Posted on Nov 7, 2017
Democrat walks out of moment of silence for Texas massacre victims
2.74K
127
40
6
6
0
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 19
I urge us to pass reasonable gun safety legislation, including a universal background check law supported by 80 percent of Americans, a ban on assault rifles and a ban on bump stocks,” Lieu added.
Let's look at this statement:
First: "...reasonable gun safety legislation". It isn't "gun safety legislation" that is on the table with these people...it's gun control legislation, with emphasis on "control", because that's the key word.
Second: There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books already. In addition to being 20,000+ too many, the ones already on the books aren't being enforced properly already. Point of fact here is that it is a REQUIREMENT that convicted domestic abusers (re: the recent Texas tragedy that this Congressman refuses to stand a moment of silence for), and yet THAT LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
It is a point of fact that if a problem is caused by NOT following the existing rules/regulations/laws, then enacting MORE rules/regulations/laws WILL NOT FIX THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
What are we to do here...pass a law which says "This law is written to ensure legal compliance with the written law"?
Third: A "universal background check" isn't supported by 80% of Americans. If ANYTHING were literally supported by 80% of Americans, then it would happen regardless of what the 20% said or did about it. This is pure hyperbole. AND...if we're going to REQUIRE QUALIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONALLY DOCUMENTED RIGHT (Note: Notice that I did not say "Constitutionally guaranteed right". The Constitution does not grant rights...rights exist and are simply acknowledged as such, with limitations placed on the government with respect to interfering with those rights.) then we should likewise require qualifications for all other such rights. BUT...you'll not see that happening. At least, not until the Second Amendment is thoroughly gutted and neutered so that the government can do this with impunity.
Forth: WHAT "ASSAULT RIFLES"? SHOW ME THESE "ASSAULT RIFLES"! And stop playing =semantic games about it, too. There is a definition for an Assault Rifle, and since clear and concise definitions are not only important, but VITAL to any written law, we need to STICK WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT AN ASSAULT RIFLE ACTUALLY IS. The fact that these people do not and WILL NOT tells me that they're NOT concerned about "assault rifles", they concerned about CONTROL. No more, no less. Do NOT try to snow the snowman here.
Fifth: "Bump stocks". The actual mechanics behind how this works is as simple as a good firm stance and a belt loop on your jeans. In fact, the ONLY thing required is (insert drum roll here) a semi-automatic weapon. That's it. And any wording about "devices designed or intended" to increase the firing rate of a semi-automatic weapon? Gimme a tenpenny nail and a small piece of wood and I can make you a device in a few minutes that can enable your semi-automatic weapon to crank out ammunition in the hundreds of rounds per minute rate. THAT'S HOW SIMPLE THIS IS!
And yet...these devices are NOT "machine guns", "sub-machine guns", or "automatic weapons". Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION! Again...quit trying to snow the snowman here.
In order to effectively ban such devices, the ONE THING IN COMMON with ALL of these is...a semi-automatic weapon. And guess where the "reasonable gun safety legislation" is honestly headed? Yeah...take your snowstorm somewhere else, buddy.
Congressman Ted Lieu...you, sir, can have a nice, piping hot cuppa STFU with a side order of Shall-Not-Be-Infringed.
Let's look at this statement:
First: "...reasonable gun safety legislation". It isn't "gun safety legislation" that is on the table with these people...it's gun control legislation, with emphasis on "control", because that's the key word.
Second: There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books already. In addition to being 20,000+ too many, the ones already on the books aren't being enforced properly already. Point of fact here is that it is a REQUIREMENT that convicted domestic abusers (re: the recent Texas tragedy that this Congressman refuses to stand a moment of silence for), and yet THAT LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
It is a point of fact that if a problem is caused by NOT following the existing rules/regulations/laws, then enacting MORE rules/regulations/laws WILL NOT FIX THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
What are we to do here...pass a law which says "This law is written to ensure legal compliance with the written law"?
Third: A "universal background check" isn't supported by 80% of Americans. If ANYTHING were literally supported by 80% of Americans, then it would happen regardless of what the 20% said or did about it. This is pure hyperbole. AND...if we're going to REQUIRE QUALIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONALLY DOCUMENTED RIGHT (Note: Notice that I did not say "Constitutionally guaranteed right". The Constitution does not grant rights...rights exist and are simply acknowledged as such, with limitations placed on the government with respect to interfering with those rights.) then we should likewise require qualifications for all other such rights. BUT...you'll not see that happening. At least, not until the Second Amendment is thoroughly gutted and neutered so that the government can do this with impunity.
Forth: WHAT "ASSAULT RIFLES"? SHOW ME THESE "ASSAULT RIFLES"! And stop playing =semantic games about it, too. There is a definition for an Assault Rifle, and since clear and concise definitions are not only important, but VITAL to any written law, we need to STICK WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT AN ASSAULT RIFLE ACTUALLY IS. The fact that these people do not and WILL NOT tells me that they're NOT concerned about "assault rifles", they concerned about CONTROL. No more, no less. Do NOT try to snow the snowman here.
Fifth: "Bump stocks". The actual mechanics behind how this works is as simple as a good firm stance and a belt loop on your jeans. In fact, the ONLY thing required is (insert drum roll here) a semi-automatic weapon. That's it. And any wording about "devices designed or intended" to increase the firing rate of a semi-automatic weapon? Gimme a tenpenny nail and a small piece of wood and I can make you a device in a few minutes that can enable your semi-automatic weapon to crank out ammunition in the hundreds of rounds per minute rate. THAT'S HOW SIMPLE THIS IS!
And yet...these devices are NOT "machine guns", "sub-machine guns", or "automatic weapons". Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION! Again...quit trying to snow the snowman here.
In order to effectively ban such devices, the ONE THING IN COMMON with ALL of these is...a semi-automatic weapon. And guess where the "reasonable gun safety legislation" is honestly headed? Yeah...take your snowstorm somewhere else, buddy.
Congressman Ted Lieu...you, sir, can have a nice, piping hot cuppa STFU with a side order of Shall-Not-Be-Infringed.
(7)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Assault rifles are characterized by their light weight, small caliber (smaller ammo = weight savings for the soldier), and select-fire capability. "Assault weapons" on the other hand are a political/media construct with no clear defining characteristics other than that they scare anti-gun liberals.
(3)
(0)
I have told my wife that I am, out of a feeling of self-defense and preservation, going to buy a gun, get a concealed handgun license, and start carrying everywhere I go regardless of the legality of bringing a gun on private property. Being in a church does no good and offers no protection, being in a movie theater, on the hike and bike trail, or at a mall or school or anywhere does not afford any expectation of safety in this great country anymore. The only solution is self-preservation and self-protection, of self and others, should the madman appear and start gunning down people with his perfectly legal semi-automatic rifle, equipped with bump stock and 100 round magazine. All purchased at Academy. The next time the shooter stands and opens up on innocents of any color or stripe and I am in the vicinity he can expect to be met by a hail of bullets in his general direction and hopefully the Lord will give me the aim, the strength, the courage, and the skill to get the job done right.
(7)
(0)
MSgt Stephen Council
Capt Tom Brown Here is a little free advice: God will calm you and guide you, but nothing replaces muscle memory in a high stress situation like self or home defense. If you buy a gun, and carry it without putting in adequate time at the range, you will find a need to think while acting just to employ the weapon. Practice Practice Practice. I train in many situations, moving, no shoot targets in front of my actual target, from cover, without cover or concealment, etc. Good luck and positive aim sir!
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Tom Brown . I got my CC license and started carrying over two years ago. I never really felt a need to prior to that. The country has too many loons and ideologues in it. The chances are very small that you will ever need it but if you need it and don't have it, you might be a statistic in the FBI crime database.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next