“One may question whether real civilisation is so safely afloat that we can afford to use our pens for boring holes in the bottom of it.”
F. L. Lucas, 1966
British anti-fascist crusader, WWII
So we have to listen to the same old crap from the same purveyors of lies. Personally, I'm tired of arguing. read this article, because it explains why a lot better than I can, Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns:
E. The Only Way Gun-Control Activists Can Support Their Position Is To Lie.
And now we get to the reason that led me to write this manifesto. I’ve had several frustrating debates on Facebook with Progressives. These debates have revealed to me that I didn’t actually need to do all the above research to know that my fundamental principle – the Second Amendment is a good thing – is correct. What absolutely confirms the rightness of my cause is the fact that gun-grab proponents have only one way to support their cause: THEY LIE.
If you have to lie to support your position, you don’t have a case. It’s as simple as that.
Then, when you point out that these shootings invariably take place using legally obtained guns in heavily gun-controlled states and in designated “gun-free zones,” the same Progressives scream that you’re an idiot, a murderer, and a Nazi. And that’s when you know that you’re right.
Let me reiterate the point I made at the beginning of this section: You know you’re right if your opponent’s only evidence is fraudulent.
Read the whole thing. In fact, memorize the whole thing and pass this link onto your friends. I also refer you to this thoughtful commentary from the brilliant legal expert Eugene Volokh on Guns and Alcohol in no less than WaPo:
But let me offer a concrete analogy (recognizing that, as with all analogies, it’s analogous and not identical).
Every day, about 30 people are killed in the U.S. in gun homicides or gun accidents (not counting gun suicides or self-inflicted accidental shootings). And every day, likely about 30 people are killed in homicides where the killer was under the influence of alcohol, plus alcohol-related drunk driving accidents and alcohol-related accidents where the driver wasn’t drunk but the alcohol was likely a factor (again not including those who died in accidents caused by their own alcohol consumption). If you added in gun suicides on one side and those people whose alcohol consumption killed themselves on the other, the deaths would tilt much more on the side of alcohol use, but I generally like to segregate deaths of the user from deaths of others.
So what are we going to do about it? When are we going to ban alcohol? When are we going to institute more common-sense alcohol-control measures?
Well, we tried, and the conventional wisdom is that the cure was worse than the disease — which is why we went back to a system where alcohol is pretty freely available, despite the harm it causes (of which the deaths are only part). We now prohibit various kinds of reckless behavior while using alcohol. But we try to minimize the burden on responsible alcohol users by generally allowing alcohol purchase and possession, subject to fairly light regulations.And, perhaps incorrectly, the right to a decent beer wasn't written into the Bill of Rights. But the right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right of free men and women was specifically acknowledged and protected in the Constitution.
A few months back Charles C. W. Cooke, a Brit who now lives in America, wrote a simply brilliant rant at NRO calling out the antigun swine for what they are. It's especially relevant after the last few day's events, when the Great Fool went on television now once, but twice, and brought up the "successful Australian and British" models for "combatting gun violence."
That pathetic old broken down old prostitute Hillary chimed in with similar words, which tells me that "Australian Model" is polling well with the Dem/progressive base. Bye-bye to "commonsense gun laws," "things most Americans agree with," "we support the Second Amendment but…," "who needs military style weapons," all that other crap that didn't play worth a darn.
So now they're going for all the marbles.It is, as my old friend Jerry Miculek once said,"nut-cuttin' time." The "Australian Model" that Barry Obama so admires is basically the door-to-door confiscation, followed by the destruction, of all civilian firearms. Then draconian laws are put into place for the possession of any "unauthorized" firearm. Yes, there are still civilian weapons in Australia, but look at the year-long battle that has been going on over the introduction of a lever action shotgun…the slightly modern equivalent of the Winchester 1887 lever gun designed by John Browning. This slick piece of ultramodern killing technology is clearly too dangerous for even the few Australians who can qualify for firearm ownership.
This from today's NRO:
“Australia” is Obama’s preferred euphemism for that most cherished of gun-control ideals: mass confiscation of the citizenry’s weapons.
You will notice that the president doesn’t exactly spell out what following Australia’s model would entail. He speaks instead of “commonsense gun-control legislation,” “closing the gun-show loophole,” and “universal background checks.” In the last 24 hours, New York magazine, CNN, and NBC have also sung the virtues of the Australian model.
But the Australian 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was not a benign set of commonsense gun-control rules: It was a gun-confiscation program rushed through the Australian parliament just twelve days after a 28-year-old man killed 35 people with a semi-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur. The Council of Foreign relations summarizes the Aussie measure nicely: The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course.Cooke suggests let's just cut though the BS…you wanna make a run n the Second Amendment? Make it a plank of the Democrat Party and get to it:
This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left — at least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably popular one on social media, it has strong support within the more leftward-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is often implied by the casual manner in which progressives such as President Obama refer to “Australia” and other heavily regulated nations, and it enjoys indirect approval from around one quarter of the American public. When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it. That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.Read the whole thing…here's the punchline:
You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.I am no longer interested in debating jackasses, whores and liars. I am tired of people threatening the lives of my friends, my family and myself, as we saw on Twitter yesterday, hoping to chum up another psychopath. I am sick to death of having it explained to me as if I was a 3 year old that when a fanatic Islamist commits an atrocity it is critical — CRITICAL — that I understand that all Muslims can't be held accountable. But that when a single maniac kills someone, EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN SHOOTER must pay the price. Enough.