Gun Control for Dummies – and Democrats [Watch Video]

Gun Control for Dummies – and Democrats

Gun control is an issue the Democrats have been selling to people they hope are dummies, for a long time now. In fact, the nature and purpose of guns has been so effectively demonized, that learning anything real about them somehow marks a person as suspect. This conclusion is easily reached, when people notice that “knowledge of firearms” is so abjectly lacking, in the Democrats who most loudly promote gun control.

Most recently, California State Senator Kevin de Leon, the Democrat representing Los Angeles, gave one of the least factually accurate gun demonstrations, ever recorded. The video of his malapropistic demagoguery almost immediately went viral; drawing scorn and derision from gun enthusiasts all over the world. This kind of behavior and evidence of ignorance might be acceptable – or at least excusable – if it were limited to a single Democrat politician. However, the list of high ranking gun control Democrats who are also firearms dummies, is long and distinguished.

Colorado Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette, once famously said that if high-capacity magazines were banned from further commercial sale, they would eventually disappear. She had allowed herself to believe that gun magazines were single use items, which could not be reloaded. She is also the Democrat who told a Senior Citizen – during a question and answer session discussing Colorado’s gun control proposal – that he would “probably be dead anyway” if he needed to defend himself with a firearm.

Gun Control for Dummies – and Democrats

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, despite having a conceal/carry permit, seems to have no idea about gun safety whatsoever. Evidently it is perfectly acceptable for her to carry a gun for self protection, but not for the regular American citizens.  Feinstein personally wishes that all regular Americans who legally own guns, could be forced to turn them over to the Government. Which seems rather backwards, when pictures of her handling a semi-automatic rifle in a manner which is particularly dangerous, would indicate she is the one who should be barred; not the other way around. Perhaps Feinstein hoped to further the Democrat cause of gun control, by acting like a complete dummy on the national stage.

Gun control seems to be most stridently argued for, by Democrats who enjoy the security of armed guards; politicians and Hollywood actors alike. The fact of which might lead people to believe that gun control is less about guns, than it is about control. There are, of course, dozens of historical examples of Leftist political leaders and dictators who disarmed their citizens. “For safety.” All of whom eventually turned their armed police and military, on the now disarmed population. Gun control really isn’t so bad, for the people who control the guns.

Marxist, Lenonist, Hitlerian, Castroian and Maoist utopias – along with all their lesser “communist/socialist utopian” brethren – always seem to be just “one more dead dissenter” away from paradise. So, naturally, those kinds of regimes always spout identical rhetoric on the topic of an armed populace, and how “dangerous” it is to live in one.

Popular myth has it that the “wild west” — when universal gun ownership was a given — must have been a lawless, violent, murderous era to live in. Since everyone in the wild west had a gun or two, they must have been offing themselves with regularity. For validation of that idea, simply look to Hollywood and all the movies about the wild west; gun fights happen at least every 15 minutes, on film.

Gun Control for Dummies – and Democrats

The truth, thankfully, is far more mundane: Gun violence per capita during the wild west era was the lowest in national history. Actual gun battles were so rare back then, that the places where they occurred – like the OK Corral – have become monuments. The genuine fear that the other person in the argument can shoot back, seems to instill a sense of civility and chivalry, into every discussion. While that might not always be the case, and certainly there are modern communities where illegal gun ownership and criminal bravado seem to negate those assumptions, that rule has held true for hundreds of years.

Here in America, if some drug-addled berserker uses a gun to commit an atrocity in the midst of unarmed civilians or children, the incident is automatically cited as prima facia evidence that America needs more restrictive gun control laws. In order to make that point, the Democrats never tell the dummies how many existing gun control laws were already broken, in the commission of the crime. Nor do they mention the Harvard study, which categorically refutes any such notions. The study concludes that not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but that as legal gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The complete demonization of firearms in general, and “assault” weapons specifically, has only added to the confusion and misunderstanding of guns and gun control laws. The very term “assault weapon” is an indefinable misnomer, but it carries emotional weight and negative connotations; therefore it is tossed around as if it were real terminology. Like Senator de Leon’s “magazine clips,” it is a term which means nothing, but implies all manner bad things.

It is worth asking how many “deadly gun assaults” have taken place at expensive, exclusive, private schools; like the schools our political elites send their own children to. The answer is of course “zero,” because those schools all have well armed security, which often includes the teachers and regular staff.

Why is it, one might ask, that the children of the rich and elite of our society are afforded the safety and security of people who will shoot back, while the children of regular citizens are forced to do without? Is a child somehow less precious, if her parents are relatively economically disadvantaged? Does a parent’s membership in a governing body make their children more important than those of everyone else? Gun violence against school children happens exclusively in “Gun Free Zone” schools, not in secured private schools. There is a lesson worth learning, in that little bit of information.

Democrats will argue that a child might overcome an armed teacher, wrestle the gun away and continue on with their rampage. Again, how often has that happened in private schools where most of the staff is armed? Once more, the answer is never.

These facts and arguments are available to everyone, yet the Democrat drum beat for more and stricter gun control laws continues like a metronome. Democrats for gun control will often repeat that America ranks right near the top in gun violence per capita, among industrialized nations. Which is true, unless you remove the cities of Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore – which are all cities with extraordinary gun control laws. With those cities out of the picture, America is ranked down in the bottom three for per capita gun violence.

Democrats are attempting to re-write the “Gun Control for Dummies” story into a tale fraught with misinformation, misleading statements, unfounded fears and truly stupid assumptions. Proving – without knowing it – that the Democrat push for gun control is not about guns, at all; it is only about control.

Editorial by Ben Gaul

Sources:

Harvard.edu                    Pat Dollard                      Daily Beast

InfoWars.com                Breitbart                           Independent Journal Review

Click Here if you think YOU could write for the Liberty Voice

16 Responses to "Gun Control for Dummies – and Democrats [Watch Video]"

  1. Al Fisher   January 26, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    I first owe you an apology for calling you Mr. Paul, in my comment on one of your other pieces. Sorry about that. At least get the names right, right?
    But as in your other piece you again offer an absurd argument, this time for justifying owning guns whose only purpose is killing people. Oh, we have to defend ourselves against this big bad ole liberal gubbermint that is going to take away our guns. So we need firepower.
    Get a grip. Are you at all familiar with the American military and its firepower? Look at the arms we supply to our surrogates fighting in Syria. We give them hell-fire missiles and all kinds of advanced weaponry and even then they can’t bring down a small local government. Do your really think you could take on and repel the U.S. Army. Does the word drone mean anything to you. It is absurd to think of yourself protecting you and yours from the government with your little rifle.
    If we are really expected to be able to wage war against our government then we sure as hell ought to be able to own tanks and missiles of our own too!

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   January 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      No apologies necessary, neighbor. “Paul” is easily one of the kinder misspellings of my last name. It is nice to see we are reaching agreement on a few issues. Yes. Every citizen in these United States should be able to possess whatever level of armament they can afford.

      Up to and including a fully stocked, crewed and loaded Aircraft Carrier. Jets, Helos, Missiles and all.

      There is no reason -moral, legal or ethical- why a law-abiding adult American citizen can or should not own exactly the same issue as any member of the Armed Forces or Law Enforcement.

      Our entire Nation was founded on the principals of a WEAK government, and STRONG individual liberties. Just because that notion has been turned on its ear of late, does not mean it is any less valid.

      Oh, and, you may find the men and women of our Armed Forces are mostly people who would uphold their oaths to the Constitution. They will deny an illegal order to fire on the very civilians they call neighbors. They are also, like me, very pro-gun 2nd Amendment originalists.

      Reply
  2. Just a guy   January 25, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    Im not here to argue with anyone, but I’m really interested to know one thing. What reason would a person in the United States ever need to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun?

    Pistols and long guns? sure those are good for hunting, and a pistol is reasonable for home defense. But automatic weapons were made for war, for killing people, so why would any person ever need one of them without that intent?

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   January 25, 2014 at 11:21 pm

      That’s a valid question, Guy. Let me see if I can satisfy it:

      The 2nd Amendment, and the many arguments for it which the Founders expounded on in their personal correspondence and the Federalist Papers, was not included as a condition for home defense and hunting. Suggesting such a thing in 1776 would be like proclaiming cell phones are approved for personal conversations, today: Everybody already does that with them.

      American citizens are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of National defense. Which includes defense against our own government, should the need arise.

      The Founding Fathers had no desire for a standing army. In their experience, armies were mostly used to oppress their own civilian populations. An armed citizenry, having firepower at LEAST equal to that of the Government’s, is a citizenry which need never fear tyranny or oppression. The Founders were very clear on that point.

      One of the (currently) lesser known facts about the American Revolution, is that Crown Loyalists and British Troops intended to confiscate civilian guns from all colonists, well before the start of open hostilities. The Crown was our Government. George Washington did not use his right to free speech to defeat the British army. He SHOT them.

      Yes, automatic firearms are specifically designed to kill people. Speaking as a retired bodyguard, I can promise you that the best and most certain way to meet and defuse a threat, is with greater than equal ability to answer that threat.

      Therefore, I’ll ask you a question in response to your own: Why do my elected and appointed Government officials qualify to own and control firepower capable of leveling whole cities, if I cannot? What makes me, a law abiding, tax paying citizen, any less trustworthy than they?

      Especially when you look at approval numbers for Congress and the Senate. NO ONE trusts those people. Yet they get to use, and order the use of, fully automatic “assault” weapons wielded by men in masks and riot gear, while I myself am barred from anything of the kind.

      Can you tell me please Guy, why you feel that is fair and right?

      Reply
      • Just a guy   January 26, 2014 at 10:46 am

        Thats a pretty simple. The reason they get that power is because they’ve been elected, they have been trusted by the people and are held responsible to the people by their actions. You asked why you dont get that power? Thats because you are just a nobody, why would a single person need the power to level entire cities? It would be too easy for a single person to misuse. Which is what I think its gotten like in the states with guns, sure they do have some practical benefits, but its so easy for a single person to misuse, which happens too often and outweighs guns benefits for me.

        And you say that people owning more powerful weapons makes them closer to the governments power. But thats the problem, individual people do need that power, and if you look at some stats you can see how

        Like if you look at gun crime per capita for countries United States is a lot higher than Canada even though the countries are so closely related, the biggest difference being their gun control.

        And you say that no one trusts congress or senate, but thats a bit backwards, because in order for them to get that positions someone would have had to vote them in, so they are obviously doing something right.

        You make it sound like Congress and the Senate are ordering soldiers to use that power on the people of the country, but they are doing it for the determined better good of America, what good will you do by owning an automatic weapon? My guess is about no good at all, but it will protect your ego by “thinking” that you’re free just because you get to own it.

        Reply
        • Ben Gaul   January 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm

          Sadly, making a mockery of your stated desire to not get into an argument.

          I get the distinct impression that you did not actually read the article, nor the links to items like the Harvard study I posted. You simply read the title, skimmed a few paragraph headers, then set your supposed trap.

          “If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.”

          A great many elected officials — particularly at the national level — are in power not because they are trusted, but because they told extravagant lies and made vast promises of largess from the public coffers.

          Ask Reginald Denny, who was pulled from his truck in 1992 by a gang of four men far larger than himself, then beaten nearly to death (he still cannot speak or walk correctly), how many bullets and what rate of fire he might have liked to have available, on that day.

          Perhaps Harvard can explain it to you better than I can:

          http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

          Reply
          • Ben Gaul   January 26, 2014 at 12:20 pm

            They open the study with these words….

            “INTRODUCTION

            International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.

            1 Unfortunately,such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.

            It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that:

            (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why
            (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.

            Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.”

          • Ben Gaul   January 26, 2014 at 12:32 pm

            It wraps up with these words:

            “CONCLUSION

            This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

            Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the ‘more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death’ mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.

            To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death, and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).

            But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. “

  3. amasaman   January 23, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    It is my understanding that Detroit has no stricter gun control laws than the rest of the state of Michigan.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm

      Interesting. That may well be. However, there is something which Detroit has had in greater quantity, length and depth than the rest of the state: Liberal Democrat Leadership at every level of governance, since 1962.

      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/56720

      But thanks for playing, amasaman!

      Reply
  4. Ronald73   January 22, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    The “believing what you want to believe” concept is pretty much universal. The con men and politicians and people like Bernie Madoff have been taking advantage of people with that mindset for a long time. Most Americans (and others too) are willing to hear at least two sides of a story and we are pretty good at drawing reasonable conclusions and we are reasonable people who act reasonably. The anti-gun crowd really can’t seem to make a logical argument for their point of view.

    Reply
    • Graham Noble   January 23, 2014 at 9:39 pm

      Precisely why we have “Political Left” and “Political Right” sections right next to each other on our home page, Ronald.

      Graham J Noble
      Politics Editor, Constitutional Libertarian, gun-owner, 2nd Amendment supporter.

      Reply
  5. LieutenantCharlie   January 22, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Dummies and Democrats ? As a lifelong Democrat I believe Dummies and Democrats is the same thing.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   January 23, 2014 at 1:22 pm

      Thanks for your comments, Ronald and Charlie.

      Spot on, Ron. I wish wordpress offered a LIKE button for comments.

      And Charlie? Not ALL Democrats are dummies; my most excellent publisher (may his checks never bounce) is himself a Democrat, who had the wisdom and foresight to recruit a small (like, three of us) cadre of Conservative voices for his newspaper. (Evidently, there is a vast market for conservative theory and opinion.)

      Granted, we are a minority among our Journalist brothers and sisters here at the Liberty Voice, but he has authorized me to hire as many Right Wing Wordsmiths as will accept the challenge. And, required me to seek out liberals as well, for “balance.”

      B.Gaul@GuardianLV.com if you know of anyone who fits that description.

      Reply
    • Al Fisher   January 26, 2014 at 1:55 pm

      Proving your point with your grammar. But then again, I don’t really think you are a Democrat, just a poser.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.