Gun Control

Is it really guns, or just the “entertainment” world?

1/7/2013:

I’m getting a bit tired of the argument to ban guns – when it’s a constitutional right. Even though it’s harder than ever to get a gun legally, and next to impossible to carry one unconcealed (they’ve been chipping away at that great document on many levels since it was signed), one has to wonder if it’s the guns themselves – or all the “violence” that has been so gloriously promoted in Hollywood.

Like that ridiculously hypocritical PSA that a bunch of actors released recently – when they themselves are promoting gun violence on the TV and movie screens – and getting filthy rich in the process. Someone made a video that shows how shallow these people are in their phony “message” to the world:

What about video games?

Below is a very popular “FPS” (first person shooter) called Max Payne 3 (we wrote about it last year because one part of it supposedly takes place right here in Hoboken).

So kids for the past 20 years have been de-sensitized about blowing people’s heads off. Hmmm. Did the guns make them do that? Or something else?

What next – some kids running around roof-tops in Hoboken blasting their glocks?

Citizens from other countries: “Never give up your guns!”

Lastly – one Hoboken411 reader shared this VERY INTERESTING blog post from a chap in Russia – who really understands history. He wrote a story entitled Americans Never Give Up Your Guns,” where he reminds everyone of the tragic track record with previous societies where similar circumstances took place under the guise of “public safety.” A total MUST READ.

“For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people.”

Carry on with your day, peons!

2nd Amendment: What has come over people?

1/2/2013 Update:

As I mentioned in my New Year’s Resolutions (i.e., life changes) post the other day – I’ve long given up on mainstream media (TV, print, etc.)

However, that does not mean I’m exempt from seeing the horrific messages they pound into the heads of regular readers and viewers. Like how they now attack the constitution on a daily basis!

Like this coordinated blitz from the NYC newspapers soon after the CT “shooting.” This is along the lines of the predictive programming plan that I mention a few weeks ago. There’s some kind of tragic event – quickly followed by some governmental “change” which is supposed to “better” the people. Yeah. I’m surprised that this tactic keeps working over and over. Humans are such easy marks these days now that they’ve collectively been dumbed-down.

However, those of us who’ve been awake, connected the dots long ago – and see what they’re doing. How come more of you aren’t awake yet? Why do you keep falling for it? Do your research!

Are you for or against gun control? (i.e., 2nd Amendment)

12/19/2012:

I’m sure many of you now have seen how “gun control” has become the big story after the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut.

For those that might need help in forming your opinion – here’s a very relevant episode from Penn & Teller:

26 Responses

  1. john14 says:

    Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership

    washingtonexaminer.com/biden-2008-i...roblem/article/2516400#.UNIZ-W80V8E

    • joey maxim says:

      joe biden don’t know if he is alive..his dead two votes from his state are a mute point.who the fk is goinig to attack his crappy 18 mile state? There is no task force..weapons will come in from all parts of the globe for a price ..worth more than dope..its all talk to pander to the lib aclu morans ….all should have a weapon in their home to defend themselves,but take a look at the nut jobs that are copycats..kids should not suffer.put
      a stop to the x box vidio games that enhance these nut jobs..think about it,,,[quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]

    • joey maxim says:

      joe biden don’t know if he is alive..his dead two votes from his state are a mute point.who the fk is goinig to attack his crappy 18 mile state? There is no task force..weapons will come in from all parts of the globe for a price ..worth more than dope..its all talk to pander to the lib aclu morans ….all should have a weapon in their home to defend themselves,but take a look at the nut jobs that are copycats..kids should not suffer.put
      a stop to the x box vidio games that enhance these nut jobs..think about it,,,[quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]
      [quote comment=”218749″]Funny, VP Biden is overseeing the task force for gun control, but in ’08 he proudly defended his own gun ownership[/quote]

  2. trueblue11 says:

    we all know that idiots like Penn and Teller, and John14 and Maxim, like to make things black and white. Most things are not, the gun issue is a major example. How do we stop incidents like what happened in Conn.? Pardon the expression, but there is no magic bullet.
    yes, banning assault weapons is a part of the solution…A PART!!!! They are not for hunting, but they are great for murdering as many people as possible by some deranged maniac.
    violent video games are another part. look at that creep in Norway who practiced on them before he killed those innocent people on that island. What about violence in movies in GENERAL. we GLORIFY violence and you know what they say John14, you reap what you sow. and lastly, banning assault rifles has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. you can still have your handguns and rifles, just not military weapons, what’s wrong with that. I cant own a tank, or a RPG. so Penn and teller, George Carlin (RIP), and ted nugent, go fuck yourselves.

    • HansBrix says:

      Actually the Bushmaster is very good at feral hog control which is a problem in southern states. It’s essentially a varmint gun. I’m pretty sure Kos or MSNBC never mentioned this which would explain why you didn’t know.

      [quote comment=”218761″]we all know that idiots like Penn and Teller, and John14 and Maxim, like to make things black and white. Most things are not, the gun issue is a major example. How do we stop incidents like what happened in Conn.? Pardon the expression, but there is no magic bullet. yes, banning assault weapons is a part of the solution…A PART!!!! They are not for hunting, but they are great for murdering as many people as possible by some deranged maniac. violent video games are another part. look at that creep in Norway who practiced on them before he killed those innocent people on that island. What about violence in movies in GENERAL. we GLORIFY violence and you know what they say John14, you reap what you sow. and lastly, banning assault rifles has NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. you can still have your handguns and rifles, just not military weapons, what’s wrong with that. I cant own a tank, or a RPG. so Penn and teller, George Carlin (RIP), and ted nugent, go fuck yourselves.[/quote]

      • Oz says:

        AR 15s are also very popular for multiple target matches. Attend the state High Power match or one of the multiple Civilian Marksmanship Program matches and you’ll be surprised how many legally owned ARs there are in NJ. As long as they don’t have a flash hider or a bayonet lug, they are not considered Assault Weapons and so are NJ legal.[quote comment=”218764″]Actually the Bushmaster is very good at feral hog control which is a problem in southern states. It’s essentially a varmint gun. I’m pretty sure Kos or MSNBC never mentioned this which would explain why you didn’t know.[/quote]

      • HansBrix says:

        But let’s not forget that they are indeed good at killing or at least stopping people, especially those who covet your stuff, wife or daughter, and decide to invade your occupied home to act on their primitive impulses.

        Urban blue staters don’t know much about rural law enforcement and the realities of response times. Sheriff Duckworth’s job is often a mop up operation. Even locally a criminal could push past the AC unit and be inside faster than it even takes to swipe past the iPhone closed screen. An M4 can bring down your intruder without the same chance of sending bullets from missed shots through your walls and into the house next door, as your 30-06 deer rifle would do. Would create less damage than a shotgun too.

        And it’s appearance is frankly more intimidating than that of any handgun. Maybe Mr Crime will reconsider once he sees formidable firepower pointing back from his would be victim.

        [quote comment=”218794″]AR 15s are also very popular for multiple target matches. Attend the state High Power match or one of the multiple Civilian Marksmanship Program matches and you’ll be surprised how many legally owned ARs there are in NJ. As long as they don’t have a flash hider or a bayonet lug, they are not considered Assault Weapons and so are NJ legal.[/quote]

  3. MidnightRacer says:

    I’m gonna put this in a light people tend to evade. All these natural rights; free speech, freedom of religion, of the people to bear arms, etc., share an equal status in their untouchable status (unalienable). Which religion you choose to practice cannot be limited, nor can the government legislate banning of one religion by arguing it’s not infringement since you may choose from the approved list of religions. The same applies to the Second Amendment, being equal (all unalienable) to freedom of religion, free speech, and the rest.

    The Declaration of Independence (DoI) establishes Natural Law, individual sovereignty, and describes that government is authorized by the people to protect these natural rights.

    The Bill of Rights (BoR) are a list of 10 Commandments (Shall Nots) which serve to remind the government that it cannot misconstrue any part which results in an infringement of these natural rights. See all the “shall nots” in the BoR? In the Preamble of the BoR, it reminds government it cannot twist, manipulate, or misconstrue in any way that it can even touch these natural rights.

    Here’s the text of the Preamble in the BoR:

    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

    To pretend that if all branches of government collude in unconstitutional de facto practice in violation of de jure restrictions in the intentional infringement of the right of the people to bear arms (banning any type) is the same as banning one religion and arguing it is not infringement if you are allowed to practice the approved list of religions. It’s the same as saying there is no infringement of free speech when the people are banned from free speech where ever the Executive happens to be, since you are free to have you speech elsewhere on the approved list of free speech locations. They are all violations.

    • Bornandpraised says:

      No one is evading anything.

      You are not allowed to slander. You are not allowed to libel. You are not allowed to incite violence or treason. All of these are restrictions on the first amendment. That goes double for the press, not to mention the loads of restrictions put on the later. Peaceable assemblage? Where to start on the restrictions on that.

      You are not allowed to practice a religion based on slander or libel or incitement to violence or treason, nor follow a religion that practices sacrifice, and there are legal means to declare a religion is not a religion.

      You also carefully ignore the first half of the second amendment, the only of the first ten to have a condition placed upon it.

      The fact of the matter remains that restrictions have been placed on the amendments, sometimes by the very authors and signers of the original document. You can have your opinion on the matter, but your opinion (and yes, it is just an opinion and not truth) is only that. Greater legal minds have disagreed with you, and their opinion is law of the land. You can argue it is all illegal, but it simply does not make it so until so adjudicated by the Supreme Court.[quote comment=”218760″]I’m gonna put this in a light people tend to evade. All these natural rights; free speech, freedom of religion, of the people to bear arms, etc., share an equal status in their untouchable status (unalienable). Which religion you choose to practice cannot be limited, nor can the government legislate banning of one religion by arguing it’s not infringement since you may choose from the approved list of religions. The same applies to the Second Amendment, being equal (all unalienable) to freedom of religion, free speech, and the rest.The Declaration of Independence (DoI) establishes Natural Law, individual sovereignty, and describes that government is authorized by the people to protect these natural rights.The Bill of Rights (BoR) are a list of 10 Commandments (Shall Nots) which serve to remind the government that it cannot misconstrue any part which results in an infringement of these natural rights. See all the “shall nots” in the BoR? In the Preamble of the BoR, it reminds government it cannot twist, manipulate, or misconstrue in any way that it can even touch these natural rights.Here’s the text of the Preamble in the BoR:“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”To pretend that if all branches of government collude in unconstitutional de facto practice in violation of de jure restrictions in the intentional infringement of the right of the people to bear arms (banning any type) is the same as banning one religion and arguing it is not infringement if you are allowed to practice the approved list of religions. It’s the same as saying there is no infringement of free speech when the people are banned from free speech where ever the Executive happens to be, since you are free to have you speech elsewhere on the approved list of free speech locations. They are all violations.[/quote]

  4. MidnightRacer says:

    Slander, libel, inciting violence and committing treason are not freedom of speech. You introduce a straw man argument which falls flat. Freedom of speech is your natural right to express your opinion and ideas for or against proposed or enacted government policy. Freedom of speech pertains the person’s opinion and ideas to the governance or possible policies. Unfortunately, you use a logical fallacy here for that and the religion example.

    The Second Amendment includes grammar which you seem not to comprehend.

    “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 assume your argument is that the Constitution is redundant, in that only if you’re a part of the state militia do you have a natural right to bear arms which shall not be infringed. Problem with your position is not only lacking comprehension, grammatically, but also the rest of your position claims it needs to be “adjudicated”. It was, in 2008, see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court ruled that it was a natural right of each individual to bear arms as individuals, not part of a militia or in service to one. At question was whether an individual bearing arms was a natural right or privilege. So the debate went back in history to the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (100 years before the US version). The King at the time wanted to exert control over the Protestants by disarming them, using many excuses you see the current ones use today. With the English Bill of Rights (1689), just as the U.S. Bill of Rights, it was well established that the individual has a natural right to bear arms, that it was not a positive law privilege, but that it was necessary to further enact declaratory language to remind the government it shall not infringe. It’s very clear. So you neither have grammatical nor legalistic strength in the position.

    Back then, the King tried to disarm the people. Today is no different. Except there are more of you who go along with violating the U.S. Constitution. The wording is very clear when it says shall not infringe. It means that a future Congress cannot possibly legislate that which commands they shall not legislate.

  5. MidnightRacer says:

    What it comes down to is de facto and de jure implementation. The government at times practices social engineering which does not always comply with the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. It is a violation, but when the Justice Department refuses to enforce the Constitution’s restrictions, there’s no check against the violations. Even the Supreme Court is at times openly hostile to the restrictions and few (17) enumerated powers granted to a limited government. Case in point is Justice Ginsburg who during an interview regarding Egypt’s formation of a new constitution was asked if Egypt should ratify the same U.S. Constitution for Egypt. Ginsburg emphatically said no, that the U.S. Constitution was too restrictive for government and the courts to get things done that society needed. Another example is the recent Obamacare case in which it was ruled that commerce within a state is not restricted by the Commerce Clause which restricts the power of the federal government to only foreign and state to state commerce, and that it was somehow lawful for the federal government to force individuals in a state to buy something from a company in the same state. That’s a de facto versus de jure problem.

  6. MidnightRacer says:

    Where the government does not violate the natural right to bear arms is in licensing as regulation of a state of commerce within the state. No problem there. If it’s commerce, the state can grant or remove a license to manufacture (type of arms) for some legal reason. Same applies to the federal for federal license. It’s pretty much their discretion until challenged.

    However, if a person, individual, decides to make their own, they can pretty much make whatever arms they want, since it’s not under the commerce condition or commercial manufacturer regulation. A free individual can make whatever arms and keep it. See ATF if you don’t believe me. How is that possible? Because the government has enumerated powers over commerce (federal, 10th Amend. state), but are banned from infringing against the individual’s natural right to bear arms.

  7. HansBrix says:

    Oh looky – a newspaper published names and addresses of handgun owners in two NY counties. Not only that but they do it in map format. Even sex offenders are afforded more privacy.

    lohud.com/interactive/article/20121...s-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

    I’m now convinced that this argument has nothing to do with public safety or protecting children. It’s about CONTROL over the political enemies of the left.

    How long will it be before we hear calls for reeducation camps or other institutionalization of gun owners or even global warming skeptics?

  8. MidnightRacer says:

    January, 2013 will see a move by the Congress to pass retroactive laws against Americans, which is actually forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. Of course, retroactive laws are illegal to legislate by the Congress and States as shown below. But look at how they violate the 2nd Amendment when they are banned by the words Shall not be infringe, and watch how they violate the ex post factor retroactive ban. One violation on top of another. We don’t have a nation of laws, but an illegal usurpation of criminals running the show, and all those Americans who support this are complicit.

    Limits on Congress
    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
    “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    Limits on the States
    Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1
    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,”

  9. MidnightRacer says:

    Here’s how they begin with violating Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 (on the federal level) in order to violate the Second Amendment, Article 1, Section 10, clause 1 (if the States are complicit), and basically continue to become criminals with the support of some of you all. That’s treason. Oddly, some of you think violating the Constitution is just expressing a progressive evolution of the nation. You forget the Supremacy Clause that ever public office swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. You believe that your cause makes the Constitution’s rule of law wrong. So you break the law which protects the individual’s natural rights is morally right. You believe that government and “the cause” has preeminence over the sovereign individual, conveniently forgetting that the highest position in the nation is not the President, or Congressperson, or SCOTUS judge but the sovereign person who all grant authority to the government to protect the natural rights and enforce the strict bans of the government from doing what now is happening. Maybe you think since you have the people in place in government, media, Hollywood, and the music industry, that you’ll get away with it. King George III thought the same. He also tried to disarm the people.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

  10. MidnightRacer says:

    Congress cannot possible pass retroactive laws (ex post facto is banned) as the above link proposes for January 2013. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by shall not language, which is all encompassing. The Second Amendment is one of ten shall not commandments against the powers of government. There are 17 enumerated powers granted to the government which serve to protect the natural rights, but some of you think those powers are to be used to remove those rights, this is the failure of the brain you actually think is progressive.

  11. inquisitivemind says:

    Let me mention a couple things: the ’94 assault weapons ban was in place for Columbine and did little to help prevent that horrible tragedy, and if I recall correctly certain guns in that era existed because they were very easy to convert from a semi auto to a full auto: any moron could do it with an instruction list 3 steps long and a little piece of scrap metal. So the free market solved the assault weapons ban in that way. Reinstated, I doubt much would change. Second, in the case of the CT shooting, the guns were purchased legally and registered by Nancy Lanza. So the issue with her son is really about how we treat the mentally ill in this country: had he built and detonated a bomb would we be talking about regulating fertilizer? The mentally ill have long been expected to participate within a society they are not capable of functioning in, and all approaches to treating them are short term, from what I can tell. Adam Lanza, the CO movie theater shooter, and the Columbine shooters are all mentally ill: and our society needs to focus on that and not their weapons of choice for acting out their insane ideas. Just one person’s opinion. Thanks.

  12. MidnightRacer says:

    All you anti-second amendment people are evil. Here is the consequence of the NY newspaper who published the names and addresses of lawful Americans who legally owned so that people like you could do something to them.

    ex-burglar #1, “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”

    ex-burglar #2, if you need a weapon, now you know where you can go to steal one

    foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burgla...e-job-easier-safer/?intcmp=trending

    • HansBrix says:

      I wouldn’t go as far as calling them all evil. Some are simply naive or seek status among their liberal peers by loudly parroting the most fashionable partisan bromides.

      However, some come close, like the jackass who wrote this “let’s give up on the Constitution” op ed piece in the NYT:

      nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html

      The faint smell of nacent facism is in the air, which should serve as a reminder as to why the 2nd amendment contains the gun references in the first place.[quote comment=”218978″]All you anti-second amendment people are evil. Here is the consequence of the NY newspaper who published the names and addresses of lawful Americans who legally owned so that people like you could do something to them.ex-burglar #1, “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”ex-burglar #2, if you need a weapon, now you know where you can go to steal one[/quote]

    • oramaVO5 says:

      How many burglars have been shot at around here lately?
      They rarely break in on surprised homeowners or tenants and when
      they do, they run. Do you bring your piece with you when you go to the bank to
      withdraw $200 in cash? And if so, perhaps an assault weapon is preferable.

      Sorry, we do have the right to bear arms but nobody needs an assault weapon.[quote comment=”218978″]All you anti-second amendment people are evil. Here is the consequence of the NY newspaper who published the names and addresses of lawful Americans who legally owned so that people like you could do something to them.ex-burglar #1, “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”ex-burglar #2, if you need a weapon, now you know where you can go to steal one[/quote]

      • MidnightRacer says:

        Your last sentence if enacted as illegal law is tyranny. Let’s break down your sentence by substituting each one of the equally inalienable (irremovable) rights. Being inalienable means each right in the Bill of Rights are the same, untouchable.

        Here’s your last sentence, in brackets are equal natural rights:

        oramaVO5 wrote,
        Sorry, we do have the right to bear arms but nobody needs an assault weapon [so let’s ban it].

        Sorry, we do have the right to [freedom of religion] but nobody needs [Christianity, so let’s ].

        Sorry, we do have the right to [free speech] but nobody needs [it against a President].

        Sorry, we do have the right to [life, liberty and happiness] but nobody needs [to have all of those if the government says otherwise since government is the best thing that ever happened after I was kicked out of my childhood home at 18 by biological entities with legal claims to my conception, and all you mf’ers who thinks government is bad are all a bunch of selfish party-poopers who don’t know a good thing when you see it, how can you argue against a group of people who know better than you and should force you to do something since it’s good for you, huh?].

        The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reminds government in clear language the following:

        “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”[quote comment=”218988″]How many burglars have been shot at around here lately? They rarely break in on surprised homeowners or tenants and when they do, they run. Do you bring your piece with you when you go to the bank to withdraw $200 in cash? And if so, perhaps an assault weapon is preferable.Sorry, we do have the right to bear arms but nobody needs an assault weapon.[/quote]

  13. MidnightRacer says:

    Pravda shares history of arms in Russia and confiscation thereafter… english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnist...28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

    and remember how many millions were killed in the takeover between Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc

  14. john14 says:

    Hmmm. Obama going to announce executive orders to change the 2nd amendment tomorrow? Can it be that very act actually violates his oath of office to uphold the constitution?

    • MidnightRacer says:

      The office of the U.S. President had a requirement that no other high office had; no possibility of foreign influence, no possibility of being foreign subject through a non-citizen parent at time of birth. The reason was that the writers new that like the Old World, the Congress could become corrupt, same for all Court and rest of government, but the President could stop all that to protect the Constitution, which under the Supremacy Clause is the highest law which if violated, constitutes a high crime. In the Oath of Office, the President has the highest and most burdensome contract (yes, oath of office is a binding contract).

      U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

      shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      The federal government in history has tried to stop this by passing the Alien and Sedition Acts to imprison those who practiced their free speech natural right (First Amendment bans government from infringement). The only thing they fear now is the Second Amendment which is the enforcement of the DoI when it says the following:

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

      So when the President violates, or even issues executive order to infringe against the Constitution, no degree of DoJ argument of executive powers can make an excuse for committing a high crime. You have regular citizens who believe we have a democracy, in which 51% can legislate whatever they want without limitations (autocracy). They either know better, or their brains are so corrupt that they create a fantasy to justify the irrational.[quote comment=”219102″]Hmmm. Obama going to announce executive orders to change the 2nd amendment tomorrow? Can it be that very act actually violates his oath of office to uphold the constitution?[/quote]

  15. OpenEyes says:

    Chicago the city with about the most strict restrictions on firearms/ self defense for law abiding people, suffer from an incredible high murder rate. Criminals are still always well armed.

    Gun-free schools zones have not helped but instead made things worse, like the abject failure of The War on Alcohol, better known as Prohibition.

    School shootings before ban 2
    after Gun Free Zone 22

    Lets instead look at mental health issues- we have no place to put people with severe problems – lets address this.

    Parents stop letting your children play violent video games all day .
    Why did Lanza mom let her son play video games and not require he do something positive with his life – work , go to school
    there is an old saying ” Idleness is the devil’s workshop?

  16. MidnightRacer says:

    breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/0...rivilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

    There’s actually a memo relating to using F&F for what’s happening now, but when it was botched, they went to plan B.

Leave a Reply