by Nicki Fellenzer
In the wake of a deadly shooting in Wisconsin that claimed the lives of six hunters, the gun grabbers have begun their ritual dance in the blood of innocents and “Ban Assault Weapons” chant. Like a band of savage troglodytes, they worship at the altar of tragedy as a means of pushing their odious agenda, while the gun rights advocates scurry to defend what’s left of the Second Amendment.
“This tragedy demonstrates,” shrieked Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, “the urgent need for an effective federal ban on military style assault weapons.”
Well Good Googly Moogly, Myrtle! All we needed was an effective ban on one of the most commonly used hunting rifles in the country, and this whole tragedy could have been avoided! Why didn’t we think of this before? Heck! We know that the old “assault” weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime - even the CDC says so! We know that gun bans in the UK and Washington, DC did nothing but increase crime and render victims helpless. We know the old “assault” weapons ban did not prevent two distorted losers from shooting up their school in Littleton, Colorado. But all THOSE bans just really sucked! What we need is a new, improved ban. Because we all know that a criminal who is willing to take a human life will have oodles of respect for a new law barring them from the tools to accomplish that odious goal.
Forgive my sarcasm, but gun grabbers say the damnedest things! Consider this little gem from the same press release I cited above.
“SKS military style, semi-automatic assault rifles, like the one used in [that] tragic shooting, are the most common assault rifles used to kill law enforcement offices in the United States, according to the Violence Policy Center, a Washington, D.C. based think tank.”
Funny the VPC (the gun banners’ version of the National Enquirer) should make this misleading claim, which actually leads an uninformed reader to believe that SKS rifles are the scourge of police departments everywhere, because it has been thoroughly debunked first by the FBI, whose LEOKA statistics indicate that about 1 percent of police officers were killed using “assault” weapons, and by Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance of Trenton NJ, who in a testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, 1993 asserted "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes; they are not used against police officers."
Deputy Chief Constance continues, “Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Now granted, these statistics are a bit dated. But consider also this fact: This testimony was presented prior to the enactment of the Clinton gun ban. If there was any increase at all in the number of officers killed by so-called “assault” rifles, this would provide further proof about the ineffectiveness of the ban. But there has not been any significant increase in the killings of police officers. Rather, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the trend varies from year to year, regardless of the ban.
The Brady Center, of course, jumped on the bloody bandwagon with its own press release, detailing every horror story its drooling Neanderthal staffers could unearth that involved scary guns.
“Since President Bush and Congress did nothing to renew the assault weapons ban,” Brady crows in a recent press release, “America's neighborhoods are seeing the inevitable results:
* A band of Texas thugs has battled police and been captured on video that became "must-see TV."
* An Arizona man's plot to slaughter workers with an assault weapon at an Intel plant was thwarted.
* In West Palm Beach, Florida, police are investigating a series of eight murders, most committed with an apparent assault weapon.”
OK, Sarah, I gotta ask. What the living, breathing, breeding heck is an “apparent” assault weapon? The first article refers to an automatic weapon - that is to say, a machine gun. It states, “The robbers saw that, thought they were being followed by that officer and began to fire on the vehicle with automatic AK-47 style weapons..." Now, Sarah -- are you, or are you not aware that fully automatic weapons remain illegal for civilians to own without special clearance by the United States Department of Justice. Are you or are you not aware that these weapons were not even addressed in the “Assault” Weapons Ban you worship? Ergo, to use this story as proof of the need for renewal of this worthless ban is misleading at best, and a downright attempt to frighten the public into submission to your anti-freedom whims.
The Arizona story, David Dugan apparently did purchase an AK-47 from an Arizona store. However, according to the manager of Bear Arms, “... the store does the required background check when it sells guns and does not release a weapon until the FBI has given its approval.” And Dugan was stopped and arrested. The good news is that no actual carnage was committed. Or maybe it’s bad news for you, Sarah, since this piece’s value as a weapon in your war on freedom has been severely limited by the prevention of bloodshed.
What about the Florida story? The nearly 15 stories I perused on the subject mention an “assault rifle,” but give no other clue to what kind of weapon this actually is, whether it is correctly classified as an “assault rifle” or whether it was previously outlawed under the 1994 “Assault” Weapons Ban. Ergo, unless Sarah knows something I don’t, the use of this story to promote the ban is premature at this point.
But hey, don’t let facts stand in your way, Sarah!
I recently got involved in a gun rights debate with a somewhat paranoid Canadian, who attempted to dazzle me with histrionics and overwhelm me with vast amounts of BE (Bovine Excrement).
“Somebody has a gun in his house for ‘protection.’ If a crook breaks in, the gun and bullets are easily accessible. So now, the victim can enjoy the feeling of killing another human (to prove that we are still in the animal stage of evolution.)” -- Spoken like a true sociopath projecting his deep-seated desires onto others. The taking of a human life is never to be taken lightly. Anyone who has read my essay entitled “Who Would Do Such a Thing?” would realize how thoroughly a decent human being can be affected by what he is forced to do. For one man - a pilot who had to kill a teenage monster who was holding a plane full of people hostage - it was a traumatic, life-altering event.
...What kind of man would shoot a teenager – an obviously troubled youth barely older than his own son?
Bill Bonnell was so deeply affected by this tragedy, he never fired that gun again. He was an expert marksman, but he never again picked up a firearm. The overwhelming decision he had to make that day saved lives, but had a profound effect on his own emotional well-being.
Bill Bonnell was the only pilot available to make the scheduled flight that day, so even though he was obviously shaken by the earlier events, he was forced to make the return flight from Cleveland to Fort Worth.
Upon learning that Kuchenmeister died en route to the hospital, Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland and contacted the teenager’s family. No funeral service was planned by the family of Raymond Kuchenmeister, and William Bonnell – a father himself, a pilot, and a hero who was forced to do the unthinkable – paid for a funeral service and the burial for a disturbed youth who nearly killed him, his crew, and the men, women and children aboard his plane.
Sure, that sounds like the victim enjoyed this particular encounter, doesn’t it?
“If they have children, the child can easily get ahold of the weapon and either accidentally kills themselves or someone else. This again means that there is less competition in society.” -- Spelling and syntax errors aside, this warped version of social Darwinism comes to you courtesy of a heartless, self-aggrandizing alleged “humanist,” who believes that the life of a criminal thug is worth no more or less than the lives of innocents one would protect with a firearm. “Being a human being,” he opines, “means that you are no better and no worse than any other human being on the planet.” The socialist implication here is that all lives are equal, regardless of the choices you make, or the life you choose to lead, and that self-defense is nothing but a way to remove competition from the common pool.
Sick? You betcha! Common thinking for many gun grabbers? Unfortunately yes.
“Guns and bullets are made to kill. If you like them, then you like killing and the idea of someone killing you or a loved one made easy in society”. No, of course it has nothing to do with protecting a loved one from a violent thug. It has nothing to do with defending the lives of innocents. It has to be about liking killing, and the alleged joy of taking a life (a concept only a psychopath would understand) but NEVER about loving and cherishing your own life enough to defend it with the most effective weapon on the market.
“Something else to think about. It is said, that when you hold a gun you feel more powerful. Does this mean that you don't have enough self-esteem to feel powerful as yourself?” -- Oh look! A variation on the old “Your penis must be too small, and that’s why you like guns” adage! Shall we give this guy credit for being original? Or shall we simply remind him that physical power is the only thing violent criminals understand? Shall we remind him that a 125 lb. woman generally has much less physical prowess than a 200 lb. rapist? Shall we remind him that a gun in her hand is the great equalizer? And shall we remind him that this is not an issue of “self esteem” but a matter of physical science?
I told you gun grabbers say the damnedest things!http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/ta ... abbers.htm