thought across. From that point, his deleted comment was referenced falsely by the person at issue here, and from that point I found it more practical to leave even the crude comments stand, so as to let people expose themselves as well as to let others respond if they felt like it. And of course, to respond to what was actually said, not like Dan who responded as if Mark said something he never said.
I've mentioned all of the above in one way or another on more than one occasion. I try to practice what I preach...at least here at my blog. Dan does not. When he runs up against that which he cannot counter, he quits, pretends he never saw it, accuses the commenter of bad behavior or he deletes. And he certainly fails to ever "embrace grace"...whatever the hell that was ever supposed to mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)