Late night ponderings

D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Littleton news:
1) No charges will be filed against the girl who bought the long guns for the 2 underage shooters

2) The guy that sold the Tec-9 lookalike pistol to the shooters will be charged with selling a gun to a minor

3) Clinton and the Feds and half the country have blamed us, the law abiding gun owner, and want even more restrictive laws

Hmmmm....so, people that were directly connected with the shooters and the guns get nothing or a relative slap on the wrist. My assessment is then therefore, the legal system doesn't care a whit about the shooting itself or punishing those involved. It ain't about crime, its about a government afraid of its free citizenry. If these people were sincere about preventing gun violence they'd toss the girl and the illegal seller into a cell so deep they'd never see daylight again. So, the question begs to be asked....
Why is the government afraid of us?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC I've asked myself the same thing. Now admittedy I see a conspiracy behind every tree. But I feel that our government and career politicians are being to see the beginning of the end. They recornize that the tax payers are no longer going to tolerate the rampent misappropriations and abuses of power. We are paying more and getting less. The waters are already being tested by the illegal (unconstitutional) actions of some of our elected officials to see what our (voters/citizens/tax payers) reaction(s) are going to be. For some time I have predicted a revolution in this country. Not in the traditional sense. But rather on paper. The day will come that citizens will have to decide if they are going to pay their taxes or feed their families. Many will be unable to do both. They won't want to break the law by not paying their taexes. They simply will have no choice. Without arms we can be forced to comply with what ever actions they (politicians) choose to take.
They know that the US is the one remaining nation that could put forth a realistic resistance to United Nations "peace keeping" forces. We are simply being prepared for the coming of a new form of government in our country. The policitical figures of the old Soviet Union lived quite well while the populace suffered. Think of the comforts of being a large political leader in one global nation. Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe an alarmist. Maybe see too many conspiracy where there aren't any. But the prospect is there and "doable". But only if US citizens are unarmed.

This is a good example of why I shouldn't read TFL in the wee hours of the morning. :)

Gunslinger
 
I agree except that its not sometime in the future-its NOW.
Our only chance to avert it is politics.
There is another aspect of this whole thing that bothers me. I am hearing about all the federal gun laws that El Reno has not enforced.
Why should she enforce these?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Speaking of federal gun laws not enforced, I heard a blurb on Rush Limbaugh's show a day or two ago that federal firearm prosecutions have dropped from approx. 7000 annually in 1992 to approx 3800 in 1997 or 1998. No wonder WJ needs more gun laws, his cronies can't enforce the ones on the books now. This is nothing particularly new to me, only the numbers that represent the failure of the administration to have any sort of tough crime stance. Blood pressure's rising, gotta go.

------------------
Don LeHue

The pen is mightier than the sword...outside of arms reach. Modify radius accordingly for rifle.
 
Q is under impression that I am getting obsessed with guns and need a psychiatric help. I am under impressing that we are on the verge of war. What gives?

------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Disarm, then past the barbed wire, into the oven and out of the smoke-stack..."
 
Just a note to throw another thought into the fray.

How much would it cost the administration to uphold the current 7000 laws? How much to man the streets, investigate, arrest, put to jury trial, and house when convicted? It's money out of their pockets.

Now, how much could they make from PAC's and lobbyists pushing for more laws and restrictions? How much can they make with lawsuits against store owners and firearm manufacturers? They've hit a cash cow here folks.

If what the antis have done here in the Detroit area is a microcosm of the nation, they've already won a major battle and may be clost to winning the war. The multi-million dollar lawsuit in Detroit and Wayne county has already caused the 2 venues that held gun shows to cancel the rest of their shows. One way or the other, by laws or lawsuits, they're intent is to keep citizens from buying guns.

Now I realize that there are plenty of gun shops around too. But overhead usually causes prices to be higher than at gun shows. Spiraling overhead will cause many shops to close unless they price goods high enough. For some with tight budgets, they rely on these shows to get what they want at a price they can afford. If this continues, average folks won't be able to afford guns anymore. Ownership won't be a right, but rather an elitist privilege for those with the bucks. And who do you think will have the cash then?

Ron
Disclaimer: I disclaim everything. In fact, I don't even exist. So there. NYAH!
 
The very thought irks me to no end. I find his gun policies impotent at best. Maybe I should pick up a T-shirt from John/az2 too.
 
I watched the Bill and Hillary show the other day when they re-announced the anti-gun legislation proposals. The items presented have been languishing in the Congress for some time--nothing new here. The Clintons sounded tired and a tad defeated. During the press conference, they admitted nothing in their proposals would have prevented what happened in Littleton. They know it is merely about "doing something," no matter how lame or ill-conceived.

I read on Neal Knox's website that the Violence Policy Center is upset that the Clintons cannnot or will not go further with the re-packaged bills. Instead, the Clintons make sweeping generalizations about the "culture of violence," sounding more like cultural reactionaries every day. Not to under-estimate the power of the anti-gunners, but they are out of ideas, and they know it.

Law-abiding gunowners should take a bit of cheer in this situation.
 
I have to agree. Yhere seems to be less overall sympathy for increased gun control now. The antis are as always more vocal,but there might be fewer of them??????

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
"Why is government afraid of us?" Because they know that the founders were correct in thinking that an armed populace is able to defeat any standing army. This makes it tough to control the masses, and even makes it tough to collect taxes.

Government tells us they will protect us, passes laws making it illegal for us to protect ourselves, then our "protectors" are held by the government's courts not to be responsible for protecting us, even as our families are killed on public property.

They levy increasingly more onerous taxes on us, create tax 'courts' that are not really courts, and reduce many to poverty through penalties.

Why do they fear us, anyway?

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken
 
Obiwan, I'm not sure where those statistics came from. I checked Rush's website and couldn't find the lead, but I e-mailed in to see if a copy of the transcript was available or where those numbers came from. I'll post as soon as I hear back from them. If anyone finds out in the meantime, please let us know.

------------------
Don LeHue

The pen is mightier than the sword...outside of arms reach. Modify radius accordingly for rifle.
 
Obiwan, DonL: Heston got some 10 seconds of sound bite at the NrA convention; he offered some similar numbers. So, check out the NRA website...

Art
 
I had a chance to troll through the NRA site and found a lead in the NRA-Live News section, under the "Archive News" sub-section indicating a March 23, 1999 article entitled, "Clinton Under Attack for Low Gun Prosecutions". This may give us the actual source of the numbers. I'm on a "loaner" box right now (since our illustrious Three-Stooges IT dept. hosed my regular computer), so I don't have the software loaded to actually listen to the report. And, unfortunately, the PITA site has no reference for transcripts, so I'll have to download and install the software tommorrow or the next day and try to transcribe the article myself. If one of our readers would like to give it a shot, let us know what you can find out. Might make for an interesting read.

------------------
Don LeHue

The pen is mightier than the sword...outside of arms reach. Modify radius accordingly for rifle.
 
The statistics on prosecution can be found at: www.nraila.org/pub/ila/1999/99-03-26_release_spector


Quote:
In a hearing on March 22, 1999, before the Senate subcommittees on
criminal justice oversight and youth violence, an appalling lack of
enforcement of federal laws was revealed. For the federal offense of
carrying a gun on a school ground, there were only 5 prosecutions in 1997
and just 8 in 1998. For illegally transferring a firearm to a juvenile, 5
prosecutions occured in 1997 and only 6 in 1998. From 1992-98, federal
prosecutions for gun crimes decreased by a whopping 46 percent.
 
DHH, thank you for the info and the sanity check. Rush or one of his staff people must have looked up the numbers to come up with the ~7000 and ~3800 figures that he quoted in the show. I'm still curious where the numbers came from, or how they were compiled, ie. a Dept. of Justice report, an FBI crime statistic, etc.

Very interesting, though, and shows the fallacy of this administration, that it can't uphold the laws it passes off onto the public, so it makes more laws. Soon, there'll be enough laws that we'll all be criminals for something or other. Bastidges. :(

------------------
Don LeHue

The pen is mightier than the sword...outside of arms reach. Modify radius accordingly for rifle.
 
Call me cynical...

I see this as an on-going strategic game with an end goal to ban guns period. Raise panic and pass gun laws; invisibly cut back on prosecution and at a later time (elections, Littleton incidents) raise the panic again and scream that there aren't enough laws and obtain public aquiesence for more laws. Wait a bit and start the cycle again.

Very soon the Feds will re-define ALL semi-autos (long and pistols including .22) as assault weapons. With the Assault Weapon ban already in effect, all they have to do is pass a bill that defines semi's as assault and there you have it.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Right after Littleton, California Govenor Gray Davis held a press conference and shot a TEC-9 and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, compared the two, and said something to the effect that these "weapons of mass destruction" will not be tolerated "on my watch" and proceeded to push for the greatly expanded "assault weapons" bill in California.

Many of my hunting friends have complained for years that the NRA has sold "us" out by trying to protect "assault weapons" while I (very-blue-in-the-face)told them its about disarmament, nothing else. After the Gray Davis thing many of them are now FINALLY getting concerned. I pointed out to a guy with a 300 WM BAR that it would not be long until it was outlawed and the color ran from his face. Frankly, I think its too little too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top