Because Lois Romano just shit hers. I found yet another interesting story via Snowflakes in Hell that amounts to normal pants shitting hysteria by an anti-gunner. I don’t know where to begin with this one so I’ll do the logical thing and start with the top. She starts of talking about Governor Corzine signing New Jersey’s one gun a month strangling bill. That’s probably the only fact in the entire article, the rest is emotional nonsense. Let us being:
f the New Jersey government was thinking of the good of the citizens of New Jersey and our federal lawmakers were thinking of the good of the citizens of our entire nation, they would be working day and night to see how to get rid of the guns in our country instead of allowing more to be on our streets.
So she is stating we should get rid of all guns in this country. Of course the Constitution doesn’t allow for that and cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. that have strict gun bans aren’t free of shootings or even remotely close to it. In fact ask England how their gun ban is working out (Hint, if you read this blog you know it’s not). Next up:
The Second Amendment to our Constitution was signed into law on Dec. 15, 1791. I’m sure those signers are turning over in their graves as to how our government has allowed this amendment to be interpreted.
The Second Amendment was written as follows: “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’m sighing and shaking my head again. Yet another dumb ass that is trying to use the militia argument. I’m not going into this again, as I’ve explained it a couple of times. Are your pants full of shit yet? Well if not she has more scare tactics:
I cannot see how these words mean that there should be “gun shows” where anyone can buy an Uzi, a missile launcher or any other weapon that our military uses. Why has our government allowed so many guns to be in our country? There were over 9,000 murders by shootings in our country last year. In England and other countries in Europe the number of murders by shooting in all these countries totaled less than 50.
OK stop the boat, where the Hell can I find a gun show that has missile launchers for sale? I’ve seen expended missile tubes before but those are from fire once and throw away weapon systems. Hence the tubes are useless beyond a collector’s item. Hell I want to see any gun show that offers any weapon our military uses beyond the M9 pistol. You can’t buy modern machine guns even if you go through the ATF bull shit and I don’t think our military uses anything that was produced before 1986 anymore. And possession of such a weapon without the tax stamp is a felony and hence illegal already.
And yes according to England’s own study the number of murder involving firearms was 38:
Firearm offences can be broken down by injury and this shows there were 38 firearm offences
recorded by the police that resulted in a fatal injury (i.e. homicides) in 2008/09, 15 offences
fewer than in 2007/08.
That does look good on paper. In fact it makes it appear as though gun control works as England has an almost complete ban on guns. Oh wait let us look at the overall violent crime rate in England. What’s that it’s two times that of the United State’s? In addition to that the study that was just linked to shows there is absolutely no correlation between less guns and less violent crime, in fact the opposite appears be to true:
It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world’s highest violent crime rate — twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen’s handguns, a 2002 report of England’s National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while “Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, [i]t appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so.”
So although the number of murders involving guns has went down in England after their gun ban violent crime as a whole increase. This may have something to do with the fact criminals feel safer going after prey that is unarmed. Let’s continue with the pants shitting hysteria:
We are not living in the days of lawlessness. We have police departments in every town and city in our country. We have federal law enforcement officers. We have the National Guard in case of civil riots. We do not need to have every citizen carrying a gun. Some states even allow people to walk around with their loaded guns.
When seconds count the police are minutes away. It takes much less time for a thug to murder you then it does for the police to figure out where you are and get to your location. Maybe if the police had personal teleportation devices that wouldn’t be the case but sad to say they don’t. Hence for those minutes it takes them to get there you are on your own. If I’m my own against a criminal I want something to at least equalize the struggle, that’s exactly what a gun does.
I like her mention that some states allow citizens to carry around loaded guns. In fact 48 states do with Wisconsin and Illinois being the only two hold outs (Although Wisconsin legally allows open carry). If gun crime had increased after passing carry laws I promise you the laws would have been repealed, but that’s not the case. In fact most states notice a drop in crime rate after passing carry laws. And so it continues:
There are about 35 adults living on my street. If we each purchase a gun a month, in one year there will be at least 420 guns on my street. This will never happen because we are all law-abiding, sane people and trust our police department to maintain law and order in our little town. On the other hand, there are those who will be happy to be able to gather this number of guns by legal means or not.
I’m glad you trust your police department. I trust mine as well. I trust them to show up after the crime has been committed and try to figure out who did it and where they went. That is their job after all, to dispense justice after a crime has been committed. Also what does it matter if you own 10, 20, or even 1,000 guns? You can use at most two (A pistol in each hand, which is dreadfully useless) at one time and there is a limit to the number you can carry on your person.
And she mentions people will gather these guns by legal means or not. Well I have to say I’ve got bad news for you, if somebody is currently willing to get guns illegally making guns illegal won’t stop them. Ask England. Since England has an almost complete ban on guns there should be no crimes involving guns correct? Too bad that’s not the case. Luckily we’re almost at the end, because the smell of shit is really starting to stink here:
It doesn’t matter if these stores check out the credentials of the prospective buyer. We all know that the number of forged credentials probably outnumber the legitimate number of credentials in our country.
I’d like to know where you came up with that. According to the FBI in 2008 12,709,023 background checks were performed. In order for what Lois said to be true at least 6,354,512 of those credentials would have to be forged. She is saying that the most likely event is over 6 million credentials were forged in 2008 by gun buyers. If there were the case you would think the FBI would stumble upon that and investigate. Having over 50% of their NICS checks end up being done through forged identities would indicate a MASSIVE organized crime effort. I’d really like her to produce a source that gave her the opinion she has. Anyways we have one last paragraph that she wrote:
So now I probably will be getting calls from NRA members telling me that guns don’t kill people. My answer to them is, “People kill people using guns!”
Oh my God, people kill people using guns! Guess what people kill people using knives, cars, poison, lamps, sticks, stones, weed whackers, water, stairs, and almost anything else that exists. Her implication with that saying is since people kill people with guns then we must ban guns. Likewise that means she wants to ban everything people can use to kill other people. Well she better cut off her arms and legs then sew her mouth shut (Actually it would be nice if she did) since all of those can be used to kill people as well.
Yet another emotional anti-gun debate that doesn’t hold up once facts are injected into the claims. Too bad and so sad, thank you for play.