Could Democrats Please Tell Us Their Plans To Reduce Gun Violence?

Moments after yesterday’s horrific shooting at yet another gun free zone, in which a nutjob targeted Christians (from everything I’ve read, he’s not a Democrat or Republican, just a nutjob), Democrats were quick to politicize this tragic event, none more than Mr. Obama, as PJ Media’s Liz Sheld notes

Yesterday, a crazed-lunatic went to a community college in Oregon, killed nine people and wounded at least 20 before he was shot dead.  President Obama hustled to call a press conference, in one of the fastest responses I’ve ever seen from him, to turn this into political spectacle before we had much, if any, information about what happened.

“And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation,” said the President. The President went on to idealize Australia and England, both countries that virtually ban firearm ownership entirely, so I don’t think Obama really wants any kind of actual reform, I think he wants to ban guns.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it,” said Obama.

Exactly what does he mean by that? We’ll get back to that in a minute. Ms. Sheld notes all the gun laws already on the books, especially in places with draconian laws, such as Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. Places where gun-play regularly occurs. Strange, eh? What new laws, ones that mimic Chicago, for instance, would stop that? Chicago just had a big weekend of shootings. Baltimore has seen record numbers murdered by guns. Let’s shift to Charles C.W. Cook, who “debated” leftist Mark Halprin. Head to the link for the back and forth, watch the video, and remember how it ends

“I don’t think that’s enough. I completely agree with the president,” Halperin said. “People need to find solutions to this and not talk about what won’t work and that it’s so complicated. We can’t be the only country that’s like this.”

Cooke quickly replied, “Alright, well then with respect, what’s your plan?”

Halperin said there are “short-term solutions” like state and federal regulations, but “coming up with ideas” is also important.

“But which ideas, Mark?” Cooke pressed.

“We can talk about specific policy in a second, but just let me finish this second point,” Halperin replied, later criticizing his fellow reporter for his “tone” on the issue.

In other words, liberals really do not want to talk about their plans. They surely know that all the draconian laws do not work. Obama alluded to what they really want

Ideally, someone on that [Democratic] debate stage would emulate President Obama and say America needs something like Australia’s policy of nationwide gun confiscation. I think the Republican nominee would love for the 2016 election to be a referendum on whether private citizens should be permitted to own guns, or whether Americans support a nationwide house-to-house, room-to-room search of every residence in all fifty states.

The major problem with most gun laws proposed/implemented is that they target law abiding citizens, not the criminals who use guns. So, what say, Democrats? Up for pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment, instituting gun confiscation? Back to Liz Sheld

We have many laws on the books that are related to gun crimes that are violated in the process of actually committing the crime. Murder? Illegal. Stealing guns to use in a crime, like the Sandy Hook shooter did?  Illegal. Do we need more laws on the books that will be ignored by people who, by definition, do not respect the law?

But let’s hear some details about this “common sense” legislation we need that would prevent insane maniacs and criminals from slaughtering people, assuming of course we aren’t really talking about a gun ban.

Yes, let’s hear it.

Someone saying gun play is worse in Red states than Blue states in 3….2…..1….

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Could Democrats Please Tell Us Their Plans To Reduce Gun Violence?”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Before the bodies were even cold.

  2. david7134 says:

    Obama is so disgusting. He immediately tries to bring politics into a tragedy. He immediately blames Congress for the issue. If he wants to get rid of guns, fine, lets start with the Secret Service, elimination of that organization would save a bunch of money. Then lets disarm the police and any other security services.

  3. Dana says:

    Our host quoted:

    But let’s hear some details about this “common sense” legislation we need that would prevent insane maniacs and criminals from slaughtering people, assuming of course we aren’t really talking about a gun ban.

    But that’s exactly what they mean, a ban on private ownership of firearms.

    The Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms, and the Fourteenth states that no one may be deprived of his rights save by due process of law. Convicted criminals are routinely deprived of their Second Amendment rights, which is perfectly constitutional.

    But many of the mass shooters weren’t convicted criminals; they were simply disturbed people who wanted to commit suicide by cop, and take as many other people as they could with themselves. We don’t really know who is mentally disturbed, and even some of those who’ve seen mental health professionals haven’t seemed dangerous to those professionals. What would the left do; ban everyone who has ever seen a psychologist from owning a firearm?

  4. Jeffery says:

    Several times a year, some nutjob or a member of our well-regulated militia goes off the reservation, gunning down a bunch of innocent folks. It’s the price we pay in America for our freedoms.

    Over 30,000 Americans die each year from getting shot. Some 20,000 suicides, most of the rest murdered, and several hundred by accident. Only a comparative few are murdered in mass killings. It’s the price we pay for all the societal value we gain from such unfettered access to guns.

    So, if your child gets shot dead in a mass murderers rampage, just take the time to appreciate that little Julie’s short life wasn’t in vain; she is an American hero; she died for the cause of American freedom.

  5. Jeffery says:

    The 2nd Amendment (and Supreme Court rulings) guarantee that we will not “ban” firearms without repeal of the amendment.

    Does that mean we should accept more schoolkids being shot down? Yes! Dead kids, shot in the head, is a small price to pay for freedom. Learn to accept it.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    You are just as evil as Obama.

  7. alanstorm says:

    Jeffery, has anyone ever told you that you’re an ignorant asshole?

    Silly question – from your comments, you must hear it several times a day.

  8. alanstorm says:

    Let’s hear some actual, workable plans. We hear cries for “sensible gun control laws” every time this happens, and NEVER hear anything that would have stopped the crime in question.

    So let’s hear it, Jeffy-boy. What’s your realistic, workable solution?

  9. Jl says:

    “Does that mean we should accept more school kids being shot?” Wherever did you get that idea? No, we shouldn’t. Good guys with guns are the only way to stop crazies with guns. “Gun free zones” obviously don’t work, although everybody except liberals already knew that.

  10. Jl says:

    “Over 30,000 die each year from getting shot.” Over 33,000 died in 2012 from car crashes. What’s your point?

  11. Deserttrek says:

    the j’s like killing kids as long as its at the local planned parenthood

  12. john says:

    What would John Wayne or Rambo do ?

  13. john says:

    we should be looking at ways to reduce the total number of guns. The states that have the highest rates of gun violence also have the highest rates of gun ownership
    The 2nd Amendment has commonsense restrictions on bombs and cannons why not guns? Wyatt Earp said sorry cowboys no guns in Dodge City.
    Which states have the highest rates of gun violence? Alaska and Louisiana they are also #1 and #2 on gun violence

  14. john says:

    JL The point is we HAVE reduced the number of dead in car crashes by common sense restrictions on driving. It used to be around 50000 and that with a smaller amount of drivers on the road.

  15. Ok, John, so, exactly HOW will you reduce t he number of guns owned? Details. A plan.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    Another thought to ponder…

    If Christians are willing to die rather than denounce their faith, perhaps that explains why they don’t want to violate their faith to bake your stupid gay wedding cake either.

  17. timb says:

    Liz Shield lied. Adam Lanza didn’t steal the guns stored in his own home, that he had fired with his mother on several occasions.

    Lying about the murderer of 20 5 and 6 year olds just because you’re a gun owner is silly and inexcusable.

  18. gitarcarver says:


    You’re right. Lying about the murders is silly and inexcusable.

    So why are you doing it?

    The fact is that the guns were not registered to Adam Lanza. He did not own them.

    Do you really think that his mother gave him permission to use the guns to shoot her and others?

    In any state, that is theft.

    A kid who uses a car without his parents’ permission, even if he has driven it before, can be charged with theft.

    Better luck next time.

Pirate's Cove