New Assault Weapons Ban in Congress, again...

edited November 9 in General
Feinstein and her cohorts have introduced another assault weapons ban, following the language of the '94 ban. Using fear as a weapon, they are working to remove our rights and our liberties from us, all while saying they want to keep us safe as they are government, but they fail to see or accept that it is the government that failed so horribly in this last mass shooting. Or rather, many of them have admitted that the laws we already have on the books should have stopped the most recent killings had the government done their job right the first, oh I don't know, 7 or 8 times with the murderer. He was tried and imprisoned for beating his infant/toddler step son so violently he cracked his skull, and assaulted his wife just as viciously, and according to the charges, with enough force to have been considered attempted murder. For this he got one year in jail and a bad conduct discharge.

You're kidding me, right?

Most of us here hate the government creating BS laws, but this is one that matters to us. When a person intentionally commits violence for the sake of violence, we want them punished appropriately. When a man strikes a man, and its a "fair fight" we see a day or two in jail and a fine as reasonable, or at least I do, but there are other acceptable punishments/recompense that don't include incarceration or even the legal system. When a man strikes a man in a sucker punch or other manner to have a significant and unfair advantage and they do it for no reason other than to commit violence, lock their ass up for a long time, make them work to pay the taxpayers back for being a burden, and were all good with it. Woman vs Woman, same basic standards, Woman vs Man, still the same standards, despite the feminists demanding equality until this point then wanting any man who even defends himself seen as the aggressor no matter what, but I digress... Most of us here are semi old school in our belief that some people deserve a little more protection at least in some circumstances, especially when it comes to violence against them. Which brings me to children. Any grown man that intentionally, or in many circumstances intentionally negligently harms children, but most especially infants, toddlers and preteens, the way he did deserves decades of incarceration, if not death. He got one year and a discharge that some guys get for having an NCO say "no rank" and then deciding after getting his butt whooped that rank mattered the whole time. But still, He should have been restricted from firearm purchases had the government done its job despite failing in sentencing him to a harsher and longer incarceration.

The laws we have already should have worked but the government failed to do what it was legally bound to do. Not only did they fail, but a man who is essentially nothing in the world outside of his friends and family before that morning, just a "Joe Plumber" from Texas, is the reason it didn't get any worse and became something much more to many. Its coming out that the shooter had more firearms in the car, and it is reasonably believed that he was going for another firearm to go back to finish the slaughter he started when Stephen Wileford shot the murderer. As the murderer ran, he knew that Mr Wileford wasn't going to let him get away, so he called his dad and said he wasn't going to make it, good bye. That piece of trash got to say goodbye to his family, meanwhile hundreds of people in that community never got to because they were murderer or their loved ones were murdered. But that Good Samaritan had help that morning, Johnnie Langendorff was driving by and saw the commotion, and stopped, had a rapid discussion with Mr Wilendorf, and helped him chase and stop the murderer. Two men did what liberals scream only the government should be able to do. How much worse would it have been had those two men not done anything? I'm glad we can only speculate on that and don't have real concrete answers.

Mr's Wileford and Langendorff did what Americans are supposed to do, they responded and helped their fellow man. They did what so many believe only the government should do. But what those people fail to realize, we are the government. Yes, we have representatives, but they are supposed to represent us, not seek power over us and gain an advantage because of their position, which FAR too many do. How do they have multi million dollar mansions and fly all over the US when they make less than $200,000 a year? How do so many go from so so wealthy to millionaires while in office? Titles of Nobility are prohibited by the Constitution, yet they wield "Congressperson" just as crookedly as the nobles that inspired the nobility ban in the Constitution. We are all sovereign here in the US, accountable to no man or woman, but beholden to Constitutional, reasonable, and just laws. The government isn't corrupt, its the people in government, but most especially those who make the laws in a way that really only they can benefit from. They do not worry about repercussions because for some reason we just don't hold reprehensible and powerful people accountable for reprehensible acts. That's one thing the French got right during their revolution. I don't think we need to go as far as they did across the board, but there are some serious accusations that are ignored because the accused are members of Congress or other high ranking government person.

We The People means more than far too many give it credit for. We are the ones responsible for our selves, family, neighbors, greater community, city, county, state, and nation. We are supposed to be the ones that do many of the things the government does. We should do it, instead of or in concert with them. With the government wanting to restrict our ability to own firearms, I get worried. They say we should arm other nations people who try to revolt against their tyrannical government, but fail to admit that its likely that the revolting populace and assistance wouldn't be necessary had the populace been able to be armed the whole time to begin with. They say that our governemtn would never be tyrannical, but probably thought the same things about the government we are now fighting at one point or another in history. Then they say "we are the government, we have planes and tanks, what will your AR's do against that?" When a government official says that, to me it means we need our weapons all the more, because they already think they have an advantage and are bullying us into caving to them. They also fail to admit that we, the US and our amazing military, have been given a VERY hard time by guerilla warfare all over the world. We are too conventional and the government doesn't want our troops to be unconventional, or dangerous in reality, just in "looks". AN armed populace can do some serious damage to a tyrannical or attacking conventional military, its proven time and time again.


cont.

Comments

  • Since We the People are the last line of defense in so many ways in the US, defense against attack, against criminals, against tyranny, we should never be manipulated into giving up our firearms. I know that statement is preaching to the choir on this site, but I also know that we have many guests and unconfirmed members that haven't expressed an opinion here, and may have differing thoughts. We have "reasonable gun control" already. Beyond reasonable in some circumstances, but those measures fail because the government fails to do what it is supposed to do, what it writes laws to make us do, but they don't. We have laws against murder, but murders still happen. We have laws against theft, but theft still happens. We do not need laws to prevent crime by restricting law abiding citizens and lawful US residents and visitors. We have to beg at the pharmacy for the good cough and cold medicine, all for the theory that it will be harder for meth heads to get the ingredients to make more meth illegally. Meth is STILL prevalent all over, and still made in garages, bathrooms, kitchens, and even soda bottles all over America, but I cant get cold medicine at 2am anymore because someone might make meth. I cant get more than one box in some states in a certain time period because of meth heads. But, if I wanted to be a criminal and a brain melted addict, I could probably find meth or any other illegal drug 24-7. I know I could in my home town. Heck, even the police knew who dealt drugs there, and caught them repeatedly, and they were right back out on the streets, but God forbid I try to buy two boxes of ephedrine based expectorant, the police would show up faster than flies on a fresh dog turd.

    See how much sense gun control makes? Lets make it a bit clearer. 320 MILLION people in the US, and 100+ million legal firearm owners(that's the low estimate), so 33% of the population owns firearms, yet 0.0004%(rounded UP) of the population uses firearms to commit murder, and its still less than 0.001% (admittedly this varies based on where you get the info from, and I averaged several sources) of the population that uses firearms to commit a crime. most of those firearms are illegally owned to begin with, so what does adding more laws or taking away law abiding citizens firearms accomplish? Another little thing to remember, gun ownership has been going up, but violent crime and murder specifically have gone down, both since the late 90's. Something that HAS been increasing is the use of anti depressants that have "homicidal and suicidal thoughts or actions" as MAIN side effects. Most of the mass murders have been committed by people on those drugs at the time or recently quit them. Quitting them INCREASES the homicidal and suicidal thoughts when it comes to most of those drugs. We need to pay attention to that, but at the same time, not restrict those who do get better from getting their firearms back after they get the help they need, but some probably don't seek for fear of losing more than just their gun rights.

    America has a problem. Its not a gun problem. Its not a drug problem. Its a heart problem. Its a forgiveness problem after someone seeks help and gets better.

    If we do more to love our neighbor and forgive when they didn't do anything at all, but have a thought but don't force it on you or they sought help depending on the thought, we will have a better America. Differences make us stronger, but they are used to divide us right now. Don't let us be divided by our differences when they are the very things that could make us strong. We don''t have to like the differences or cow tow to them, but we shouldn't belittle those that are different, if for no other reason than we are all different from each other despite our similarities. When we accomplish that, we will band together more often than split apart and fear when times of trouble come along. When we band together more often than split, these heinous crimes will occur less often, and we will be stronger together when they do. Its human nature that this will happen again because there is evil in the world, but we don't have to let evil win, especially our of fear of it happening again.
  • edited November 9
    so does this mean the party is about to start?

    that guy is elequent though........he brought up the point of people who do this fruit loop shit being on brain ccandy, which no one else talks about
  • I thought this just got shut down a couple weeks ago? They drew it all up after the LV shooting along with the bump stock crap and congress wouldnt even hear it.
  • Very well spoken! Bravo!
  • edited November 9
    Yeah when someone says that the government has all of the big toys and what will a pea shooter do against them , I like to respond " Well they can't protect all of their family and business partners all the time......"
    Yeah that gets me THE "look" every time . :D
  • well you make a valid point...
  • You can only last as long as those two five gallon cans of water do buttoned up in a tank. You can only keep that aircraft flying as long as it's fuel tanks have no holes. And let's not forget mr. "I got tanks n planes.", Reserve components, Guard components, Marine Corps, Air Force, Army, Navy, and Coast Guard combined only has a total of right at 1,000,000 personnel, COMBINED. How many privately owned firearms in this nation, and how many folks have you shit on? May want to do some more homework there Mr. I'M a bad ass politician. ;)
  • I dunno guys, I got a good feeling about this one, I mean the other 20,000 gun laws in the nation are ineffective but THIS one is ALOT different!!!! Hahaha
  • Well said.
  • Yeah when someone says that the government has all of the big toys and what will a pea shooter do against them

    I just tell 'em that they are absolutely right...

    And that's why 2 Super Powers kicked Afghanistan's ass sooo quickly.


  • BadDay wrote: »
    Yeah when someone says that the government has all of the big toys and what will a pea shooter do against them

    I just tell 'em that they are absolutely right...

    And that's why 2 Super Powers kicked Afghanistan's ass sooo quickly.


    And if you pull back the wool they have over their eyes you would see the dazed and confused look they have after hearing that example. Hahaha!
Sign In or Register to comment.