“Inspired by our dialogue with Pope Francis, let all Americans engage in a politics that forges cooperation and sees the passage of just legislation that may bring us closer to grace.” That’s civilian disarmament evangelist Gabby Giffords declaration in an “Americans for Responsible Solutions” epistle to her flock. As for the self-serving graphic posted on the ARS (good acronym!) Facebook page, a better question might be “Why would anyone oppose effectively defending against those who plan to inflict untold suffering?” Keep in mind that . . .
the concept of “grace” has meaning in the Church. That someone not of the faith presumes to appropriate it for political opportunism seems a fraudulent act of rendering unto Caesar more than his due. It should also sound alarms for Americans who believe in a separation of church and state.
The whole point of having our government is the first place is articulated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Attaining “grace” is not within its scope, and thus remains outside the realm of delegated powers. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment confirms.
Gabby doesn’t get to redefine defenselessness as a state of grace, although what she advocates may bring us closer to finding out for ourselves what happens when we die.
Whenever religious conservatives broach theological concepts in government-occupied settings, many are quick to loudly complain, some by reminding everyone of Jefferson’s (misapplied) “wall of separation,” some by leveling “Taliban” accusations, and some with lawsuits and even arrests. If for no other reason than maintaining logical consistency, those who object also ought to decry faith-based “gun control” justifications.
In fact, in typical “progressive” Opposite Day fashion, the reverse is true. We’re dealing with insincere hypocrites and liars who will do and say anything to impose the forced disarmament of all “infidels.” Still, if Giffords hoped to garner support for a “monopoly of violence,” she dropped the right guy’s name.
Just to be clear, this is the same Pope Francis who is protected by several hundred heavily armed, elite Swiss Guard, and not some other Pope Francis, right?
Actually, the man is known for going into slums to help the poor in Argentina. While I may not agree with him, he does practice what he preaches. They say he causes problems for security because he just does whatever he wants. I don’t think he is the one who asked for armed protection.
But he gladly accepts it. Does he not have the option to disband the vatican guard? Does he not have the option to drive in anything other than a bullet proof bubble surrounded by guys with mp-7’s? Look this is supposed to be the guy that communicates with the “all mighty” and he can’t have the decision to not be guarded? Color me confused.
The official position of the Catholic Church is actually very pro self-defense:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part three, Section Two, Chapter two, Article 5: (2264-22655) “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow”
“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility”
I know I’ve said it before, but this line is misunderstood by both the ‘phobes and by us. You look at the whole statement and it’s pretty clear he is talking about supplying arms to those that would harm their populace – the Mexicans, for example – or other innocents – the many gangs in the US and around the world.
He isn’t talking about selling guns to those who seek to protect life, who seek peaceful society. It’s a point we should agree on, but both sides are choosing to make a dividing line.
Correct, Katy. And, that’s the spin we ought to put on the Pope’s remarks. He was addressing – for example – the US Government’s licenses to export guns to the Mexican government. He neglected to address the impact of US export laws that infringe on sales of guns to the Autodefensas who need them to defend their families from the Cartels and the government.
Such a critique of the Pope’s remarks serve to plant the seed of skepticism in the idea of gun-control without seeming to make a head-on attack of the Pope (whom our audience likely admires.)
Plagiarized from the Armed Lutheran:
“Now, if you interpret this as a criticism of the selling of military arms to rogue regimes or terror groups, I’m in agreement. The problem is, that’s not what Francis is talking about. He’s preaching in the United States, not to North Korea or Iran, or Russia. He didn’t say this stuff to Fidel Castro last week, whose regime has funded leftist terrorism throughout the hemisphere for half a century. No, he said it here in America, so we know what he’s really talking about: the civilian firearms industry.”
Curse the WordPress commenting system.
I must disagree with the Armed Lutheran. What was said to Fidel and the Cubans is neither here nor there with what was said here. Paul did not preach the same message in each of his epistles – he taught what each needed to be taught – he only taught the same gospel.
The United States has a long history of arms dealing, both as a nation and though private corporations. In both instances, we need to look at what is being done with our weapons – are they being turned on civilians, are they being passed along to gangs and paramilitary forces who oppress the populace, are they being used to defend innocents? If we cannot say with a surety that they are not knowingly being used to harm life, we have a moral obligation to improve our screening and place life before the idols we call dollars and power.
In my mind, that moral compass, used in good faith, is the one form of gun control I can get behind (which ironically is likely the one form of gun control the ‘phobes wouldn’t support).
Until recently, I held somewhat the same view; i.e., that morality is to be found in taking “reasonable” measures to tip the playing field against the bad-guys; hoping thereby, to tip it in favor of the good-guys.
However, my free-market and libertarian foundation got the best of me. It dawned on me that the US:
– licenses small arms exports to the Mexican government for its military and police;
from Mexican government arsenals, many of these guns leak to the population – demographics unknown.
– actively supports small arms exports to Mexican cartel(s) (e.g., Sinaloa) via Fast & Furious;
– prohibits small-time trafficking in arms by aliens and citizens intending to export to Mexicans – demographics unknown;
– permits an alien – lawfully in the US whether or not as an resident – to buy, carry and use arms.
How is all of this working out for Y’all? Just exactly what principle are our Federal laws upholding?
The only actual effect I can see here is that:
The Right of the Mexican People to acquire arms – at competitive prices – for self-defense against their criminal government and cartels is actively infringed.
The Power of the Mexican government and criminal cartels is being actively and eagerly supported.
We must be aware of the hubris of imagining that every law that strikes our fancy has a net effect for good rather than harm. It might just be the reverse.
(Bear in mind that there is no shortage of black-market guns in Mexico. They simply bear a price-premium due to the constraints imposed by Mexican and US contraband laws. Also, bear in mind, that the Mexican constitution guarantees the right to KEEP arms, but not the right to BEAR them. There is little to no taboo in Mexican society about keeping arms albeit there is some about bearing arms in metropolitan areas.)
Actually, the man is known for going into slums to help the poor in Argentina. …and it is his Sandinista Catholic Liberation Theology that created the slums in the first place.
This
Wow! what disconnected undeniable absence of knowledge or understanding of history you display.
Do you actually know the history of the Roman Church??? It is the Great Harlot. The Roman Church denounces the Law while Jesus tell us o observe the law. Not the perversion of the Pharisees but Law that Jesus tells us to observe. Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus words. Do you believe the words someone disconnected from circumstance and actual knowledge of the time of Jesus or Jesus actual words????
The Doctrine of the Roman Church perverted the Law as Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Does this pope let in the illegal aliens into the Vatican that he preaches we should do??? Hell no! He is the epitome of “Elite”. Read about the like of his kind and the perversions of the Roman Church and the hundreds of thousands that they killed in the name of God.
Do you really think that his tiny mind perverted with a false doctrine can conceive of what is just? Remember Jesus said that Satan appears as an angle of light. So the light dazzles your eyes. Lets hope that you sense of truth and your discernment is a bit more on point. Check Revelations and see that the city that sits on seven hills is Rome and is the one that is fallen. It is the fall of ancient Rome that John spoke of in Revelations. It happened and has risen the second time. Of course he, the pope, supports the Beast, the kingdom or government, See Daniel.
If you cannot see the truth of what is, it is because you choose not to see the truth. There are none so blind as those who will not see….. the key phrase is “those who will not see”…. The key word is “will”. Are you so beguiled that you cannot see? Is your limited sight he cause for your mindless devotion to some perverted position in the social structure???
God is not a respecter of persons, one’s social status. God respects the fullness of the heart and truth. If this jackass is so much a proponent of the poor, why doesn’t he see what he has and give it to the poor. Such was the direction of Jesus to the young man who claimed he wanted to follow the Lord. But of course the pontiff said that Jesus failed on the cross.
What an arrogant, narcissistic, self indulged piece of filth. He and Obama appear to be on equal footing.
Hey toker,
Jesus said, Peter you are my rock, and upon my rick I will build my church. Peter went to Rome and therefrom the Holy Roman Catholic Church was raised. That, and GOD’s immeasurable Divine Providence, is why there IS a Church, because if Rome didn’t go Christian, they would still be hunting you. If the Vhurch has its problems it’s because it is comprised of people. Some of those people are as bent as you, but for now, you can cram it.
I was raised a Protestant; accordingly, I do not adhere to Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, I’m married to a Roman Catholic. I very quickly learned that there was no percentage in making any blanket criticism of either the Pope or his Church.
Some actual or potential PotG are Roman Catholics. Others are not Catholic but nevertheless have respect for the office of the Pope. Such remarks as yours serve only to drive these actual/potential advocates for the RKBA away from our cause.
Our remarks – especially from a platform of speaking as members of the PotG – ought to confine themselves narrowly to those criticisms the Pope or Church have made to weapons or self-defense. Our objective ought to be to provoke critical thought about the substance or consequence of the Pope’s remarks about guns.
Raising any other issue – no matter how valid – merely deflects attention to the one we ought to be emphasizing here.
I love Jesus, but it takes a whole, whole lot to get me offended over my faith. But this:
“the passage of just legislation that may bring us closer to grace.” That definitely does it. The very idea that a (thankfully )former congresswoman would espouse “legislation that may bring us closer to grace” is grossly offensive.
I’m not religious at all, and even I found it grossly offensive.
It’s just wrong on so many levels. She clearly has no understanding of the concept of grace, but even so, the notion that somehow we can pass a law that makes us more holy or “closer to grace” smacks of a dark and ugly Orwellian state-as-all-faith nightmare. Rarely does anyone say something to disgust me like this does.
Throughout the Bible, we are told to be prepared to protect ourselves and others from evil. One of my favorites:
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
How are we to do that if we are on uneven ground, unarmed against the armed wicked? Being unarmed does not bring us closer to grace. Protecting and cherishing the life God bestowed us is more likely to bring us closer to that grace than being helpless. So I’ll walk with my gun at hand, ready to stand against evil. Standing idly by makes us just as guilty as those that commit the evil.
She is a partially brain dead. She is in an incapacitation due to her injuries. If we as citizens were to be found in her condition we would be adjudged incapacitated. So some on who is not even legally competent is making statements that cannot be valid in a court of law is taken as the Gospel….. What a an absolutely absurd concept. Even a buffoon is not so encumbered….
I am full of compassion toward Ms. Gifford. She, when complete and whole, was a friend of the Second Amendment. So now, those who would use her against a cause that she herself promoted, purport to know her dispositions, erect a lie that is in direct opposition to her pre event understanding, show themselves in direct opposition to Ms. Gifford’s intent and previous disposition. What a sorry son of a man her husband is for using her for his political agenda. What a real stand up and true perversion of justice he must be.
Gifford is a human sock puppet. She no more came up with that than that little muslim rug rat invented an “alarm clock” by stuffing the guts of a 70’s alarm clock into a briefcase. Both of them have handlers plotting thier moves, whispering in thier ears behind the mike, cutting things off that stray, or don’t advance the narrative.
If God wants the us all not to have firearms he can tap his heels together (or however he wants to jazz it up) and make them disappear from the planet in one swoop.
Until that happens no politician on either side of the spectrum should try and take a guess at what he’s thinking in any shape way or form.
Also I believe the Pope was talking international arms deals to murderous aholes in that quote.
GRACE= unmerited favor. I don’t gabby understands(ANYTHING). Thank GOD for the Protestant Reformation…
Check Gabby’s a_ _ for a hand (it won’t be God’s, HE doesn’t need ventriloquy dummies). She’s someone else’s puppet.
Check the Pope’s too, if there’s a hand there the hand should be removed and severed.
The Pope didn’t raille against Communism because they would end him, and he’s one of them. He raillef against capitalism because hey, we’re just not that threatening.
Seriously disingenuous. The Pope was clearly referring to Governments trading in arms for favor and/or influence around the world and consequently being responsible that “untold suffering”. Personally I don’t give a crap what a pope says, but I do find it offensive and objectionable when people will use a significant truth about a greater good, to advance a lie in support of a pithy personal agenda, especially one that demonstrably damages that greater good..
“Are you an ARS?”
“Why yes, yes I am…”
The more I deal with This Holiness, the more I’m inclined to turn in my beads. Kind of a wuss for a Jesuit.
One minute the anti-freedom crowd are screaming for separation of church and state, the next they trying to use the words of one or another religious leader to back their invasive beliefs. Never mind that a good chunk of christian americans don’t follow the Pope or what gold trimmed shoe crowd in Italy say.
A good chunk of “Christian” Americans don’t even know Jesus Christ. Sadly.
For one thing I do not “plan on inflicting untold suffering on individuals and society”. I don’t “plan” on it. I will if I have to though. More likely an individual than society.
Give her a break – she’s brain damaged!
Then having to deal with that someone shot her too. You have to feel for her a little.
Gabrielle Giffords is brain damaged because she was shot in the head and THAT happened because she either did not request or accept presence of LEO at an open air parking lot event! That was stupid to not think, as a politician, that someone evil or a nutcase hates your guts enough to do you harm. I reserve my sympathy for the young girl killed at that event and her grieving family, and others that were injured as well
Only thing is, G.G. is a liberal, and therefore doesn’t have much in head to damage in the first place. That is the real reason she survived and recovered – the bullet missed her liberal pea-brain!
But like Hinkley going after Reagan, the shooter was an evil POS f-d up blue house of Liberal (D) bag mf [sorry, all redundecy was required] (if you find youself in that company FU).
G.G. Was an outspoken proponent of “the wall” and against illegal POS invaders from the south.
Therefore it’s likely to have been an inside job.
In the Christian faith, grace, by definition, is something we cannot earn. It is a gift to us, bought and paid for by Jesus’ dying on the cross.
So, to suggest that there is something we can do to “bring us closer to grace” is pure blasphemy, and worse. It’s twisting the words of a beloved religious leader to further a political agenda.
No, if Pope Francis was a kumbya pope like John Paul II, and said everybody be of the one body of Christ and try to get along, I’d be right behind him. But he didn’t, (further, guns aren’t antithetical to that position). Instead he fostered and equivocated all kinds of broken sh_t. And if we’re going to play like that broken sh_t was a positive factor in the ‘peace’ existing in this world then FU and go get a gun and your reality helmet.
Too bad the irony is lost on all these lefties in their embracing a religious figure and trying to use faith to convince people to behave a certain way. The way they want.
I thought the left was all about ripping the church from the state.
Abortion, prayer, homosexuality? Die you religious anachronisms!
Climate, guns, immigration? Embrace the pope and submit to the lord!
On the plus side, maybe anti’s searching for ARS will come across Arizona Respone Systems and get a nice custom gun built instead.
I thought it was only gun owners who clung bitterly to religion?
How many times do you idiots need
to be told
Giffords is not typing these statements,
let alone posting them.
Her level of brain function is barely a
heartbeat away from being a jabbering
head of lettuce.
Only a ridiculous fool believes that she
is forming complex thoughts into articulate
sentences and paragraphs.
Please idiots, the next time she is set-up
and braced like a ventriloquist dummy
for an interview.
Pay close attention to the random ticking
and jerking of her body and limbs.
Moreover, take special note of the random
(non-verbal) clicks, yelps, shrieks and squeals
that shoot from her mouth without warning.
Without question, her performance gives
a swearing and twitching tourette kid a run
for their money.
Erm… is the Vatican not the primary shareholder in Pietro Beretta? Manufacturers of some rather nice firearms IMHO.
And not those German Tupperware guns, either, but actual metal firearms… GDR (grinning, ducking, running)
I’m beginning to understand why the space cadet has serious problems. According to the space.com article you linked:
“The astronaut, who had traveled 200 million miles above the Earth…”
That’s pretty far. Twice the distance to the sun.
That’s 200 million miles traveled *in orbit*, not each way.
What I want to know is why we American PotG are not “up in arms” about our government’s policies of WITHHOLDING the natural right of self-defense – AKA RKBA – from peoples who are NOT Americans.
I’m thinking of the victims of ISIS, whom Obama refuses to arm.
I’m thinking of the victims of the Mexican cartels, whom Obama refuses to arm.
Meanwhile, Obama does grant arms export licenses to the Mexican government which uses them to victimize its citizens.
Holder authorized ILLEGALLY facilitating unlicensed export of arms to the Sinaloa cartel which uses them to victimize Mexican citizens.
Holy Father, some of the people America WITHHOLDS arms from are Christians! Others are Muslims. Still others Yazidis. Are these peoples not His children? Is it America’s function in the world to withhold the right endowed by our Creator to some of His children?
In WW-II the NRA promoted a gun-collection to arm our English civilian brethren. When did this international spirit disappear from American values?
There is a very simple explanation for all three of your points: Progressives know this will drive more Mexican people into the U.S. which will lead to amnesty and an insurmountable voting base for all future elections.
Jesus was not against weapons, just the inappropriate use of them (like when Peter cut off the ear of the servant of one of the men who came to arrest Jesus). He knew His disciples might have to defend themselves against those who hated Him and His message, and the disciples by extension. Sort of like what Christians are facing in the USA (as well as muzzie-controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, and commie countries like North Korea and China) today. He did NOT want His followers to attack and spread the Gospel by force, though (unlike the followers of Mohammed…).
Luke 22:36 – “And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”
I’m pretty sure the statement above is out of context. It appears the pope is making a statement that arms are being sold to specific groups in specific nations who have ill intent against another group of people and he appears to be speaking out against this armed conflict. (e.g. armed genocide against an unarmed ethnicity). It doesn’t appear he is making a general statement saying guns are bad or people shouldn’t have guns to defend themselves.
I do think that if one side is already armed – it is prudent the other get armed as well as a peaceful deterrent (in lieu of a slaughter).
A more appropriate title to this post would be, ‘Mark Kelly Tells Gabby Giffords to Call for Grace-Based Gun Control.’
A more appropriate title to this post would be, ‘Buffalo Bob Tells Howdy Doody to Call for Grace-Based Gun Control.’
Let’s assume, ceteris paribus, that Ms. Giffords is actually typing or articulating these words.
A Reform Jewish person trying to use the word “grace” in the Christian, and specifically Catholic, meaning of the word is going to have the potential to offend and annoy. It isn’t that they’re trying to offend, it is that they lack the epistemological foundation to wrap their head around the term before using it. I’m reminded of the Jewish TV pundit a few years back who was ripping on a Christian for saying that the author who most influenced their Christian faith was C.S. Lewis. Lewis, for those who don’t know, was perhaps one of the most prolific and thoughtful Christian apologists of the 20th century. All the Jewish pundit knew of Lewis’ work was the Chronicles of Narnia, and this was the basis for their ridicule of said Christian. That Lewis also wrote such tomes as “The Problem of Pain” was completely unknown to said pundit.
For the sake of our Jewish readers, allow me to phrase my point another way: A Reform Jew talking about “grace” is about as incongruous as listening to a Southern Baptist expound on the subject of the Kabbalah.
That a Reform Jewish politician, ie, a member of the religious minority in the US that hectors and lectures Christians endlessly on the separation of church and state, wants to talk about “grace” and trying to enact the same in legislation… well, now we’ve entered the domain of the truly intellectually offensive. I’d say it’s on par with listening to that attention-seeking outrage trollop, Madonna, babbling about the Kabbalah.
I did not know the gabby was Jewish descent(unofficially as pops is Jewish and mom ain’t according to Wiki). Oddly I had a girlfriend years ago who told me the difference. Anyway THAT explains a LOT about gabby…”but you don’t LOOK Jewish”!)LOL
Sir, you are exactly on point. God is with your take on the subject. It is a pleasure to know one the elect. 🙂
May God always guide your feet upon the path.
Cheers,
Heyoka
if Pope Francis can prove who plans to do harm, then we should arrest them for conspiracy!
Grabby Giffords has taken that comment out of context. It is clear the pope was commenting on the arms trade, which he literally says right after that. That comment applies to governments supporting and supplying second and third world dictators and militias with arms that destabilize the region. Think Syria and the like. You don’t need to write a commentary on how the pope or Giffords have armed guards or any other attack on them, just use the full context of the comment to show the pope never said what Grabby thinks he said. You only need to point out grabby is grasping at straws and taking comments out of context as usual.
Talking seriously about the “arms trade” would require pointing a talking directly with/at Russia and China, for whom the mass export and licensing of the AK-47 has been a cheap and effective tool of foreign policy. The US has made some clumsy and stupid errors in this vein as well, but Russia’s vast sales/export network of cheap AK’s has been destabilizing third world countries and enabling the slaughter of innocents on a grand scale for 40 years now.
Ergo, it means little to nothing for the Pontiff to speechify about this issue in the US. Want to make this point where it needs to be made? Lecture Putin about it.
So how does a Howdy Doody puppet enter a state of grace?
On another level, if I buy a Beretta, do I receive an Indulgence?
If I buy a Walther, will I receive a copy of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism?
Do I have to convert to Islam to buy a Turkish shotgun?
Do I have to convert to Judaism to buy a Tavor?
I enjoy being an atheist gun owner. Most people tend to assume all gun owners are right of center and religious etc and bring up Jesus and turning the other cheek(Which I assume has nothing to do with self defense), and now recently the Pope and I love I don’t even have to argue with there false rhetoric.
You are correct. When Jesus directed us to “turn the other cheek”, he was directing us to ignore insults rather than being hotheads and escalating an event. Sounds a lot like the same advice we throw around here about staying level-headed and trying to de-escalate situations, doesn’t it?
If someone strikes your right cheek (with their right hand, since touching you with their left hand was a monetarily fineable offense) then they would be back-handing you. JESUS said “turn your other cheek” [. . . and say is that all you got you little be-otch ?!!]
Being closer to Death is not the same as “closer to Grace.”
Sorry, but this Catholic is never more graceful than when he is working a trigger and dumping a mag.
God provided the common sense that allows me to know that there are those who are fallible, and lost to the ways of God, and that it will be incumbent upon me to protect the gift of my life that God has given me from them.
I’ll pray for them in the mean time, and should we meet, I hope to be praying for their soul afterwards, should I be the one left standing. In the meantime, it is my guns, ammo, training, mindset, and will to live that helps them to choose not to meet me and those like me at all.
LAUS DEO
As inscribed upon the pyramidal atop the Washington Monument (once the highest point, and restricted as the highest point in D.C.).
So they spun and diminished what Pope Francis said in regards to arming foreign despots into an argument for domestic gun control.
Cute. Opportunistic. And grossly appropriative.
And bass ackwards priority wise.
Not that it means anything. She didn’t write it, and her org is just capitalizing on the current media trend.
The news of the week could be about Mexican ferret racing, and her staff would relate it somehow to gun control.
Giffords is a two-faced hypocrite unworthy of any respect. It appears she has experienced a full recovery.
Isn’t it convenient how she can swing to a far-right religious position to meet an agenda then back left at a moments notice.
I will pray to Saint Gabriel Possenti, Savior of Isola, for guidance and better aim.
http://www.gunsaint.com/history.asp
Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.
There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence. Because of the winey few we are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit. mrpresident2016.com
Meh…just another example of whateverittakes.
Bump that. I am all for socialist city states banning firearms, it has worked so well so far. Actually, containing them would be my main concern. I suppose “grace based” gun control might work with religious minded criminals. Firearms are not using killers, killers are using firearms. Ban firearms, comply, and you will have a good chance of becoming a dead law-abiding citizen. Full disclosure: After I left the badlands in 1965, only a few people ever even acted like they intended to kill me. I had a .38 spl. revolver on me those times, my intent was not to let anybody kill me, not without a fight.
“I am all for socialist city states banning firearms, it has worked so well so far. Actually, containing them would be my main concern.”
I’ve had a similar thought. The Won’t-Issue States will eventually attract migrating criminals who decide to leave the Right-to-Carry States. (John Lott confirms that his studies revealed a shift of crime rates from counties that went Right-to-Carry soon after adoption to adjacent counties in States that didn’t yet go Right-to-Carry.
Unfortunately, this migration of criminals would take place very slowly.
Your remarks inspire me to entertain a heretical thought:
Suppose we add to our rhetoric the suggestion that cities be allowed by their States to PROHIBIT carry while villages and towns in rural areas are left free to ALLOW carry.
(HOLD YOUR FIRE; I’m NOT serious about promoting any such legislation and I don’t think that legislatures would consider it. It’s a thought-provoking tactic that is unlikely to go beyond rhetoric.)
For example, NYState has a fairly liberal May-Issue law while NYCity remains Won’t-Issue. Why not? Allow the peace-loving up-Staters to carry and drive their criminal population to NYC.
Philadelphia – the City of Peace – licenses it’s law-abiding citizens, its criminals move to Camden NJ
Camden NJ – the violence capital of NJ – might license its last remaining citizens, its criminals move to Trenton NJ
An so forth. You can make the same line of reasoning with Virginia vs. Maryland, rural areas of Maryland and Baltimore.
The listener – who begins to pay attention because you seem to be making an argument for Municipal-Rights; local control; whatever my neighbors and I agree on ought to prevail here. And then it begins to dawn on them that the migration effect will concentrate the illegally-armed criminals in the precincts of the UN-armed victims.
Once the listener begins to think about this effect she will realize that local control isn’t necessarily the solution to her hoplophobia. Nor, for that matter, is States-Rights a satisfactory barrier. As Right-to-Carry States build their populations of carriers, their criminals will have good reason to migrate to the 10 remaining Won’t-Issue States.
Resistance is futile; you WILL be ASSIMILATED! The civil-Right to Bear Arms is not, justifiably, the “peculiar institution” of the South. A House-Divided can not stand.
I feel sorry that Gabby got shot. But to blame the inanimate object and not the psycho that shot her, is in itself pretty crazy. We don’t need gun control, we need crazy control.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
TRANSLATION of 18th Century English:
“Congress shall not make a Law recognizing any Religion as the Official Religion of the United States, or deny the People the right to practice their Religion,”
Simply put, the Government BUTTS OUT.
So all you anti-religion types, stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Savvy ideas ! Apropos , if someone was looking for a Acord 25 , my wife filled a sample form here
https://goo.gl/BTx4yCComments are closed.